scholarly journals Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis

2001 ◽  
Vol 268 (1484) ◽  
pp. 2415-2421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Symula ◽  
Rainer Schulte ◽  
Kyle Summers
Keyword(s):  
Poison Frogs ◽  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Molecular Phylogenetic ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry

scholarly journals THE EXISTENCE OF MÜLLERIAN MIMICRY

Evolution ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-453
Author(s):  
P. M. Sheppard ◽  
J. R. G. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian 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 The evolution of Müllerian mimicry

2008 ◽  
Vol 95 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas N. Sherratt
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry

scholarly journals Prey community structure affects how predators select for Müllerian mimicry

2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1736) ◽  
pp. 2099-2105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eira Ihalainen ◽  
Hannah M. Rowland ◽  
Michael P. Speed ◽  
Graeme D. Ruxton ◽  
Johanna Mappes
Keyword(s):  
Prey Species ◽  
Generalization Test ◽  
Parus Major ◽  
Warning Signal ◽  
Specific Model ◽  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Effective Community ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry ◽  
Specialist Predators ◽  
Signal Accuracy

Müllerian mimicry describes the close resemblance between aposematic prey species; it is thought to be beneficial because sharing a warning signal decreases the mortality caused by sampling by inexperienced predators learning to avoid the signal. It has been hypothesized that selection for mimicry is strongest in multi-species prey communities where predators are more prone to misidentify the prey than in simple communities. In this study, wild great tits ( Parus major ) foraged from either simple (few prey appearances) or complex (several prey appearances) artificial prey communities where a specific model prey was always present. Owing to slower learning, the model did suffer higher mortality in complex communities when the birds were inexperienced. However, in a subsequent generalization test to potential mimics of the model prey (a continuum of signal accuracy), only birds that had foraged from simple communities selected against inaccurate mimics. Therefore, accurate mimicry is more likely to evolve in simple communities even though predator avoidance learning is slower in complex communities. For mimicry to evolve, prey species must have a common predator; the effective community consists of the predator's diet. In diverse environments, the limited diets of specialist predators could create ‘simple community pockets’ where accurate mimicry is selected for.

The effect of dominance on polymorphism in Müllerian mimicry

2013 ◽  
Vol 337 ◽  
pp. 101-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Llaurens ◽  
S. Billiard ◽  
M. Joron
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry

scholarly journals Can experienced birds select for Müllerian mimicry?

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eira Ihalainen ◽  
Leena Lindström ◽  
Johanna Mappes ◽  
Sari Puolakkainen
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document