Advertisement

The Origin of Mimicry

Deception or Merely Coincidence?
  • Bram Wiggers
  • Harmen de Weerd
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 823)

Abstract

One of the most remarkable phenomena in nature is mimicry, in which one species (the mimic) evolves to imitate the phenotype of another species (the model). Several reasons for the origin of mimicry have been proposed, but no definitive conclusion has been found yet. In this paper, we test several of these hypotheses through an agent based co-evolutionary model. In particular, we consider two possible alternatives: (1) Deception, in which mimics evolve to imitate the phenotype of models that predators avoid to eat, and (2) Coincidence, in which models evolve a warning color to avoid predation, which coincidentally benefits the mimics. Our agent-based simulation shows that both these hypotheses are plausible origins for mimicry, but also that once a mimicry situation has been established through coincidence, mimics will take advantage of the possibility for deception as well.

References

  1. 1.
    Bates, H.W.: XXXII. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepid. Heliconidae Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23(3), 495–566 (1862)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Richerson, P.J.: The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100(6), 3531–3535 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cangelosi, A., Parisi, D.: Simulating the Evolution of Language. Springer, London (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein, J.M.: Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity 4(5), 41–60 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Epstein, J.M.: Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gavrilets, S., Hastings, A.: Coevolutionary chase in two-species systems with applications to mimicry. J. Theor. Biol. 191(4), 415–427 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmgren, N.M., Enquist, M.: Dynamics of mimicry evolution. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 66(2), 145–158 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jager, W., Popping, R., van de Sande, H.: Clustering and fighting in two-party crowds: simulating the approach-avoidance conflict. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 4(3), 1–18 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maan, M.E., Cummings, M.E.: Poison frog colors are honest signals of toxicity, particularly for bird predators. Am. Nat. 179(1), E1–E14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mallet, J., Joron, M.: Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30(1), 201–233 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller, F.: Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, 20–29 (1879)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rabosky, A.R.D., Cox, C.L., Rabosky, D.L., Title, P.O., Holmes, I.A., Feldman, A., McGuire, J.A.: Coral snakes predict the evolution of mimicry across new world snakes. Nat. Commun. 7, 11484 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Weerd, H., Verbrugge, R.: Evolution of altruistic punishment in heterogeneous populations. J. Theor. Biol. 290, 88–103 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Professorship User Centered DesignHanze University of Applied SciencesGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations