Abstract
The article discusses evolutionary aspects of mimicry from a semiotic viewpoint. The concept of semiotic scaffolding is used for this approach, and its relations with the concepts of exaptation and semiotic co-option are explained. Different dimensions of scaffolding are brought out as ontogenetic, evolutionary, physiological and cognitive. These dimensions allow for interpreting mimicry as a system that scaffolds itself. With the help of a number of mimicry cases, e.g. butterfly eyespots, brood parasitism, and plant mimesis, the evolutionary dynamics of mimicry in the open bio-semiosphere is investigated. The main argument is that biological mimicry largely develops through sign relations and communicative relations between organisms. It is proposed that mimicry systems should be described as two-layered structures composed of the ecological composition of the species involved and the semiotic structure of their communication.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30(441–451), 536–553.
Bates, H. W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera Heliconidæ. Transactions of the Linnean Society Zoology, 23, 495–566.
Brakefield, P. M., & French, V. (1999). Butterfly wings: the evolution of development of colour patterns. BioEssays, 21, 391–401.
Caldwell, G. S., & Rubinoff, R. W. (1983). Avoidance of venomous sea snakes by naive herons and egrets. The Auk, 100(1), 195–198.
Davies, N. B., & Welbergen, J. A. (2008). Cuckoo-hawk mimicry? an experimental test. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1644), 1817–1822.
Eimer, G. M. T. (1897). Die Entstehung der Arten auf Grund von vererben erworbener Eigenschaften nach den Gesetzen organischen Wachsens. II. Orthogenesis der Schmetterlinge. Leipzig: Engelmann.
French, V. (1997). Pattern formation in colour on butterfly wings. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 7(4), 524–529.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giorgi, Franco (2015). Developmental scaffolding. Biosemiotics, forthgoming.
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). Semiotic freedom: an emerging force. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.), Information and the nature of reality. From physics to metaphysics (pp. 185–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2014a). The semiome: from genetic to semiotic scaffolding. Semiotica, 198, 11–31.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2014b). Semiotic scaffolding: A biosemiotic link between sema and soma. In K. R. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalyzing mind: Beyond models of causality (pp. 95–110). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hombría, J. C. (2011). Butterfly eyespot serial homology: enter the Hox genes. BMC Biology, 2011(9), 26. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-9-26.
Howse, P. E. (2013). Lepidopteran wing patterns and the evolution of satyric mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 109(1), 203–214.
Howse, P. E., & Allen, J. A. (1994). Satyric mimicry – the evolution of apparent imperfection. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B257(1349), 111–114.
Jiggins, C. D. (2008). Ecological speciation in mimetic butterflies. BioScience, 58(6), 541–548.
Kikuchi, D. W., & Pfennig, D. W. (2013). Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 88(4), 297–315.
Kimler, W. C. (1983). Mimicry: Views of naturalists and ecologists before modern synthesis. In M. Grene (Ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism: Themes and counterthemes in twentieth-century evolutionary theory (pp. 97–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kleisner, K. (2010). Re-semblance and re-evolution: paramorphism and semiotic co-option may explain the re-evolution of similar phenotypes. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 378–392.
Kleisner, K. (2011). Perceive, co-opt, modify, and live! organism as a centre of experience. Biosemiotics, 4, 223–241.
Kleisner, K., & Maran, T. (2014). Visual communication in animals: Applying Portmannian and Uexküllian biosemiotic approach. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual communication (Handbooks of communication science) (pp. 559–676). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
Komárek, S. (2003). Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Mallet, J., McMillan, W. O., & Jiggins, C. D. (1998). Mimicry and warning color at the boundary between races and species. In D. J. Howard & S. H. Berlocher (Eds.), Endless forms: Species and speciation (pp. 390–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maran, T. (2010). Semiotic modeling of mimicry with reference to brood parasitism. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 349–377.
Maran, T. (2011). Becoming a sign: the mimic’s activity in biological mimicry. Biosemiotics, 4(2), 243–257.
Maran, T. (2012). Are ecological codes archetypal structures? In T. Maran, K. Lindström, R. Magnus, & M. Toennessen (Eds.), Semiotics in the wild. Essays in honour of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 147–156). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Maran, T. (2014). Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. In S. Iovino & S. Oppermann (Eds.), Material ecocriticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Maran, T., & Kleisner, K. (2010). Towards an evolutionary biosemiotics: semiotic selection and semiotic co-option. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 189–200.
Nijhout, H. F. (1986). Pattern and pattern diversity on Lepidopteran wings. BioScience, 36(8), 527–533.
Nijhout, H. F. (1994). Developmental perspectives on evolution of butterfly mimicry. BioScience, 44(3), 148–157.
Nijhout, H. F., Maini, P. K., Madzvamuse, A., Wathen, A. J., & Sekimura, T. (2003). Pigmentation pattern formation in butterflies: experiments and models. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326(8), 717–727.
Oliver, J. C., Beaulieu, J. M., Gall, L. F., Piel, W. H., & Monteiro, A. (2014). Nymphalid eyespot serial homologues originate as a few individualized modules. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1787), 1471–2954.
Otaki, J. M. (2008). Phenotypic plasticity of wing color patterns revealed by temperature and chemical applications in a nymphalid butterfly Vanessa indica. Journal of Thermal Biology, 33(2), 128–139.
Pasteur, G. (1982). A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematicsi, 13, 169–199.
Payne, R. B. (1977). The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 1–28.
Payne, R. B., Payne, L. L., Woods, J. L., & Sorenson, M. D. (2000). Imprinting and the origin of parasite host species associations in brood-parasitic indigobirds, Vidua chalybeata. Animal Behavior, 59(1), 69–81.
Pernetta, J. C. (1977). Observations on the habits and morphology of the sea snake Laticauda colubrina (Schneider) in Fiji. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55(10), 1612–1619.
Randall, J. E. (2005). A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zoological Studies, 44(3), 299–328.
Rothschild, M. (1984). Aide memoire mimicry. Ecological Entomology, 9(3), 311–319.
Sorenson, M. D., Sefc, K. M., & Payne, R. B. (2003). Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds. Nature, 424, 928–931.
Thorogood, R., & Davies, N. B. (2013). Hawk mimicry and the evolution of polymorphic cuckoos. Chinese Birds, 4(1), 39–50.
Twomey, E., Vestergaard, J. S., & Summers, K. (2014). Reproductive isolation related to mimetic divergence in the poison frog Ranitomeya imitator. Nature Communications, 5, 4749. doi:10.1038/ncomms5749.
Wallace, A. R. (1871). Contributions to the theory of natural selection. A series of essays (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan and Co.
Weible, D. (2013). Approaching a semiotics of exaptation: at the intersection between biological evolution and technological development. Sign Systems Studies, 41(4), 504–527.
Welbergen, J. A., & Davies, N. B. (2011). A parasite in wolf’s clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts. Behavioral Ecology, 22(3), 574–579.
Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Wiens, D. (1978). Mimicry in plants. Evolutionary Biology, 11, 365–403.
Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). The scaffolded mind: higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267.
Acknowledgments
The research for this article was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence for Cultural Theory), also under institutional research grant IUT02-44 from the Estonian Research Council and under project contract EMP151 by the Norway Financial Mechanism 2009–2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maran, T. Scaffolding and Mimicry: A Semiotic View of the Evolutionary Dynamics of Mimicry Systems. Biosemiotics 8, 211–222 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9223-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9223-y