The function of animal 'eyespots': Conspicuousness but not eye mimicry is key

Current Zoology

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 319-326

  Stevens, Martin ^a   Cantor, Abi ^a   Graham, Julia ^a   Winney, Isabel S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conspicuousness; Eyespots; Mimicry; Predation; Protective coloration

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; AVES; RAPTORES;

EID: 70349188836     PISSN: 00017302     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/czoolo/55.5.319     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Blest AD, 1957. The function of eyespot patterns in the Lepidoptera. Behaviour 11: 209-256.
2. Brakefield PM, 2001. Structure of a character and the evolution of butterfly eyespot patterns. J. Exp. Zool. 291: 93-104.
3. Breuker CJ, Brakefield PM, 2002. Female choice depends on size but not symmetry of dorsal eyespots in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 1233-1239.
4. Brilot BO, Normandale CL, Parkin A, Bateson M, 2009. Can we use starlings' aversion to eyespots as the basis for a novel 'cognitive bias' task? App. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118: 182-190.
5. Cott HB, 1940. Adaptive Coloration in Animals. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
6. Cox DR, 1972. Regression models and life-tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 34: 187-220.
7. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Maddocks T, Párraga CA et al., 2005. Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 434: 72-74.
8. Deppe C, Holt D, Tewksbury J, Broberg L, Petersen J et al., 2003. Effect of northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma eyespots on avian mobbing. The Auk 120: 765-771.
9. De Valois RL, De Valois KK, 1980. Spatial vision. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 31: 309-341.
10. Forsman A, Herrström J, 2004. Asymmetry in size, shape, and color impairs the protective value of conspicuous color patterns. Behav. Ecol. 15: 141-147.
11. Forsman A, Merilaita S, 1999. Fearful symmetry: pattern size and asymmetry affects aposematic signal efficacy. Evol. Ecol. 13: 131-140.
12. Gagliano M, 2008. On the spot: the absence of predators reveals eyespot plasticity in a marine fish. Behav. Ecol. 19: 733-739.
13. Götmark F, 1992. Antipredator effect of conspicuous plumage in a male bird. Anim. Behav. 44: 51-55.
14. Graham NVS, 1989. Visual Pattern Analysers. Oxford Psychology Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Ham AD, Osorio D, 2007. Colour preference and colour vision in poultry chicks. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 1941-1948.
16. Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC, Bennett ATD, 2000. Visual pigments, oil droplets, ocular media and cone photoreceptor distribution in two species of passerine: the blue tit (Parus caeruleus L.) and the blackbird (Turdus merula L.). J. Comp. Physiol. A 186: 375-387.
17. Herbert AM, Humphrey GK, 1996. Bilateral symmetry detection: testing a 'callosal' hypothesis. Perception 25: 463-480.
18. Herbert AM, Overbury O, Singh J, Faubert J, 2002. Aging and bilateral symmetry detection. J. Gerontol. B: 57, 241-245.
19. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML, 2003. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. New York: Springer Verlag.
20. Kodandaramaiah U, Vallin A, Wiklund C. 2009. Fixed eyespot display in a butterfly thwarts attacking birds. Anim. Beh. 77(6): 1415-1419.
21. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A, Mappes J, 2001. Predator experience on cryptic prey affects the survival of conspicuous aposematic prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 268: 357-361.
22. Maddocks SA, Church SC, Cuthill IC, 2001. The effects of the light environment on prey choice by zebra finches. J. Exp. Biol. 204: 2509-2515.
23. Marples NM, Kelly DJ, 1999. Neophobia and dietary conservatism: two distinct processes? Evol. Ecol. 13: 641- 653.
24. Marples NM, Quinlan M, Thomas RJ, Kelly DJ, 2007. Deactivation of dietary wariness through experience of novel food. Beh. Ecol. 18: 803-810.
25. Marples NM, Roper TJ, Harper DGC, 1998. Responses of wild birds to novel prey: evidence of dietary conservatism. Oikos 83: 161-165.
26. Merilaita S, 2007. Artificial neural networks and the study of evolution of prey coloration. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 362: 421-430.
27. Nelson XJ, Jackson RR, 2006. Compound mimicry and trading predators by the males of sexually dimorphic Batesian mimics. Proc. R. Soc. B 273: 367-372.
28. Osorio D, Vorobyev M, 2005. Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: Adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1745-1752.
29. Poulton EB, 1890. The Colours of Animals: Their Meaning and Use. Especially Considered in the Case of Insects. Second Edition. The International Scientific Series. London: Kegan Paul, Trench Trübner, & Co. Ltd.
30. Robertson KA, Monteiro A, 2005. Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils. Proc. R. Soc. B. 272: 1541-1546.
31. Rolls ET, Deco G, 2002. Computational Neuroscience of Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, Rubin DB, 2000. Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Rota J, Wagner DL, 2006. Predator mimicry: metalmark moths mimic their jumping spider predators. PloS ONE 1: e45.
34. Ruxton GD, Beauchamp G, 2008. Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behav. Ecol. 19: 690- 693.
35. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP, 2004. Avoiding Attack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Siddall EC, Marples NM, 2008. Better to be bimodal: the interaction of color and odor on learning and memory. Beh. Ecol. 19: 425-432.
37. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER, Vorobyev M, Summers K, 2004. Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J. Exp. Biol. 207: 2471-2485.
38. Stevens M, 2005. The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biol. Rev. 80: 573-588.
39. Stevens M, 2007. Predator perception and the interrelation between protective coloration. Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 1457-1464.
40. Stevens M, Castor-Perry SA, Price JRF, 2009. The protective value of conspicuous signals is not impaired by shape, size, or position asymmetry. Behav. Ecol. 20: 96-102.
41. Stevens M, Hardman CJ, Stubbins CL, 2008a. Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes eyespots effective anti-predator signals. Behav. Ecol. 19: 525-531.
42. Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connelly Y et al., 2007. Field experiments on the effectiveness of 'eyespots' as predator deterrents. Anim. Behav. 74: 1215-1227.
43. Stevens M, Stubbins CL, Hardman CJ, 2008b. The anti-predator function of 'eyespots' on camouflaged and conspicuous prey. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62: 1787-1793.
44. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C. 2005. Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defense against blue tits. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1203- 1207.
45. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C, 2007. "An eye for an eye? - on the generality of the intimidating quality of eyespots in a butterfly and a hawkmoth. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61: 1419-1424.
46. Vorobyev M, Osorio D, 1998. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc. R. Soc. B 265: 351-358.
47. Wallace AR, 1889. Darwinism. An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection With Some of its Applications. London: Macmillan & Co.
48. Wenderoth P, 1995. The role of pattern outline in bilateral symmetry detection with briefly flashed dot patterns. Spatial Vis. 9: 57-77.