Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 7–24 | Cite as

Mimicry, Camouflage and Perceptual Exploitation: the Evolution of Deception in Nature

  • Enrique FontEmail author
Article
  • 235 Downloads

Abstract

Despite decades of study, mimicry continues to inspire and challenge evolutionary biologists. This essay aims to assess recent conceptual frameworks for the study of mimicry and to examine the links between mimicry and related phenomena. Mimicry is defined here as similarity in appearance and/or behavior between a mimic and a model that provides a selective advantage to the mimic because it affects the behavior of a receiver causing it to misidentify the mimic, and that evolved (or is maintained by selection) because of those effects. Mimics copy cues or signals that are already in use as part of a stable communication system, but offer misleading information to receivers. Mimicry overlaps, both conceptually and evolutionarily, with camouflage and perceptual exploitation but the overlap is only partial, which may create some confusion. Certain types of camouflage (e.g. masquerade) conform to the definition of mimicry, while others (e.g. background matching) are not considered mimicry because they prevent detection rather than recognition of the camouflaged animal. Mimicry, on the other hand, works by exploiting peculiarities of the receiver at higher stages of sensory processing involving recognition and classification of stimuli. Perceptual exploitation models of trait evolution are also closely related to mimicry, and sensory traps in particular may act as a precursor for true mimicry to evolve. The common thread through these diverse phenomena is deception of a receiver by a mimic. Thus receiver deception (i.e. perceptual error) emerges as a key characteristic of mimicry shared with some types of camouflage and perceptual exploitation.

Keywords

Mimicry Deception Communication Camouflage Perceptual exploitation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Karel Kleisner and Timo Maran for the invitation to participate in this special issue of Biosemiotics, which has given me the opportunity to clarify my thoughts (although perhaps not those of the readers) on mimicry. I also thank P. Carazo, R. Vane-Wright and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

  1. Bates, H. W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Lepidoptera: Helicondidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 23, 495–566.Google Scholar
  2. Bostanchi, H., Anderson, S. C., Haji Gholi, Kami, & Pa-penfuss, Th. J. (2006). A new species of Pseudocerastes with elaborate tail ornamentation from western Iran (Squamata: Viperidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 4th series, 57(14), 443–450.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, M. D., & Farley, S. (1990). The behaviour of grey jays, Perisoreus canadensis, towards palatable and unpalatable lepidoptera. Animal Behaviour, 39, 699–705.Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (2011). Principles of animal communication. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  5. Brockmann, H. J. (2006). Why are animals so honest? BioScience, 56, 849–851.Google Scholar
  6. Carazo, P., & Font, E. (2010). Putting information back into biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(4), 661–669.Google Scholar
  7. Carazo, P., & Font, E. (2014). ‘Communication breakdown’: the evolution of signal unreliability and deception. Animal Behaviour, 87, 17–22.Google Scholar
  8. Catania, K. C. (2008). Worm grunting, fiddling, and charming--humans unknowingly mimic a predator to harvest bait. PLoS One, 3(10), e3472.Google Scholar
  9. Christy, J. H. (1995). Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. The American Naturalist, 146(2), 171–181.Google Scholar
  10. Christy, J. H. (1997). Deception: the correct path to enlightenment? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(4), 160.Google Scholar
  11. Christy, J. H., & Rittschof, D. (2011). Deception in visual and chemical communication in crustaceans. In T. Breithaupt & M. Thiel (Eds.), Chemical communication in crustaceans (pp. 313–333). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Dalziell, A. H., & Welbergen, J. A. (2016). Mimicry for all modalities. Ecology Letters, 19(6), 609–619.Google Scholar
  13. Dalziell, A. H., Welbergen, J. A., Igic, B., & Magrath, R. D. (2015). Avian vocal mimicry: A unified conceptual framework. Biological Reviews, 90, 643–668.Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 282–309). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Desfilis, E., Font, E., & Guillén-Salazar, F. (2003). Stimulus control of predatory behavior by the Iberian wall lizard (Podarcis hispanica, Sauria, Lacertidae): effects of familiarity with prey. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 309–316.Google Scholar
  16. Edmunds, M. (1974). Defence in animals: A survey of anti predator defences. Burnt Mill, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 25–31.Google Scholar
  18. Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415–420.Google Scholar
  19. Fathinia, B., Anderson, S. C., Rastegar-Pouyani, N., Jahani, H., & Mohamadi, H. (2009). Notes on the natural history of Pseudocerastes urarachnoides (Squamata: Viperidae). Russian Journal of Herpetology, 16, 134–138.Google Scholar
  20. Font, E., & Carazo, P. (2010). Animals in translation: why there is meaning (but probably no message) in animal communication. Animal Behaviour, 80(2), e1–e6.Google Scholar
  21. Forbes, P. (2009). Dazzled and deceived: Mimicry and camouflage. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Garrouste, R., Hugel, S., Jacquelin, L., Rostan, P., Steyer, J. S., Dessuter-Grandcolas, L., & Nel, A. (2016). Insect mimicry of plants dates back to the Permian. Nature Communications, 7, 13735.Google Scholar
  23. Gaskett, A. C. (2011). Orchid pollination by sexual deception: pollinator perspectives. Biological Reviews, 86(1), 33–75.Google Scholar
  24. Greenfield, M. D. (2006). Honesty and deception in animal signals. In J. R. Lucas & L. W. Simmons (Eds.), Essays in Animal Behaviour (pp. 279–298). Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grim, T. (2013). Perspectives debates: mimicry, signalling and co-evolution (commentary on Wolfgang Wickler - understanding mimicry - with special reference to vocal mimicry). Ethology, 119(4), 270–277.Google Scholar
  26. Heiling, A. M., & Herberstein, M. E. (2004). Predator-prey coevolution: australian native bees avoid their spider predators. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271(Suppl.), S196–S198.Google Scholar
  27. Heiling, A. M., Herberstein, M. E., & Chittka, L. (2003). Crab spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature, 421, 334.Google Scholar
  28. Heiling, A. M., Cheng, K., Chittka, L., Goeth, A., & Herberstein, M. E. (2005). The role of UV in crab spider signals: effects on perception by prey and predators. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208(20), 3925–3931.Google Scholar
  29. Hölldobler, B., & Wilson, E. O. (1990). The ants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J., & Puolakkainen, S. (2008). Butterfly effects in mimicry? Combining signal and taste can twist the relationship of Müllerian co-mimics. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 1267–1276.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, R. R., & Wilcox, R. S. (1990). Aggressive mimicry, prey specific predatory behavior and predator recognition in the predatory prey interactions of Portia fimbriata and Euryattus sp., jumping spiders from Queensland. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 111–119.Google Scholar
  32. Jamie, G. A. (2017). Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284(1849), 20162080.Google Scholar
  33. Kelley, L. A., Coe, R. L., Madden, J. R., & Healy, S. D. (2008). Vocal mimicry in songbirds. Animal Behaviour, 76, 521–528.Google Scholar
  34. Kikuchi, D. W., & Pfennig, D. W. (2013). Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 88, 297–315.Google Scholar
  35. Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (2nd ed., pp. 380–402). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., & Mappes, J. (1997). Imperfect Batesian mimicry -- the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 149–153.Google Scholar
  37. Macías-García, C., & Ramirez, E. (2005). Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature, 434, 501–505.Google Scholar
  38. Maran, T. (2011). Structure and semiosis in biological mimicry. In C. Emmeche & K. Kull (Eds.), Towards a semiotic biology (pp. 167–178). London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. G. C. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R. W. (1986). A framework for discussing deception. In R. S. Mitchell & N. S. Thompson (Eds.), Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (pp. 3–40). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mokkonen, M., & Lindstedt, C. (2016). The evolutionary ecology of deception. Biological Reviews, 91(4), 1020–1035.Google Scholar
  43. Müller, F. (1879). Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1879, 20–29.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, X. J. (2014). Evolutionary implications of deception in mimicry and masquerade. Current Zoology, 60, 6–15.Google Scholar
  45. Pasteur, G. (1982). A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 169–199.Google Scholar
  46. Proctor, H. C. (1991). Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour, 42, 589–598.Google Scholar
  47. Quicke, D. L. J. (2017). Mimicry, crypsis, masquerade and other adaptive resemblances. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Robinson, M. H. (1981). A stick is a stick and not worth eating: on the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 15–20.Google Scholar
  49. Rönkä, K., Mappes, J., Kiviö, R., Salokannas, J., Michalis, C., & Rojas, B. (2018). Can multiple-model mimicry explain warning signal polymorphism in the wood tiger moth, Arctia plantaginis (Lepidoptera: Erebidae)? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 124, 237–260.Google Scholar
  50. Rowell, J. T., Ellner, S. P., & Reeve, H. K. (2006). Why animals lie: how dishonesty and belief can coexist in a signaling system. The American Naturalist, 168(6), E180–E204.Google Scholar
  51. Rowland, H. M., Mappes, J., Ruxton, G. D., & Speed, M. P. (2010). Mimicry between unequally defended prey can be parasitic: evidence for quasi-Batesian mimicry. Ecology Letters, 13, 1494–1502.Google Scholar
  52. Ruxton, G. D., & Schaefer, H. M. (2011). Resolving current disagreements and ambiguities in the terminology of animal communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24, 2574–2585.Google Scholar
  53. Ruxton, G. D., Sherratt, T. N., & Speed, M. P. (2004). Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Salazar, A., Füsternau, B., Quero, C., Pérez-Hidalgo, N., Carazo, P., Font, E., & Martínez-Torres, D. (2015). Aggressive mimicry coexists with mutualism in an aphid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(4), 1101–1106.Google Scholar
  55. Schaefer, H. M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2009). Deception in plants: mimicry or perceptual exploitation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(12), 676–685.Google Scholar
  56. Schuett, G. W., Clark, D. L., & Kraus, F. (1984). Feeding mimicry in the rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus, with comments on the evolution of the rattle. Animal Behaviour, 32(2), 625–626.Google Scholar
  57. Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2008). Defining biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 387–395.Google Scholar
  58. Searcy, W. A., & Nowicki, S. (2005). The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Semple, S., & McComb, K. (1996). Behavioural deception. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(10), 434–437.Google Scholar
  60. Sherratt, T. N. (2008). The evolution of Mullerian mimicry. Naturwissenschaften, 95(8), 681–695.Google Scholar
  61. Skelhorn, J. (2015). Masquerade. Current Biology, 25(15), R643–R644.Google Scholar
  62. Skelhorn, J., Rowland, H. M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2010a). The evolution and ecology of masquerade. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 99, 1–8.Google Scholar
  63. Skelhorn, J., Rowland, H. M., Speed, M. P., & Ruxton, G. D. (2010b). Masquerade: Camouflage without crypsis. Science, 327(5961), 51–51.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, W. J. (1977). The behavior of communicating: an ethological approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Speed, M. P. (1999). Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 755–776.Google Scholar
  66. Speed, M. P. (2014). Mimicry. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences. Chichester: Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001790.pub3.
  67. Starrett, A. (1993). Adaptive resemblance: a unifying concept for mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 48, 299–317.Google Scholar
  68. Stevens, M. (2013). Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Stevens, M. (2016). Cheats and deceits: how animals and plants exploit and mislead. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stevens, M., & Merilaita, S. (2009). Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 423–427.Google Scholar
  71. Stoddard, P. K. (1999). Predation enhances complexity in the evolution of electric fish signals. Nature, 400, 254–256.Google Scholar
  72. Stoddard, M. C., & Stevens, M. (2011). Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution, 65(7), 2004–2013.Google Scholar
  73. Stuart-Fox, D. (2005). Deception and the origin of honest signals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(10), 521–523.Google Scholar
  74. Théry, M., & Casas, J. (2002). Predator and prey views of spider camouflage. Nature, 415, 133.Google Scholar
  75. Trivers, R. (2011). The folly of fools: the logic of deceit and self-deception in human life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  76. Vane-Wright, R. (1976). A unified classification of mimetic resemblances. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 8, 25–56.Google Scholar
  77. Vane-Wright, R. (1980). On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 13, 1–6.Google Scholar
  78. Vane-Wright, R. (1981). Only connect. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 33–40.Google Scholar
  79. Weldon, P. J. (2016). Receiver-error in deception, including mimicry: making the leap from inter- to intraspecific domains. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 120(3), 717–728.Google Scholar
  80. Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  81. Wickler, W. (2013). Understanding mimicry – With special reference to vocal mimicry. Ethology, 119, 259–269.Google Scholar
  82. Wignall, A. E., & Taylor, P. W. (2011). Assassin bug uses aggressive mimicry to lure spider prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 278, 1427–1433.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ethology Laboratory, Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations