A lure at both ends: aggressive visual mimicry signals and prey-specific luring behaviour in an ambush-foraging snake

  • X. GlaudasEmail author
  • G. J. Alexander
Original Article


Aggressive mimic species use signals typically resembling an attractive or harmless model to deceive other organisms in order to increase foraging success. With the exception of a few brood parasitic birds that combine two signals, most known cases of aggressive mimicry involve only a single signal. Here, we used fixed videography, a technique which consisted in setting up continuously recording videocameras focused on ambushing animals, to describe—for the first time—the use of two clearly distinct aggressive visual mimicry signals in the same organism, the puff adder (Bitis arietans). Our observational data collected in South Africa revealed that puff adders extended their tongues (lingual luring) and waived their tails (caudal luring), presumably mimicking an invertebrate model, in order to lure prey within striking range. Lingual luring occurred only in the presence of amphibian prey, indicating discrimination between prey types. Our study reveals the diverse predatory strategies and complex decision-making process used by ‘sit-and-wait’ predators, such as ambush-foraging snakes, to catch prey, and indicates that snakes may have higher cognitive abilities than those usually afforded to them.

Significance statement

Predators exhibit various strategies to increase rates of prey capture. One strategy involves the use of luring behaviours, which are signals designed to attract prey within striking range. Using remote videocameras focused on ambush-hunting puff adders (Bitis arietans) in the field, we report—for the first time—the use of two clearly distinct luring behaviours in the same organism: puff adders extended their tongues and waived their tails, which presumably resemble invertebrate prey, to draw prey within striking range. Tongue-luring behaviour was solely used in the presence of amphibian prey, which indicates that puff adders distinguished between prey types. Our research underscores that the predatory decisions made by ambush-foraging snakes are diverse and context-dependent and further demonstrates that these predators possess higher cognitive abilities than first expected.


Caudal luring Coevolution Lingual luring Predator-prey relationship Puff adder 



We thank two anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript; K. Erlwanger, M.A. Costello and K. Thambu and the central animal service staff at the University of Witwatersrand for assisting with surgical procedures; G. Sauthier and H. Van Der Vyver for field assistance; and the landowners of the Dinokeng Game Reserve that granted us access to their properties to track snakes, specifically the Graf, Anderson, Engelbrecht, Keith, Leroux, Pretorius families, G. and T. Anderson and F. Erasmus. Last but not least, Gerd and Tienie Graf at iKhaya LamaDube Game Lodge greatly facilitated this study by providing free accommodation and good company for more than 3 years.

Compliance with ethical standards


This study was partly supported by a research grant from the Committee for Research and Exploration at the National Geographic Society (no. 9443-14) to XG and GJA and by postdoctoral fellowships from the Claude Leon Foundation and the University of the Witwatersrand’s research office to XG.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (University of the Witwatersrand, animal protocol no. 2012-42-04). Specimens were collected under scientific research permits CPF6-0167 and CPF6-0024, issued by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

265_2016_2244_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (11.8 mb)
ESM A: A male puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 12,128 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM2_ESM.mp4 (15.3 mb)
ESM B: A male puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 15,663 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM3_ESM.mp4 (10.3 mb)
ESM C: A female puff adder successfully lingual-luring a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 10,501 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM4_ESM.mp4 (67 mb)
ESM D: A male puff adder successfully lingual-luring an Amietophrynus toad. (MP4 68,585 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM5_ESM.mp4 (23.8 mb)
ESM E: A male puff adder successfully lingual-luring a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 24,365 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM6_ESM.mp4 (4.4 mb)
ESM F: A female puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 4522 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM7_ESM.mp4 (13.1 mb)
ESM G: A female puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at an unknown prey. (MP4 13,421 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM8_ESM.mp4 (24.4 mb)
ESM H: A female puff adder successfully lingual-luring a bufonid toad. (MP4 24,935 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM9_ESM.mp4 (5.1 mb)
ESM I: A male puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at an unknown prey. (MP4 5257 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM10_ESM.mp4 (33.3 mb)
ESM J: A male puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at a bubbling kassina (Kassina senegalensis). (MP4 34,123 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM11_ESM.mp4 (9.8 mb)
ESM K: A male puff adder unsuccessfully lingual-luring at a red toad (Schismaderma carens). (MP4 9999 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM12_ESM.mp4 (5.8 mb)
ESM L: A female puff adder unsuccessfully caudal-luring at an unknown prey (video speed = ×16). (MP4 5987 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM13_ESM.mp4 (5.5 mb)
ESM M: A female puff adder unsuccessfully caudal-luring at an unknown prey (video speed = ×16). (MP4 5635 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM14_ESM.mp4 (12.4 mb)
ESM N: A male puff adder unsuccessfully caudal-luring at an unknown prey (video speed = ×16). (MP4 12,689 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM15_ESM.mp4 (5.2 mb)
ESM O: A male puff adder unsuccessfully caudal-luring at an unknown prey (video speed = ×16). (MP4 5329 kb)
265_2016_2244_MOESM16_ESM.mp4 (26.5 mb)
ESM P: A male puff adder unsuccessfully caudal-luring at an unknown prey (video speed = ×16). (MP4 27,146 kb)


  1. Alexander GJ (2007) Thermal biology of the southern African python (Python natalensis): does temperature limit its distribution. In: Henderson RW, Powell R (eds) Biology of the boas and pythons. Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, pp. 50–75Google Scholar
  2. Andrade DV, Marques OAV, Gavira RSB, Barbo FE, Zacariotti RL, Sazima I (2010) Tail luring by the golden lancehead (Bothrops insularis), an island endemic snake from south-eastern Brazil. South Am J Herpetol 5:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow A, Baker K, Hendry CR, Peppin L, Phelps T, Tolley KA, Wűster CE, Wűster W (2013) Phylogeography of the widespread African puff adder (Bitis arietans) reveals multiple Pleistocene refugia in southern Africa. Mol Ecol 22:1134–1157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheney KL, Cotê IM (2005) Frequency-dependent success of aggressive mimics in a cleaning symbiosis. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2635–2639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiszar DD, Boyer D, Lee R, Murphy JB, Radcliffe CW (1990) Caudal luring in the southern death adder, Acanthophis antarcticus. J Herpetol 24:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christy JH, Rittschof D (2011) Deception in visual and chemical communication in crustaceans. In: Breithaupt T, Thiel M (eds) Chemical communication in crustaceans. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, pp. 313–333Google Scholar
  7. Clark RW (2006) The use of fixed videography in studying the predation behavior of ambush foraging snakes. Copeia 2006:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark RW, Dorr SW, Whitford MD, Freymiller GA, Putman BJ (2016) Activity cycles and foraging behaviors of free-ranging sidewinder rattlesnakes (Crotalus cerastes): the ontogeny of hunting in a precocial vertebrate. Zoology 119:196–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Czaplicki JA, Porter RH (1974) Visual cues mediating the selection of goldfish (Carassius auratus) by two species of Natrix. J Herpetol 8:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalziell AH, Welbergen JA (2016) Mimicry for all modalities. Ecol Lett 19:609–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies NB, Kilner RM, Noble DG (1998) Nestling cuckoos, Cuculus canorus, exploit hosts with begging calls that mimic a brood. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver A, Maze K, Rouget M et al. (2005) National spatial biodiversity assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond H, Gordon ER (1979) Luring in the neonate alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii): description and experimental analysis. Z Tierpsychol 50:136–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. du Preez L, Carruthers V (2009) A complete guide to the frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  15. Edgehouse M, Brown CP (2014) Predatory luring behavior of odonates. J Insect Sci 14:2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewert JP (1970) Neural mechanisms of prey catching and avoidance behavior in the toad (Bufo bufo). Brain Behav Evolut 3:36–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fathinia B, Rastegar-Pouyani N, Rastegar-Pouyani E, Todehdehghan F, Amiri F (2015) Avian deception using an elaborate caudal lure in Pseudocerastes urarachnoides (Serpentes: Viperidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 36:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FitzSimons VFM (1962) Snakes of Southern Africa. Purnell and Sons, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  19. Flower T (2011) Fork-tailed drongos use deceptive mimicked alarm calls to steal food. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1548–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster CD, Martin P (2008) Caudal movements in western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) prior to attempted prey capture. West N Am Naturalist 68:257–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glaudas X (2004) Do cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus) habituate to human confrontations? Southeast Nat 3:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman JD, Goodman JM (1976) Possible mimetic behavior of the twig snake, Thelotornis kirtlandi kirtlandi (Hallowell). Herpetologica 32:148–150Google Scholar
  23. Greene HW (1973) Defensive tail display by snakes and amphisbaenians. J Herpetol 7:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene HW (1988) Antipredator mechanisms in reptiles. In: Gans C, Huey RB (eds) Biology of the Reptilia, Alan R, vol 16. Liss, New York, pp. 1–152Google Scholar
  25. Hagman M, Phillips BL, Shine R (2008) Tails of enticement: caudal luring by an ambush foraging snake (Acanthophis praelongus, Elapidae). Funct Ecol 22:1134–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagman M, Phillips BL, Shine R (2009) Fatal attraction: adaptations to prey on native frogs imperil snakes after invasion of toxic toads. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2813–2818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hagman M, Shine R (2008) Deceptive digits: the functional significance of toe waving by cannibalistic cane toads, Chaunus marinus. Anim Behav 75:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansknecht KA (2008) Lingual luring by mangrove saltmarsh snakes (Nerodia clarkii compressicauda). J Herpetol 42:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IBM Corp (2015) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 23.0.,
  30. Ingle D (1968) Visual releasers of prey-catching behavior in frogs and toads. Brain Behav Evolut 1:500–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson JF, Martin DL (1980) Caudal luring in the dusky pygmy rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarius barbouri. Copeia 1980:926–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson RR (1992) Eight-legged tricksters. Bioscience 42:590–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson RR, Cross FR (2013) A cognitive perspective on aggressive mimicry. J Zool 290:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson RR, Wilcox RS (1993) Spider flexibly chooses aggressive mimicry signals for different prey by trial and error. Behaviour 127:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langmore NE, Maurer G, Adcock GJ, Kilner RM (2008) Socially acquired host-specific mimicry and the evolution of host races in Horsfield’s bronze-cuckoo Chalcites basalis. Evolution 62:1689–1699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Langmore NE, Stevens M, Maurer G, Heinsohn R, Hall ML, Peters A, Kilner RM (2011) Visual mimicry of host nestlings by cuckoos. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:2455–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lillywhite HB, Henderson RW (1993) Behavioral and functional ecology of arboreal snakes. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT (eds) Snakes: ecology and behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1–48Google Scholar
  38. Master TL (1991) Use of tongue-flicking behavior by the snowy egret. J Field Ornithol 62:399–402Google Scholar
  39. Mullin SJ (1999) Caudal distraction by rat snakes (Colubridae, Elaphe): a novel behavior used when capturing mammalian prey. Great Basin Nat 59:361–367Google Scholar
  40. Murray BA, Bradshaw SD, Edward DH (1991) Feeding behavior and the occurrence of caudal luring in Burton’s pygopodid Lialis burtonis (Sauria: Pygopodidae). Copeia 1991:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson XJ, Garnett DT, Evans CS (2010) Receiver psychology and the design of the deceptive caudal luring signal of the death adder. Anim Behav 79:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pasteur G (1982) A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:169–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pernetta AP, Ross TN, Jones CG (2005) Leiolopisma telfairii (Telfair’s Skink): caudal luring. Herpetol Rev 36:320–321Google Scholar
  44. Pough FH (1988) Mimicry of vertebrates: are the rules different? Am Nat 131:S67–S102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Putman BJ, Clark RW (2015a) Habitat manipulation in hunting rattlesnakes. Southwest Nat 60:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putman BJ, Clark RW (2015b) Crotalus oreganus (northern pacific rattlesnake): non-rattling tail display. Herpetol Rev 46:269–270Google Scholar
  47. Rabatsky AM (2008) Caudal luring as a precursor in the evolution of the rattle: a test using an ancestral rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarius barbouri. In: Hayes WK, Beaman KR, Cardwell MD, Bush SP (eds) The biology of rattlesnakes. Loma Linda University Press, Loma Linda, pp. 143–154Google Scholar
  48. Randall JE (2005) A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zool Stud 44:299–328Google Scholar
  49. Reinert HK (1992) Radiotelemetric field studies of pitvipers: data acquisition and analysis. In: Campbell JA, Brodie Jr ED (eds) Biology of the pitvipers. Selva Press, Tyler, pp. 185–198Google Scholar
  50. Reinert HK, Cundall D (1982) An improved surgical implantation method for radio-tracking snakes. Copeia 1982:702–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reiserer RS (2002) Stimulus control of caudal luring and other feeding responses: a program for research on visual perception in vipers. In: Schuett GW, Höggren M, Douglas ME, Greene HW (eds) Biology of the vipers. Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, pp. 361–383Google Scholar
  52. Reiserer RS, Schuett GW (2008) Aggressive mimicry in neonates of the sidewinder rattlesnake, Crotalus cerastes (Serpentes: Viperidae): stimulus control and visual perception of prey luring. Biol J Linn Soc 95:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sazima I (2002) Juvenile snooks (Centropomidae) as mimics of mojarras (Gerreidae), with a review of aggressive mimicry in fishes. Environ Biol Fish 65:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiestl FP, Peakall R, Mant JG, Ibarra F, Schulz C, Franke S, Franke W (2003) The chemistry of sexual deception in an orchid-wasp pollination system. Science 302:437–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schuett GW, Clark DL, Kraus F (1984) Feeding mimicry in the rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus, with comments on the evolution of the rattle. Anim Behav 32:625–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shulze RE (1997) South African atlas of agrohydrology and climatology. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  57. StatSoft Inc. (2014) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 12,
  58. Stoddard MC, Stevens M (2010) Pattern mimicry of host eggs by the common cuckoo, as seen through a bird’s eye. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1387–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Welsh HH Jr, Lind AJ (2000) Evidence of lingual-luring by an aquatic snake. J Herpetol 34:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wickler W (1966) Mimicry in tropical fishes. Philos T Roy Soc B 251:473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wickler W (1968) Mimicry in plants and animals. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Wignall AE, Taylor PW (2011) Assassin bug uses aggressive mimicry to lure spider prey. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1427–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Animal, Plant and Environmental SciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations