Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism?

The evolution of aposematism is difficult to explain because: (1) new aposematic morphs will be relatively rare and thus risk extinction during predator education; and (2) aposematic morphs lack the protection of crypsis, and thus appear to invite attacks. I describe a simple method for evaluating whether rare aposematic morphs may be selectively advantaged by their effects on predator psychologies. Using a simulated virtual predator, I consider the advantages that might accrue to dispersed and aggregated morphs if aposematic prey can cause neophobic avoidance, accelerate avoidance learning and decelerate predator forgetting. Simulations show that aposematism is very hard to explain unless there are particular combinations of ecological and psychological factors. If prey are dispersed throughout a locality then aposematism will be favoured only if (1) there is neophobia, learning effects and forgetting or if (2) there are learning effects and warning signals reduce forgetting rates. However, the best scenario for aposematic advantage involves learning rates, forgetting and neophobia when prey are aggregated. Prey aggregation has two important effects. First, it is a highly effective way to maximize the per capita benefits of the neophobia. Second, after an attack on a single prey the benefits of learnt aversions will be immediately conferred on the surviving members of an aggregation without the diluting effects of forgetting. Aggregation therefore provides good protection against forgetting. The simulations thus provide new insights into the complexities of aposematic protection and suggest some important directions for empirical work. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

The effects of predator learning, forgetting, and recognition errors on the evolution of warning coloration

This paper demonstrates that the specifics of predator avoidance learning, information loss, and recognition errors may heavily influence the evolution of aposematism. I establish a mathematical model of the change in frequency over time of bright individuals of a distasteful prey species. Warning color spreads through green beard selection as reformulated by Guilford (1990); bright colored forms gain an advantage due to their phenotypic resemblance to other bright forms, which have been sampled by the predator. I use a general classical conditioning model to examine gradual predator learning and forgetting, and then consider the extreme of one-trial learning and no forgetting over time that may occur with very toxic prey. The advantage of conspicuous coloration under these latter conditions depends upon its role in lowering a constant probability of the prey being misidentified and thus mistakenly attacked by a predator, a rarely emphasized factor in the evolution of warning coloration. This constant probability of mistaken attacks can also be interpreted as a constant probability that forgetting has occurred (forgetting does not increase with time) or a periodic decision by the predator to resample avoided prey. I show that when predators learn and forget gradually, as under the general classical conditioning model, it is very difficult for aposematic coloration to become established unless bright individuals cross an often high threshold frequency through chance factors. In contrast, the conditions expected with highly toxic prey promote the evolution of warning coloration more easily, by means from the fixation of very bright mutations to the fixation of successive mutations each of which causes a small increase in a prey's conspicuousness. The results therefore predict that aposematic coloration may have evolved in a different manner in different predator and prey systems. They also suggest that it may be extremely difficult for warning coloration to evolve in more mildly toxic or distasteful prey outside of a mimicry system.     

Aposematic coloration, luminance contrast, and the benefits of conspicuousness

Many organisms use warning, or aposematic, coloration to signaltheir unprofitability to potential predators. Aposematicallycolored prey are highly visually conspicuous. There is considerableempirical support that conspicuousness promotes the effectivenessof the aposematic signal. From these experiments, it is welldocumented that conspicuous, unprofitable prey are detectedsooner and aversion learned faster by the predator as comparedwith cryptic, unprofitable prey. Predators also retain memoryof the aversion longer when prey is conspicuous. The presentstudy focused on the elements of conspicuousness that conferthese benefits of aposematic coloration. Drawing on currentunderstanding of animal vision, we distinguish 2 features ofwarning coloration: high chromatic contrast and high brightness,or luminance, contrast. Previous investigations on aposematicsignal efficacy have focused mainly on the role of high chromaticcontrast between prey and background, whereas little researchhas investigated the role of high luminance contrast. Usingthe Chinese mantid as a model predator and gray-painted milkweedbugs as model prey, we found that increased prey luminance contrastincreased detection of prey, facilitated predator aversion learning,and increased predator memory retention of the aversive response.Our results suggest that the luminance contrast component ofaposematic coloration can be an effective warning signal betweenthe prey and predator. Thus, warning coloration can even evolveas an effective signal to color blind predators.     

Conditions for the spread of conspicuous warning signals: a numerical model with novel insights

The initial evolution of conspicuous warning signals presents an evolutionary problem because selection against rare conspicuous signals is presumed to be strong, and new signals are rare when they first arise. Several possible solutions have been offered to solve this apparent evolutionary paradox, but disagreement persists over the plausibility of some of the proposed mechanisms. In this paper, we construct a deterministic numerical simulation model that allows us to derive the strength of selection on novel warning signals in a wide range of biologically relevant situations. We study the effects of predator psychology (learning, rate of mistaken attacks, and neophobia) on selection. We also study the how prey escape, predation intensity, number of predators, and abundance of different prey types affects selection. The model provides several important results. Selection on novel warning signals is number rather than frequency dependent. In most cases, there exists a threshold number of aposematic individuals below which aposematism is selected against and above which aposematism is selected for. Signal conspicuousness (which increases detection rate) and distinctiveness (which allows predator to distinguish defended from nondefended prey) have opposing effects on evolution of warning signals. A more conspicuous warning signal cannot evolve unless it makes the prey more distinctive from palatable prey, reducing mistaken attacks by predators. A novel warning signal that is learned quickly can spread from lower abundance more easily than a signal that is learned more slowly. However, the relative rate at which the resident signal and the novel signal are learned is irrelevant for the spread of the novel signal. Long-lasting neophobia can facilitate the spread of novel warning signals. Individual selection via the ability of defended prey to escape from predator is not likely to facilitate evolution of conspicuous warning signals if both the resident (cryptic) morph and the novel morph have the same escape probability. Predation intensity (defined as the proportion of palatable prey eaten by the predator) has a strong effect on selection. More intense predation results in strong selection against rare signals, but also strong selective advantage to common signals. The threshold number of aposematic individuals is lower when predation is intense. Thus, the evolution of warning signals may be more likely in environments where predation is intense. The effect of numbers of predators depends on whether predation intensity also changes. When predation intensity is constant, increasing numbers of predators raises the threshold number of aposematic individuals, and thus makes evolution of aposematism more difficult. If predation intensity increases in parallel with number of predators, the threshold number of aposematic individuals does not change much, but selection becomes more intense on both sides of the threshold.     

Do Glow‐Worm Larvae (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) Use Warning Coloration?

It is generally believed that the glowing behaviour of lampyrid larvae may be an aposematic display. Moreover, larvae of the common glow-worm ( Lampyris noctiluca ) show at least two other features, which can be used in aposematic strategies. The first is their suggestive colour pattern of yellow-pinkish lateral dots on a jet-black background and the second a possible warning odour. We performed experiments with starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) to test, in particular, for the significance of the colour pattern as a warning signal. Learning experiments showed that glow-worm larvae were distasteful and that starlings showed increasing avoidance of the distasteful prey through a learning process. Experiments with mimics and glow-worm larvae with obscured colours showed that starlings recognized glow-worm larvae by their colour pattern. However, there was an important effect of experience as one group of starlings that had previous contact with edible glow-worm mimics, showed delayed avoidance learning and was able to discriminate mimics from glow-worms thereafter.     

Linking the evolution and form of warning coloration in nature

Many animals are toxic or unpalatable and signal this to predators with warning signals (aposematism). Aposematic appearance has long been a classical system to study predator–prey interactions, communication and signalling, and animal behaviour and learning. The area has received considerable empirical and theoretical investigation. However, most research has centred on understanding the initial evolution of aposematism, despite the fact that these studies often tell us little about the form and diversity of real warning signals in nature. In contrast, less attention has been given to the mechanistic basis of aposematic markings; that is, ‘what makes an effective warning signal?’, and the efficacy of warning signals has been neglected. Furthermore, unlike other areas of adaptive coloration research (such as camouflage and mate choice), studies of warning coloration have often been slow to address predator vision and psychology. Here, we review the current understanding of warning signal form, with an aim to comprehend the diversity of warning signals in nature. We present hypotheses and suggestions for future work regarding our current understanding of several inter-related questions covering the form of warning signals and their relationship with predator vision, learning, and links to broader issues in evolutionary ecology such as mate choice and speciation.     

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.     

Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey

Initially, aposematism, which is an unprofitable trait, e.g. noxiousness conspicuously advertised to predators, appears to be a paradox since conspicuousness should increase predation by naive predators. However, reluctance of predators for eating novel prey (e.g. neophobia) might balance the initial predation caused by inexperienced predators. We tested the novelty effects on initial predation and avoidance learning in two separate conspicuousness levels of aposematic prey by using a 'novel world' method. Half of the wild great tits (Parus major) were trained to eat cryptic prey prior to the introduction of an aposematic prey, which potentially creates a bias against the aposematic morph. Both prey types were equally novel for control birds and they should not have shown any biased reluctance for eating an aposematic prey. Knowledge of cryptic prey reduced the expected initial mortality of the conspicuous morph to a random level whereas control birds initially ate the conspicuous morph according to the visibility risk. Birds learned to avoid conspicuous prey in both treatments but knowledge of cryptic prey did not increase the rate of avoidance learning. Predators' knowledge of cryptic prey did not reduce the predation of the less conspicuous aposematic prey and additionally predators did not learn to avoid the less conspicuous prey. These results indicate that predator psychology, which was shown as reluctance for attacking novel conspicuous prey, might have been important in the evolution of aposematism.     

Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm?

Aposematic theory has historically predicted that predators should select for warning signals to converge on a single form, as a result of frequency‐dependent learning. However, widespread variation in warning signals is observed across closely related species, populations and, most problematically for evolutionary biologists, among individuals in the same population. Recent research has yielded an increased awareness of this diversity, challenging the paradigm of signal monomorphy in aposematic animals. Here we provide a comprehensive synthesis of these disparate lines of investigation, identifying within them three broad classes of explanation for variation in aposematic warning signals: genetic mechanisms, differences among predators and predator behaviour, and alternative selection pressures upon the signal. The mechanisms producing warning coloration are also important. Detailed studies of the genetic basis of warning signals in some species, most notably Heliconius butterflies, are beginning to shed light on the genetic architecture facilitating or limiting key processes such as the evolution and maintenance of polymorphisms, hybridisation, and speciation. Work on predator behaviour is changing our perception of the predator community as a single homogenous selective agent, emphasising the dynamic nature of predator–prey interactions. Predator variability in a range of factors (e.g. perceptual abilities, tolerance to chemical defences, and individual motivation), suggests that the role of predators is more complicated than previously appreciated. With complex selection regimes at work, polytypisms and polymorphisms may even occur in Müllerian mimicry systems. Meanwhile, phenotypes are often multifunctional, and thus subject to additional biotic and abiotic selection pressures. Some of these selective pressures, primarily sexual selection and thermoregulation, have received considerable attention, while others, such as disease risk and parental effects, offer promising avenues to explore. As well as reviewing the existing evidence from both empirical studies and theoretical modelling, we highlight hypotheses that could benefit from further investigation in aposematic species. Finally by collating known instances of variation in warning signals, we provide a valuable resource for understanding the taxonomic spread of diversity in aposematic signalling and with which to direct future research. A greater appreciation of the extent of variation in aposematic species, and of the selective pressures and constraints which contribute to this once‐paradoxical phenomenon, yields a new perspective for the field of aposematic signalling.     

Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live aposematic prey

An important factor for understanding the evolution of warning coloration in unprofitable prey is the synergistic effect produced by predator generalisation behaviour. Warning coloration can arise and become stabilised in a population of solitary prey if more conspicuous prey benefit from a predator's previous interaction with less conspicuous prey. This study investigates whether domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) show a biased generalisation among live aposematic prey by using larvae of three species of seed bugs (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) that are of similar shape but vary in the amount of red in the coloration. After positive experience of edible brownish prey, chicks in two reciprocal experiments received negative experience of either a slightly red or a more red distasteful larva. Attacking birds were then divided into two treatment groups, – one presented with the same prey again, and one presented with either a less red or a more red larva. Birds with only experience of edible prey showed no difference in attack probability of the two aposematic prey types. Birds with experience of the less red prey biased their avoidance so that prey with a more red coloration was avoided to a higher degree, whereas birds with experience of the more red prey avoided prey with the same, but not less red coloration. Thus, we conclude that bird predators may indeed show a biased generalisation behaviour that could select for and stabilise an aposematic strategy in solitary prey. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Warning signals and predator-prey coevolution

Theories of the evolution of warning signals are typically expressed using analytic and computational models, most of which attribute aspects of predator psychology as the key factors facilitating the evolution of warning signals. Sherratt provides a novel and promising perspective with a model that considers the coevolution of predator and prey populations, showing how predators may develop a bias towards attacking cryptic prey in preference to conspicuous prey. Here, we replicate the model as an individual-based simulation and find, in accordance with Sherratt, that predators evolve a bias towards attacking cryptic prey. We then use a Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the relative survivorships of cryptic and conspicuous prey and stress that, as it stands, the model does not predict the evolution or stability of warning signals. We extend the model by giving predators continuous attack strategies and by allowing the evolution of prey conspicuousness: results are robust to the first modification but, in all cases, cryptic prey always enjoy a higher survivorship than conspicuous prey. When conspicuousness is allowed to evolve, prey quickly evolve towards crypsis, even when runaway coevolution is enabled. Sherratt's approach is promising, but other aspects of predator psychology, besides their innate response, remain vital to our understanding of warning signals.     

The coevolution of warning signals

It has long been recognized that defended prey tend to be conspicuous. Current theories suggest that the association ('aposematism') has arisen because predators more readily learn to avoid attacking defended phenotypes when they are conspicuous. In this paper, I consider why such psychology has evolved. In particular, I argue that aposematism may have evolved not because of an independent and pre-existing receiver bias, but because the conspicuousness of a prey item provides a reliable indicator of its likelihood of being defended. To develop my case I consider how warning signals might coevolve in a system containing a number of predators, whose foraging behaviour is also subject to selection. In these cases, models readily show that the greater the conspicuousness of a novel prey item, the more likely that it has been encountered by other predators and survived. As a consequence, naive predators should be less likely to attack highly conspicuous novel prey on encounter, or at least more inclined to attack them cautiously. This adaptive predator behaviour will greatly facilitate the spread of aposematic phenotypes from extreme rarity, which in turn will enhance selection for forms of predator behaviour under which aposematism will coevolve even more readily.     

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.     

Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals

Many aposematic prey combine their visual warning signals withadditional signals. Together, these signals constitute a multimodalor multicomponent warning display. The additional signals arethought to increase the effects of the visual signals on predators.Olfactory signals are much emphasized, but later studies haveshown that also auditory signals like the buzzing of certaininsects might have multimodal effects. The wasp displays typicalvisual aposematic signals, black and yellow stripes, but doesalso emit a characteristic buzzing. We wanted to test if, andin what way, the visual and acoustic display of the wasp hasan aversive function on the predators. We therefore conducteda 12-trial discrimination-learning task on inexperienced chicksto study whether there are innate biases toward these signalsand how they affect the speed of avoidance learning. We alsoperformed three extinction-learning trials to study how memorablethe signals were to the chicks. We show that the visual signalsin the display of the wasp contribute to the protection frompredators but in different ways; the yellow color had an aversiveeffect on inexperienced predators, while the striped patternimproved the aversion learning. The sound did not enhance theinnate aversions but increased the aversion learning of stripesin green prey.     

Avoidance of an aposematically coloured butterfly by wild birds in a tropical forest

1. Birds are considered to be the primary selective agents for warning colouration in butterflies, and select for aposematic mimicry by learning to avoid brightly coloured prey after unpleasant experiences. It has long been thought that bright colouration plays an important role in promoting the avoidance of distasteful prey by birds. 2. The hypothesis that warning colouration facilitates memorability and promotes predator avoidance was tested by means of a field experiment using distasteful model butterflies. Artificial butterflies with a Heliconius colour pattern unknown to local birds were generated using bird vision models, either coloured or achromatic, and hung in tree branches in a tropical forest. Two sequential trials were conducted at each site to test avoidance by naïve and experienced predators. 3. There was a significant reduction in predation in the second trial. Also, coloured models were attacked less than achromatic models. Specifically, coloured butterflies were attacked significantly less in the second trial, but there was no significant decrease in predation on achromatic models. 4. The present results imply an important role for colour in enhancing aversion of aposematic butterflies. It has also been demonstrated that previous experience of distasteful prey can lead to enhanced avoidance in subsequent trials, supporting mimicry theory.     

Benefit by contrast: an experiment with live aposematic prey

Aposematic prey often have a coloration that contrasts withthe background. One beneficial effect of such conspicuous colorationis that it produces faster and more durable avoidance by predators.Another suggested benefit is that prey that contrast with thebackground are more quickly discerned and recognized as unpalatableby experienced predators. To further investigate the effectsof prey contrast on predator behavior, I conducted an experimentwith young chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) as predators onlive aposematic and nonaposematic prey. Birds with prior experienceof both prey types were allowed into an arena with both palatableprey and aposematic prey on backgrounds that either closelymatched or contrasted with the coloration of the aposematicprey. Also, the time a bird had available to decide to attacka prey was manipulated by including a competing chick or not.The experienced birds showed greater attack latencies for aposematicprey on more contrasting backgrounds, and aposematic prey werealso attacked to a greater extent when on a matching background.The presence of a competitor generated similar effects, wherebirds in high competition attacked more and faster comparedto birds subjected to lower degree of competition, but therewas no interaction between competition and contrast. Thus,the experiment provides evidence that prey contrast againstthe background may produce better recognition and avoidance,independently of predator viewing time.     

Prey community structure affects how predators select for Mullerian mimicry

Müllerian mimicry describes the close resemblance between aposematic prey species; it is thought to be beneficial because sharing a warning signal decreases the mortality caused by sampling by inexperienced predators learning to avoid the signal. It has been hypothesized that selection for mimicry is strongest in multi-species prey communities where predators are more prone to misidentify the prey than in simple communities. In this study, wild great tits (Parus major) foraged from either simple (few prey appearances) or complex (several prey appearances) artificial prey communities where a specific model prey was always present. Owing to slower learning, the model did suffer higher mortality in complex communities when the birds were inexperienced. However, in a subsequent generalization test to potential mimics of the model prey (a continuum of signal accuracy), only birds that had foraged from simple communities selected against inaccurate mimics. Therefore, accurate mimicry is more likely to evolve in simple communities even though predator avoidance learning is slower in complex communities. For mimicry to evolve, prey species must have a common predator; the effective community consists of the predator's diet. In diverse environments, the limited diets of specialist predators could create 'simple community pockets' where accurate mimicry is selected for.     

Different colour morphs of the poison frog Andinobates bombetes (Dendrobatidae) are similarly effective visual predator deterrents

Aposematism is the use of warning signals to advertise unpleasant or dangerous defences to potential predators. As the effectiveness of this strategy depends on predator learning, little variation is expected in aposematic warning signals, as similar signals facilitate predator learning. However, warning signals are frequently variable in aposematic species. Such variability could arise as a result of geographic variation in the interpretation that local predators give warning signals. We tested this divergent learning hypothesis in the polytypic poison frog Andinobates bombetes (Anura: Dendrobatidae), focusing on visual predators. Our study was conducted in two populations of this species located in the Western Andes of Colombia, where individuals at some localities exhibit red dorsolateral stripes, while those in others exhibit yellow dorsolateral stripes. We deployed paraffin models imitating both forms of A. bombetes in size and colouration, as well as dull‐coloured controls, at sites inhabited by either red‐striped or yellow‐striped frogs. Red and yellow models were attacked at similar rates at both sites, and brown models were attacked more frequently at one of the sites. These results suggest that red and yellow colourations function as similarly effective aposematic signals for primarily visual predators, regardless of the form previously experienced by these predators. Therefore, our results do not support the hypothesis of divergent predator learning as a driver of the polytypism present in this species. Finally, we discuss other mechanisms that may be involved in the evolution and maintenance of this polytypism.     

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’.