Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Introduction to Signs and Communication in Mimicry

  • Karel KleisnerEmail author
  • Timo Maran
Article

Why dedicate a special issue of Biosemioticsto mimicry? Is there anything new one could say about mimicry that was not said elsewhere? Given the size of mimicry studies, one could argue that almost everything worth saying has been already said. But in some cases, it was a long time ago, in other cases, it was overshadowed by the mainstream opinions of the day, and yet other insights just slipped through the cracks because their authors were outsiders to the world of ‘big science.’ Biosemiotics, a discipline that studies sign systems and meaning production in the living world, approaches the phenomenon of mimicry in part by analysing iconic signs (where a sign refers to its object because of mutual resemblance) and by emphasising the intentionality of semiosis and interspecies semiotic relations. Biosemiotics thus provides a fresh approach to the study and analysis of mimicry by highlighting the communicative and meaning-laden aspects of such deceptive similarities. The goal of this...

Notes

References

  1. Bates, H. W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidæ. Transactions of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 23, 495–566.Google Scholar
  2. Coletta, W. J., Wiegand, D., & Haley, M. C. (2009). The semiosis of stone: A "rocky" rereading of Samuel Taylor Coleridge through Charles Sanders Peirce. Semiotica, 174, 69–143.Google Scholar
  3. El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2010). Firefly femmes fatales: A case study in the semiotics of deception. Biosemiotics, 3(1), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emsley, M. G. (1966). The mimetic significance of Erythrolamprus aesculapii ocellatus Peters from Tobago. Evolution, 20(4), 663–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kleisner, K. (2015). Semantic organs: The concept and its theoretical ramifications. Biosemiotics, 8(3), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kleisner, K., & Markoš, A. (2005). Semetic rings: Towards the new concept of mimetic resemblances. Theory in Biosciences, 123(3), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Komárek, S. (2003). Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  8. Maran, T. (2010). Semiotic modeling of mimicry with reference to brood parasitism. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: Structure and semiotics of biological mimicry (Biosemiotics 16). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Mertens, R. (1956). Das Problem der Mimikry bei Korallenschlangen. Zoologische Jahrbücher (Systematik), 84, 541–576.Google Scholar
  11. Müller, F. (1878). Ueber die Vortheile der Mimicry bei Schmetterlingen. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1, 54–55.Google Scholar
  12. Peckham, E. G., & Peckham, G. W. (1892). Ant-like spiders of the family Attidae. Occasional Papers of Natural History Society of Wisconsin, 2, 1–84.Google Scholar
  13. Quicke, D. L. J. (2017). Mimicry, crypsis, masquerade and other adaptive resemblances. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Sonesson, G. (2010). From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 18–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vane-Wright, R. I. (1980). On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 13(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and History of ScienceCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of SemioticsUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations