Can experienced birds select for Müllerian mimicry?

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 362-368

  Ihalainen, Eira ^a   Lindström, Leena ^a   Mappes, Johanna ^a   Puolakkainen, Sari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Antiapostatic selection; Aposematism; Generalization; Learning; Memory

Indexed keywords

APOSEMATISM; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FIELD METHOD; LEARNING; MEMORY; MIMICRY; PASSERINE; PREDATION; SIGNALING; WILD POPULATION;

AVES; PARUS MAJOR;

EID: 43749118030     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm151     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Alatalo RV, Mappes J. 1996. Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature. 382:708-710.
2. Balogh ACV, Leimar O. 2005. Müllerian mimicry: an examination of Fisher's theory of gradual evolutionary change. Proc R Soc Lond B. 272:2269-2275.
3. Beatty CD, Beirinckx K, Sherratt TN. 2004. The evolution of müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities. Nature. 431:63-67.
4. Benson WW. 1972. Natural selection for Müllerian mimicry in Heliconius erato in Costa Rica. Science. 176:936-938.
5. Darst CR, Cummings ME. 2006. Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs. Nature. 440:208-211.
6. Dumbacher JP, Fleischer RC. 2001. Phylogenetic evidence for colour pattern convergence in toxic pitohuis: Müllerian mimicry in birds? Proc R Soc Lond B. 268:1971-1976.
7. Endler JA. 1988. Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 319:505-523.
8. Endler JA, Mappes J. 2004. Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Am Nat. 163:532-547.
9. Fisher RA. 1958. The genetical theory of natural selection. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Dover Publication.
10. Gamberale G, Tullberg BS. 1996. Evidence for peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc R Soc Lond B. 263:1329-1334.
11. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH. 1980. Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature. 286:149-150.
12. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH, Greenwood PJ. 1980. The evolution of conspicuous coloration: some experiments in bad taste. Anim Behav. 28:897-899.
13. Goodale MA, Sneddon I. 1977. The effect of distastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial Batesian mimics. Anim Behav. 25:660-665.
14. Greenwood JJD, Cotton PA, Wilson DM. 1989. Frequency-dependent selection on aposematic prey: some experiments. Biol J Linn Soc. 36:213-226.
15. Ham AD, Ihalainen E, Lindström L, Mappes J. 2006. Does colour matter? The importance of colour in avoidance learning, memorability and generalisation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 60:482-491.
16. Huheey JE. 1988. Mathematical models of mimicry. Am Nat. 131:S22-S41.
17. Ihalainen E, Lindström L, Mappes J. 2007. Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. J Evol Biol. 20:780-791.
18. Ihalainen E. 2006. Experiments on defensive mimicry: linkages between predator behaviour and qualities of the prey [dissertation]. Jyväskylä (Finland): University of Jyväskylä. p. 37.
19. Jansson L, Enquist M. 2003. Receiver bias for colourful signals. Anim Behav. 66:965-971.
20. Kapan DD. 2001. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of müllerian mimicry. Nature. 409:338-340.
21. Kokko H, Mappes J, Lindström L. 2003. Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecol Lett. 6:1068-1076.
22. Langham GM. 2006. Rufous-tailed jacamars and aposematic butterflies: do older birds attack novel prey? Behav Ecol. 17:285-290.
23. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A, Mappes J. 2001a. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey. Proc R Soc Lond B. 268:357-361.
24. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A, Mappes J. 2001b. Strong anti-apostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 98:9181-9184.
25. Lindström L, Lyytinen A, Mappes J, Ojala K. 2006. Relative importance of taste and visual appearance for predator education in Müllerian mimicry. Anim Behav. 72:323-333.
26. Mallet J, Joron M. 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 20:201-233.
27. Mallet JLB. 1999. Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol Ecol. 13:777-806.
28. Mallet JLB, Barton NH. 1989. Strong natural selection in a warningcolor hybrid zone. Evolution. 43:421-431.
29. Müller F. 1879. Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans Entomol Soc Lond. XX-XXIX.
30. Ojala K. 2006. Variation in defence and its fitness consequences in aposematic animals - interactions among diet, parasites and predators [PhD dissertation]. Jyväskylä (Finland): University of Jyväskylä.
31. Pearce JM. 1997. Animal learning and cognition. An introduction, 2nd ed. Hove (UK): Psychology Press.
32. Plowright RC, Owen RE. 1980. The evolutionary significance of bumble bee color pattern: a mimetic interpretation. Evolution. 34:622-637.
33. Poulton EB. 1890. The colours of animals, their meaning and use, especially considered in the case of insects. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & CO. Ltd.
34. Roper TJ. 1994. Conspicuousness of prey retards reversal of learned avoidance. Oikos. 69:115-118.
35. Roper TJ, Redston S. 1987. Conspicuousness of distasteful prey affect the strength and durability of one-trial avoidance learning. Anim Behav. 35:739-747.
36. Roper TJ, Wistow R. 1986. Aposematic colouration and avoidance learning in chicks. Q J Exp Psychol. 38B:141-149.
37. Rowe C, Lindström L, Lyytinen A. 2004. The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc R Soc Lond B. 271:407-413.
38. Rowland HM, Ihalainen E, Lindström L, Mappes J, Speed MP. 2007. Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature. 448:62-67.
39. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP. 2004. Avoiding attack - the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Sherratt TN, Beatty CD. 2003. The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defence. Am Nat. 162:377-389.
41. Sherratt TN, Speed MP, Ruxton GD. 2004. Natural selection on unpalatable species imposed by state-dependent foraging behaviour. J Theor Biol. 228:217-226.
42. Shettleworth SJ. 1998. Cognition, evolution and behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Sillén-Tullberg B. 1985. Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia. 67:411-415.
44. Speed MP. 1993. Müllerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim Behav. 45:571-580.
45. Speed MP. 1999. Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evol Ecol. 13:755-776.
46. Symula R, Schulte R, Summers K. 2001. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hyphothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B. 268:2415-2421.
47. Turner JRG. 1977. Butterfly mimicry: the genetical evolution of an adaptation. Evol Biol. 10:163-206.
48. Wallace AR. 1867. Journal of Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London. In: Transactions of the Entomological Society of London. 3rd Series (years 1864-1869); lxxxviii-lxxxi.