Skip to main content
Log in

Context-dependent misclassification of masquerading prey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Masquerading prey resemble inedible objects such as leaves, twigs, stones and bird-droppings; and benefit because their predators misclassify them as the objects that they appear to resemble. From previous work on the importance of context cues in animal learning, we predict that predators will be less likely to misclassify masquerading prey as their models when they are found in a context in which predators have never before experienced the model. Here, we test this prediction using domestic chicks Gallus gallus domesticus as predators and twig-mimicking larvae of the Early Thorn moth Selenia dentaria as masquerading prey. We found that the benefit of masquerade was significantly larger when the twig-mimicking caterpillar was found in the context in which birds had previously experienced twigs. This suggests that masqueraders may have to pay opportunity costs associated with matching their models in position and microhabitat; and that predators’ classification decisions are complex and multi-factorial.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen JA, Cooper JM (1985) Crypsis and masquerade. J Bio Edu 19:268–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro T (2005) Antipredator defences in birds and mammals. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 34–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrick R (1936) Experiments to test the efficiency of protective adaptations in insects. Trans R Entomol Soc Lond 85:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1981) Comments on the nature of deception. Biol J Linn Soc 16:11–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cott HB (1940) Adaptive colouration in animals. Methuen, London, pp 311–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Windsor AMM, Walker HJ (2005) Disruptive coloration and background matching. Nature 434:72–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Ruiter L (1952) Some experiments on the camouflage of stick caterpillars. Behaviour 4:222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockery M, Meneely J, Costen P (2009) Avoiding detection by predators: the tactics used by Biston betularia larvae. British J Entomol Nat Hist 22:247–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longman, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds M (1981) On defining ‘mimicry’. Biol J Linn Soc 16:9–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1981) An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Bio J Linn Soc 16:25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluck MA, Mercado E, Myers CA (2008) Learning and memory: from brain to behaviour. Worth Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailman JP (1977) Optical signals: animal communication and light. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 174–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Merilaita S, Lind J (2006) Great tits searching for artificial prey: implications for cryptic coloration and symmetry. Behav Ecol 17:84–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson MH (1981) A stick is a stick and not worth eating: on the definition of mimicry. Bio J Linn Soc 16:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild M (1981) The mimicrats must move with the times. Bio J Linn Soc 16:21–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland HM, Cuthill IC, Harvey IF, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2008) Can’t tell the caterpillars from the trees: countershading enhances survival in a woodland. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2539–2545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton GD, Speed MP, Kelly DJ (2004a) What, if anything, is the adaptive function of countershading? Anim Behav 68:445–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004b) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer HM, Stobbe N (2006) Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2427–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution and behaviour, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelhorn J, Ruxton GD (2010) Predators are less likely to misclassify masquerading prey when their models are present. Biol Lett (in press)

  • Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Ruxton GD (2010a) The evolution and ecology of masquerade. Bio J Linn Soc 99:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelhorn J, Rowland HM, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2010b) Masquerade: camouflage without crypsis. Science 327:51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skow CD, Jakob EM (2006) Jumping spiders attend to context during learned avoidance of aposematic prey. Behav Ecol 17:34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Meriliata S (2009) Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:423–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M, Cuthill IC, Winsor AMM, Waker HJ (2006) Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2433–2438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen L (1960) The natural control of insects in pinewoods. 1. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by a song bird. Archives Neerlandaises de Zoologie 13:265–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI (1980) On the definition of mimicry. Biol J Linn Soc 13:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI (1981) Only connect. Bio J Linn Soc 16:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank NERC for funding; and John Delf, Hannah Rowland and Mike Speed for considerable help and advice throughout the project. We thank three anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Skelhorn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skelhorn, J., Ruxton, G.D. Context-dependent misclassification of masquerading prey. Evol Ecol 25, 751–761 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9435-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-010-9435-9

Keywords

Navigation