A case report of an Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius) attacking an incubating adult and depredating the eggs of the Japanese tit (Parus minor)

In May 2021, we opportunistically observed one Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius) attacking an adult incubating Japanese tit (Parus minor) and depredating nine tit eggs at a nest box where a woodpecker had greatly enlarged the entrance. After the predation event, the Japanese tits abandoned the nest. We recommend that when using artificial nest boxes to protect hole‐nesting birds, the appropriate entrance size should be proportional to the body size of the target species. This observation gives us a better understanding of the potential predators of secondary hole‐nesting birds.

The mystery of emotional mimicry: multiple functions and processing levels in expression imitation

Mimicry of appearance or of facial, vocal, or gestural expressions emerges frequently among members of different species. When such mimicry directly relates to affective aspects of an interaction, researchers talk about "emotional mimicry". Emotional mimicry has been amply documented but its functionality is still debated. Why and when do people mimic the expressions of others, who benefits, the mimicker or the mimicked, and how do they benefit? Which processes underlie emotional mimicry? Is it completely automatic and unconscious or can it be deliberate and conscious? The current Theory Section addresses these questions from different theoretical perspectives. The invited article by Hess and Fischer focused on the role of mimicry in social regulation and social bonding. The invited comment by Krets and Akyüz highlights information gathering and prediction in social interaction. The invited comment by Bernhold and Giles emphasizes vocal communication and its role in interpersonal accommodation. In this editorial, I propose the different theoretical perspectives may be integrated by assuming a multilevel appraisal and response generation mechanism. I also suggest that emotional mimicry research may be broadened by including social learning, vocal imitation, interspecies comparisons, and affective computing approaches.

Snake-like calls in breeding tits

Hole-nesting tits belonging to the family Paridae produce a hissing display that resembles the exhalatory hiss of a snake. When a predatory animal enters the nest hole of a tit, tits often hiss vigorously, while lunging their head forward and shaking their wings and tail, until the intruder retreats. We assessed the acoustic similarity between such hiss calls from 6 species of tits, snake hisses, and tit syllables used in alarm vocalizations, as well as white noise as a control. Tit hiss calls showed a high degree of similarity with snake hisses from 3 different snake families. Tit hisses had lower similarity to syllable alarm calls, suggesting convergence of tit hisses in their spectral structure. Hiss calls would only be effective in protecting nest boxes if nest predators responded to these calls. In order to test this hypothesis, we trained individual Swinhoe’s striped squirrels, Tamiops swinhoei hainanus, a common predator of egg and nestling tits, to feed at feeders in proximity to nest boxes. We compared the aversive response of squirrels to tit’s hiss calls and white noise, presented in random order. Squirrels showed a higher degree of avoidance of feeders when hiss calls were played back than when white noise was presented. In conclusion, our study suggests that hole-nesting birds have evolved convergent snake-like hiss calls, and that predators avoid to prey on the contents of nest boxes from which snake-like hisses emerge.

Animal communication: Lyrebirds 'cry wolf' during mating

During courtship, male lyrebirds create acoustic illusions of a flock of birds fending off a predator. These realistic illusions fool the imitated species to engage in mobbing, but intriguingly lyrebirds produce them only preceding or during copulation.

Aggressive mimicry in a coral reef fish: The prey's view

Since all forms of mimicry are based on perceptual deception, the sensory ecology of the intended receiver is of paramount importance to test the necessary precondition for mimicry to occur, that is, model-mimic misidentification, and to gain insight in the origin and evolutionary trajectory of the signals. Here we test the potential for aggressive mimicry by a group of coral reef fishes, the color polymorphic Hypoplectrus hamlets, from the point of view of their most common prey, small epibenthic gobies and mysid shrimp. We build visual models based on the visual pigments and spatial resolution of the prey, the underwater light spectrum and color reflectances of putative models and their hamlet mimics. Our results are consistent with one mimic-model relationship between the butter hamlet H. unicolor and its model the butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus but do not support a second proposed mimic-model pair between the black hamlet H. nigricans and the dusky damselfish Stegastes adustus. We discuss our results in the context of color morphs divergence in the Hypoplectrus species radiation and suggest that aggressive mimicry in H. unicolor might have originated in the context of protective (Batesian) mimicry by the hamlet from its fish predators rather than aggressive mimicry driven by its prey.

A hypothesis to explain accuracy of wasp resemblances

Mimicry is one of the oldest concepts in biology, but it still presents many puzzles and continues to be widely debated. Simulation of wasps with a yellow‐black abdominal pattern by other insects (commonly called “wasp mimicry”) is traditionally considered a case of resemblance of unprofitable by profitable prey causing educated predators to avoid models and mimics to the advantage of both (Figure 1a). However, as wasps themselves are predators of insects, wasp mimicry can also be seen as a case of resemblance to one's own potential antagonist. We here propose an additional hypothesis to Batesian and Müllerian mimicry (both typically involving selection by learning vertebrate predators; cf. Table 1) that reflects another possible scenario for the evolution of multifold and in particular very accurate resemblances to wasps: an innate, visual inhibition of aggression among look‐alike wasps, based on their social organization and high abundance. We argue that wasp species resembling each other need not only be Müllerian mutualists and that other insects resembling wasps need not only be Batesian mimics, but an innate ability of wasps to recognize each other during hunting is the driver in the evolution of a distinct kind of masquerade, in which model, mimic, and selecting agent belong to one or several species (Figure  1b). Wasp mimics resemble wasps not (only) to be mistaken by educated predators but rather, or in addition, to escape attack from their wasp models. Within a given ecosystem, there will be selection pressures leading to masquerade driven by wasps and/or to mimicry driven by other predators that have to learn to avoid them. Different pressures by guilds of these two types of selective agents could explain the widely differing fidelity with respect to the models in assemblages of yellow jackets and yellow jacket look‐alikes.

Mimicry for all modalities

Mimicry is a canonical example of adaptive signal design. In principle, what constitutes mimicry is independent of the taxonomic identity of the mimic, the ecological context in which it operates, and the sensory modality through which it is expressed. However, in practice the study of mimicry is inconsistent across research fields, with theoretical and empirical advances often failing to cross taxonomic and sensory divides. We propose a novel conceptual framework whereby mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result confers a selective benefit onto the mimic. Here, misidentification and/or deception are no longer formal requirements, and mimicry can evolve irrespective of the underlying proximate mechanisms. The centrality of receiver perception in this framework enables us to formally distinguish mimicry from perceptual exploitation and integrate mimicry and multicomponent signalling theory for the first time. In addition, it resolves inconsistencies in our understanding of the role of learning in mimicry evolution, and shows that imperfect mimicry is expected to be the norm. Mimicry remains a key model for understanding signal evolution and cognition, and we recommend the adoption of a unified approach to stimulate future interdisciplinary developments in this fascinating area of research.

Crying wolf to a predator: deceptive vocal mimicry by a bird protecting young

Animals often mimic dangerous or toxic species to deter predators; however, mimicry of such species may not always be possible and mimicry of benign species seems unlikely to confer anti-predator benefits. We reveal a system in which a bird mimics the alarm calls of harmless species to fool a predator 40 times its size and protect its offspring against attack. Our experiments revealed that brown thornbills (Acanthiza pusilla) mimic a chorus of other species' aerial alarm calls, a cue of an Accipiter hawk in flight, when predators attack their nest. The absence of any flying predators in this context implies that these alarms convey deceptive information about the type of danger present. Experiments on the primary nest predators of thornbills, pied currawongs (Strepera graculina), revealed that the predators treat these alarms as if they themselves are threatened by flying hawks, either by scanning the sky for danger or fleeing, confirming a deceptive function. In turn, these distractions delay attack and provide thornbill nestlings with an opportunity to escape. This sophisticated defence strategy exploits the complex web of interactions among multiple species across several trophic levels, and in particular exploits a predator's ability to eavesdrop on and respond appropriately to heterospecific alarm calls. Our findings demonstrate that prey can fool predators by deceptively mimicking alarm calls of harmless species, suggesting that defensive mimicry could be more widespread because of indirect effects on predators within a web of eavesdropping.

Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework

Mimicry is a classical example of adaptive signal design. Here, we review the current state of research into vocal mimicry in birds. Avian vocal mimicry is a conspicuous and often spectacular form of animal communication, occurring in many distantly related species. However, the proximate and ultimate causes of vocal mimicry are poorly understood. In the first part of this review, we argue that progress has been impeded by conceptual confusion over what constitutes vocal mimicry. We propose a modified version of Vane-Wright's (1980) widely used definition of mimicry. According to our definition, a vocalisation is mimetic if the behaviour of the receiver changes after perceiving the acoustic resemblance between the mimic and the model, and the behavioural change confers a selective advantage on the mimic. Mimicry is therefore specifically a functional concept where the resemblance between heterospecific sounds is a target of selection. It is distinct from other forms of vocal resemblance including those that are the result of chance or common ancestry, and those that have emerged as a by-product of other processes such as ecological convergence and selection for large song-type repertoires. Thus, our definition provides a general and functionally coherent framework for determining what constitutes vocal mimicry, and takes account of the diversity of vocalisations that incorporate heterospecific sounds. In the second part we assess and revise hypotheses for the evolution of avian vocal mimicry in the light of our new definition. Most of the current evidence is anecdotal, but the diverse contexts and acoustic structures of putative vocal mimicry suggest that mimicry has multiple functions across and within species. There is strong experimental evidence that vocal mimicry can be deceptive, and can facilitate parasitic interactions. There is also increasing support for the use of vocal mimicry in predator defence, although the mechanisms are unclear. Less progress has been made in explaining why many birds incorporate heterospecific sounds into their sexual displays, and in determining whether these vocalisations are functionally mimetic or by-products of sexual selection for other traits such as repertoire size. Overall, this discussion reveals a more central role for vocal mimicry in the behavioural ecology of birds than has previously been appreciated. The final part of this review identifies important areas for future research. Detailed empirical data are needed on individual species, including on the structure of mimetic signals, the contexts in which mimicry is produced, how mimicry is acquired, and the ecological relationships between mimic, model and receiver. At present, there is little information and no consensus about the various costs of vocal mimicry for the protagonists in the mimicry complex. The diversity and complexity of vocal mimicry in birds raises important questions for the study of animal communication and challenges our view of the nature of mimicry itself. Therefore, a better understanding of avian vocal mimicry is essential if we are to account fully for the diversity of animal signals.