Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences

Inexperienced predators are assumed to select for similarity of warning signals in aposematic species (Müllerian mimicry) when learning to avoid them. Recent theoretical work predicts that if co-mimic species have unequal defences, predators attack them according to their average unpalatability and mimicry may not be beneficial for the better defended co-mimic. In this study, we tested in a laboratory environment whether a uniform warning signal is superior to a variable one in promoting predator learning, and simultaneously whether co-mimics are preyed upon according to their average unpalatability. There was an interaction of signal variation and unpalatability but inexperienced birds did not select for signal similarity in artificial prey; when the prey was moderately defended a variable signal was even learnt faster than a uniform one. Due to slow avoidance learning, moderately defended prey had higher mortality than highly defended prey (although this was not straightforward), but mixing high and moderate unpalatability did not increase predation compared with high unpalatability. This does not support the view that predators are sensitive to varying unpalatability. The results suggest that inexperienced predators may neither strongly select for accurate Müllerian mimicry nor affect the benefits of mimicry when the co-mimics are unequally defended.     

Causes and Consequences of a Lack of Coevolution in Müllerian mimicry

Müllerian mimicry, in which both partners are unpalatable to predators, is often used as an example of a coevolved mutualism. However, it is theoretically possible that some Müllerian mimics are parasitic if a weakly defended mimic benefits at the expense of a more highly defended model, a phenomenon known as ‘quasi-Batesian mimicry’. The theory expounded by Müller and extended here for unequal unpalatability, on the other hand, suggests that quasi-Batesian mimicry should be rare in comparison with classical, or mutualistic Müllerian mimicry. Evolutionarily, quasi-Batesian mimicry has consequences similar to classical Batesian mimicry, including unilateral ‘advergence’ of the mimic to the model, and diversifying frequency-dependent selection on the mimic which may lead to mimetic polymorphism. In this paper, theory and empirical evidence for mutual benefit and coevolution in Müllerian mimicry are reviewed. I use examples from well-known insect Müllerian mimicry complexes: the Limenitis–Danaus (Nymphalidae) system in North America, the Bombus–Psithyrus (Apidae) system in the north temperate zone, and the Heliconius–Laparus (Nymphalidae) system in tropical America. These give abundant evidence for unilateral advergence, and no convincing evidence, to my knowledge, for coevolved mutual convergence. Furthermore, mimetic polymorphisms are not uncommon. Yet classical mutualistic Müllerian mimicry, coupled with spatial (and possibly temporal) variation in model abundances convincingly explain these apparent anomalies without recourse to a quasi-Batesian explanation. Nevertheless, the case against classical Müllerian mimicry is not totally disproved, and should be investigated further. I hope that this tentative analysis of actual mimicry rings may encourage others to look for evidence of coevolution and quasi-Batesian effects in a variety of other Müllerian mimicry systems. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Alternative prey can change model–mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism

Classical (conventional) Müllerian mimicry theory predicts that two (or more) defended prey sharing the same signal always benefit each other despite the fact that one species can be more toxic than the other. The quasi‐Batesian (unconventional) mimicry theory, instead, predicts that the less defended partner of the mimetic relationship may act as a parasite of the signal, causing a fitness loss to the model. Here we clarify the conditions for parasitic or mutualistic relationships between aposematic prey, and build a model to examine the hypothesis that the availability of alternative prey is crucial to Müllerian and quasi‐Batesian mimicry. Our model is based on optimal behaviour of the predator. We ask if and when it is in the interest of the predator to learn to avoid certain species as prey when there is alternative (cryptic) prey available. Our model clearly shows that the role of alternative prey must be taken into consideration when studying model–mimic dynamics. When food is scarce it pays for the predator to test the models and mimics, whereas if food is abundant predators should leave the mimics and models untouched even if the mimics are quite edible. Dynamics of the mimicry tend to be classically Müllerian if mimics are well defended, while quasi‐Batesian dynamics are more likely when they are relatively edible. However, there is significant overlap: in extreme cases mimics can be harmful to models (a quasi‐Batesian case) even if the species are equally toxic. A crucial parameter explaining this overlap is the search efficiency with which indiscriminating vs. discriminating predators find cryptic prey. Quasi‐Batesian mimicry becomes much more likely if discrimination increases the efficiency with which the specialized predator finds cryptic prey, while the opposite case tends to predict Müllerian mimicry. Our model shows that both mutualistic and parasitic relationship between model and mimic are possible and the availability of alternative prey can easily alter this relationship.     

Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds

Experiments with wild birds feeding on pastry 'prey' were performed to test competing theories of Müllerian mimicry Conventional theories predict that all resemblances between defended prey will be mutually advantageous and, hence, Müllerian. In contrast, unconventional theories predict that, if there are inequalities in defences between mimetic species, the less well-defended prey may dilute the protection of the better defended species in a quasi-Batesian manner. This unconventional prediction follows from an assumption that birds learn about the edibilities of prey using rules of Pavlovian learning. We report on two experiments, each lasting 40 days, which showed that a moderately defended prey can dilute the protection of a better defended mimic in a quasi-Batesian fashion, but can add protection to a mimic which has the same moderate levels of defence. These results match predictions of unconventional theories of mimicry and go some way to resolving the long-running arguments over the nature of Müllerian mimicry.     

Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour

Müllerian mimicry is typically thought to arise as a consequence of defended prey species adopting a similar way of signalling their unprofitability, thereby reducing the costs of predator education. Here we consider subsequent selection on the morphology of prey species, in the potentially lengthy period of time when predators are generally aware of the noxious qualities of their prey (and so no further learning is involved). Using a pair of stochastic dynamic programming equations which describe both the toxin burdens of a predator and its energy level, we identified the optimal state-dependent rules that maximize a predator's long-term survivorship, and examined the implications of this behaviour for the evolution of prey morphologies. When palatable prey are in short supply then those prey species which contain relatively low doses of toxins become profitable to consume by hungry predators. Under these conditions, a weakly defended prey could gain selective advantage in the post educational period by resembling a prey species which contained a higher dose of the same or different toxins, although the precise nature of the ecological relationship between model and mimic could either be mutualistic or parasitic depending on how mimic density increases when favoured by selection. Our work formally demonstrates that one does not always need to invoke educational effects to explain why two or more unpalatable species have evolved a similar appearance, or to explain why mimetic similarity among distasteful species is maintained over time. When two species contain high levels of different toxins then they may gain mutual advantage by resembling one another, not only by educating the predator as to their common unprofitability (classical Müllerian mimicry), but also by increasing predator uncertainty as to the specific kind of toxin a prey item contains.     

How weird can mimicry get?

Classical mimicry theory distinguishes clearly between the mutualistic resemblance between two or more defended species (muellerian mimicry), and the parasitic resemblance of a palatable species to a defended species (batesian mimicry). Modelling the behaviour of predators, without initially taking ecological complications into account, is a good strategy for exploring whether this division is valid. Two such behavioural models are described: conditioning theory, which simulates changes in motivational attack levels according to the norms of current learning theory; and saturation theory, which considers how a predator may become saturated with a particular toxic compound, and then cease feeding on the prey species that delivers it. This effect is to be clearly distinguished from simple satiation. Most formulations of the conditioning model allow the direction of reinforcement produced by a particular prey to change according the predator's current state of motivation: this leads to the existence of quasi-batesian mimicry, a parasitic mimicry between two species that could both be described as defended. At high densities, two prey species that share a chemical defense will be ‘muellerian mutualists’, mutually protecting each other against predators that have been saturated with the defensive compound. This mutualism may be accompanied by true muellerian mimicry of the colour patterns, or the patterns may be completely different. This can therefore be regarded as a form of mimicry in a non-visual communication channel. Even an apparently palatable prey species may be effectively unavailable to predators if its density is such as to deliver a particular nutrient in excess of the predator's need for a balanced diet. Such a nutrient in effect becomes a toxin, and such an abundant prey species would be partly defended and potentially able to act as the model in a mimicry system. Thus there might be protective mimicry between ‘palatable’ species, and a ‘palatable’ species might even function as the model for a ‘defended’ mimic. These unorthodox kinds of mimicry probably exist transiently during fluctuations of prey populations. It is less likely that these conditions persist for long enough to induce the evolution of mimicry, and the relationships perhaps usually occur when mimicry already exists for other reasons. Mimicry rings may be mutually stabilised by a combination of toxic mutualism and the exchange of species between the rings. Colour polymorphism in a defended species is strictly neutral whenever the population is dense enough to saturate the predator. This, as well as quasi-batesian mimicry, may help to explain the minority of warningly coloured species that are polymorphic. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Aversive reactions of two invertebrate predators to European red–black insects

Prey species gain protection by imitating signals of unpalatable models in defensive mimicry. Mimics have been traditionally classified as Batesian (palatable mimic resembling an unpalatable model) or Müllerian (unpalatable mimic resembling a similarly unpalatable model). However, recent studies suggest that rather than discrete categories, the phenomenon of mimicry can be better understood as a continuum. The level of unpalatability of defended prey is a key factor in determining the type of mimetic relationship. Herein, we used insects (ladybugs and true bugs) from a putative European “red–black” mimetic complex as experimental models of defended species and crickets as a control prey. We offered the prey to two species of sympatric invertebrate predators (praying mantis and spider) and video recorded the interactions. We tested three alternative hypotheses, namely (i) the three red–black species tested are similarly defended against both predators; (ii) some red–black species are better defended than others against both predator species, and (iii) the effectiveness of the red–black species defenses is predator dependent. Both predators attacked all prey types with a similar frequency. But while all three red–black species similarly elicited aversive behaviors in spiders, the mantises' aversive reactions varied depending on the prey species. Our results provide support to the third hypothesis, suggesting that the same prey species can fall into different parts of the spectrum of palatability–unpalatability depending on the type of predator.     

State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey

Even defended prey items may contain nutrients that can sustain predators in times of energetic need. Conversely, a well-fed predator might be expected to avoid attacking prey items that have a chance of being defended, particularly if there is an abundance of familiar palatable prey to support it. To further understand the implications of optimal state-dependent foraging behaviour by predators in systems that contain defended prey, I developed a stochastic dynamic programming model. This state-dependent approach formally accounts for the trade-off between avoiding starvation and minimising harm from attacking defended prey. It predicts that the mean attack probability of predators on defended models and their undefended mimics should decline in a sigmoidal fashion with increasing availability of alternative undefended prey, and that the foraging decisions of predators should in general be relatively insensitive to the probability that a potentially defended prey item is indeed defended. Some implications of these predictions are that conspicuous warning signals are more likely to evolve in systems that contain an abundance of alternative undefended prey, and that imperfect mimicry will provide almost complete protection to the mimic when predators are readily supported by alternative food sources. Somewhat surprisingly, increasing the density of nutritious undefended mimics while keeping the densities of all other prey types constant tended to decrease the attack rates of predators on encounter with mimics and their defended models. This increase in dietary conservatism arose because in these cases there would be more prey available to sustain the predator if it ever found itself critically low in energy.     

Numbers,neighbors, and hungry predators: What makes chemically defended aposematic prey susceptible to predation?

Many chemically defended aposematic species are characterized by relatively low toxin levels, which enables predators to include them in their diets under certain circumstances. Knowledge of the conditions governing the survival of such prey animals—especially in the context of the co‐occurrence of similar but undefended prey, which may result in mimicry‐like interactions—is crucial for understanding the initial evolution of aposematism. In a one‐month outdoor experiment using fish (the common carp Cyprinus carpio) as predators, we examined the survival of moderately defended aposematic tadpole prey (the European common toad Bufo bufo) with varying absolute densities in single‐species prey systems or varying relative densities in two‐species prey systems containing morphologically similar but undefended prey (the European common frog Rana temporaria). The density effects were investigated in conjunction with the hunger levels of the predator, which were manipulated by means of the addition of alternative (nontadpole) food. The survival of the B. bufo tadpoles was promoted by increasing their absolute density in the single‐species prey systems, increasing their relative density in the two‐species prey systems, and providing ample alternative food for the predator. Hungry predators eliminated all R. temporaria individuals regardless of their proportion in the prey community; in treatments with ample alternative food, high relative B. bufo density supported R. temporaria survival. The results demonstrated that moderately defended prey did benefit from high population densities (both absolute and relative), even under long‐term predation pressure. However, the physiological state of the predator was a crucial factor in the survival of moderately defended prey. While the availability of alternative prey in general should promote the spread and maintenance of aposematism, the results indicated that the resemblance between the co‐occurring defended and undefended prey may impose mortality costs on the defended model species, even in the absence of actual mimicry.     

Learning and memory in mimicry: II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum?

The evolution of mimicry is driven by the behaviour of predators. However, there has been little systematic testing of the sensitivity of evolutionary predictions to variations in assumptions about predator learning and forgetting. To test how robust mimicry theory is to such behavioural modifications we combined sets of rules describing ways in which learning and forgetting might operate in vertebrate predators into 29 computer predator behaviour systems. These systems were applied in simulations of simplified natural mimicry situations, particularly investigating the nature of density-dependence and the benefits and losses conferred by mimicry across a spectrum of payabilities. The classical Batesian-Muellerian spectrum was generated only by two of our 29 predator behaviour systems. Both of these ‘classical predators' had extreme asymptotes of learning and fixed rate, time dependent forgetting. All edible mimics were treated by them as Batesian in that they parasitized their model's protection and had positive monotonic effects of density on model-mimic attack rates. All defended mimics were treated as Muellerian (Mullerian) in that their presence benefited their Model's protection, and showed negative monotonic density effects on attack rates. With the remaining 27 systems Batesian or Muellerian relationships extended beyond their conventional edibility boundaries. In some cases, Muellerian mimicry extended into the edible region of the ‘palatability spectrum’ (we term this quasi-Muellerian mimicry), and in others Batesian mimicry extended into the ‘unpalatable’, defended half of the spectrum (quasi-Batesian mimicry). Although most of the 29 behaviour systems included at least some regions of true Batesian and Muellerian mimicries, if forgetting was triggered by avoidance events (as suggested by J.E. Huheey) rather than by the passage of time then the mimicry spectrum excluded Mullerian mimicry altogether, and was composed of Batesian and quasi-Batesian mimicries. In addition the classical prediction of monotonic density-dependent predation was shown not to be robust against variations in the forgetting algorithm. Time based forgetting which is retarded by observations of prey, or which varies its rate according to the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of a prey generates non-monotonic results. At low mimic densities there is a positive effect on attack rates and at higher densities a negative effect. Overall, the mode of forgetting has a more significant effect on mimetic relationships than the rate of learning. It seems to matter little whether learning and forgetting are switched or gradual functions. Predictions about mimetic evolution are therefore sensitive to assumptions about predator behaviour, though more so to variations in forgetting than learning rate. Based on findings from animal psychology and mimetic populations, we are able to rule out a number of predator behaviour systems. We suggest that the most credible of our 29 predators are those which generate results which incorporate Batesian, quasi-Batesian and Muellerian mimicries across the ‘palatability spectrum’.     

The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries

Both Batesian and Müllerian mimicries are considered classical evidence of natural selection where predation pressure has, at times, created a striking similarity between unrelated prey species. Batesian mimicry, in which palatable mimics resemble unpalatable aposematic species, is parasitic and only beneficial to the mimics. By contrast, in classical Müllerian mimicry the cost of predators' avoidance learning is shared between similar unpalatable co-mimics, and therefore mimicry benefits all parties. Recent studies using mathematical modeling have questioned the dynamics of Müllerian mimicry, suggesting that fitness benefits should be calculated in a way similar to Batesian mimicry; that is, according to the relative unpalatability difference between co-mimics. Batesian mimicry is very sensitive to the availability of alternative prey, but the effects of alternative prey for Müllerian dynamics are not known and experiments are rare. We designed two experiments to test the effect of alternative prey on imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicry complexes. When alternative prey were scarce, imperfect Batesian mimics were selected out from the population, but abundantly available alternative prey relaxed selection against imperfect mimics. Birds learned to avoid both Müllerian models and mimics irrespective of the availability of alternative prey. However, the rate of avoidance learning of models increased when alternative prey were abundant. This experiment suggests that the availability of alternative prey affects the dynamics of both Müllerian and Batesian mimicry, but in different ways.     

Predation pressure on an imperfect Batesian micicry complex in the presence of alternative prey

Summary Differential predation pressure and the probability of predation on a Batesian mimicry complex and on alternative prey were estimatedin a field experiment. The mimicry complex was composed of a noxious model (Eleodes obscura (Say)) and a palatable mimic (Stenomorpha marginata (LeConte)). House crickets (Acheta domesticus) (Linn.) were used as alternative prey. The experiment was conducted for 23 nights in August and September to approximate the peak seasonal activity time period during which both models and mimics normally are exposed to predation while foraging and depositing eggs. Each night thirty prey in ratios of 16 models: 7 mimics: 7 crickets were exposed for 2.5 h to a suite of predators consisting of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and ringtails (Bassariscus astutus) that had free access to the prey. The model-mimic ratio was similar to that found in nature. Predators obtained prey on 11 of the 23 nights and preferred the alternative prey (crickets) in proportions higher than was expected from a predation rate that was equal on all species of prey. Mimics were taken by predators at a rate proportional to their abundance, while models were taken at a rate considerably lower than their relative abundance. This suggests that at least some of the predators could distinguish between models and mimics and were willing to eat the mimics at higher frequencies than they were willing to eat the models. However, although the mimicry is not perfect with respect to the entire predator suite, the mimics still gain an advantage by resembling the models, compared to the predation levels on the alternate prey.     

Heterogeneity in predator micro-habitat use and the maintenance of Müllerian mimetic diversity

Müllerian mimicry, where groups of chemically defended species display a common warning color pattern and thereby share the cost of educating predators, is one of the most striking examples of ecological adaptation. Classic models of Müllerian mimicry predict that all unpalatable species of a similar size and form within a community should converge on a single mimetic pattern, but instead communities of unpalatable species often display a remarkable diversity of mimetic patterns (e.g. neotropical ithomiine butterflies). It has been suggested that this apparent paradox may be explained if different suites of predators and species belonging to different mimicry groups utilize different micro-habitats within the community. We developed a stochastic individual-based model for a community of unpalatable mimetic prey species and their predators to evaluate this hypothesis and to examine the effect of predator heterogeneity on prey micro-habitat use. We found that community-level mimetic diversity was higher in simulations with heterogeneous predator micro-habitat use than in simulations with homogeneous predator micro-habitat use. Regardless of the form of predation, mimicry pattern-based assortative mating caused community-level mimetic diversity to persist. Heterogeneity in predator micro-habitat use led to an increased association between mimicry pattern and prey micro-habitat use relative to homogeneous predator micro-habitat use. This increased association was driven, at least in part, by evolutionary convergence of prey micro-habitat use when predators displayed heterogeneous micro-habitat use. These findings provide a theoretical explanation for an important question in evolutionary biology: how is community-level Müllerian mimetic diversity maintained in the face of selection against rare phenotypes?     

The Relationship between Sympatric Defended Species Depends upon Predators' Discriminatory Behaviour

Toxic prey species living in the same environment have long been thought to mutually benefit from having the same warning signal by sharing the education of naïve predators. In contrast, ‘saturation theory’ predicts that predators are physiologically limited by the amount of toxin that they can eat in a given time period. Therefore, sympatric species that contain the same toxin should mutually benefit from reduced predation even when they are visually distinct, reducing the benefits to visual mimicry. For the first time, we found that mutualism can occur between unequally defended prey that are visually distinct, although the benefits to each prey type depends on the predators'' abilities and/or motivation to visually discriminate between them. Furthermore, we found that this variability in predatory behaviour had a significant impact on the benefits of mimicry for unequally defended prey. Our results demonstrate that variability in the foraging decisions of predators can have a significant effect on the benefits of shared toxicity and visual mimicry between sympatric species, and highlights the need to consider how predators exert selection pressures on models and mimics over their entire lifetimes.     

Optimal-foraging predator favors commensalistic Batesian mimicry

Background

Mimicry, in which one prey species (the Mimic) imitates the aposematic signals of another prey (the Model) to deceive their predators, has attracted the general interest of evolutionary biologists. Predator psychology, especially how the predator learns and forgets, has recently been recognized as an important factor in a predator–prey system. This idea is supported by both theoretical and experimental evidence, but is also the source of a good deal of controversy because of its novel prediction that in a Model/Mimic relationship even a moderately unpalatable Mimic increases the risk of the Model (quasi-Batesian mimicry).

Methodology/Principal Findings

We developed a psychology-based Monte Carlo model simulation of mimicry that incorporates a “Pavlovian” predator that practices an optimal foraging strategy, and examined how various ecological and psychological factors affect the relationships between a Model prey species and its Mimic. The behavior of the predator in our model is consistent with that reported by experimental studies, but our simulation''s predictions differed markedly from those of previous models of mimicry because a more abundant Mimic did not increase the predation risk of the Model when alternative prey were abundant. Moreover, a quasi-Batesian relationship emerges only when no or very few alternative prey items were available. Therefore, the availability of alternative prey rather than the precise method of predator learning critically determines the relationship between Model and Mimic. Moreover, the predation risk to the Model and Mimic is determined by the absolute density of the Model rather than by its density relative to that of the Mimic.

Conclusions/Significance

Although these predictions are counterintuitive, they can explain various kinds of data that have been offered in support of competitive theories. Our model results suggest that to understand mimicry in nature it is important to consider the likely presence of alternative prey and the possibility that predation pressure is not constant.     

Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey

Toxic prey advertise their unprofitability to predators via conspicuous aposematic coloration [1]. It is widely accepted that avoidance learning by naive predators is fundamental in generating selection for aposematism [2, 3] and mimicry [4, 5] (where species share the same aposematic coloration), and consequently this cognitive process underpins current evolutionary theory [5, 6]. However, this is an oversimplistic view of predator cognition and decision making. We show that predators that have learned to avoid chemically defended prey continue to attack defended individuals at levels determined by their current toxin burden. European starlings learned to discriminate between sequentially presented defended and undefended mealworms with different color signals. Once birds had learned to avoid the defended prey at a stable asymptotic level, we experimentally increased their toxin burdens, which reduced the number of defended prey that they ingested in the subsequent trial. This was due to the birds making strategic decisions to ingest defended prey on the basis of their visual signals. Birds are clearly able to learn about the nutritional benefits and defensive costs of eating defended prey, and they regulate their intake according to their current physiological state. This raises new perspectives on the evolution of aposematism, mimicry, and defense chemistry.     

Facultative mimicry: cues for colour change and colour accuracy in a coral reef fish

Mimetic species evolve colours and body patterns to closely resemble poisonous species and thus avoid predation (Batesian mimicry), or resemble beneficial or harmless species in order to approach and attack prey (aggressive mimicry). Facultative mimicry, the ability to switch between mimic and non-mimic colours at will, is uncommon in the animal kingdom, but has been shown in a cephalopod, and recently in a marine fish, the bluestriped fangblenny Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos, an aggressive mimic of the juvenile cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus. Here we demonstrate for the first time that fangblennies adopted mimic colours in the presence of juvenile cleaner fish; however, this only occurred in smaller individuals. Field data indicated that when juvenile cleaner fish were abundant, the proportion of mimic to non-mimic fangblennies was greater, suggesting that fangblennies adopt their mimic disguise depending on the availability of cleaner fish. Finally, measurements of spectral reflectance suggest that not only do mimic fangblennies accurately resemble the colour of their cleaner fish models but also mimic other species of fish that they associate with. This study provides insights into the cues that control this remarkable facultative mimicry system and qualitatively measures its accuracy.     

Selection of aphid prey by a generalist predator: do prey chemical defences matter?

1. For predators, prey selection should maximise nutrition and minimise fitness costs. In the present study, it was investigated whether a generalist predator [Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) lacewing larvae] rejected harmful, chemically‐defended prey [Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus) aphids] when non‐defended prey [Myzus persicae (Sulzer) aphids] were available. 2. It was tested: (i) whether consuming different prey species affects predator mortality; (ii) whether naïve predators reject chemically‐defended prey while foraging when non‐defended prey are available; (iii) whether the relative abundance of each prey affects the predator's prey choice; and (iv) whether predators learn to avoid consuming chemically‐defended prey after exposure to both prey species. 3. Consumption of B. brassicae yielded greater C. carnea mortality than M. persicae consumption, but naïve C. carnea did not reject B. brassicae in favour of M. persicae during foraging. When presented at unequal abundances, naïve predators generally consumed each aphid species according to their initial relative abundance, although, predation of non‐defended prey was less than expected when defended prey were initially more abundant, indicating a high consumption of B. brassicae impeded M. persicae consumption. With experience, C. carnea maintained predation of both aphid species but consumed more M. persicae than B. brassicae, indicating a change in behaviour. 4. Although prey choice by C. carnea may change with experience of available prey, prey chemical defences do not appear to influence prey choice by naïve predators. This inability to avoid harmful prey could facilitate wider, indirect interactions. Myzus persicae may benefit where high consumption of B. brassicae hinders predators in the short term, and in the long term, increases predator mortality.     

Antipredatory function of head shape for vipers and their mimics

Most research into the adaptive significance of warning signals has focused on the colouration and patterns of prey animals. However, behaviour, odour and body shape can also have signal functions and thereby reduce predators' willingness to attack defended prey. European vipers all have a distinctive triangular head shape; and they are all venomous. Several non-venomous snakes, including the subfamily Natricinae, commonly flatten their heads (also known as head triangulation) when disturbed. The adaptive significance of this potential behavioural mimicry has never been investigated.We experimentally tested if the triangular head shape typical of vipers offers protection against predation. We compared the predation pressure of free-ranging predators on artificial snakes with triangular-shaped heads against the pressure on replicas with narrow heads. Snakes of both head types had either zigzag patterned bodies, typical of European vipers, or plain (patternless) bodies. Plain snakes with narrower Colubrid-like heads suffered significantly higher predation by raptors than snakes with triangular-shaped heads. Head shape did not, however, have an additive effect on survival in zigzag-patterned snakes, suggesting that species which differ from vipers in colouration and pattern would benefit most from behavioural mimicry. Our results demonstrate that the triangular head shape typical of vipers can act as a warning signal to predators. We suggest that head-shape mimicry may be a more common phenomenon among more diverse taxa than is currently recognised.     

The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defense

It is widely argued that defended prey have tended to evolve conspicuous traits because predators more readily learn to avoid defended prey when they are conspicuous. However, a rival theory proposes that defended prey have evolved such characters because it allows them to be distinguished from undefended prey. Here we investigated how the attributes of defended (unprofitable) and undefended (profitable) computer-generated prey species tended to evolve when they were subject to selection by foraging humans. When cryptic forms of defended and undefended species were similar in appearance but their conspicuous forms were not, defended prey became conspicuous while undefended prey remained cryptic. Indeed, in all of our experiments, defended prey invariably evolved any trait that enabled them to be distinguished from undefended prey, even if such traits were cryptic. When conspicuous mutants of defended prey were extremely rare, they frequently overcame their initial disadvantage by chance. When Batesian mimicry of defended species was possible, defended prey evolved unique traits or characteristics that would make undefended prey vulnerable. Overall, our work supports the contention that warning signals are selected for their reliability as indicators of defense rather than to capitalize on any inherent educational biases of predators.