Testing Mullerian mimicry: An experiment with wild birds

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 267, Issue 1444, 2000, Pages 725-731

  Speed, Michael P ^a   Alderson, Nichola J ^a   Hardman, Christine ^a   Ruxton, Graeme D ^b  

^a LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evolution; Mimicry; Pavlovian learning; Predator; Warning signal

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; AVIFAUNA; MIMICRY;

ARTICLE; BIRD; DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR; FEEDING; LEARNING; PREDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; PHYSIOLOGY; WILD ANIMAL;

AVES;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, WILD; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIRDS; LEARNING; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0034615711     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1063     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alcock, J. 1970 Punishment levels and the response of black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus) to three kinds of artificial seeds. Anim. Behav. 18, 592-599.
2. Brower, J. V. Z. 1958 Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. I. The monarch, Danaus plexippus and viceroy, Limenitis archippus archippus. Evolution 12, 32-47.
3. Brower, L. P., Brower, J. V. Z. & Collins, C. T. 1963 Experimental studies of mimicry. VII. Relative palatability and Müllerian mimicry among neotropical butterflies of the subfamily Heliconiinae. Zoologica 48, 65-84.
4. Endler, J. A. 1991 Interactions between predators and prey. In Behavioural ecology (ed. J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 169-196. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
5. Gittleman, J. L., Harvey, P. H. & Greenwood, P. J. 1980 The evolution of conspicuous colouration: some experiments in bad taste. Anim. Behav. 28, 879-899.
6. Grieg-Smith, P. W. 1987 Aversions of starlings and sparrows to unfamiliar, unexpected or unusual flavours and colours in food. Ethology 74, 155-163.
7. Huheey, J. E. 1976 Studies in warning coloration and mimicry. VII. Evolutionary consequences of Batesian Müllerian spectrum: a model for Müllerian mimicry. Evolution 30, 86-93.
8. Huheey, J. E. 1988 Mathematical models of mimicry. Am. Nat. 131, S22-S41.
9. Ikin, M. & Turner, J. R. G. 1972 Experiments on mimicry: gestalt perception and the evolution of genetic linkage. Nature 239, 525-527.
10. Joron, M. & Mallet, J. 1998 Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 461-466.
11. Lea, G. & Turner, J. R. G. 1971 Experiments on mimicry. II. The effect of a Batesian mimic on its model. Behaviour 42, 131-151.
12. MacDougall, A. & Dawkins, M. S. 1998 Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry. Anim. Behav. 55, 1281-1288.
13. Mallet, J. & Joron, M. 1999 The evolution of diversity in warning colour and mimicry. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30, 201-203.
14. Marples, N. M. 1993 Do wild birds distinguish palatable and unpalatable prey types? Anim. Behav. 46, 347-354.
15. Marples, N. M., Roper, T. J. & Harper, D. G. C. 1998 Responses of wild birds to novel prey: evidence of dietary conservatism. Oikos 83, 161-165.
16. Morrell, G. M. & Turner, J. R. G. 1970 Experiments on mimicry. I. The responses of wild birds to artificial prey. Behaviour 36, 116-130.
17. Müller, F. 1879 Ituna and Thyridia; a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Meloda R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, xx-xxix.
18. Owen, R. E. & Owen, A. R. G. 1984 Mathematical paradigms for mimicry: recurrent sampling. J. Theor. Biol. 109, 217-247.
19. Platt, A. P., Coppinger, R. P. & Brower, L. P. 1971 Demonstration of the selective advantage of mimetic Limenitis butterflies presented to caged avian predators. Evolution 25, 692-701.
20. Ruxton, G. D. 1998 Wolves in sheep's clothing. Nature 394, 833-834.
21. Sargent, T. D. 1995 On the relative acceptabilities of local butterflies and moths to local birds. J. Lepidopt. Soc. 49, 148-162.
22. Speed, M. P. 1990 Mimicry and the psychology of predation. PhD thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
23. Speed, M. P. 1993a Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim. Behav. 45, 571-580.
24. Speed, M. P. 1993b When is mimicry good for predators? Anim. Behav. 46, 1246-1247.
25. Speed, M. P. 1998 Mistakes not necessary for Müllerian mimicry. Nature 396, 323.
26. Speed, M. P. 1999 Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies. Anim. Behav. 57, 203-213.
27. Speed, M. P. & Turner, J. R. G. 1999a Virtual predators, receiver psychology, and doubts about Müllerian mimicry: comments on MacDougall and Dawkins. Anim. Behav. 58, F10-F13.
28. Speed, M. P. & Turner, J. R. G. 1999b Learning and memory in mimicry. II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67, 281-312.
29. Srygley, R. B. & Kingsolver, J. G. 1998 Red-wing blackbird reproductive behaviour and the palatability, flight performance and morphology of temperate pierid butterflies (Colias, Pieris and Pontia). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 64, 41-55.
30. Turner, J. R. G. 1971 Studies of Müllerian mimicry and its evolution in burnet moths and heliconid butterflies. In Ecological genetics and evolution (ed. E. R. Creed), pp. 224-260. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
31. Turner, J. R. G. 1987 The evolutionary dynamics of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry: similarities and differences. Ecol. Entomol. 12, 81-95.
32. Turner, J. R. G & Speed, M. P. 1996 Learning and memory in mimicry. I. Simulations of laboratory experiments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351, 1157-1170.
33. Turner, J. R. G., Kearney, E. P. & Exton, L. S. 1984 Mimicry and the Monte Carlo predator: the palatability spectrum and the origins of mimicry. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 23, 247-268.