Mimicry between unequally defended prey can be parasitic: Evidence for quasi-Batesian mimicry

Ecology Letters

Volumn 13, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1494-1502

  Rowland, Hannah M ^a   Mappes, Johanna ^b   Ruxton, Graeme D ^c   Speed, Michael P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aposematism; Co evolutionary arms race; M llerian mimicry; Parus major; Quasi Batesian mimicry

Indexed keywords

AVES; PARUS MAJOR;

EID: 78649590800     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01539.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

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. Balogh, A., Gamberale-Stille, G. & Leimar, O. (2008). Learning and the mimicry spectrum: from quasi-Bates to super-Müller. Anim. Behav., 76, 1591-1599.
3. Barnett, C.A., Bateson, M. & Rowe, C. (2007). State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey. Behav. Ecol., 18, 645-651.
4. Bates, H.W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 23, 495-556.
5. Benson, W.W. (1977). On the supposed spectrum between Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. Evolution, 31, 454-455.
6. Brower, L.P., Reyerson, W.N., Coppinger, L.L. & Glazier, S.C. (1968). Ecological chemistry and the palatabilty spectrum. Science, 161, 1349-1351.
7. Brower, L.P., Williams, K.L., McEvoy, P.B. & Flannery, M.A. (1972). Variation in cardiac glycoside content of monarch butterflies from natural populations in eastern North-America. Science, 177, 426-428.
8. Dixey, F.A. (1909). On Mullerian mimicry and diaposematism. A reply to Mr GAK Marshall. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond., XXIII, 559-583.
9. Dumbacher, J.P. & Fleischer, R.C. (2001). Phylogenetic evidence for colour pattern convergence in toxic pitohuis: Mullerian mimicry in birds? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 268, 1971-1976.
10. Honma, A., Takakura, K. & Nishida, T. (2008). Optimal-foraging predator favors commensalistic Batesian mimicry. PLoS ONE, 3, e3411.
11. Huheey, J.E. (1976). Studies in warning coloration and mimicry. VII. Evolutionary consequences of a Batesian-Müllerian spectrum: a model for Müllerian mimicry. Evolution, 30, 86-93.
12. Ihalainen, E., Lindstrom, L. & Mappes, J. (2007). Investigating Mullerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. J. Evol. Biol., 20, 780-791.
13. Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J. & Puolakkainen, S. (2008). Butterfly effects in mimicry? Combining signal and taste can twist the relationship of Müllerian co-mimics. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 62, 1267-1276.
14. Joron, M. & Mallet, J. (1998). Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends Ecol. Evol., 13, 461-466.
15. Kapan, D.D. (2001). Three-butterfly system provides a field test of mullerian mimicry. Nature, 409, 338-340.
16. Kokko, H., Mappes, J. & Lindstrom, L. (2003). Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecol. Lett., 6, 1068-1076.
17. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R.V., Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. (2004). The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. Evolution, 58, 1294-1302.
18. 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.
19. Mallet, J. (1999). Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol., 13, 777-806.
20. Mallet, J. (2010). Shift happens! Shifting balance and the evolution of diversity in warning colour and mimicry. Ecol. Entomol., 35, 90-104.
21. Marshall, A.K. (1908). On Diaposematsim with reference to some limitations of the Mullerian hypothesis of mimicry. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond., 1908, 93-142.
22. Mikaberidze, A. & Haque, M. (2009). Survival benefits in mimicry: a quantitative framework. J. Theor. Biol., 259, 462-468.
23. Müller, F. (1878). Uber die vortheile der mimicry bei schmetterlingen. Zool. Anz., 1, 54-55.
24. Müller, F. (1879). Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond., 1879.
25. Nicholson, A. (1927). A new theory of mimicry in insects. Aust. Zool., 5, 10-104.
26. Nur, U. (1970). Evolutionary rates of models and mimics in Batesian mimicry. Am. Nat., 104, 477-486.
27. Owen, R.E. & Owen, A.R.G. (1984). Mathematical paradigms for mimicry: recurrent sampling. J. Theor. Biol., 109, 217-247.
28. Rowland, H.M., Ihalainen, E., Lindstrom, L., Mappes, J. & Speed, M.P. (2007). Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature-London, 448, 64-67.
29. Rowland, H.M., Hoogesteger, T., Ruxton, G.D., Speed, M.P. & Mappes, J.M. (2010). A tale of two signals: mimicry between aposematic species enhances predator avoidance learning. Behav. Ecol., 21, 851-860.
30. Sanders, K.L., Malhotra, A. & Thorpes, R.S. (2006). Evidence for a Müllerian mimetic radiation in Asian pitvipers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 273, 1135-1141.
31. Sargent, T.D. (1995). On the relative acceptabilities of local butterflies and moths to local birds. J. Lepid. Soc., 49, 148-162.
32. Sbordoni, V., Bullini, L., Scarpelli, G., Forestiero, S. & Rampini, M. (1979). Mimicry in the burnet moth Zygaena ephialtes- population studies and evidence of a Batesian-Mullerian situation. Ecol. Entomol., 4, 83-93.
33. Sherratt, T.N. (2003). State-dependent risk-taking by predators in systems with defended prey. Oikos, 103, 93-199.
34. Sherratt, T.N. (2008). The evolution of Müllerian mimicry. Naturwissenschaften, 95, 681-695.
35. 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.
36. Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. (2007). Predators' toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Curr. Biol., 17, 1479-1483.
37. Speed, M. (1993a). When is mimicry good for predators? Anim. Behav., 46, 1246-1248.
38. Speed, M.P. (1993b). Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Anim. Behav., 45, 571-580.
39. Speed, M.P. (1999a). Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evol. Ecol., 13, 755-776.
40. Speed, M.P. (1999b). Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies. Anim. Behav., 57, 203-213.
41. 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: Biol. Sci., 267, 725.
42. Symula, R., Schukte, R. & Summers, K. (2001). Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Preuvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 268, 2415-2421.
43. Turner, J.R.G. (1977). Butterfly mimicry: the genetical evolution of an adaptation. Evol. Biol., 10, 163-206.
44. 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. Bot. J. Linn. Soc., 23, 247-268.
45. Waldbauer, G.P. & Cowan, D.P. (1985). Defensive stinging and Mullerian mimicry among eumenid wasps (Hymenoptera, Vespoidea, Eumenidae). Am. Midl. Nat., 113, 198-199.
46. Wallace, A. (1882). Dr. Fritz Müller on some difficult cases of mimicry. Nature, 26, 86-87.
47. Zar, J.H. (1999). Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.