Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (2011). Principles of animal communication. Sunderland: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockmann, H. J. (2006). Why are animals so honest? BioScience, 56, 849–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carazo, P., & Font, E. (2010). Putting information back into biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(4), 661–669.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carazo, P., & Font, E. (2014). ‘Communication breakdown’: the evolution of signal unreliability and deception. Animal Behaviour, 87, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catania, K. C. (2008). Worm grunting, fiddling, and charming--humans unknowingly mimic a predator to harvest bait. PLoS One, 3(10), e3472.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Christy, J. H. (1995). Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. The American Naturalist, 146(2), 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christy, J. H. (1997). Deception: the correct path to enlightenment? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(4), 160.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dalziell, A. H., & Welbergen, J. A. (2016). Mimicry for all modalities. Ecology Letters, 19(6), 609–619.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziell, A. H., Welbergen, J. A., Igic, B., & Magrath, R. D. (2015). Avian vocal mimicry: A unified conceptual framework. Biological Reviews, 90, 643–668.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, M. (1974). Defence in animals: A survey of anti predator defences. Burnt Mill, Essex: Longman.

  • Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415–420.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Forbes, P. (2009). Dazzled and deceived: Mimicry and camouflage. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskett, A. C. (2011). Orchid pollination by sexual deception: pollinator perspectives. Biological Reviews, 86(1), 33–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Heiling, A. M., Herberstein, M. E., & Chittka, L. (2003). Crab spiders manipulate flower signals. Nature, 421, 334.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler, B., & Wilson, E. O. (1990). The ants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Jamie, G. A. (2017). Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 284(1849), 20162080.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, L. A., Coe, R. L., Madden, J. R., & Healy, S. D. (2008). Vocal mimicry in songbirds. Animal Behaviour, 76, 521–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kikuchi, D. W., & Pfennig, D. W. (2013). Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 88, 297–315.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Macías-García, C., & Ramirez, E. (2005). Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature, 434, 501–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. G. C. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mokkonen, M., & Lindstedt, C. (2016). The evolutionary ecology of deception. Biological Reviews, 91(4), 1020–1035.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nelson, X. J. (2014). Evolutionary implications of deception in mimicry and masquerade. Current Zoology, 60, 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasteur, G. (1982). A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 169–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Quicke, D. L. J. (2017). Mimicry, crypsis, masquerade and other adaptive resemblances. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, H. M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2009). Deception in plants: mimicry or perceptual exploitation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(12), 676–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2008). Defining biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 387–395.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy, W. A., & Nowicki, S. (2005). The evolution of animal communication: reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semple, S., & McComb, K. (1996). Behavioural deception. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(10), 434–437.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sherratt, T. N. (2008). The evolution of Mullerian mimicry. Naturwissenschaften, 95(8), 681–695.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skelhorn, J. (2015). Masquerade. Current Biology, 25(15), R643–R644.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Skelhorn, J., Rowland, H. M., Speed, M. P., & Ruxton, G. D. (2010b). Masquerade: Camouflage without crypsis. Science, 327(5961), 51–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. J. (1977). The behavior of communicating: an ethological approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speed, M. P. (1999). Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 755–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speed, M. P. (2014). Mimicry. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0001790.pub3.

  • Starrett, A. (1993). Adaptive resemblance: a unifying concept for mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 48, 299–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M. (2013). Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M. (2016). Cheats and deceits: how animals and plants exploit and mislead. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M., & Merilaita, S. (2009). Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 423–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, P. K. (1999). Predation enhances complexity in the evolution of electric fish signals. Nature, 400, 254–256.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, M. C., & Stevens, M. (2011). Avian vision and the evolution of egg color mimicry in the common cuckoo. Evolution, 65(7), 2004–2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart-Fox, D. (2005). Deception and the origin of honest signals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(10), 521–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Théry, M., & Casas, J. (2002). Predator and prey views of spider camouflage. Nature, 415, 133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (2011). The folly of fools: the logic of deceit and self-deception in human life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. (1976). A unified classification of mimetic resemblances. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 8, 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. (1980). On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 13, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. (1981). Only connect. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler, W. (2013). Understanding mimicry – With special reference to vocal mimicry. Ethology, 119, 259–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ethology Laboratory, Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, APDO. 22085, 46071, Valencia, Spain

    Enrique Font

Authors
  1. Enrique Font
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Font.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Font, E. Mimicry, Camouflage and Perceptual Exploitation: the Evolution of Deception in Nature. Biosemiotics 12, 7–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9339-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9339-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation