scholarly journals The Volucellæ as Examples of Aggressive Mimicry

Nature ◽  
1892 ◽  
Vol 47 (1202) ◽  
pp. 28-30
Author(s):  
EDWARD B. POULTON
Keyword(s):  
Aggressive Mimicry

Aggressive Mimicry

2008 ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
George Hangay ◽  
Severiano F. Gayubo ◽  
Marjorie A. Hoy ◽  
Marta Goula ◽  
Allen Sanborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aggressive Mimicry

scholarly journals Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry

2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1849) ◽  
pp. 20162080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Jamie
Keyword(s):  
Fitness Cost ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry ◽  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Ecological Literature ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry ◽  
Logical Extension

‘Mimicry’ is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection's power to produce stunning adaptations. However, there remains a lack of clarity over how mimetic resemblances are conceptually related to each other. The result is that categories denoting the traditional subdivisions of mimicry are applied inconsistently across studies, hindering attempts at conceptual unification. This review critically examines the logic by which mimicry can be conceptually organized and analysed. It highlights the following three evolutionarily relevant distinctions. (i) Are the model's traits being mimicked signals or cues? (ii) Does the mimic signal a fitness benefit or fitness cost in order to manipulate the receiver's behaviour? (iii) Is the mimic's signal deceptive? The first distinction divides mimicry into two broad categories: ‘signal mimicry’ and ‘cue mimicry’. ‘Signal mimicry’ occurs when mimic and model share the same receiver, and ‘cue mimicry’ when mimic and model have different receivers or when there is no receiver for the model's trait. ‘Masquerade’ fits conceptually within cue mimicry. The second and third distinctions divide both signal and cue mimicry into four types each. These are the three traditional mimicry categories (aggressive, Batesian and Müllerian) and a fourth, often overlooked category for which the term ‘rewarding mimicry’ is suggested. Rewarding mimicry occurs when the mimic's signal is non-deceptive (as in Müllerian mimicry) but where the mimic signals a fitness benefit to the receiver (as in aggressive mimicry). The existence of rewarding mimicry is a logical extension of the criteria used to differentiate the three well-recognized forms of mimicry. These four forms of mimicry are not discrete, immutable types, but rather help to define important axes along which mimicry can vary.

scholarly journals Aggressive mimicry in a coral reef fish: The prey's view

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 12990-13010
Author(s):  
Michele E. R. Pierotti ◽  
Anna Wandycz ◽  
Pawel Wandycz ◽  
Anja Rebelein ◽  
Vitor H. Corredor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coral Reef ◽  
Reef Fish ◽  
Coral Reef Fish ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry

Wolves in sheep’s clothing: three new cases of aggressive mimicry in Red Sea coral reef fishes

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (15-16) ◽  
pp. 1019-1023
Author(s):  
Luiz A. Rocha ◽  
Joseph D. DiBattista ◽  
Tane H. Sinclair-Taylor ◽  
Michael L. Berumen
Keyword(s):  
Coral Reef ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
Reef Fishes ◽  
Coral Reef Fishes ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry

TRIAL-AND-ERROR SOLVING OF A CONFINEMENT PROBLEM BY A JUMPING SPIDER, PORTIA FIMBRIATA

Behaviour ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 138 (10) ◽  
pp. 1215-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Chris Carter ◽  
Michael Tarsitano
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Jumping Spider ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry ◽  
Jumping Spiders ◽  
Test Algorithm

Abstract Portia is a genus of web-invading araneophagic jumping spiders known from earlier studies to derive aggressive-mimicry signals by using a generate-and-test algorithm (trial-and-error tactic). Here P. fimbriata's use of trial-and-error to solve a confinement problem (how to escape from an island surrounded by water) is investigated. Spiders choose between two potential escape tactics (leap or swim), one of which will fail (bring spider no closer to edge of tray) and the other of which will partially succeed (bring spider closer to edge of tray). The particular choice that will partially succeed is unknown to the spider. Using trial-anderror, P.fimbriata solves the confinement problem both when correct choices are rewarded (i.e. when the spider is moved closer to edge of tray) and when incorrect choices are punished (i.e. when the spider gets no closer to edge of tray).

The Alleged “Aggressive Mimicry” of Volucellæ

Nature ◽  
1892 ◽  
Vol 46 (1199) ◽  
pp. 585-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM BATESON
Keyword(s):  
Aggressive Mimicry

Olfactory cues from conspecifics inhibit the web-invasion behavior of Portia, web-invading araneophagic jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae)

1993 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 1415-1420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne B. Willey ◽  
Robert R. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Olfactory Cues ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry ◽  
Jumping Spiders ◽  
Web Geometry ◽  
Adult Females ◽  
Conspecific Adult ◽  
Invasion Behavior ◽  
Courtship Displays ◽  
The Web

Portia is a genus of web-invading araneophagic spiders that use aggressive mimicry to capture their spider prey. In an experimental study, we demonstrate that adult females of Portia africana, P. fimbriata, P. labiata, and P. schultzi produce olfactory cues that affect the behavior of conspecific adult males, adult females, and juveniles. The olfactory cues of Portia spp. inhibit aggressive mimicry of conspecific spiders that are on a prey spider's web even if the prey spider is visible. This inhibition occurs regardless of the prey spider's web geometry. Prey pursuit by Portia is also inhibited when conspecific females provide olfactory cues in cases where the prey is a spider inhabiting a web. Olfactory cues from adult females elicit courtship displays of conspecific males when males are on the prey spider's web. Portia spp. do not alter their behavior when exposed to olfactory cues of heterospecifics.

scholarly journals Aggressive mimics profit from a model–signal receiver mutualism

2007 ◽  
Vol 274 (1622) ◽  
pp. 2087-2091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen L Cheney ◽  
Isabelle M Côté
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Foraging Success ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry ◽  
Tripartite Interactions ◽  
Net Benefits ◽  
Amblyglyphidodon Curacao ◽  
Access To Food ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Gain Access

Mimetic species have evolved to resemble other species to avoid predation (protective mimicry) or gain access to food (aggressive mimicry). Mimicry systems are frequently tripartite interactions involving a mimic, model and ‘signal receiver’. Changes in the strength of the relationship between model and signal receiver, owing to shifting environmental conditions, for example, can affect the success of mimics in protective mimicry systems. Here, we show that an experimentally induced shift in the strength of the relationship between a model (bluestreak cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus ) and a signal receiver (staghorn damselfish, Amblyglyphidodon curacao ) resulted in increased foraging success for an aggressive mimic (bluestriped fangblenny, Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos ). When the parasite loads of staghorn damselfish clients were experimentally increased, the attack success of bluestriped fangblenny on damselfish also increased. Enhanced mimic success appeared to be due to relaxation of vigilance by parasitized clients, which sought cleaners more eagerly and had lower overall aggression levels. Signal receivers may therefore be more tolerant of and/or more vulnerable to attacks from aggressive mimics when the net benefit of interacting with their models is high. Changes in environmental conditions that cause shifts in the net benefits accrued by models and signal receivers may have important implications for the persistence of aggressive mimicry systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document