Why are there good and poor mimics?

Edmunds, Malcolm

doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb01234.x

Cited by 167 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, it is now widely recognised that not all Batesian mimics can be considered perfect or high fidelity mimics, and one might also wonder why natural selection has not improved this resemblance (e.g. Getty 1985;Edmunds 2000;Johnstone 2002;Sherratt 2002;Chittka and Osorio 2007;Kikuchi and Pfennig 2010;Penney et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Penney

Hassall

Skevington

et al. 2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated, or to augment an already close morphological resemblance. We evaluated these contrasting predictions by assaying the behavior of 57 field-caught species of mimetic hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), and quantifying their morphological similarity to a range of potential hymenopteran models. A purpose-built phylogeny for the hover flies was used to control for potential lack of independence due to shared evolutionary history. Those hover fly species that engage in behavioral mimicry (mock stinging, leg waving, wing wagging) were all large wasp mimics within the genera Spilomyia and Temnostoma. While the behavioral mimics assayed were good morphological mimics, not all good mimics were behavioral mimics. Therefore, while the behaviors may have evolved to augment good morphological mimicry, they have not been selected in all hover fly species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Penney

Hassall

Skevington

et al. 2014

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, variation in the degree of resemblance is common in nature, with the maintenance of imperfect mimicry now thought to arise through a variety of evolutionary mechanisms, including selective trade-offs (e.g. [2,3]) and mutation -selection balance [4] (see [5] for review). Signal detection theory predicts that once the mimic achieves a certain degree of resemblance to its model, sufficient to reduce the motivation of the signal receiver to respond, then further selection to improve similarity may not be present [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency-dependent variation in mimetic fidelity in an intraspecific mimicry system

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary theory predicts that the degree of mimetic similarity of mimics towards their model should increase as the mimic/model ratio increases. Thus, when the mimic/model ratio is high, then the mimic has to resemble the model very closely to still gain protection from the signal receiver. To date, empirical evidence of this effect is limited to a single example where mimicry occurs between species. Here, for the first time, we test whether mimetic fidelity varies with mimic/model ratios in an intraspecific mimicry system, in which signal receivers are the same species as the mimics and models. To this end, we studied a polymorphic damselfly with a single male phenotype and two female morphs, in which one morph resembles the male phenotype while the other does not. Phenotypic similarity of males to both female morphs was quantified using morphometric data for multiple populations with varying mimic/model ratios repeated over a 3 year period. Our results demonstrate that male-like females were overall closer in size to males than the other female morph. Furthermore, the extent of morphological similarity between male-like females and males, measured as Mahalanobis distances, was frequency-dependent in the direction predicted. Hence, this study provides direct quantitative support for the prediction that the mimetic similarity of mimics to their models increases as the mimic/model ratio increases. We suggest that the phenomenon may be widespread in a range of mimicry systems.

show abstract

“…Theoretical and empirical studies predict that coexistence of aposematic models may lead to (1) batesian polymorphism 6,9,10 , (2) evolution of a mimic phenotype intermediate between model species 14,15 , or (3) mimetic resemblance to the most highly abundant and/or noxious model [16][17][18][19] . To test batesian mimicry predictions, we quantified patterns of mimicry, abundance, and toxicity of models and mimic in the zone of overlap.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs

Darst

Cummings

2006

Nature

155

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 . Mimetic advantage is considered to be dependent on frequency because an increase in mimic abundance leads to breakdown of the warning signal 2,3 . Where multiple toxic species are available, batesian polymorphism 4 is predicted-that is, mimics diversify to match sympatric models. Despite the prevalence of batesian mimicry in nature 5 , batesian polymorphism is relatively rare 6 . Here we explore a poison-frog mimicry complex comprising two parapatric models and a geographically dimorphic mimic that shows monomorphism where models co-occur. Contrary to classical predictions, our toxicity assays, field observations and spectral reflectances show that mimics resemble the less-toxic and less-abundant model. We examine "stimulus generalization" 7 as a mechanism for this nonintuitive result with learning experiments using naive avian predators and live poison frogs. We find that predators differ in avoidance generalization depending on toxicity of the model, conferring greater protection to mimics resembling the lesstoxic model owing to overlap of generalized avoidance curves. Our work supports a mechanism of toxicity-dependent stimulus generalization 8 , revealing an additional solution for batesian mimicry where multiple models coexist.In batesian mimicry, an edible species co-opts a warning signal from an unpalatable species to gain advantage through predator deception 1 . If batesian mimics are too common, however, this advantage breaks down as predators learn to ignore the warning signal. Where more than one model species is available 4 , diversifying frequency-dependent selection predicts the evolution of polymorphism in which mimics diverge in appearance to resemble sympatric models 6,9,10 . Batesian polymorphism is suggested to distribute warning signal degradation over several defended model species, enabling the mimic to increase in abundance. Reported accounts of such mimetic polymorphism, however, are relatively rare 6 and unknown in vertebrate mimicry systems 11,12 .Here we investigate a mimicry system that is inconsistent with the predictions of frequency dependence. We examine a poison-frog mimicry complex composed of two parapatric models and a geographically varying mimic (Fig. 1). The model Ecuadorian poison frogs Epipedobates bilinguis and Epipedobates parvulus share a similar warning signal of a bright red-spotted dorsum but differ in axilla and groin colouration (Fig. 1b). Their phylogenetically distant relative 13 , Allobates zaparo, is geographically dimorphic, matching each warning signal where models are parapatric (Fig. 1b). Where the two models co-occur, however, the mimic resembles only a single model (E. bilinguis; Figs 1 and 2). Here we use spectral reflectances, toxicity assays, field abundance measurements and predator learning experiments to investigate mechanisms that may be contributing to this pattern in nature.Theoretical and empirical studies predict that coexistence of aposematic models may lead to (1) batesian polymorphism 6,9,10 , (2) evolution of a mimic phenotype intermed...

show abstract

Why are there good and poor mimics?

Cited by 167 publications

References 21 publications

The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Frequency-dependent variation in mimetic fidelity in an intraspecific mimicry system

Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About