Biosemiotics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 33–55 | Cite as

Firefly Femmes Fatales: A Case Study in the Semiotics of Deception

  • Charbel N. El-Hani
  • João Queiroz
  • Frederik Stjernfelt
Original Paper

Abstract

Mimicry and deception are two important issues in studies about animal communication. The reliability of animal signs and the problem of the benefits of deceiving in sign exchanges are interesting topics in the evolution of communication. In this paper, we intend to contribute to an understanding of deception by studying the case of aggressive signal mimicry in fireflies, investigated by James Lloyd. Firefly femmes fatales are specialized in mimicking the mating signals of other species of fireflies with the purpose of attracting responding males to become their prey. These aggressive mimics are a major factor in the survival and reproduction of both prey and predator. It is a case of deception through active falsification of information that leads to efficient predation by femmes fatales fireflies and triggered evolutionary processes in their preys’ communicative behaviors. There are even nested coevolutionary interactions between these fireflies, leading to a remarkable system of deceptive and counterdeceptive signaling behaviors. We develop here a semiotic model of firefly deception and also consider ideas advanced by Lloyd about the evolution of communication, acknowledging that deception can be part of the explanation of why communication evolves towards increasing complexity. Increasingly complex sign exchanges between fireflies evolve in an extremely slow pace. Even if deceptive maneuvers are played out time and time again between particular firefly individuals, the evolution of the next level of complexity—and thus the next utterance in the dialogue between species—is likely to take an immense amount of generations.

Keywords

Communication Deception Semiotics Firefly femmes fatales Evolution 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Charbel N. El-Hani is thankful to the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) for funding of research projects and research grants. He is also indebted to the Foundation of Research Support of the State of Bahia (FAPESB) for funding of research projects. João Queiroz thanks the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) and the Foundation of Research Support of the State of Bahia (FAPESB) for funding of research projects and research grants. Frederik Stjernfelt is thankful to the Center for Semiotics, Aarhus University, for fine research conditions. All three authors are indebted to Kalevi Kull for his comments on the original manuscript.

References

  1. Bennett, J. (1976). Linguistic behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brower, L. P. (ed). (1988). Mimicry and the evolutionary process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Copeland, J., & Lloyd, J. E. (1983). Male firefly mimicry. Science, 221, 484–485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. De Tienne, A. (2003). Learning qua semiosis. S.E.E.D. Journal—Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development, 3, 37–53.Google Scholar
  5. Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  6. Debrock, G. (1996). Information and the metaphysical status of the sign. In V. Colapietro & T. Olshewsky (Eds.), Peirce’s doctrine of signs—theory, applications, and connections (pp. 80–89). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Emmeche, C. (2006). A semiotic analysis of the genetic information system. Semiotica, 160(1–4), 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Emmeche, C. (2009). Genes, information, and semiosis. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jablonka, E. (2002). Information: its interpretation, its inheritance, and its sharing. Philosophy of Science, 69, 578–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kleisner, K., & Markoš, A. (2005). Semetic rings: towards the new concept of mimetic resemblances. Theory in Biosciences, 123(3), 209–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Komárek, S. (2003). Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. Lincom Europa: Muenchen.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, S. M., & Cratsley, C. K. (2008). Flash signal evolution, mate choice, and predation in fireflies. Annual Review of Entomology, 53, 293–321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloyd, J. E. (1965). Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: firefly femmes fatales. Science, 149, 653–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd, J. E. (1975). Aggressive mimicry in Photuris fireflies: signal repertoires by femmes fatales. Science, 187, 452–453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lloyd, J. E. (1980). Male Photuris fireflies mimic sexual signals of their females’ prey. Science, 210, 669–671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lloyd, J. E. (1981). Firefly mate-rivals mimic their predators and vice versa. Nature, 290, 498–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd, J. E. (1986). Firefly communication and deception: “Oh, what a tangled web”. In R. W. Mitchell & N. S. Thompson (Eds.), Deception: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (pp. 113–128). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Maran, T. (2007). Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica, 167(1/4), 223–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mallet, J., & Joron, M. (1999). Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, R. W. (1986). A framework for discussing deception. In R. W. Mitchell & N. S. Thompson (Eds.), Deception: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (pp. 3–40). Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, R. W., & Thompson, N. S. (eds). (1986). Deception: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit. Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, S., Carlson, A. D., & Copeland, J. (1975). Mating-induced behavioural switch in female fireflies. Nature, 255, 628–629.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Peirce, C. S. (1992, 1998). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation.Google Scholar
  25. Peirce, C. S. (1967). Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce. Cambridge: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  26. Peirce, C. S. (1982–2000). Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Queiroz, J. (2003). Comunicação simbólica em primatas não-humanos: Uma análise baseada na semiótica de C. S. Peirce. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 25(Supl II), 2–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Queiroz, J. (2004). Semiose segundo C. S. Peirce. São Paulo: EDUC.Google Scholar
  29. Queiroz, J., Emmeche, C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2005). Information and semiosis in living systems: a semiotic approach. S.E.E.D. Journal—Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development, 5, 60–90.Google Scholar
  30. Queiroz, J., Emmeche, C., Kull, K., & El-Hani, C. (2009). The biosemiotic approach in biology: Theoretical bases and applied models. In G. Terzis & R. Arp (Eds.), MIT companion to information and the biological sciences. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Ribeiro, S., Loula, A., Araújo, I., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (2007). Symbols are not uniquely human. Biosystems, 90, 263–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sebeok, T. (1989). The sign and its masters. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  33. Seyfarth, R., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, 210, 801–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Singh, S. (1999). The code book. The secret history of codes and code breaking. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  35. Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology. An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. von Uexküll, J. (1928). Theoretische biologie (2nd ed.). Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Paetel.Google Scholar
  37. Wickler, W. (1965). Mimicry and the evolution of animal communication. Nature, 208, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  39. Zabka, H., & Tembrock, G. (1986). Mimicry and crypsis—a behavioural approach to classification. Behavioural Processes, 13, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charbel N. El-Hani
    • 1
  • João Queiroz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frederik Stjernfelt
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of BiologyUniversidade Federal da BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Arts and DesignFederal University of Juiz de ForaMinas GeraisBrazil
  3. 3.Graduate Program in Communication StudiesFederal University of Juiz de ForaMinas GeraisBrazil
  4. 4.Center for Semiotics, Scandinavian InstituteUniversity of AarhusAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations