The concept of biological mimicry is viewed as a ‘process of life’ theory rather than a ‘process of change’ theory—regardless of the historical interest and heuristic value of the subject for the study of evolution. Mimicry is a dynamic ecological system reflecting the possibilities for mutualism and parasitism created by a pre-established bipartite signal-based relationship between two organisms – a potential model and its signal receiver (potential operator). In a mimicry system agency and perception play essential, interconnected roles. Mimicry thus describes emergent biologically meaningful relationships based on synergy, and is not an object-based theory. Biosemiotics offers a particularly valuable discipline for analysing the dynamics and nuances of mimicry systems, and can thus pave the way for a better and more complete understanding of how mimicry has evolved in the past, and how it might evolve in the future—presented here with special reference to the need for an integrated, ‘third way of evolution’ approach to biological relativity. A revised definition of mimicry is proposed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Affifi, R. (2018). Deweyan psychology in plant intelligence research: Transforming stimulus and response. In F. Baluska, M. Gagliano, & G. Witzany (Eds.), Memory and learning in plants. Signaling and communication in plants (pp. 17–33). Cham: Springer.
Arber, A. (1954). The mind and the eye. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Baldwin, J. M. (1902). Development and evolution. New York: Macmillan.
Barandiaran, X., Di Paolo, E., & Rohde, M. (2009). Defining agency: Individuality, normativity, asymmetry and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behavior, 17(5), 367–386.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Boppré, M., Vane-Wright, R. I., & Wickler, W. (2017). A hypothesis to explain accuracy of wasp resemblances. Ecology and Evolution, 7, 73–81.
Brady, R. H. (1985). On the independence of systematics. Cladistics, 1, 113–126.
Brower, J. V. Z., & Brower, L. P. (1962). Experimental studies of mimicry. 6. The reactions of toads (Bufo terrestris) to honeybees (Apis mellifera) and their dronefly mimics (Eristalis vinetorum). American Naturalist, 96, 297–307.
Brower, L. P., Brower, J. V. Z., & Westcott, P. W. (1960). Experimental studies of mimicry. 5. The reactions of toads (Bufo terrestris) to bumblebees (Bombus americanorum) and their robberfly mimics (Mallophora bomboides), with a discussion of aggressive mimicry. American Naturalist, 94, 343–355.
Brower, L. P., Brower, J. V. Z., & Corvino, J. M. (1967). Plant poisons in terrestrial food chain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 57, 893–898.
Bruce, R. W. (2014). A reflection on biological thought: Whatever happened to the organism? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112(2), 354–365.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life. A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Casati, R., & Varzi, A. (2015). Events. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/events/. Accessed 12 May 2018.
Coon, D. (1983). Introduction to psychology. Exploration and application (3rd edn). Minneapolis/St. Paul: West.
Corning, P. A. (1983). The synergism hypothesis. A theory of progressive evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Corning, P. A. (2005). Holistic Darwinism. Synergy, cybernetics, and the bioeconomics of evolution. Chicago: Chicago UP.
Corning, P. A. (2014a). Systems theory and the role of synergy in the evolution of living systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31, 181–196.
Corning, P. A. (2014b). Evolution ‘on purpose’: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242–260.
Corning, P. A. (2018). Synergistic selection. How cooperation has shaped evolution and the rise of humankind. Singapore: World Scientific.
Corning, P. A., & Szathmáry, E. (2015). “Synergistic selection”: A Darwinian frame for the evolution of complexity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 371, 45–58.
Côté, I. M., & Cheney, K. L. (2005). Choosing when to be a cleaner-fish mimic. Nature, 433, 211–212.
Dalziell, A. H., & Welbergen, J. A. (2016). Mimicry for all modalities. Ecology Letters, 19(6), 609–619.
Dalziell, A. H., Welbergen, J. A., Igic, B., & Magrath, R. D. (2015). Avian vocal mimicry: A unified conceptual framework. Biological Reviews, 90, 643–668.
Di Paolo, E. A., Barandiaran, X. E., Beaton, M., & Buhrmann, T. (2014). Learning to perceive in the sensorimotor approach: Piaget’s theory of equilibration interpreted dynamically. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 551 (16 pp.), 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00551.
Doolittle, W. F., & Booth, A. (2017). It’s the song, not the singer: An exploration of holobiosis and evolutionary theory. Biology and Philosophy, 32, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9542-2.
Dupré, J. (1995). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1959). Der Fisch Aspidontus taeniatus als Nachahamer des Putzers Labroides dimidiatus. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 16, 19–25.
Eldredge, N. (2004). Why we do it. Rethinking sex and the selfish gene. New York: Norton.
Elton, C. E. (1966). Animal ecology. London: Methuen, (first edn published 1927 by Sidgwick & Jackson).
Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 25–31.
Friston, K., Adams, R. A., Perrinet, L., & Breakspear, M. (2012). Perceptions as hypotheses: Saccades as experiments. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 20 pp. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00151.
Goodwin, B. (1994). How the leopard changed its spots. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson (consulted as Phoenix edn, Orion).
Goodwin, B. (2007). Nature’s due. Healing our fragmented culture. Edinburgh: Floris.
Gregory, R. L. (1972). Eye and brain. The psychology of seeing (2nd ed.). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Gregory, R. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 290, 181–197.
Gross, R. D. (1987). Psychology. The science of mind and behaviour (1st ed.). London: Arnold.
Guilford, T., Nicol, C., Rothschild, M., & Moore, B. P. (1987). The biological roles of pyrazines: Evidence for a warning odour function. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 31, 113–128.
Haukioja, E. (1982). Are individuals really subordinated to genes? A theory of living entities. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 99, 357–375.
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illionois Press.
Ho, M.-W. (2017). Meaning of life & the universe transforming. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ingold, T. (1986). Culture and the perception of the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Ingold, T. (1989). An anthropologist looks at biology. Man (NS), 25, 208–229.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions. Genetic, epigenetic, behavioural, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge: MIT.
Jamie, G. A. (2017). Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284, 20162080 (9 pp.).
Jones, D. M. (2017). The biological foundations of action. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kauffman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford UP (consulted as paperback edn, Penguin, London, 1996).
Kauffman, S. A. (2008). Reinventing the sacred. Basic Books, New York (consulted as paperback edn, 2010).
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago UP.
Kull, K. (2000). Organisms can be proud to have been their own designers. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 7, 45–55.
Kull, K. (2017). What kind of evolutionary biology suits cultural research? Sign Systems Studies, 44(4), 634–647.
Kull, K. (2018). On the logic of animal Umwelten: The animal subjective present and zoosemiotics of choice and learning. In G. Marrone & D. Mangano (Eds.), semiotics of animals in culture. Biosemiotics, 17, 135–148.
Kunte, K., Zhang, W., Tenger-Trolander, A., Palmer, D. H., Martin, A., Reed, D. R., Mullen, S. P., & Kronforst, M. R. (2014). Doublesex is a mimicry supergene. Nature, 507, 229–232.
Losey, G. S. (1972). Predation protection in the poison-fang blenny, Meiacanthus atrodorsalis, and its mimics, Ecsenius bicolor and Runula laudandus (Blenniidae). Pacific Science, 26, 129–139.
Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: Structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. Biosemiotics, 16, x + 164 pp. Cham: Springer.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The evolution of sex. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). The evolution of social behaviour – A classification of models. In King's college sociobiology group (Ed.), Current problems in sociobiology (pp. 28–44). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Freeman Press.
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Noble, D. (2012). A theory of biological relativity: No privileged level of causation. Interface Focus, 2(1), 55–64.
Noble, D. (2013). Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Experimental Physiology, 98, 1235–1243.
Noble, D. (2015). Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: A new conceptual framework. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 7–13.
Piaget, J. (1979). Behaviour and evolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piepers, M. C. (1913). Introduction. In M. C. Piepers & P. C. T. Snellen, The Rhopalocera of Java, 3, i–lxvi. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (2010). Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In M. Pigliucci & G. B. Müller (Eds.), Evolution: The extended synthesis (pp. 3–17). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Plotkin, H. C. (Ed.). (1988a). The role of behavior in evolution. Cambridge: MIT.
Plotkin, H. C. (1988b). Learning and evolution. In H. C. Plotkin (Ed.), The role of behavior in evolution (pp. 133–164). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quicke, D. L. J. (2017). Mimicry, crypsis, masquerade and other adaptive resemblances. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ranta, E., Tesar, D., Alaja, S., & Kaitala, V. (2000). Does evolution of iteroparous and semelparous reproduction call for spatially structured systems? Evolution, 54(1), 145–150.
Remane, A. (1952). Die Grundlagen des naturlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Theoretische Morphologie und Systematik I. Leipzig: Geest & Portig.
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.
Robinson, J., & Vane-Wright, R. I. (2018). A specimen of Tirumala hamata hamata (Macleay, 1826) (Lepidoptera: Danainae) from captain Cook’s first voyage. Journal of Natural History, 52(11–12), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2018.1444211.
Ruiz-Mirazo, K., & Moreno, A. (2012). Autonomy in evolution: From minimal to complex life. Synthese, 185, 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9874-z.
Shapiro, J. A. (2011). Evolution. A view from the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press Science.
Siddall, E. C., & Marples, N. M. (2011). The effect of pyrazine odor on avoidance learning and memory in wild robins Erithacus rubecula. Current Zoology, 57(2), 208–214.
Sternberg, J. G., Waldbauer, G. P., & Jeffords, M. R. (1977). Batesian mimicry: Selective advantage of color pattern. Science, 195(4279), 681–683.
The Third Way (2014–) http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/. Accessed 16th Aug 2018.
Theobald, D. L. (2010). A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature, 465, 219–222.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Timmermans, M. J. T. N., Thompson, M. J., Collins, S., & Vogler, A. P. (2017). Independent evolution of sexual dimorphism and female-limited mimicry in swallowtail butterflies (Papilio dardanus and Papilio phorcas). Molecular Ecology, 26(5), 1273–1284.
Tønnessen, M. (2015). The biosemiotic glossary project: Agent, Agency. Biosemiotics, 8, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9229-0.
Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., & Brentari, C. (2016). The biosemiotic glossary project: Umwelt. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9255-6.
Turner, J. R. G. (1983). “The hypothesis that explains mimetic resemblance explains evolution”: The gradualist–saltationist schism. In M. Grene (Ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism (pp. 129–169). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Turner, J. R. G. (1984). Mimicry: The palatability spectrum and its consequences. Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society, 11, 141–161.
von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1976). A unified classification of mimetic resemblances. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 8, 25–56.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1980). On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 13(1), 1–6.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1981). Only connect. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 33–40.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1991). [News & views] a case of self-deception. Nature (London), 350, 460–461.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (2014a). What is life? And what might be the role of behaviour in its evolution? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112(2), 219–241.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (Ed.). (2014b). The role of behaviour in evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112(2), 219–365.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (2017). Taxonomy, methods of. Reference Module in Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.02372-4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/module/topic/9780128096338/Concept-000174. Accessed 17 May 2018.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The function of reason. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Whorf, B. L. (1942). Language, mind, and reality. The Theosophist (Madras), 63(1), 281–291; 63(2), 25–37.
Wickler, W. (1963). Zum Problem der Signalbildung, am Beispiel der Verhaltens-Mimikry zwischen Aspidontus und Labroides (Pisces, Acanthopterygii). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 657–679.
Wickler, W. (1965). Mimicry and the evolution of animal communication. Nature, 208, 519–521.
Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals (translated by R. D. Martin) London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Wickler, W. (2013). Understanding mimicry – With special reference to vocal mimicry. Ethology, 119, 259–269.
Williams, C. A. (2015). Neo-Darwinism is just fine. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 2658–2659 [See also response from Noble, D., same issue.].
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zabka, H., & Tembrock, G. (1986). Mimicry and crypsis—A behavioural approach to classification. Behavioural Processes, 13(1/2), 159–176.
Zachos, F. E., & Hossfeld, U. (2010). Adolf Remane (1898–1976) and his views on systematics, homology and the modern synthesis. Studies in the History of Biology, 2(1), 51–64.
This is unfinished work of 50 years standing. Anything good here I owe to others; all mistakes, misunderstandings, omissions and other shortcomings are mine. Conrad Waddington, David Bohm, Willi Hennig, Ernst Mayr, Jean Piaget, Colin Patterson, Richard Gregory, Brian Goodwin, Andrew Packard, Erkki Haukioja, Fritjof Capra, Stuart Kauffman, Terence Deacon, Peter Corning, Patrick Bateson, Denis Walsh, Kalevi Kull, Wolfgang Wickler, Michael Boppré – and many many others – some known to me in person, some only from their writing (a few cited here), have all been very influential. Currently I need to read more John Dewey, Jakob von Uexküll, Thomas Sebeok and Evan Thompson. I am very grateful to the library staff of the Natural History Museum, London, for assistance, to Kalevi Kull and anonymous reviewers who helped me improve the manuscript, and to Timo Maran and Karel Kleisner for their kind invitation – and exceptional patience. This paper is respectfully dedicated to my late friend and mentor Lincoln Pierson Brower (1931–2018), who did so much to inspire and foster my interest in mimicry – and in milkweed butterflies.
Conflict of Interest
The author has no conflict of interest with respect to the contents of this paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Vane-Wright, R.I. Agency, Meaning, Perception and Mimicry: Perspectives from the Process of Life and Third Way of Evolution. Biosemiotics 12, 57–77 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9337-8
- Process of life