Discriminative predation: Simultaneous and sequential encounter experiments

Current Zoology

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 649-657

  Beatty, C D ^a   Franks, D W ^b  

^a SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrimination; Imperfect mimicry; Predation; Receiver psychology; Stimulus selection

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84863921453     PISSN: 16745507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/czoolo/58.4.649     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alatalo RV, Mappes J, 1996. Tracking the evolution of warning signals. Nature 383: 708-710.
2. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Bain RS, Rashed A, Cowper VJ, Gilbert FS, Sherratt TN, 2007. The key mimetic features of hoverflies through avian eyes. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 274: 1949-1954.
4. Bates HW, 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidopetra: Heliconidae. Tran. Linn. Soc. Lon. 23: 495-566.
5. Beatty C, Bain R, Sherratt T, 2005. The evolution of aggregation in profitable and unprofitable prey. Anim Behav 70: 199-208.
6. Blough DS, 1985. Discrimination of letters and random dot patterns by pigeons and humans. Jour. Exp. Psychol: Anim. Behav. Process 11:261-280.
7. Bruce V, Georgeson MA, Green PR, 2003. Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology and Ecology. London: Psychology Press.
8. Chittka L, Osorio D, 2007. Cognitive dimensions of predator responses to imperfect mimicry. PLoS Bio. 5:e339.
9. Cott HB, 1940. Adaptive Coloration in Animals. London: Methuen and Co, Ltd.
10. Darst CR, Menendez PA, Coloma LA, Cannatella DC, 2005. Evolution of dietary specialization and chemical defense in poison frogs: A comparative analysis. Am. Nat. 165: 56-69.
11. DeVries PJ, 1987. The Butterflies of Costa Rica and Their Natural History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12. Dittrich W, Gilbert F, Green P, Mcgregor P, 1993. Imperfect mimicry: A pigeon's perspective. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 251: 195-200.
13. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP, 2006. Learning threat-sensitive predator avoidance: How do fathead minnows incorporate conflicting information? Anim. Behav. 71: 19-26.
14. Ferrari MCO, Gonzalo A, Messier F, Chivers DP, 2007. Generalization of learned predator recognition: An experimental test and framework for future studies. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 274: 1853-1859.
15. Ferrari MCO, Messier F, Chivers DP, 2008. Can prey exhibit threat-sensitive generalization of predator recognition? Extending the Predator Recognition Continuum Hypothesis. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 275: 1811-1816.
16. Franks DW, Sherratt TN, 2007. The evolution of multicomponent mimicry. Jour. Theor. Bio. 244: 631-639.
17. Gilbert F, 2005. The evolution of imperfect mimicry. In: Fellowes MDE, Holloway GJ, Rolff J ed. Insect Evolutionary Ecology. Wallingford, UK: CABI, 231-288.
18. Hetz M, Slobodchikoff CN, 1988 Predation pressure on an imperfect Batesian mimicry complex in the presence of alternative prey. Oecologia 76: 570-573.
19. Honey RC, Bateson P, Horn G, 1994. The role of stimulus comparison in perceptual learning: An investigation with the domestic chick. Quart. Jour. Exp. Psychol. 47B: 83-103.
20. Holen O, Johnstone R, 2004. The evolution of mimicry under constraints. Am. Nat. 164: 598-613.
21. Honig WK, Stewart KE, 1988. Pigeons can discriminate locations presented in pictures. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 50, 541-551
22. Jaenike J, 1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21: 243-273.
23. Johnstone R, 2002. The evolution of inaccurate mimics. Nature 418: 524-526.
24. Lyon BE, 2003. Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422: 495-499.
25. Lindstrom L, Alatalo R, Mappes J, 1997. Imperfect Batesian mimicry: The effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 264: 149-153.
26. Lindstrom L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A, Mappes J, 2004. The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. Evol 58: 1294-1302.
27. Manfred F, Poggio T, 2002. Perceptual Learning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28. Marshall G, 2009. On diaposematism, with reference to some limitations of the Müllerian mimicry. Trans. Roy. Entomol. Soc. Lon. 56: 93-142
29. Moksnes A, Roskaft E, 1995. Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus: An analysis of cuckoo and host eggs form European museums and collections. Jour. Zool. 236: 625-648.
30. Müller F, 1879. Ituna and Thyridia: A remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies (R. Meldola translation) Procl. Entomol. Soc. Lon. 1879: 20-29.
31. Mundy ME, Dwyer DM, Honey RC, 2006. Inhibitory associations contribute to perceptual learning in humans. Jour. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process 32: 178-184.
32. Mundy ME, Honey RC, Dwyer DM, 2007. Simultaneous presen-tation of similar stimuli produces perceptual learning in human picture processing. Jour. Exp. Psychol: Anim Behav Process 33: 124-138.
33. Nilsson M, Forsman A, 2003. Evolution of conspicuous colouration, body size and gregariousness: A comparative analysis of lepidopteran larvae. Evol. Ecol. 17: 51-66.
34. Pietsch TW, Grobecker DB, 1978 The compleat angler: Aggres-sive mimicry in an antennariid anglerfish. Science 201: 369-370.
35. Pinheiro CEG, 2007. Asynchrony in daily activity patterns of butterfly models and mimics. Jour. Tropic Ecol. 23: 119-123.
36. Pinheiro CEG, Meri Medri Í, Moreyra Salcedo AK, 2008. Why do the ithomiines (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) aggregate? Notes on a Butterfly Pocket in Central Brazil Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 52: 610-614.
37. Radwan J, 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: A review of the mechanisms. Biomed Life Sci 134: 113-127.
38. Ruxton G, Franks D, Balogh ACV, Leimar O, 2008. Evolutionary implications of the form of predator generalisation for aposematic signals and mimicry in prey. Evol. 62: 2913-2921.
39. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP, 2004. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Sherratt TN, 2002. The evolution of imperfect mimicry. Behav. Ecol. 13: 821-826.
41. Sillén-Tullberg BS, 1988. Evolution of gregariousness in aposematic butterfly larvae: A phylogenetic analysis. Evol. 42: 293-305.
42. Sillén-Tullberg BS, Leimar O, 1988. The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. Am. Nat. 132: 723-734.
43. Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Speed MP, Ruxton GD, 2010. Masquerade: Camouflage without crypsis. Science 327: 51.
44. Skelhorn J, Ruxton GD, 2010. Predators are less likely to misclassify masquerading prey when their models are present. Biol Lett. 6: 597-599.
45. Spottiswoode CN, Stevens M, 2010. Visual modeling shows that avian host parents use multiple visual cues in rejecting parasitic eggs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107: 8672-8676.
46. Stevens M, Yule DH, Ruxton GD, 2008. Dazzle coloration and prey movement. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 275:2 639-2643.
47. Summers K, Clough M, 2001. The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 6227-6232.
48. Symonds M, Hall G, 1995. Perceptual learning in flavor aversion conditioning: Roles of stimulus comparison and latent inhibition of common stimulus elements. Learn and Motivation 26: 203-219.
49. Webster RJ, Callahan A, Godin GJ, Sherratt TN, 2009 Behaviourally mediated crypsis in two nocturnal moths with contrasting appearance. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 364: 503-510.
50. Zuzne L, 1970. Visual Perception of Form. New York: Academic Press.