Greg Detre
Thursday, May 03, 2001
Prof. Steve Simpson, Natural History Museum
Discuss the evolution of �honesty� and �deceit� in animal
communication.
Wiley (1983) in Animal Behaviour ed,. by Halliday and Slater, Vol.2 Communication.
Axelrod & Hamilton (1981) Science 211, 1390-
R. Dawkins & Krebs (1978, 1984) in Behavioural Ecology (two editions have different versions) ed. by Krebs and Davies.
M. Dawkins & Guilford (1991) Anim. Behav. 41, 865-
Blumberg & Alberts (1992) Anim. Behav. 44, 382-
Dugatkin et al. (1992) Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 202-
Noe (1990) Animal Behaviour 39, 78-90.
�information� as �decreasing uncertainty�
http://ufbir.ifas.ufl.edu/chap28.htm
Batesian mimicry
involves a palatable, unprotected species (the mimic) that closely resembles an
unpalatable or protected species (the model) (Devries 1987).
This theory was first presented in 1861 by H. W. Bates in his attempt to
explain the similar appearance and behavior of otherwise unrelated Central
American butterfly species (Devries 1987).
The larvae of these model butterflies eat plants that contain noxious
substances which pass, either altered or unaltered, to the adult stage (Sheppard 1962).
Such chemicals make the model undesirable to predators. The mimics lack these
substances in their bodies making them quite edible. True Batesian mimicry is
parasitic in nature with the model deriving no benefit and possible harm (Devries 1987).
The mimics don�t share the models nasty taste or painful sting, just its
appearance and behavior. Thus, the models may be harmed by being mistaken for
palatable mimics and should evolve to rid themselves of these relationships (Devries 1987).
Since its
conception, Batesian mimicry has been the subject of great debate and countless
papers. Charles Darwin, although accepting Batesian mimicry, viewed it as
accidental with the mimic looking similar enough to the unrelated model to
allow it slight protection (Clarke and
Sheppard 1960a). The theory is often misrepresented and confused with its
counterpart, Mullerian mimicry. In this case, the model is not defined and
several unpalatable species share warning colors or patterns to evade
predation. Batesian relationships are found in many insect orders. This paper
identifies the most spectacular example.
The swallowtail
butterfly, Papilio dardanus, occurs throughout most of Africa. While the males
maintain a typical swallowtail appearance, the females occur in over thirty
different mimetic forms that clearly resemble various species of two danaid
genera.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/mimicry.html
Mimicry is one of several
anti-predatory devices found in nature. Specifically it is a situation in which
one species called the mimic resembles in color, form, and/or
behavior another species called the model. In so doing, the mimic
acquires some survival advantage.
There are 2 basic forms of mimicry:
1. Batesian - the mimic (palatable)
resembles the model (unpalatable) and only the mimic benefits.
2. Mullerian - both the mimic and the
model are unpalatable and both benefit.
Batesian mimicry is most effective when
the mimic is rare and its emergence follows that of the model. In Mullerian
mimicry as density increases so does the adaptive value. Since mimicry provides
potential survival value, the mimic with an adaptation that increases the
likelihood of surviving is selected. Natural selection of these favorable
variations has led to the coevolution of many species. The distinction among
camouflage (cryptic coloration), warning coloration, and mimicry is not always
clear. Mimicry, as opposed to camouflage and warning coloration, is
specifically the resemblance between two organisms. The same techniques of
deception are sometimes utilized in all three anti-predatory devices. These
include variations in color, pattern, and structure.
Mimicry,
evolution, natural selection, adaptation, camouflage, warning coloration
Visual
1. monarch and viceroy butterflies (see
Fig. 48.13 in Curtis, Barnes. 1989. Biology, 5th Ed.)
2. yellow jacket and sand wasp (see
Fig. 48.15 in above reference)
3. syrphid fly and honey bee (see Fig.
48.11 in Campbell. 1987. Biology)
4. coral snake and colubrid snake (see
plates I and II in Pough. Mimicry of Vertebrates; pp. 67-95)
5. cuckoo and various host birds (an
example of egg mimicry)
6. red-backed salamander and red
salamander
7. poison-fang blenny and Ecsenius
blenny
8. gold-of-pleasure plant and the flax
plant
9. mantid (insectivorous) and orchid
(see Fig. 8 in Wickler. 1968. Mimicry in Plants and Animals)
10. ophrys (orchids) and female of some
species
11. pipe-vine swallowtail butterfly and
spice-bush swallowtail
12. caterpillars and catkins (see
Geographica section of Oct. 89 National Geographic)
Odor
13. caterpillar and Myrmica ant
(see Earth Almanac section of Dec. 91 National Geographic)
14. spider and red ant of Florida
Considering the evolution of communication is of prime importance: within this context of increased fitness derived from a communication, we have to consider the mechanisms by which the signal is produced (vocal, bodily etc.),
conspecific /kQnsp<schwa>"sIfIk/ a. & n.M19. [f. CON- + SPECIFIC.] (An organism or individual) of the same species.
deme /di:m/ n.M19. [Gk demos DEMOS.]1 A township of ancient Attica; an administrative division in modern Greece. M19. 2 Biol. A group of taxonomically similar animals or plants forming a distinct local population. M20.
Batesian mimicry � a kind of mimicry in which one non-poisonous species (the Batesian mimic) mimics another poisonous species
Ethologists have focused on handicapping signals, such as the male peacock�s tail, which provide a direct demonstration of the sender�s good genes or prowess as necessary to overcome the survival handicap???
what exactly is a Batesian mimic???
any difference between ritualisation and conventional systems???
what are:
Theory of "derived activities" (Tinbergen 1952)
signals derived from actions that previously had a direct function; "freed" from original cause
precursors: intention (sky pointing in gannet), ambivalent (forward threat of gull), protective response (rhesus grimace), autonomic (scent marking) displacement activities (preening in mallard courtship), redirected activities (grass pulling in herring gulls)
precursor/precurser???
exadaptation???