Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework

Mimicry is a classical example of adaptive signal design. Here, we review the current state of research into vocal mimicry in birds. Avian vocal mimicry is a conspicuous and often spectacular form of animal communication, occurring in many distantly related species. However, the proximate and ultimate causes of vocal mimicry are poorly understood. In the first part of this review, we argue that progress has been impeded by conceptual confusion over what constitutes vocal mimicry. We propose a modified version of Vane‐Wright's (1980) widely used definition of mimicry. According to our definition, a vocalisation is mimetic if the behaviour of the receiver changes after perceiving the acoustic resemblance between the mimic and the model, and the behavioural change confers a selective advantage on the mimic. Mimicry is therefore specifically a functional concept where the resemblance between heterospecific sounds is a target of selection. It is distinct from other forms of vocal resemblance including those that are the result of chance or common ancestry, and those that have emerged as a by‐product of other processes such as ecological convergence and selection for large song‐type repertoires. Thus, our definition provides a general and functionally coherent framework for determining what constitutes vocal mimicry, and takes account of the diversity of vocalisations that incorporate heterospecific sounds. In the second part we assess and revise hypotheses for the evolution of avian vocal mimicry in the light of our new definition. Most of the current evidence is anecdotal, but the diverse contexts and acoustic structures of putative vocal mimicry suggest that mimicry has multiple functions across and within species. There is strong experimental evidence that vocal mimicry can be deceptive, and can facilitate parasitic interactions. There is also increasing support for the use of vocal mimicry in predator defence, although the mechanisms are unclear. Less progress has been made in explaining why many birds incorporate heterospecific sounds into their sexual displays, and in determining whether these vocalisations are functionally mimetic or by‐products of sexual selection for other traits such as repertoire size. Overall, this discussion reveals a more central role for vocal mimicry in the behavioural ecology of birds than has previously been appreciated. The final part of this review identifies important areas for future research. Detailed empirical data are needed on individual species, including on the structure of mimetic signals, the contexts in which mimicry is produced, how mimicry is acquired, and the ecological relationships between mimic, model and receiver. At present, there is little information and no consensus about the various costs of vocal mimicry for the protagonists in the mimicry complex. The diversity and complexity of vocal mimicry in birds raises important questions for the study of animal communication and challenges our view of the nature of mimicry itself. Therefore, a better understanding of avian vocal mimicry is essential if we are to account fully for the diversity of animal signals.     

Dynamics of mimicry evolution

We simulated mimicry evolution by allowing three populations to cocvolvc: two populations of senders and one of receivers. Artificial neural networks were used to model receivers, and it was assumed that recognition was inherited. The senders' signals consisted of nine dimensions. Changes to receivers and senders were caused by random mutations during the course of the simulation. Whereas it paid both types of senders to elicit the same response from the receiver, it benefited the receiver to respond in this way only towards one of the sender types. The receiver was thus in conflict with one of the senders, e.g. as in Batesian mimicry. Monotonically increasing response gradients caused the appearance of the model and the mimic to move in the same direction. Mimicry evolved because the mimic approached the model faster than the model moved away. Even after mimicry was established the model and the mimic were constantly changing in appearance. Our results conform with what is known in comparative psychology and ethology about how animals respond to stimuli. Several of our results arc a direct consequence of recognition and have not, to our knowledge, been reported before, showing the importance of considering the recognition mechanism in detail when studying mimicry.     

Diversity of warning signal and social interaction influences the evolution of imperfect mimicry

Mimicry, the resemblance of one species by another, is a complex phenomenon where the mimic (Batesian mimicry) or the model and the mimic (Mullerian mimicry) gain an advantage from this phenotypic convergence. Despite the expectation that mimics should closely resemble their models, many mimetic species appear to be poor mimics. This is particularly apparent in some systems in which there are multiple available models. However, the influence of model pattern diversity on the evolution of mimetic systems remains poorly understood. We tested whether the number of model patterns a predator learns to associate with a negative consequence affects their willingness to try imperfect, novel patterns. We exposed week‐old chickens to coral snake (Micrurus) color patterns representative of three South American areas that differ in model pattern richness, and then tested their response to the putative imperfect mimetic pattern of a widespread species of harmless colubrid snake (Oxyrhopus rhombifer) in different social contexts. Our results indicate that chicks have a great hesitation to attack when individually exposed to high model pattern diversity and a greater hesitation to attack when exposed as a group to low model pattern diversity. Individuals with a fast growth trajectory (measured by morphological traits) were also less reluctant to attack. We suggest that the evolution of new patterns could be favored by social learning in areas of low pattern diversity, while individual learning can reduce predation pressure on recently evolved mimics in areas of high model diversity. Our results could aid the development of ecological predictions about the evolution of imperfect mimicry and mimicry in general.     

Aggressive mimics profit from a model-signal receiver mutualism

Mimetic species have evolved to resemble other species to avoid predation (protective mimicry) or gain access to food (aggressive mimicry). Mimicry systems are frequently tripartite interactions involving a mimic, model and 'signal receiver'. Changes in the strength of the relationship between model and signal receiver, owing to shifting environmental conditions, for example, can affect the success of mimics in protective mimicry systems. Here, we show that an experimentally induced shift in the strength of the relationship between a model (bluestreak cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus) and a signal receiver (staghorn damselfish, Amblyglyphidodon curacao) resulted in increased foraging success for an aggressive mimic (bluestriped fangblenny, Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos). When the parasite loads of staghorn damselfish clients were experimentally increased, the attack success of bluestriped fangblenny on damselfish also increased. Enhanced mimic success appeared to be due to relaxation of vigilance by parasitized clients, which sought cleaners more eagerly and had lower overall aggression levels. Signal receivers may therefore be more tolerant of and/or more vulnerable to attacks from aggressive mimics when the net benefit of interacting with their models is high. Changes in environmental conditions that cause shifts in the net benefits accrued by models and signal receivers may have important implications for the persistence of aggressive mimicry systems.     

On the definition of mimicry

An operational distinction between crypsis and mimicry is made in terms of the cognitive and perceptual systems of signal-receivers. Cryptic organisms specialize in generating information of the type not attended to or filtered out (reference frame) by the receivers, whereas mimetic organisms specialize in producing information (signals) of the type sought out by and of interest to a receiver. Mimicry is defined in terms of a system of three living organisms, model, mimic and operator (signal-receiver), in which the mimic gains in fitness by the operator identifying it with the model. Some advantages and applications of the definition are briefly discussed.     

Two potential players in the evolutionary theatre: Do caddisflies mimic gastropods?

Mimicry is one of the best examples of coevolution. For a mimetic system to function, the mimic has to equal its model. Due to this close dependence, mimetic systems promise deep insights into modes and means of evolution. Mimicry is known to occur in many taxa across different groups of organisms. However, while a plethora of mimetic systems exist, cross‐phyla convergences have only rarely been reported in shelled gastropods. Our literature survey brought to light several mimetic systems including gastropods (as model or mimic), all of them in either a marine or a terrestrial setting. We here report on the first potential case of mimicry involving freshwater snails. We found larval cases of European Helicopsyche caddisfly to closely resemble Valvata gastropod shells in shape and size. In particular, stunning is the detailed similarity of features in these trichopteran cases to those characteristic for snail shells, for example, apex, aperture and umbilicus, hinting at a strong selection pressure to be involved. We discuss this unique case of mimicry that might hold unparalleled insight in mimetic relationships, taking into account alternative environmental factors and potential predatory dupes, in particular birds that might have successively caused the evolution of coiled cases in helicopsychid trichopterans.     

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

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.     

Natural selection in mimicry

Biological mimicry has served as a salient example of natural selection for over a century, providing us with a dazzling array of very different examples across many unrelated taxa. We provide a conceptual framework that brings together apparently disparate examples of mimicry in a single model for the purpose of comparing how natural selection affects models, mimics and signal receivers across different interactions. We first analyse how model–mimic resemblance likely affects the fitness of models, mimics and receivers across diverse examples. These include classic Batesian and Müllerian butterfly systems, nectarless orchids that mimic Hymenoptera or nectar‐producing plants, caterpillars that mimic inert objects unlikely to be perceived as food, plants that mimic abiotic objects like carrion or dung and aggressive mimicry where predators mimic food items of their own prey. From this, we construct a conceptual framework of the selective forces that form the basis of all mimetic interactions. These interactions between models, mimics and receivers may follow four possible evolutionary pathways in terms of the direction of selection resulting from model–mimic resemblance. Two of these pathways correspond to the selective pressures associated with what is widely regarded as Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. The other two pathways suggest mimetic interactions underpinned by distinct selective pressures that have largely remained unrecognized. Each pathway is characterized by theoretical differences in how model–mimic resemblance influences the direction of selection acting on mimics, models and signal receivers, and the potential for consequent (co)evolutionary relationships between these three protagonists. The final part of this review describes how selective forces generated through model–mimic resemblance can be opposed by the basic ecology of interacting organisms and how those forces may affect the symmetry, strength and likelihood of (co)evolution between the three protagonists within the confines of the four broad evolutionary possibilities. We provide a clear and pragmatic visualization of selection pressures that portrays how different mimicry types may evolve. This conceptual framework provides clarity on how different selective forces acting on mimics, models and receivers are likely to interact and ultimately shape the evolutionary pathways taken by mimetic interactions, as well as the constraints inherent within these interactions.     

Perspectives and Debates: Mimicry,Signalling and Co‐Evolution (Commentary on Wolfgang Wickler – Understanding Mimicry – With special reference to vocal mimicry)

In his stimulating discussion, Wolfgang Wickler criticizes fuzzy usage of term mimicry by drawing attention to its original definition by H. Bates. Mimicry refers to functional ‘model–mimic–selecting agent’ trinity (with varying number of species involved) when the selecting agent (i.e. signal receiver) responds similarly to mimic and model to the advantage of the mimic. Concurring with Wickler I argue that convergence is neither necessary nor sufficient to support similarity as evidence for mimicry and that it is artificial and unproductive to classify mimicry with respect to ontogeny (innate vs. learned similarity) or model species identity (learning from conspecifics vs. heterospecifics). Using butterfly ‘eye’‐spots, I argue that just identifying each of the supposed model, the mimic and the selective agent, and even demonstrating that mimic‐model similarity affects the agent's behaviour, provides no conclusive evidence for mimicry. Even a demonstration that the mimic benefits from receiver response may not provide conclusive evidence for mimicry. Using avian brood parasite–host egg and nestling mimicry, I emphasize that without experimental manipulation of the hypothesized mimetic traits, it is impossible to test the mimicry hypothesis robustly. Due to fundamental constraints on human perception, some cases of mimicry may in fact be just a by‐product of human inability to perceive relevant differences between animal phenotypes (what is similar for human eye, nose or ear may not be viewed, smelled or heard as similar for relevant animal observers), whereas many cases of real mimicry may escape our attention from the same reason (‘hidden’ mimicry). Surprisingly, the same mimetic phenotype may show completely different effects on selective agents under different ecological circumstances. Finally, relatively dissimilar species may be more mimetic than highly similar model–mimic pairs because mimicry may be more fruitfully understood as a co‐evolutionary process rather than a similarity.     

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.     

Batesian mimics influence the evolution of conspicuousness in an aposematic salamander

Conspicuousness, or having high contrast relative to the surrounding background, is a common feature of unpalatable species. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the occurrence of conspicuousness, and while most involve the role of conspicuousness as a direct signal of unpalatability to potential predators, one hypothesis suggests that exaggerated conspicuousness may evolve in unpalatable species to reduce predator confusion with palatable species (potential Batesian mimics). This hypothesis of antagonistic coevolution between palatable and unpalatable species hinges on the ‘cost of conspicuousness’, in which conspicuousness increases the likelihood of predation more in palatable species than in unpalatable species. Under this mimicry scenario, four patterns are expected: (i) mimics will more closely resemble local models than models from other localities, (ii) there will be a positive relationship between mimic and model conspicuousness, (iii) models will be more conspicuous in the presence of mimics, and (iv) when models and mimics differ in conspicuousness, mimics will be less conspicuous than models. We tested these predictions in the salamander mimicry system involving Notophthalmus viridescens (model) and one colour morph of Plethodon cinereus (mimic). All predictions were supported, indicating that selection for Batesian mimicry not only influences the evolution of mimics, but also the evolution of the models they resemble. These findings indicate that mimicry plays a large role in the evolution of model warning signals, particularly influencing the evolution of conspicuousness.     

Geographic variation in mimetic precision among different species of coral snake mimics

Batesian mimicry is widespread, but whether and why different species of mimics vary geographically in resemblance to their model is unclear. We characterized geographic variation in mimetic precision among four Batesian mimics of coral snakes. Each mimic occurs where its model is abundant (i.e. in ‘deep sympatry’), rare (i.e. at the sympatry/allopatry boundary or ‘edge sympatry’) and absent (i.e. in allopatry). Geographic variation in mimetic precision was qualitatively different among these mimics. In one mimic, the most precise individuals occurred in edge sympatry; in another, they occurred in deep sympatry; in the third, they occurred in allopatry; and in the fourth, precise mimics were not concentrated anywhere throughout their range. Mimicry was less precise in allopatry than in sympatry in only two mimics. We present several nonmutually exclusive hypotheses for these patterns. Generally, examining geographic variation in mimetic precision – within and among different mimics – offers novel insights into the causes and consequences of mimicry.     

Multi-trait mimicry and the relative salience of individual traits

Mimicry occurs when one species gains protection from predators by resembling an unprofitable model species. The degree of mimic–model similarity is variable in nature and is closely related to the number of traits that the mimic shares with its model. Here, we experimentally test the hypothesis that the relative salience of traits, as perceived by a predator, is an important determinant of the degree of mimic–model similarity required for successful mimicry. We manipulated the relative salience of the traits of a two-trait artificial model prey, and subsequently tested the survival of mimics of the different traits. The unrewarded model prey had two colour traits, black and blue, and the rewarded prey had two combinations of green, brown and grey shades. Blue tits were used as predators. We found that the birds perceived the black and blue traits to be similarly salient in one treatment, and mimic–model similarity in both traits was then required for high mimic success. In a second treatment, the blue trait was the most salient trait, and mimic–model similarity in this trait alone achieved high success. Our results thus support the idea that similar salience of model traits can explain the occurrence of multi-trait mimicry.     

Egg shape mimicry in parasitic cuckoos

Parasitic cuckoos lay their eggs in nests of host species. Rejection of cuckoo eggs by hosts has led to the evolution of egg mimicry by cuckoos, whereby their eggs mimic the colour and pattern of their host eggs to avoid egg recognition and rejection. There is also evidence of mimicry in egg size in some cuckoo–host systems, but currently it is unknown whether cuckoos can also mimic the egg shape of their hosts. In this study, we test whether there is evidence of mimicry in egg form (shape and size) in three species of Australian cuckoos: the fan‐tailed cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis, which exploits dome nesting hosts, the brush cuckoo Cacomantis variolosus, which exploits both dome and cup nesting hosts, and the pallid cuckoo Cuculus pallidus, which exploits cup nesting hosts. We found evidence of size mimicry and, for the first time, evidence of egg shape mimicry in two Australian cuckoo species (pallid cuckoo and brush cuckoo). Moreover, cuckoo–host egg similarity was higher for hosts with open nests than for hosts with closed nests. This finding fits well with theory, as it has been suggested that hosts with closed nests have more difficulty recognizing parasitic eggs than open nests, have lower rejection rates and thus exert lower selection for mimicry in cuckoos. This is the first evidence of mimicry in egg shape in a cuckoo–host system, suggesting that mimicry at different levels (size, shape, colour pattern) is evolving in concert. We also confirm the existence of egg size mimicry in cuckoo–host systems.     

Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution

"Peak shift" is a behavioral response bias arising from discrimination learning in which animals display a directional, but limited, preference for or avoidance of unusual stimuli. Its hypothesized evolutionary relevance has been primarily in the realm of aposematic coloration and limited sexual dimorphism. Here, we develop a novel functional approach to peak shift, based on signal detection theory, which characterizes the response bias as arising from uncertainty about stimulus appearance, frequency, and quality. This approach allows the influence of peak shift to be generalized to the evolution of signals in a variety of domains and sensory modalities. The approach is illustrated with a bumblebee (Bombus impatiens) discrimination learning experiment. Bees exhibited peak shift while foraging in an artificial Batesian mimicry system. Changes in flower abundance, color distribution, and visitation reward induced bees to preferentially visit novel flower colors that reduced the risk of flower-type misidentification. Under conditions of signal uncertainty, peak shift results in visitation to rarer, but more easily distinguished, morphological variants of rewarding species in preference to their average morphology. Peak shift is a common and taxonomically widespread phenomenon. This example of the possible role of peak shift in signal evolution can be generalized to other systems in which a signal receiver learns to make choices in situations in which signal variation is linked to the sender's reproductive success.     

Possible Batesian mimicry to sexually different models in the tussock moth Numenes albofascia with a great sexual color dimorphism

Mimicry with warning colors includes Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. If we divide mimicry by sex, there are theoretically four types of mimicry: unimodal, female-limited, male-limited and dual mimicry. The latter three cases cause sexual dimorphism in body color and marking pattern but are rarely reported. In this study, we show that the tussock moth Numenes albofascia is possibly a dual mimic. The wing color and marking pattern of male and female N. albofascia are completely different, with the male's pattern resembling that of the smoky moth Pidorus atratus, while the female pattern resembles that of the tiger moth Arctia caja. Body size also differs greatly between the sexes of N. albofascia, matching the mimicry model species of each sex. These moths are distributed sympatrically in Japan, and their adult seasons overlap with each other. According to lizard feeding experiments, N. albofascia is palatable, while both male and female model species are unpalatable. Actograms in the laboratory and the light trapping in the field suggest that females of N. albofascia fly actively from sunset to midnight, while males fly during the twilight period around dawn. Therefore, male and female N. albofascia might be Batesian mimics of diurnally active P. atratus and nocturnally active A. caja, respectively, and the great sexual dimorphism of this moth could be caused by dual mimicry.     

Mimicry in plant-parasitic fungi

Mimicry is the close resemblance of one living organism (the mimic) to another (the model), leading to misidentification by a third organism (the operator). Similar to other organism groups, certain species of plant-parasitic fungi are known to engage in mimetic relationships, thereby increasing their fitness. In some cases, fungal infection can lead to the formation of flower mimics (pseudo flowers) that attract insect pollinators via visual and/or olfactory cues; these insects then either transmit fungal gametes to accomplish outcrossing (e.g. in some heterothallic rust fungi belonging to the genera Puccinia and Uromyces) or vector infectious spores to healthy plants, thereby spreading disease (e.g. in the anther smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum and the mummy berry pathogen Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi). In what is termed aggressive mimicry, some specialized plant-parasitic fungi are able to mimic host structures or host molecules to gain access to resources. An example is M. vaccinii-corymbosi, whose conidia and germ tubes, respectively, mimic host pollen grains and pollen tubes anatomically and physiologically, allowing the pathogen to gain entry into the host's ovary via stigma and style. We review these and other examples of mimicry by plant-parasitic fungi and some of the mechanisms, signals, and evolutionary implications.     

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.     

Dynamics of the evolution of Batesian mimicry: molecular phylogenetic analysis of ant-mimicking Myrmarachne (Araneae: Salticidae) species and their ant models

Batesian mimicry is seen as an example of evolution by natural selection, with predation as the main driving force. The mimic is under selective pressure to resemble its model, whereas it is disadvantageous for the model to be associated with the palatable mimic. In consequence one might expect there to be an evolutionary arms race, similar to the one involving host-parasite coevolution. In this study, the evolutionary dynamics of a Batesian mimicry system of model ants and ant-mimicking salticids is investigated by comparing the phylogenies of the two groups. Although Batesian mimics are expected to coevolve with their models, we found the phylogenetic patterns of the models and the mimics to be indicative of adaptive radiation by the mimic rather than co-speciation between the mimic and the model. This shows that there is strong selection pressure on Myrmarachne, leading to a high degree of polymorphism. There is also evidence of sympatric speciation in Myrmarachne, the reproductive isolation possibly driven by female mate choice in polymorphic species.     

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.