Jump to content

Mimicry

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Mimic" redirects here. For other uses, seeMimic (disambiguation).

Photo of page from book showing pairs of butterflies of different species whose appearance closely resembles each other
PlatefromHenry Walter Bates(1862) illustratingBatesian mimicrybetweenDismorphiaspecies (top row, third row) and variousIthomiini(Nymphalidae,second row, bottom row)

Inevolutionary biology,mimicryis an evolved resemblance between an organism and another object, often an organism of another species. Mimicry may evolve between different species, or between individuals of the same species. Often, mimicry functions to protect a species from predators, making it ananti-predator adaptation.[1]Mimicry evolves if a receiver (such as a predator) perceives the similarity between a mimic (the organism that has a resemblance) and a model (the organism it resembles) and as a result changes its behaviour in a way that provides a selective advantage to the mimic.[2]The resemblances that evolve in mimicry can be visual, acoustic, chemical, tactile, or electric, or combinations of these sensory modalities.[2][3]Mimicry may be to the advantage of both organisms that share a resemblance, in which case it is a form ofmutualism;or mimicry can be to the detriment of one, making itparasiticorcompetitive.The evolutionary convergence between groups is driven by theselectiveaction of a signal-receiver or dupe.[4]Birds, for example, use sight to identify palatable insects and butterflies,[5]whilst avoiding the noxious ones. Over time, palatable insects may evolve to resemble noxious ones, making them mimics and the noxious ones models. In the case of mutualism, sometimes both groups are referred to as "co-mimics". It is often thought that models must be more abundant than mimics, but this is not so.[6]Mimicry may involve numerous species; many harmless species such as hoverflies areBatesian mimicsof strongly defended species such as wasps, while many such well-defended species formMüllerian mimicryrings, all resembling each other. Mimicry between prey species and their predators often involves three or more species.[7]

In its broadest definition, mimicry can include non-living models. The specific termsmasqueradeandmimesisare sometimes used when the models are inanimate.[8][3][9]For example, animals such asflower mantises,planthoppers,commaandgeometer mothcaterpillars resemble twigs, bark, leaves, bird droppings or flowers.[3][6][10][11]Many animals beareyespots,which are hypothesized to resemble the eyes of larger animals. They may not resemble any specific organism's eyes, and whether or not animals respond to them as eyes is also unclear.[12]Nonetheless, eyespots are the subject of a rich contemporary literature.[13][14][15]The model is usually another species, except inautomimicry,where members of the species mimic other members, or other parts of their own bodies, and ininter-sexual mimicry,where members of one sex mimic members of the other.[6]

Mimesis inCtenomorphodes chronus,camouflagedas a eucalyptus twig

Mimicry can result in anevolutionary arms raceif mimicry negatively affects the model, and the model can evolve a different appearance from the mimic.[6]p161Mimicry should not be confused with other forms ofconvergent evolutionthat occurs when species come to resemble each other by adapting to similar lifestyles that have nothing to do with a common signal receiver. Mimics may have different models for differentlife cyclestages, or they may bepolymorphic,with different individuals imitating different models, such as inHeliconiusbutterflies. Models themselves may have more than one mimic, thoughfrequency-dependent selectionfavours mimicry where models outnumber mimics. Models tend to be relatively closely related organisms,[16]but mimicry of vastly different species is also known. Most known mimics are insects,[3]though many other examples includingvertebratesare also known. Plants and fungi may also be mimics, though less research has been carried out in this area.[17][18][19][20]

Etymology[edit]

Use of the wordmimicrydates to 1637. It derives from theGreektermmimetikos,"imitative", in turn frommimetos,the verbal adjective ofmimeisthai,"to imitate". Originally used to describe people, "mimetic" was used in zoology from 1851, "mimicry" from 1861.[21]

Classification[edit]

Many types of mimicry have been described. An overview of each follows, highlighting the similarities and differences between the various forms. Classification is often based onfunctionwith respect to the mimic (e.g., avoiding harm). Some cases may belong to more than one class, e.g., automimicry and aggressive mimicry are not mutually exclusive, as one describes the species relationship between model and mimic, while the other describes the function for the mimic (obtaining food). The terminology used is not without debate and attempts to clarify have led to new terms being included. The term "masquerade" is sometimes used when the model is inanimate but it is differentiated from "crypsis" in its strict sense[22]by the potential response of the signal receiver. In crypsis the receiver is assumed to not respond while a masquerader confuses the recognition system of the receiver that would otherwise seek the signaller. In the other forms of mimicry, the signal is not filtered out by the sensory system of the receiver.[23]These are not mutually exclusive and in the evolution of wasp-like appearance, it has been argued that insects evolve to masquerade wasps since predatory wasps do not attack each other but this mimetic resemblance also deters vertebrate predators.[24]

Defensive[edit]

Macroxiphus,a harmless bush cricket, mimics a well-defendedant.

Defensive or protective mimicry takes place when organisms are able to avoid harmful encounters by deceiving enemies into treating them as something else.

The first three such cases discussed here entail mimicry of animals protected bywarning coloration:

The fourth case,Vavilovian mimicry,where weeds resemble crops, involves humans as the agent of selection.

Batesian[edit]

Main article:Batesian mimicry
Common hawk-cuckooresembles a predator, theshikra.[25]

In Batesian mimicry the mimic shares signals similar to the model, but does not have the attribute that makes it unprofitable to predators (e.g., unpalatability). In other words, a Batesian mimic is asheep in wolf's clothing.It is named afterHenry Walter Bates,an English naturalist whose work on butterflies in theAmazon rainforest(described inThe Naturalist on the River Amazons) was pioneering in this field of study.[26][27]Mimics are less likely to be found out (for example by predators) when in low proportion to their model. This phenomenon is callednegative frequency-dependent selection,and it applies in most forms of mimicry. Batesian mimicry can only be maintained if the harm caused to the predator by eating a model outweighs the benefit of eating a mimic. The nature of learning is weighted in favor of the mimics, for a predator that has a bad first experience with a model tends to avoid anything that looks like it for a long time, and does not re-sample soon to see whether the initial experience was a false negative. However, if mimics become more abundant than models, then the probability of a young predator having a first experience with a mimic increases. Such systems are therefore most likely to be stable where both the model and the mimic occur, and where the model is more abundant than the mimic.[28]This is not the case in Müllerian mimicry, which is described next.

Many insects includinghoverfliesand thewasp beetleareBatesian mimicsof stingingwasps.

There are many Batesian mimics in the orderLepidoptera.Consul fabiusandEresia euniceimitate unpalatableHeliconiusbutterflies such asH. ismenius.[29]Limenitis arthemisimitate the poisonous pipevine swallowtail (Battus philenor). Several palatable moths produce ultrasonic click calls to mimic unpalatable tiger moths.[30][31][32][33]Octopusesof the genusThaumoctopus(themimic octopus) are able to intentionally alter their body shape and coloration to resemble dangeroussea snakesorlionfish.[34]In the Amazon, thehelmeted woodpecker(Dryocopus galeatus), a rare species which lives in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina, has a similar red crest, black back, and barred underside to two larger woodpeckers:Dryocopus lineatusandCampephilus robustus.This mimicry reduces attacks onDryocopus galeatusfrom other animals. Scientists had falsely believed thatD. galeatuswas a close cousin of the other two species, because of the visual similarity, and because the three species live in the same habitat and eat similar food.[35]Batesian mimicry also occurs in the plant kingdom, such as thechameleon vine,which adapts its leaf shape and colour to match that of the plant it is climbing, such that its edible leaves appear to be the less desirable leaves of its host.[36]

Müllerian[edit]

Main article:Müllerian mimicry
TheHeliconiusbutterflies from the tropics of the Western Hemisphere are the classical model forMüllerian mimicry.[37]

Müllerian mimicry, named for the German naturalistFritz Müller,describes a situation where two or more species have similar warning oraposematicsignals and both share genuineanti-predationattributes (e.g. being unpalatable). At first, Bates could not explain why this should be so—if both were harmful why did one need to mimic another? Müller put forward the first explanation and mathematical model for this phenomenon: if a common predator confuses two species, individuals in both those species are more likely to survive.[38][39]This type of mimicry is unique in several respects. Firstly, both the mimic and the model benefit from the interaction, which could thus be classified asmutualism.The signal receiver also benefits by this system, despite being deceived about species identity, as it is able to generalize the pattern to potentially harmful encounters. The distinction between mimic and model that is clear inBatesian mimicryis also blurred. Where one species is scarce and another abundant, the rare species can be said to be the mimic. When both are present in similar numbers, however, it makes more sense to speak of each as aco-mimicthan of distinct 'mimic' and 'model' species, as their warning signals tend to converge.[40]Also, the mimetic species may exist on a continuum from harmless to highly noxious, so Batesian mimicry grades smoothly into Müllerian convergence.[41][42]

Comparison of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry, illustrated with ahoverfly,awaspand abee

Themonarch butterfly(Danaus plexippus) is a member of a Müllerian complex with theviceroy butterfly(Limenitis archippus), sharing coloration patterns and display behaviour. The viceroy hassubspecieswith somewhat different coloration, each closely matching the localDanausspecies. For example, inFlorida,the pairing is of the viceroy and thequeen butterfly,whereas inMexicothe viceroy resembles thesoldier butterfly.The viceroy is thus involved in three different Müllerian pairs.[43]This example was long believed to be Batesian, with the viceroy mimicking the monarch, but the viceroy is actuallymoreunpalatable than the Queen.[44]The genusMorphois palatable, but some species (such asM. amathonte) are strong fliers; birds – even species that specialize in catching butterflies on the wing – find it hard to catch them.[45]The conspicuous blue coloration shared by mostMorphospecies may be Müllerian,[29]or may be "pursuit aposematism".[46]SinceMorphobutterflies aresexually dimorphic,the males' iridescent coloration may also relate to sexual selection. The "orange complex" of distasteful butterfly species includes theheliconiinesAgraulis vanillae,Dryadula phaetusa,andDryas iulia.[29]At least seven species ofmillipedesin the generaApheloriaandBrachoria(Xystodesmidae) form a Müllerian mimicry ring in the eastern United States, in which unrelated polymorphic species converge on similar colour patterns where their range overlaps.[47]

Emsleyan/Mertensian[edit]

The deadly Texas coral snake,Micrurus tener(the Emsleyan/Mertensian mimic)
The harmless Mexican milk snake,Lampropeltis triangulum annulata(the Batesian mimic)
Main article:Emsleyan mimicry

Emsleyan[9]or Mertensian mimicry describes the unusual case where a deadly prey mimics a less dangerous species. It was first proposed by M. G. Emsley[48]as a possible explanation for how a predator can learn to avoid a very dangerous aposematic animal, such as acoral snake,when the predator is very likely to die, making learning unlikely. The theory was developed by the German biologistWolfgang Wickler[3]who named it after theGermanherpetologistRobert Mertens.[49][50][51]

The scenario is unusual, as it is usually the most harmful species that is the model. But if a predator dies on its first encounter with a deadly snake, it has no occasion tolearnto recognize the snake's warning signals. There would then be no advantage for an extremely deadly snake in being aposematic: any predator that attacked it would be killed before it could learn to avoid the deadly prey, so the snake would be better off being camouflaged, to avoid attacks altogether. But if the predator first learnt to avoid a less deadly snake that had warning colours, the deadly species could then profit (be attacked less often) by mimicking the less dangerous snake.[50][51]

Some harmlessmilk snake(Lampropeltis triangulum) subspecies, the moderately toxicfalse coral snakes(genusErythrolamprus), and the deadlycoral snakes(genusMicrurus) all have a red background color with black and white / yellow rings. In this system, both the milk snakes and the deadly coral snakes are mimics, whereas the false coral snakes are the model.[48]

Wasmannian[edit]

Further information:Ant mimicry

InWasmannianmimicry, the mimic resembles a model that itlives along within a nest or colony. Most of the models here aresocialinsects such as ants, termites, bees and wasps.[52]

Vavilovian[edit]

Main article:Vavilovian mimicry
Ryeis a secondary crop, originally being a mimetic weed ofwheat.

Vavilovian mimicry is found inweedsthat come to share characteristics with adomesticated plantthroughartificial selection.[9]It is named after RussianbotanistandgeneticistNikolai Vavilov.[53]Selection against the weed may occur either by manually killing the weed, or by separating its seeds from those of the crop bywinnowing.

Vavilovian mimicry presents an illustration of unintentional (or rather 'anti-intentional')selection by man.Weeders do not want to select weeds and their seeds that look increasingly like cultivated plants, yet there is no other option. For example, early barnyard grass,Echinochloa oryzoides,is a weed inricefields and looks similar to rice; its seeds are often mixed in rice and have become difficult to separate through Vavilovian mimicry.[54]Vavilovian mimics may eventually be domesticated themselves, as in the case of rye in wheat; Vavilov called these weed-cropssecondary crops.[53]

Vavilovian mimicry can be classified asdefensive mimicry,in that the weed mimics a protected species. This bears strong similarity to Batesian mimicry in that the weed does not share the properties that give the model its protection, and both the model and the dupe (in this case people) are harmed by its presence. There are some key differences, though; inBatesian mimicry,the model and signal receiver are enemies (the predator would eat the protected species if it could), whereas here the crop and itshumangrowers are in a mutualistic relationship: the crop benefits from being dispersed and protected by people, despite being eaten by them. In fact, the crop's only "protection" relevant here is its usefulness to humans. Secondly, the weed is not eaten, but simply destroyed. The only motivation for killing the weed is its effect on crop yields. Finally, this type of mimicry does not occur in ecosystems unaltered by humans.

Gilbertian[edit]

Gilbertian mimicry involves only two species. The potential host (or prey) drives away its parasite (or predator) by mimicking it, the reverse of host-parasite aggressive mimicry. It was coined by Pasteur as a phrase for such rare mimicry systems,[9]and is named after the AmericanecologistLawrence E. Gilbert[nl].[55]

Gilbertian mimicry occurs in the genusPassiflora.The leaves of this plant contain toxins that deter herbivorous animals. However, someHeliconiusbutterfly larvae have evolved enzymes that break down these toxins, allowing them tospecializeon this genus. This has created further selection pressure on the host plants, which have evolvedstipulesthat mimic matureHeliconiuseggs near the point of hatching. These butterflies tend to avoid laying eggs near existing ones, which helps avoid exploitativeintraspecific competitionbetween caterpillars — those that lay on vacant leaves provide their offspring with a greater chance of survival. MostHeliconiuslarvae arecannibalistic,meaning that on leaves older eggs hatch first and eat the new arrivals. Thus, it seems that such plants have evolved egg dummies under selection pressure from these grazing herbivore enemies. In addition, the decoy eggs are alsonectaries,attracting predators of the caterpillars such as ants and wasps as a further defence.[16]

Browerian[edit]

Monarch caterpillars, shown feeding, vary in toxicity depending on their diet.

Browerian mimicry,[9]named afterLincoln P. Browerand Jane Van Zandt Brower,[56][57]is a postulated form ofautomimicry;where the model belongs to the same species as the mimic. This is the analogue of Batesian mimicry within a single species, and occurs when there is a palatability spectrum within a population. Examples include themonarchand thequeenfrom the subfamilyDanainae,which feed onmilkweedspecies of varying toxicity. These species store toxins from its host plant, which are maintained even in the adult (imago) form. As levels of toxin vary depending on diet during the larval stage, some individuals are more toxic than others. Less palatable organisms, therefore, mimic more dangerous individuals, with their likeness already perfected.

This is not always the case, however. In sexually dimorphic species, one sex may be more of a threat than the other, which could mimic the protected sex. Evidence for this possibility is provided by the behaviour of a monkey fromGabon,which regularly ate male moths of the genusAnaphe,but promptly stopped after it tasted a noxious female.[58]

Aggressive[edit]

Main article:Aggressive mimicry

Predators[edit]

Aggressive mimicryis found in predators orparasitesthat share some of the characteristics of a harmless species, allowing them to avoid detection by their prey orhost;this can be compared with the story of thewolf in sheep's clothingas long as it is understood that no conscious deceptive intent is involved. The mimic may resemble the prey or host itself, or another organism that is either neutral or beneficial to the signal receiver. In this class of mimicry, the model may be affected negatively, positively or not at all. Just as parasites can be treated as a form of predator,[59]host-parasite mimicry is treated here as a subclass of aggressive mimicry.

The mimic may have a particular significance for duped prey. One such case isspiders,amongst which aggressive mimicry is quite common both in luring prey and disguising stealthily approaching predators.[60]One case is thegolden orb weaver(Nephila clavipes), which spins a conspicuous golden colored web in well-lit areas. Experiments show that bees are able to associate the webs with danger when the yellow pigment is not present, as occurs in less well-lit areas where the web is much harder to see. Other colours were also learned and avoided, but bees seemed least able to effectively associate yellow-pigmented webs with danger. Yellow is the colour of many nectar-bearing flowers, however, so perhaps avoiding yellow is not worthwhile. Another form of mimicry is based not on colour but pattern. Species such as the silver argiope (Argiope argentata) employ prominent patterns in the middle of their webs, such as zigzags. These may reflect ultraviolet light, and mimic the pattern seen in many flowers known asnectar guides.Spiders change their web day to day, which can be explained by the ability of bees to remember web patterns. Bees are able to associate a certain pattern with a spatial location, meaning the spider must spin a new pattern regularly or suffer diminishing prey capture.[61]

Chlorobalius leucoviridismimicry ofKobonga oxleyi
Kobonga oxleyicicada song with reply clicks from aChlorobalius leucoviridis
Chlorobalius leucoviridismimicry ofPauropsaltasp.
Pauropsaltasp. "Sandstone" song with reply clicks from aChlorobalius leucoviridis
Problems playing these files? Seemedia help.

Another case is where males are lured towards what seems to be asexually receptivefemale. The model in this situation is the same species as the dupe. Beginning in the 1960s, James E. Lloyd's investigation of femalefirefliesof the genusPhoturisrevealed they emit the same light signals that females of the genusPhotinususe as a mating signal.[62]Further research showed male fireflies from several differentgeneraare attracted to these "femmes fatales",and are subsequently captured and eaten. Female signals are based on that received from the male, each female having a repertoire of signals matching the delay and duration of the female of the corresponding species. This mimicry may have evolved from non-mating signals that have become modified for predation.[63]

The spotted predatory katydid (Chlorobalius leucoviridis), an acoustic aggressive mimic of cicadas

The listroscelinekatydidChlorobalius leucoviridisof inlandAustraliais capable of attracting male cicadas of the tribe Cicadettini by imitating the species-specific reply clicks of sexually receptive female cicadas. This example of acoustic aggressive mimicry is similar to thePhoturisfirefly case in that the predator's mimicry is remarkably versatile – playback experiments show thatC. leucoviridisis able to attract males of many cicada species, including cicadettine cicadas from other continents, even though cicada mating signals are species-specific.[64]

Somecarnivorous plantsmay also be able to increase their rate of capture through mimicry.[65]

Luring is not a necessary condition however, as the predator still has a significant advantage simply by not being identified as such. They may resemble a mutualisticsymbiontor a species of little relevance to the prey.

Twobluestreak cleaner wrassecleaning apotato grouper,Epinephelus tukula

A case of the latter situation is a species ofcleaner fishand its mimic, though in this example the model is greatly disadvantaged by the presence of the mimic. Cleaner fish are the allies of many other species, which allow them to eat their parasites and dead skin. Some allow the cleaner to venture inside their body to hunt these parasites. However, one species of cleaner, thebluestreak cleaner wrasse(Labroides dimidiatus), is the unknowing model of a mimetic species, the sabre-toothed blenny (Aspidontus taeniatus). Thiswrasseresides incoral reefsin theIndianand thePacificOceans, and is recognized by other fishes that then let it clean them. Its imposter, a species ofblenny,lives in theIndian Ocean—and not only looks like it in terms of size andcoloration,but even mimics the cleaner's "dance". Having fooled its prey into letting its guard down, it then bites it, tearing off a piece of its fin before fleeing. Fishgrazedon in this fashion soon learn to distinguish mimic from model, but because the similarity is close between the two they become much more cautious of the model as well, so both are affected. Due to victims' ability to discriminate between foe and helper, the blennies have evolved close similarity, right down to the regional level.[66]

Another interesting example that does not involve any luring is thezone-tailed hawk,which resembles theturkey vulture.It flies amongst the vultures, suddenly breaking from the formation and ambushing its prey.[67]Here the hawk's presence is of no evident significance to the vultures, affecting them neither negatively or positively.

Parasites[edit]

Mimicry in a broodparasite:Cuckooadult mimicssparrowhawk,alarming small birds enough to give female cuckoo time to lay eggs in their nests.[68]

Parasites can also be aggressive mimics, though the situation is somewhat different from those outlined previously. Some predators have a feature that draws prey; parasites can also mimic their hosts' natural prey, but are eaten themselves, a pathway into their host.Leucochloridium,a genus offlatworm,matures in the digestive system ofsongbirds,their eggs then passing out of the bird in thefaeces.They are then taken up bySuccinea,a terrestrial snail. The eggs develop in thisintermediate host,and must then find a suitable bird to mature in. Since the host birds do not eat snails, thesporocysthas another strategy to reach its host's intestine. They are brightly coloured and move in a pulsating fashion. A sporocyst-sac pulsates in the snail's eye stalks,[69][70]coming to resemble an irresistible meal for a songbird. In this way, it can bridge the gap between hosts, allowing it to complete its life cycle.[3]A nematode (Myrmeconema neotropicum) changes the colour of the abdomen of workers of the canopy antCephalotes atratusto make it appear like the ripe fruits ofHyeronima alchorneoides.It also changes the behaviour of the ant so that thegaster(rear part) is held raised. This presumably increases the chances of the ant being eaten by birds. The droppings of birds are collected by other ants and fed to their brood, thereby helping to spread the nematode.[71]

In an unusual case,planidiumlarvae of some beetles of the genusMeloeform a group and produce apheromonethat mimics the sex attractant of its hostbeespecies. When a male bee arrives and attempts to mate with the mass of larvae, they climb onto his abdomen. From there, they transfer to a female bee, and from there to the bee nest to parasitize the bee larvae.[72]

Egg mimicry:cuckoo eggs (larger) mimic many species of host birds' eggs, in this case ofreed warbler.

Host-parasite mimicry is a two species system where a parasite mimics its own host.Cuckoosare a canonical example ofbrood parasitism,a form of parasitism where the mother has its offspring raised by another unwitting individual, often from a different species, cutting down the biological mother'sparental investmentin the process. The ability to lay eggs that mimic the host eggs is the keyadaptation.The adaptation to different hosts is inherited through the female line in so-calledgentes(gens, singular). Cases ofintraspecificbrood parasitism, where a female lays in a conspecific's nest, as illustrated by thegoldeneyeduck (Bucephala clangula),[73]do not represent a case of mimicry. A different mechanism is chemical mimicry, as seen in the parasitic butterflyPhengaris rebeli,which parasitizes the ant speciesMyrmica schenckiby releasing chemicals that fool the worker ants to believe that the caterpillar larvae are ant larvae, and enable theP. rebelilarvae to be brought directly into theM. schenckinest.[74]Parasitic (cuckoo) bumblebees (formerlyPsithyrus,now included inBombus) resemble their hosts more closely than would be expected by chance, at least in areas like Europe where parasite-host co-speciation is common. However, this is explainable as Müllerian mimicry, rather than requiring the parasite's coloration to deceive the host and thus constitute aggressive mimicry.[75]

Reproductive[edit]

Reproductive mimicry occurs when the actions of the dupe directly aid in the mimic'sreproduction.This is common in plants with deceptive flowers that do not provide the reward they seem to offer and it may occur in Papua New Guinea fireflies, in which the signal ofPteroptyx effulgensis used byP. tarsalisto form aggregations to attract females.[76]Other forms of mimicry have a reproductive component, such asVavilovian mimicryinvolving seeds, vocal mimicry in birds,[77][78][79]and aggressive and Batesian mimicry in brood parasite-host systems.[80]

Bakerian and Dodsonian[edit]

Main article:Mimicry in plants

Bakerian mimicry, named afterHerbert G. Baker,[81]is a form of automimicry where femaleflowersmimic male flowers of their own species, cheating pollinators out of a reward. This reproductive mimicry may not be readily apparent as members of the same species may still exhibit some degree ofsexual dimorphism.It is common in many species ofCaricaceae.[82]

Dodsonian mimicry, named afterCalaway H. Dodson,is a form of reproductive floral mimicry where the model belongs to a different species than the mimic.[83]By providing similar sensory signals as the model flower, it can lure its pollinators. Like Bakerian mimics, no nectar is provided.Epidendrum ibaguense(Orchidaceae) resembles flowers ofLantana camaraandAsclepias curassavica,and is pollinated by monarch butterflies and perhapshummingbirds.[84]Similar cases are seen in some other species of the same family. The mimetic species may still have pollinators of its own though. For example, alamellicorn beetle,which usually pollinates correspondingly coloredCistusflowers, is also known to aid in pollination ofOphrysspecies that are normally pollinated by bees.[85]

Pseudocopulation[edit]

Further information:Pseudocopulation
Dasyscolia ciliata,a scoliid wasp,attempting to copulatewith a flower of the orchidOphrys speculum

Pseudocopulation occurs when a flower mimics afemaleof a certaininsectspecies, inducing themalesto try to copulate with the flower. This is much like the aggressive mimicry in fireflies described previously, but with a more benign outcome for the pollinator. This form of mimicry has been calledPouyannian mimicry,[9]afterMaurice-Alexandre Pouyanne,who first described the phenomenon.[86][87]It is most common in orchids, which mimic females of the orderHymenoptera(generally bees and wasps), and may account for around 60% of pollinations.[88]Depending on the morphology of the flower, a pollen sac called apolliniumis attached to the head or abdomen of the male. This is then transferred to thestigmaof the next flower the male tries to inseminate, resulting in pollination. Visual mimicry is the most obvious sign of this deception for humans, but the visual aspect may be minor or non-existent. It is the senses oftouchandolfactionthat are most important, so this is at least partlychemical mimicry.[88]

Mimicry of rewards[edit]

Flowering plants, sometimes in conjunction with fungi, mimic rewards which attract insects.[89]Some "deceptive plants" imitate a pollinator's food source, with flower structures that resemble fruits.[90][91]

In a complex case, floral mimicry is induced by thediscomycete fungusMonilinia vaccinii-corymbosi.[92]This fungalplant pathogeninfects leaves ofblueberries,causing them to secrete sugars, in effect mimicking thenectarof flowers. To the naked eye the leaves do not look like flowers, yet they still attract pollinating insects like bees using an ultraviolet signal. This case is unusual, in that the fungus benefits from the deception but it is the leaves that act as mimics, being harmed in the process. It is similar to host-parasite mimicry, but the host does not receive the signal. It has something in common with automimicry, but the plant does not benefit from the mimicry, and the action of the pathogen is required to produce it.[92]

Inter-sexual mimicry[edit]

Main article:Sexual mimicry

Inter-sexual mimicry occurs when individuals of one sex in a species mimic members of the opposite sex to facilitatesneak mating.An example is the three male forms of the marineisopodParacerceis sculpta.Alpha males are the largest and guard aharemof females. Beta males mimic females and manage to enter the harem of females without being detected by the Alpha males allowing them to mate. Gamma males are the smallest males and mimic juveniles. This also allows them to mate with the females without the Alpha males detecting them.[93]Similarly, amongcommon side-blotched lizards,some males mimic the yellow throat coloration and even mating rejection behaviour of the other sex to sneak matings with guarded females. These males look and behave like unreceptive females. Thisstrategyis effective against "usurper" males with orange throats, but ineffective against blue throated "guarder" males, which chase them away.[94][95]Femalespotted hyenashavepseudo-penisesthat make them look like males.[96]

Automimicry[edit]

Eyespotsoffoureye butterflyfish(Chaetodon capistratus) mimic its own eyes, deflecting attacks from the vulnerable head.
Main article:Automimicry

Automimicry or intraspecific mimicry occurs within a single species. One form of such mimicry is where one part of an organism's body resembles another part. For example, the tails of some snakes resemble their heads; they move backwards when threatened and present the predator with the tail, improving their chances of escape without fatal harm. Some fishes haveeyespotsnear their tails, and when mildly alarmed swim slowly backwards, presenting the tail as a head. Some insects such as somelycaenidbutterflies have tail patterns and appendages of various degrees of sophistication that promote attacks at the rear rather than at the head. Several species ofpygmy owlbear "false eyes" on the back of the head, misleading predators into reacting as though they were the subject of an aggressive stare.[97]

Some writers use the term "automimicry" when the mimic imitates other morphs within the same species. For example, in a species where males mimic females or vice versa, this may be an instance ofsexual mimicryinevolutionary game theory.Examples are found in some species of birds, fishes, and lizards.[98]Quite elaborate strategies along these lines are known, such as the well-known "scissors, paper, rock" mimicry inUta stansburiana,[99]but there are qualitatively different examples in many other species, such as somePlatysaurus.[100]

Many species of insects are toxic or distasteful when they have fed on certain plants that contain chemicals of particular classes, but not when they have fed on plants that lack those chemicals. For instance, some species of thesubfamilyDanainaefeed on various species of theAsclepiadoideaein the familyApocynaceae,which render them poisonous and emetic to most predators. Such insects frequently areaposematicallycoloured and patterned. When feeding on innocuous plants however, they are harmless and nutritious, but a bird that once has sampled a toxic specimen is unlikely to eat harmless specimens that have the same aposematic coloration. When regarded as mimicry of toxic members of the same species, this too may be seen as automimicry.[101]

Automimicry: many blue butterflies (Lycaenidae) such as this gray hairstreak (Strymon melinus) have a false head at the rear, held upwards at rest.

Many insects have filamentous "tails" at the ends of their wings and patterns of markings on the wings themselves. These combine to create a "false head". This misdirects predators such as birds and jumping spiders (Salticidae). Spectacular examples occur in thehairstreakbutterflies; when perching on a twig or flower, they commonly do so upside down and shift their rear wings repeatedly, causing antenna-like movements of the "tails" on their wings. Studies of rear-wing damage support the hypothesis that this strategy is effective in deflecting attacks from the insect's head.[102][103]

Evolution[edit]

Further information:Evolutionandadaptation

It is widely accepted that mimicry evolves as a positive adaptation. Thelepidopteristand novelistVladimir Nabokovhowever argued that although natural selection might stabilize a "mimic" form, it would not be necessary to create it.[104]

The most widely accepted model used to explain the evolution of mimicry in butterflies is the two-step hypothesis. The first step involvesmutationinmodifier genesthat regulate a complex cluster of linked genes that cause large changes in morphology. The second step consists of selections on genes with smallerphenotypiceffects, creating an increasingly close resemblance. This model is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that a few single point mutations cause large phenotypic effects, while numerous others produce smaller effects. Some regulatory elements collaborate to form asupergenefor the development of butterfly color patterns. The model is supported by computational simulations ofpopulation genetics.[105]The Batesian mimicry inPapilio polytesis controlled by thedoublesexgene.[106]

Some mimicry is imperfect. Natural selection drives mimicry only far enough to deceive predators. For example, when predators avoid a mimic that imperfectly resembles a coral snake, the mimic is sufficiently protected.[107][108][109]

Convergent evolutionis an alternative explanation for why organisms such as coral reef fish[110][111]and benthic marine invertebrates such asspongesandnudibranchshave come to resemble each other.[112]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^King, R. C.; Stansfield, W. D.; Mulligan, P. K. (2006).A dictionary of genetics(7th ed.).Oxford University Press.p.278.ISBN978-0-19-530762-7.
  2. ^abDalziell, Anastasia H.; Welbergen, Justin A. (27 April 2016). "Mimicry for all modalities".Ecology Letters.19(6): 609–619.Bibcode:2016EcolL..19..609D.doi:10.1111/ele.12602.PMID27117779.
  3. ^abcdefWickler, Wolfgang(1968).Mimicry in plants and animals.McGraw-Hill.
  4. ^Wickler, Wolfgang(1965). "Mimicry and the Evolution of Animal Communication".Nature.208(5010): 519–21.Bibcode:1965Natur.208..519W.doi:10.1038/208519a0.S2CID37649827.
  5. ^Radford, Benjamin;Frazier, Kendrick(January 2017). "Cheats and Deceits: How Animals and Plants Exploit and Mislead".Skeptical Inquirer.41(1): 60.
  6. ^abcdRuxton, Graeme D.;Sherratt, T. N.;Speed, M. P. (2004).Avoiding Attack: the Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals, and Mimicry.Oxford University Press.
  7. ^Kikuchi, D. W.; Pfennig, D. W. (2013)."Imperfect Mimicry and the Limits of Natural Selection".Quarterly Review of Biology.88(4): 297–315.doi:10.1086/673758.PMID24552099.S2CID11436992.
  8. ^Skelhorn, John; Rowland, Hannah M.;Ruxton, Graeme D.(2010)."The Evolution and Ecology of Masquerade".Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.99:1–8.doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01347.x.
  9. ^abcdefPasteur, G. (1982). "A Classificatory Review of Mimicry Systems".Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics.13:169–199.doi:10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.001125.
  10. ^Wiklund, Christer; Tullberg, Birgitta S. (September 2004). "Seasonal polyphenism and leaf mimicry in the comma butterfly".Animal Behaviour.68(3): 621–627.doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.12.008.S2CID54270418.
  11. ^Endler, John A. (August 1981). "An Overview of the Relationships Between Mimicry and Crypsis".Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.16(1): 25–31.doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01840.x.
  12. ^Stevens, Martin;Hopkins, Elinor; Hinde, William; Adcock, Amabel; Connolly, Yvonne; Troscianko, Tom;Cuthill, Innes C.(November 2007). "Field Experiments on the effectiveness of 'eyespots' as predator deterrents".Animal Behaviour.74(5): 1215–1227.doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.01.031.S2CID53186893.
  13. ^Stevens, Martin(22 June 2007)."Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration".Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.274(1617): 1457–1464.doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0220.PMC1950298.PMID17426012.
  14. ^Stevens, Martin; Stubbins, Claire L.; Hardman, Chloe J. (30 May 2008). "The anti-predator function of 'eyespots' on camouflaged and conspicuous prey".Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.62(11): 1787–1793.doi:10.1007/s00265-008-0607-3.S2CID28288920.
  15. ^Hossie, Thomas John; Sherratt, Thomas N. (August 2013). "Defensive posture and eyespots deter avian predators from attacking caterpillar models".Animal Behaviour.86(2): 383–389.doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.05.029.S2CID53263767.
  16. ^abCampbell, N. A. (1996).Biology(4th ed.). Benjamin Cummings. Chapter 50.ISBN0-8053-1957-3.
  17. ^Boyden, T. C. (1980). "Floral mimicry byEpidendrum ibaguense(Orchidaceae) in Panama ".Evolution.34(1): 135–136.doi:10.2307/2408322.JSTOR2408322.PMID28563205.
  18. ^Roy, B. A. (1994). "The effects of pathogen-induced pseudoflowers and buttercups on each other's insect visitation".Ecology.75(2): 352–358.Bibcode:1994Ecol...75..352R.doi:10.2307/1939539.JSTOR1939539.
  19. ^Wickler, Wolfgang,1998. "Mimicry".Encyclopædia Britannica,15th edition. Macropædia 24, 144–151.https:// britannica /eb/article-11910
  20. ^Johnson, Steven D.; Schiestl, Florian P. (2016).Floral Mimicry.Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-104723-7.
  21. ^Harper, Douglas."Online Etymology Dictionary".Retrieved23 February2022.
  22. ^Endler, John A.(1981). "An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis".Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.16:25–31.doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01840.x.
  23. ^Allen, J. A.; Cooper, J. M. (2010). "Crypsis and masquerade".Journal of Biological Education.19(4): 268.doi:10.1080/00219266.1985.9654747.
  24. ^Boppré, Michael;Vane-Wright, Richard I.; Wickler, Wolfgang (1 January 2017)."A hypothesis to explain accuracy of wasp resemblances".Ecology and Evolution.7(1): 73–81.Bibcode:2017EcoEv...7...73B.doi:10.1002/ece3.2586.PMC5214283.PMID28070276.
  25. ^Davies, N. B.; Welbergen, J. A. (2008)."Cuckoo–hawk mimicry? An experimental test".Proceedings of the Royal Society B.275(1644): 1817–1822.doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0331.PMC2587796.PMID18467298.
  26. ^Bates, Henry W.(1863).The naturalist on the river Amazons.Murray.
  27. ^Bates, Henry W.(1861)."Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae".Transactions of the Linnean Society.23(3): 495–566.doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1860.tb00146.x.
  28. ^Stearns, S. C.; Hoekstra, Rolf F. (2000).Evolution: An Introduction(5th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 464.ISBN978-0-19-854968-0.
  29. ^abcPinheiro, Carlos E. G. (1996)."Palatability and escaping ability in Neotropical butterflies: tests with wild kingbirds (Tyrannus melancholicus,Tyrannidae) ".Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.59(4): 351–365.doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01471.x.
  30. ^Barber, J. R.; Conner, W. E. (2007)."Acoustic mimicry in a predator–prey interaction".PNAS.104(22): 9331–9334.Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.9331B.doi:10.1073/pnas.0703627104.PMC1890494.PMID17517637.
  31. ^Barber, Jesse R.; Chadwell, Brad A.; Garrett, Nick; Schmidt-French, Barbara; Conner, William E. (July 2009)."Naïve bats discriminate arctiid moth warning sounds but generalize their aposematic meaning".The Journal of Experimental Biology.212(Pt 14): 2141–2148.doi:10.1242/jeb.029991.ISSN0022-0949.PMID19561203.S2CID1303252.
  32. ^Barber, Jesse R.; Plotkin, David; Rubin, Juliette J.; Homziak, Nicholas T.; Leavell, Brian C.; Houlihan, Peter R.; et al. (21 June 2022)."Anti-bat ultrasound production in moths is globally and phylogenetically widespread".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.119(25): e2117485119.Bibcode:2022PNAS..11917485B.doi:10.1073/pnas.2117485119.PMC9231501.PMID35704762.
  33. ^Kawahara, Akito Y.; Barber, Jesse R. (19 May 2015)."Tempo and mode of antibat ultrasound production and sonar jamming in the diverse hawkmoth radiation".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.112(20): 6407–6412.Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.6407K.doi:10.1073/pnas.1416679112.ISSN0027-8424.PMC4443353.PMID25941377.
  34. ^"Mimic Octopus, Thaumoctopus mimicus at MarineBio.org".Archived fromthe originalon 18 July 2017.Retrieved9 June2007.
  35. ^"Deceptive Woodpecker Uses Mimicry to Avoid Competition".AMNH.Retrieved12 August2015.
  36. ^Gianoli, Ernesto (2014)."Leaf Mimicry in a Climbing Plant Protects against Herbivory".Cell.24(9): 984–987.doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.010.PMID24768053.
  37. ^Meyer, A. (2006)."Repeating Patterns of Mimicry".PLOS Biol.4(10): e341.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040341.PMC1617347.PMID17048984.
  38. ^Müller, Fritz(1878). "Ueber die Vortheile der Mimicry bei Schmetterlingen".Zoologischer Anzeiger.1:54–55.
  39. ^Müller, F. (1879). "ItunaandThyridia;a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies ".Proclamations of the Entomological Society of London.1879.Translated by Meldola, R.: 20–29.
  40. ^Flannery, T. F. (2007)."Community ecology: Mimicry complexes".Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
  41. ^Huheey, James E. (1976). "Studies in warning coloration and mimicry VII — Evolutionary consequences of a Batesian–Müllerian spectrum: A model for Müllerian mimicry".Evolution.30(1): 86–93.doi:10.2307/2407675.JSTOR2407675.PMID28565050.
  42. ^Benson, W. W. (1977). "On the Supposed Spectrum Between Batesian and Mullerian Mimicry".Evolution.31(2): 454–455.doi:10.2307/2407770.JSTOR2407770.PMID28563231.
  43. ^Ritland, D. B. (1995). "Comparative unpalatability of mimetic viceroy butterflies (Limenitis archippus) from four south-eastern United States populations ".Oecologia.103(3): 327–336.Bibcode:1995Oecol.103..327R.doi:10.1007/BF00328621.PMID28306826.S2CID13436225.
  44. ^Ritland, D. B;Brower, Lincoln P.(1991). "The viceroy butterfly is not a Batesian mimic".Nature.350(6318): 497–498.Bibcode:1991Natur.350..497R.doi:10.1038/350497a0.S2CID28667520.Viceroys are as unpalatable as monarchs, and significantly more unpalatable than queens from representative Florida populations.
  45. ^Young, A. M. (1971). "Wing colouration and reflectance inMorphobutterflies as related to reproductive behaviour and escape from avian predators ".Oecologia.7(3): 209–222.Bibcode:1971Oecol...7..209Y.doi:10.1007/BF00345212.PMID28311247.S2CID25970574.
  46. ^Edmunds, M. (1974).Defence in Animals: a survey of anti-predator defences.Longman. pp. 255–256.ISBN0-582-44132-3.
  47. ^Marek, P. E.; Bond, J. E. (2009)."A Mullerian mimicry ring in Appalachian millipedes".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.106(24): 9755–9760.Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9755M.doi:10.1073/pnas.0810408106.PMC2700981.PMID19487663.
  48. ^abEmsley, M. G. (1966). "The mimetic significance ofErythrolamprus aesculapii ocellatusPeters from Tobago ".Evolution.20(4): 663–64.doi:10.2307/2406599.JSTOR2406599.PMID28562911.
  49. ^Mertens, Robert(1956). "Das Problem der Mimikry bei Korallenschlangen".Zool. Jahrb. Syst(in German).84:541–76.
  50. ^abHecht, M. K.; Marien, D. (1956). "The coral snake mimic problem: a reinterpretation".Journal of Morphology.98(2): 335–365.doi:10.1002/jmor.1050980207.S2CID83825414.
  51. ^abSheppard, P. M.;Wickler, Wolfgang(1969). "Review ofMimicry in plants and animalsby Wolfgang Wickler ".Journal of Animal Ecology.38(1): 243.doi:10.2307/2762.JSTOR2762.
  52. ^Wasmann, E. 1894. Kritisches Verzeichniss der myrmecophilin und termitophilen Arthropoden. Felix Dames, Berlin xi + 231 pp.
  53. ^abVavilov, N. I. (1951). "The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated plants (translation by K. S. Chester)".Chronica Botanica.13:1–366.
  54. ^Barrett, S. (1983). "Mimicry in Plants".Scientific American.257(3): 76–83.Bibcode:1987SciAm.257c..76B.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0987-76.
  55. ^Gilbert, Lawrence E. (1975). "Ecological consequences of a coevolved mutualism between butterflies and plants". In L. E. Gilbert; P. H. Raven (eds.).Coevolution of Animals and Plants.University of Texas Press.pp. 210–240.OCLC636384400.
  56. ^Brower, Lincoln P.(1970). "Plant poisons in a terrestrial food chain and implications for mimicry theory". In Chambers, K. L. (ed.).Biochemical Coevolution.Corvallis, Oregon, USA: Oregon State Univ. pp. 69–82.
  57. ^Brower, Lincoln P.;Van Brower, J. V. Z.; Corvino, J. M. (1967)."Plant poisons in a terrestrial food chain".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.57(4): 893–98.Bibcode:1967PNAS...57..893B.doi:10.1073/pnas.57.4.893.PMC224631.PMID5231352.
  58. ^Bigot, L.; Jouventin, P. (1974). "Quelques expériences de comestibilité de Lépidoptères gabonais faites avec le mandrill, le cercocèbe à joues grises et le garde-bœufs".Terre Vie(in French).28:521–43.
  59. ^Begon, M.; Townsend, C.; Harper, J. (1996)Ecology: Individuals, populations and communities(third edition) Blackwell Science, London
  60. ^Jackson, R. R. (1995). "Eight-legged tricksters: Spiders that specialize at catching other spiders".BioScience.42(8): 590–98.doi:10.2307/1311924.JSTOR1311924.
  61. ^Craig, C. L. (1995). "Webs of Deceit".Natural History.104(3): 32–35.
  62. ^Lloyd, J. E. (1965) Aggressive Mimicry in Photuris: Firefly Femmes Fatales Science 149:653–654.
  63. ^Lloyd, J. E. (1975). "Aggressive Mimicry in Photuris Fireflies: Signal Repertoires by Femmes Fatales".Science.187(4175): 452–453.Bibcode:1975Sci...187..452L.doi:10.1126/science.187.4175.452.PMID17835312.S2CID26761854.
  64. ^Marshall, D. C.; Hill, K. B. R. (2009). Chippindale, Adam K (ed.)."Versatile aggressive mimicry of cicadas by an Australian predatory katydid".PLOS ONE.4(1): e4185.Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.4185M.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004185.PMC2615208.PMID19142230.
  65. ^Moran, Jonathan A. (1996). "Pitcher dimorphism, prey composition and the mechanisms of prey attraction in the pitcher plantNepenthes rafflesianain Borneo ".Journal of Ecology.84(4): 515–525.Bibcode:1996JEcol..84..515M.doi:10.2307/2261474.JSTOR2261474.
  66. ^Wickler, W.(1966). "Mimicry in Tropical Fishes".Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences.251(772): 473–474.Bibcode:1966RSPTB.251..473W.doi:10.1098/rstb.1966.0036.S2CID83609965.
  67. ^Willis, E. O. (1963). "Is the Zone-Tailed Hawk a Mimic of the Turkey Vulture?".The Condor.65(4): 313–317.doi:10.2307/1365357.JSTOR1365357.
  68. ^Welbergen, Justin A.; Davies, Nicholas B. (2011)."A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts".Behavioral Ecology.22(3): 574–579.doi:10.1093/beheco/arr008.ISSN1465-7279.
  69. ^See here for a photo.
  70. ^Moore, J. (2002).Parasites and the behavior of animals.Oxford University Press.
  71. ^Yanoviak, S. P.; Kaspari, M.; Dudley, R.; Poinar, G. Jr (2008)."Parasite-induced fruit mimicry in a tropical canopy ant"(PDF).The American Naturalist.171(4): 536–44.doi:10.1086/528968.PMID18279076.S2CID23857167.
  72. ^Saul-Gershenz, L. S.; Millar, J. G. (2006)."Phoretic nest parasites use sexual deception to obtain transport to their host's nest".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.103(38): 14039–14044.Bibcode:2006PNAS..10314039S.doi:10.1073/pnas.0603901103.PMC1599908.PMID16966608.
  73. ^Andersson, M.; Eriksson, M. O. G. (1982). "Nest parasitism in GoldeneyesBucephala clangula:some evolutionary aspects ".American Naturalist.120:1–16.doi:10.1086/283965.S2CID86699716.
  74. ^Barbero, Francesca; Thomas JA; Bonelli S; Balletto E; Schonrogge K (2009)."Acoustical mimicry in a predatory social parasite of ants".Journal of Experimental Biology.212(Pt 24): 4084–4090.doi:10.1242/jeb.032912.PMID19946088.Retrieved28 September2013.
  75. ^Williams, Paul H. (2008)."Do the parasitic Psithyrus resemble their host bumblebees in colour pattern?"(PDF).Apidologie.39(6): 637–649.doi:10.1051/apido:2008048.S2CID27702692.
  76. ^Ohba, N.; Shimoyama, Ayu (2009). Meyer-Rochow, V. B. (ed.).Bioluminescence in Focus - a collection of illuminating essays.Research Signpost; Trivandrum, Kerala, India. pp. 229–242.
  77. ^Dalziell, Anastasia H.; Welbergen, Justin A.; Igic, Branislav; Magrath, Robert D. (30 July 2014). "Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework".Biological Reviews.90(2): 643–668.doi:10.1111/brv.12129.PMID25079896.S2CID207101926.
  78. ^Kelley, Laura A.; Coe, Rebecca L.; Madden, Joah R.; Healy, Susan D. (1 September 2008). "Vocal mimicry in songbirds".Animal Behaviour.76(3): 521–528.doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.04.012.S2CID53192695.
  79. ^Goller, Maria; Shizuka, Daizaburo (22 June 2018)."Evolutionary origins of vocal mimicry in songbirds".Evolution Letters.2(4): 417–426.doi:10.1002/evl3.62.PMC6121844.PMID30283692.
  80. ^Davies, Nick (2015).Cuckoo: Cheating by Nature.Bloomsbury.ISBN978-1-4088-5656-7.
  81. ^Baker, Herbert G.1976. "Mistake" pollination as a reproductive system, with special reference to the Caricaceae. Pp 161–169 in J. Burley and B. T. Styles, eds.[clarification needed]Variation, breeding, and conservation of tropical trees.Academic Press, London, U.K.
  82. ^Bawa, K. S. (1980). "Mimicry of male by female flowers and intrasexual competition for pollinators inJacaratia dolichaula(D. Smith) Woodson (Caricaceae) ".Evolution.34(3): 467–74.doi:10.2307/2408216.JSTOR2408216.PMID28568703.
  83. ^Dodson, C. H.; Frymire, G. P. (1961). "Natural pollination of orchids".Missouri Botanical Garden Bulletin.49:133–39.
  84. ^Boyden, T. C. (1980). "Floral mimicry by Epidendrurn ibaguense (Orchidaceae) in Panama".Evolution.34(1): 135–36.doi:10.2307/2408322.JSTOR2408322.PMID28563205.
  85. ^Kullenberg, B. (1961). "Studies inOphryspollination ".Zool. Bidr. Uppsala.34:1–340.
  86. ^Correvon H., Pouyanne M. (1916)Un curieux cas de mimetisme chez les Ophrydées.J. Soc. Nat. Hortic. Fr.17:29–31, 41–42, 84.
  87. ^Pouyanne, M. (1917). "La fécondation desOphryspar les insectes ".Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afr. Nord.8:1–2.
  88. ^abVan der Pijl, L., Dodson, C. H. (1966)Orchid Flowers; Their Pollination and Evolution.Coral Gables, Florida, USA, Univ. Miami Press.
  89. ^Johnson, Steven D.; Schiestl, Florian P. (2016).Floral Mimicry.Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-104723-7.
  90. ^Ellis, Allan G.; Johnson, Steven D. (2010). "Floral Mimicry Enhances Pollen Export: The Evolution of Pollination by Sexual Deceit Outside of the Orchidaceae".The American Naturalist.176(5): E143–E151.doi:10.1086/656487.ISSN0003-0147.PMID20843263.S2CID45076899.
  91. ^Goodrich, Katherine R.; Jürgens, Andreas (2018)."Pollination systems involving floral mimicry of fruit: aspects of their ecology and evolution".New Phytologist.217(1): 74–81.doi:10.1111/nph.14821.
  92. ^abBatra, L. R.; Batra, S. (1985)."Floral Mimicry Induced by Mummy-Berry Fungus Exploits Host's Pollinators as Vectors".Science.228(4702): 1011–1013.Bibcode:1985Sci...228.1011B.doi:10.1126/science.228.4702.1011.PMID17797664.S2CID21422865.
  93. ^Shuster, Stephen (May 1987). "Alternative Reproductive Behaviors: Three Discrete Male Morphs in Paracerceis sculpta, an Intertidal Isopod from the Northern Gulf of California".Journal of Crustacean Biology.7(2): 318–327.doi:10.2307/1548612.JSTOR1548612.
  94. ^Sinervo, B.; C. M. Lively (1996). "The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies".Nature.380(6571): 240–243.Bibcode:1996Natur.380..240S.doi:10.1038/380240a0.S2CID205026253.
  95. ^Sinervo, B.; Miles, D. B.; Frankino, W. A.; Klukowski, M.; Denardo, D. F. (2000). "Testosterone, Endurance, and Darwinian Fitness: Natural and Sexual Selection on the Physiological Bases of Alternative Male Behaviors in Side-Blotched Lizards".Hormones and Behavior.38(4): 222–233.doi:10.1006/hbeh.2000.1622.PMID11104640.S2CID5759575.
  96. ^Muller, M. N.; Wrangham, R. (2002)."Sexual Mimicry in Hyenas".The Quarterly Review of Biology.77(1): 3–16.doi:10.1086/339199.PMID11963460.S2CID43440407.
  97. ^"Northern Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium californicum)".Owl Research Institute. Archived fromthe originalon 28 December 2015.Retrieved23 August2015.
  98. ^Plaistow, Stewart J.; Johnstone, Rufus A.; Colegrave, Nick; Spencer, Matthew (2004)."Evolution of alternative mating tactics: conditional versus mixed strategies".Behavioral Ecology.15(4): 534–542.doi:10.1093/beheco/arh029.
  99. ^Schell, Robert; Dettman, Jessica."Ecology and breeding colors of the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) in the Grand Canyon "(PDF).Center for Watershed Sciences.University of California, Davis. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 8 August 2014.
  100. ^Lewis, Belinda Ann (2006).Sexual Selection and Signalling in the LizardPlatysaurus minor(PDF)(Masters thesis).
  101. ^Svennungsen, Thomas Owens; Holen, Øistein Haugsten (2007)."The evolutionary stability of automimicry".Proc. R. Soc. B.274(1621): 2055–2063.doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0456.PMC2275178.PMID17567561.
  102. ^Sourakov, Andrei (2013): Two heads are better than one: false head allows Calycopis cecrops (Lycaenidae) to escape predation by a Jumping Spider,Phidippus pulcherrimus(Salticidae), Journal of Natural History, 47:15-16, 1047-1054
  103. ^Robbins, Robert K. The "False Head" Hypothesis: Predation and Wing Pattern Variation of Lycaenid Butterflies. The American Naturalist Vol. 118, No. 5 (Nov., 1981), pp. 770-775
  104. ^Alexander, Victoria N. (2002). "Nabokov, Teleology and Insect Mimicry".Nabokov Studies.7:177–213.doi:10.1353/nab.2010.0004.S2CID42675699.
  105. ^Holmgren, N. M. A.; Enquist, M. (1999)."Dynamics of mimicry evolution"(PDF).Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.66(2): 145–158.doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01880.x.
  106. ^K. Kunte; W. Zhang; A. Tenger-Trolander; D. H. Palmer; A. Martin; R. D. Reed; S. P. Mullen; M. R. Kronforst (2014). "Doublesex is a mimicry supergene".Nature.507(7491): 229–232.Bibcode:2014Natur.507..229K.doi:10.1038/nature13112.PMID24598547.S2CID4448793.
  107. ^Wilson, J.; Jahner, J.; Williams, K.; Forister, M. (2013)."Ecological and Evolutionary Processes Drive the Origin and Maintenance of Imperfect Mimicry".PLOS ONE.8(4): e61610.Bibcode:2013PLoSO...861610W.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061610.PMC3625143.PMID23593490.
  108. ^Kikuchi, D.; Pfenning, D. (2010). "Predator Cognition Permits Imperfect Coral Snake Mimicry".The American Naturalist.176(6): 830–834.doi:10.1086/657041.PMID20950143.S2CID35411437.
  109. ^Howse, P. E.; Allen, J. A. (1994). "Satyric Mimicry: The Evolution of Apparent Imperfection".Proceedings of the Royal Society B.257(1349): 111–114.Bibcode:1994RSPSB.257..111H.doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0102.S2CID84458742.
  110. ^Robertson, D. Ross (2013)."Who resembles whom? Mimetic and coincidental look-alikes among tropical reef fishes".PLOS ONE.8(1): e54939.Bibcode:2013PLoSO...854939R.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054939.PMC3556028.PMID23372795.
  111. ^Robertson, D. Ross (2015)."Coincidental resemblances among coral reef fishes from different oceans".Coral Reefs.34(3): 977.Bibcode:2015CorRe..34..977R.doi:10.1007/s00338-015-1309-8.
  112. ^Pawlik, J.R. (2012). "12". In Fattorusso, E.; Gerwick, W.H.; Taglialatela-Scafati, O. (eds.).Antipredatory defensive roles of natural products from marine invertebrates.Springer. pp. 677–710.ISBN978-90-481-3833-3.

Further reading[edit]

Children's[edit]

  • Hoff, M. K. (2003)Mimicry and Camouflage.Creative Education. Mankato, Minnesota, USA, Great Britain.ISBN1-58341-237-9.

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related toMimicry.
Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:
Wikisourcehas the text of the 1920Encyclopedia AmericanaarticleMimicry in Animals.
Wikisourcehas the text of the 1920Encyclopedia AmericanaarticleImitation in Animals.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimicry&oldid=1228990592"