The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 271, Issue 1537, 2004, Pages 407-413

  Rowe, Candy ^a   Lindström, Leena ^b   Lyytinen, Anne ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Aposematism; Discrimination learning; Mimicry; Parus major, evolution; Receiver psychology

Indexed keywords

APOSEMATISM; EVOLUTION; MIMICRY; PASSERINE;

ARTICLE; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; CONVERGENT EVOLUTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; FORAGING; FOWL; GENETIC SIMILARITY; NATURAL SELECTION; NONHUMAN; PREDATOR AVOIDANCE; PREDATOR PREY INTERACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WILD TYPE;

AVES; GALLIFORMES; PARUS; PARUS MAJOR; PASSERIFORMES;

EID: 1242337301     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2615     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alatalo, R. V. & Mappes, J. 1996 Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature 382, 708-710.
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. 7. Relative palatability and Müllerian mimicry among neotropical butterflies of the subfamily Heliconiinae. Zoologica 48, 65-83.
4. Cott, H. B. 1940 Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen.
5. Dumbacher, J. P. & Fleischer, R. C. 2001 Phylogenetic evidence for color pattern covergence in toxic pitohuis: Müllerian mimicry in birds? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 1971-1976. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2001.1717.)
6. Edmunds, M. 1974 Defence in animals. Harlow, UK: Longman.
7. Gamberale-Stille, G. & Tullberg, B. S. 2001 Fruit or aposematic insect? Context-dependent colour preferences in domestic chicks. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 2525-2529. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2001.1814.)
8. Joron, M. & Mallet, J. L. B. 1998 Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 461-466.
9. Kapan, D. D. 2001 Three-butterfly system provides field test of Müllerian mimicry. Nature 409, 338-340.
10. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V. & Mappes, J. 1999a Reactions of hand-reared and wild-caught predators towards warningly colored, gregarious, and conspicuous prey. Behav. Ecol. 10, 317-322.
11. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J., Riipi, M. & Vertainen, L. 1999b Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature 397, 249-251.
12. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. 2001 Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 9181-9184.
13. MacDougall, A. & Dawkins, M. 1998 Müllerian mimicry and the receiver psychology of imperfect discrimination. Anim. Behav. 55, 1281-1288.
14. Mallet, J. 1999 Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13, 777-806.
15. Mallet, J. & Barton, N. H. 1989 Strong natural selection in a warning-color hybrid zone. Evolution 43, 421-431.
16. Mallet, J. & Joron, M. 1999 Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30, 201-233.
17. Meddis, R. 1984 Statistics using ranks. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
18. Müller, F. 1879 Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, 20-29.
19. Osorio, D., Jones, C. D. & Vorobyev, M. 1999 Accurate memory for colour but not pattern contrast in chicks. Curr. Biol. 9, 199-202.
20. Platz, 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.
21. Poulton, E. B. 1890 The colours of animals. Their meaning and use. Especially considered in the case of insects. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
22. Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. R. 1972 A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Classical conditioning. II. Current research and theory (ed. A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23. Riipi, M., Alatalo, R. V., Lindström, L. & Mappes, J. 2001 Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic prey aggregations. Nature 413, 512-513.
24. Speed, M. P. 1993 Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim. Behav. 45, 571-580.
25. Speed, M. P. 1999 Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evol. Ecol. 13, 755-776.
26. Speed, M. P. & Turner, J. R. G. 1999 Learning and memory in mimicry. II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67, 281-312.
27. Speed, M. P., Alderson, N. J., Hardman, C. & Ruxton, G. D. 2000 Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 725-731. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2000.1063.)
28. Symula, R., Schulte, R. & Summers, K. 2001 Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 2415-2421. (DOI 10.1098/rspb.2001.1812.)
29. Turner, J. R. G. 1987 The evolutionary dynamics of Batesian and Muellerian mimicry: similarities and differences. Ecol. Entomol. 12, 81-95.
30. Turner, J. R. G. & Speed, M. 1996 Learning and memory in mimicry. I. Simulations of laboratory experiments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351, 1157-1170.
31. Wickler, W. 1968 Mimicry in plants and animals. New York: McGraw-Hill.