Tasting the difference: Do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry?

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 272, Issue 1560, 2005, Pages 339-345

  Skelhorn, John ^a   Rowe, Candy ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Domestic chick; Learning; Memory; Novelty; Perception; Taste

Indexed keywords

BIRD; CHEMICAL DEFENSE; LEARNING; MIMICRY; PERCEPTION;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL INTERACTION; EVOLUTION; LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEMORY; MOLECULAR MIMICRY; MULLERIAN MIMICRY; NONHUMAN; PALATABILITY; PREDATOR AVOIDANCE; PREY SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; SYMBIOSIS; ADAPTATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHICKEN; COLOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC SELECTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDATION; TASTE;

AVES;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; AVOIDANCE LEARNING; CHICKENS; COLOR; MEMORY; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SELECTION (GENETICS); TASTE;

EID: 16244376802     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2953     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Blum, M. S. 1981 Chemical defences of arthropods. New York: Academic.
2. Brower, L. P. 1984 Chemical defences I. Butterflies. In The biology of butterflies (ed. R. I. Vane-Write & P. R. Ackery), pp. 109-134. London: Academic.
3. Cott, H. B. 1940 Adaptive colouration in animals. London: Methuen.
4. Edmunds, M. 1974 Defence in animals. Harlow: Longman.
5. Eisner, T. & Meinwald, J. 1966 Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153, 1341-1350.
6. Gentle, M. J. 1971 Taste and its importance to the domestic chicken. Br. Poultry Sci. 12, 77-86.
7. Gilsan King, A. & Meinwald, J. 1996 Review of the defence chemistry of Coccinellids. Chem. Rev. 96, 1105-1122.
8. Kassarov, L. 1999 Are birds able to taste and reject butterflies based on 'beak mark tasting'? A different point of view. Behaviour 136, 965-981.
9. Majerus, M. E. N. & Kearns, P. 1989 Ladybirds. Slough, UK: Richmond Publishing.
10. Marples, N. M. & Roper, T. J. 1997 Response of domestic chicks to methyl anthranilate odour. Anim. Behav. 53, 1263-1270.
11. Matson, K. D., Millam, J. R. & Klasing, K. C. 2001 Thresholds for sweet, salt, and sour taste stimuli in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). Zoo Biol. 20, 1-13.
12. Matson, K. D., Millam, J. R. & Klasing, K. C. 2004 Cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) reject very low levels of plant secondary compounds. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 85, 141-156.
13. Müller, F. 1879 Ithuna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. xx-xxix.
14. Nishida, R. 2002 Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. A. Rev. Entomol. 47, 57-92.
15. Rowe, C. & Skelhorn, J. 2005 Colour biases are a question of taste. Anim. Behav. 69 (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004. 06.010) (In the press.)
16. Ruxton, G.D., Sherratt, T.N. & Speed, M.P. 2004 Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, mimicry and aposematism. Oxford University Press. (In the press.)
17. Sherratt, T. N., Speed, M. P. & Ruxton, G. D. 2004 Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 228, 217-226.
18. Speed, M. P. 1993 Müllerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim. Behav. 45, 571-580.
19. Speed, M. P. 1999 Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies. Anim. Behav. 57, 203-213.
20. Speed, M. P., Alderson, N. J., Hardman, C. & Ruxton, G. D. 2000 Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 267, 725-731. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2000.1063)
21. 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.
22. Turner, J. R. G. & Speed, M. P. 1999 How weird can mimicry get? Dedicated to Miriam Rothschild. Evol. Ecol. 13, 807-827.
23. Wickler, W. 1968 Mimicry in plants and animals. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.