Perspectives and Debates: Mimicry, Signalling and Co-Evolution (Commentary on Wolfgang Wickler - Understanding Mimicry - With special reference to vocal mimicry)

Antipredator defences in motion: animals reduce predation risks by concealing or misleading motion signals

Motion is a crucial part of the natural world, yet our understanding of how animals avoid predation whilst moving remains rather limited. Although several theories have been proposed for how antipredator defence may be facilitated during motion, there is often a lack of supporting empirical evidence, or conflicting findings. Furthermore, many studies have shown that motion often 'breaks' camouflage, as sudden movement can be detected even before an individual is recognised. Whilst some static camouflage strategies may conceal moving animals to a certain extent, more emphasis should be given to other modes of camouflage and related defences in the context of motion (e.g. flicker fusion camouflage, active motion camouflage, motion dazzle, and protean motion). Furthermore, when motion is involved, defence strategies are not necessarily limited to concealment. An animal can also rely on motion to mislead predators with regards to its trajectory, location, size, colour pattern, or even identity. In this review, we discuss the various underlying antipredator strategies and the mechanisms through which they may be linked to motion, conceptualising existing empirical and theoretical studies from two perspectives - concealing and misleading effects. We also highlight gaps in our understanding of these antipredator strategies, and suggest possible methodologies for experimental designs/test subjects (i.e. prey and/or predators) and future research directions.

Kin term mimicry hypothesis

Adaptive mimicry in animals is a well-known phenomenon. Here, we propose that a similarly adaptive strategy in humans is using kin terms for people who are not closely genetically related. Irrespective of the initiator attributing a kin term to a non-kin, we call this kin term mimicry (KTM). The emergence of human sociality and language allowed not only easy kin recognition, but also led to strong positive emotions related to such kin names as "mother," "father," "brother," "sister," "aunt" or "uncle." Although the phenomenon of using kin terms of genetically unrelated people is well known in the social sciences, here we discuss it in the light of evolution. We notice this is an evolutionary adaptive cooperation strategy, which allows us to predict in which ecological or social circumstances it will be more prevalent. We postulate specific testable factors that affect the prevalence of kin mimicry. We also discuss who is more likely to be an initiator of calling non-kin a fictive kin, and who benefits from such behavior. The KTM hypothesis postulates that an individual or social group initiating or bestowing kin terms usually receives more benefits (economic and/or psychological support) from such mimicry.

Perception-driven dynamics of mimicry based on attractor field model

We provide a formal account of an interface that bridges two different levels of dynamic processes manifested by mimicry: prey-prey interactions and predators' perception. Mimicry is a coevolutionary process between an animate selective agent and at least two similar organisms selected by agent's perception-driven actions. Attractor field model explains perceived similarity of forms by noting that in both human and animal cognition, morphologically intermediate forms are more likely to be perceived as belonging to rare rather than abundant forms. We formalize this model in terms of predators' perception space deformation using numerical simulations and argue that the probability of confusion between similar species creates pressure on the perception space, which in turn leads to inflation of regions of perception space with high density of species representations. Such inflation causes increased discrimination between species by a predator, which implies that adaptive mimicry could initially emerge more easily among atypical species because they do not need the same level of similarity to the model. We provide a theoretical instrument to conceptualize interdependence between objective measurable matrices and perceived matrices of the same external reality. We believe that our framework leads to a more precise understanding of the evolution of mimicry.

Natural selection in mimicry

Biological mimicry has served as a salient example of natural selection for over a century, providing us with a dazzling array of very different examples across many unrelated taxa. We provide a conceptual framework that brings together apparently disparate examples of mimicry in a single model for the purpose of comparing how natural selection affects models, mimics and signal receivers across different interactions. We first analyse how model-mimic resemblance likely affects the fitness of models, mimics and receivers across diverse examples. These include classic Batesian and Müllerian butterfly systems, nectarless orchids that mimic Hymenoptera or nectar-producing plants, caterpillars that mimic inert objects unlikely to be perceived as food, plants that mimic abiotic objects like carrion or dung and aggressive mimicry where predators mimic food items of their own prey. From this, we construct a conceptual framework of the selective forces that form the basis of all mimetic interactions. These interactions between models, mimics and receivers may follow four possible evolutionary pathways in terms of the direction of selection resulting from model-mimic resemblance. Two of these pathways correspond to the selective pressures associated with what is widely regarded as Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. The other two pathways suggest mimetic interactions underpinned by distinct selective pressures that have largely remained unrecognized. Each pathway is characterized by theoretical differences in how model-mimic resemblance influences the direction of selection acting on mimics, models and signal receivers, and the potential for consequent (co)evolutionary relationships between these three protagonists. The final part of this review describes how selective forces generated through model-mimic resemblance can be opposed by the basic ecology of interacting organisms and how those forces may affect the symmetry, strength and likelihood of (co)evolution between the three protagonists within the confines of the four broad evolutionary possibilities. We provide a clear and pragmatic visualization of selection pressures that portrays how different mimicry types may evolve. This conceptual framework provides clarity on how different selective forces acting on mimics, models and receivers are likely to interact and ultimately shape the evolutionary pathways taken by mimetic interactions, as well as the constraints inherent within these interactions.

Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry

'Mimicry' is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection's power to produce stunning adaptations. However, there remains a lack of clarity over how mimetic resemblances are conceptually related to each other. The result is that categories denoting the traditional subdivisions of mimicry are applied inconsistently across studies, hindering attempts at conceptual unification. This review critically examines the logic by which mimicry can be conceptually organized and analysed. It highlights the following three evolutionarily relevant distinctions. (i) Are the model's traits being mimicked signals or cues? (ii) Does the mimic signal a fitness benefit or fitness cost in order to manipulate the receiver's behaviour? (iii) Is the mimic's signal deceptive? The first distinction divides mimicry into two broad categories: 'signal mimicry' and 'cue mimicry'. 'Signal mimicry' occurs when mimic and model share the same receiver, and 'cue mimicry' when mimic and model have different receivers or when there is no receiver for the model's trait. 'Masquerade' fits conceptually within cue mimicry. The second and third distinctions divide both signal and cue mimicry into four types each. These are the three traditional mimicry categories (aggressive, Batesian and Müllerian) and a fourth, often overlooked category for which the term 'rewarding mimicry' is suggested. Rewarding mimicry occurs when the mimic's signal is non-deceptive (as in Müllerian mimicry) but where the mimic signals a fitness benefit to the receiver (as in aggressive mimicry). The existence of rewarding mimicry is a logical extension of the criteria used to differentiate the three well-recognized forms of mimicry. These four forms of mimicry are not discrete, immutable types, but rather help to define important axes along which mimicry can vary.

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.

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.

Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection

Mimicry--when one organism (the mimic) evolves a phenotypic resemblance to another (the model) due to selective benefits--is widely used to illustrate natural selection's power to generate adaptations. However, many putative mimics resemble their models imprecisely, and such imperfect mimicry represents a specific challenge to mimicry theory and a general one to evolutionary theory. Here, we discuss 11 nonmutually exclusive hypotheses for imperfect mimicry. We group these hypotheses according to whether imperfect mimicry reflects: an artifact of human perception, which is not shared by any naturally occurring predators and therefore is not truly an instance of imperfect mimicry; genetic, developmental or time-lag constraints, which (temporarily) prevent a response to selection for perfect mimicry; relaxed selection, where imperfect mimicry is as adaptive as perfect mimicry; or tradeoffs, where imperfect mimicry is (locally) more adaptive than perfect mimicry. We find that the relaxed selection hypothesis has garnered the most support. However, because only a few study systems have thus far been comprehensively evaluated, the relative contributions of the various hypotheses toward explaining the evolution of imperfect mimicry remain unclear. Ultimately, clarifying why imperfect mimicry exists should provide critical insights into the limits of natural selection in producing complex adaptations.

Color plumage polymorphism and predator mimicry in brood parasites

Background

Plumage polymorphism may evolve during coevolution between brood parasites and their hosts if rare morph(s), by contravening host search image, evade host recognition systems better than common variant(s). Females of the parasitic common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) are a classic example of discrete color polymorphism: gray females supposedly mimic the sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus), while rufous females are believed to mimic the kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). Despite many studies on host responses to adult cuckoos comprehensive tests of the “hawk mimicry” and “kestrel mimicry” hypotheses are lacking so far.

Results

We tested these hypotheses by examining host responses to stuffed dummies of the sparrowhawk, kestrel, cuckoo and the innocuous turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) as a control at the nest. Our experimental data from an aggressive cuckoo host, the great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus), showed low effectiveness of cuckoo-predator mimicry against more aggressive hosts regardless of the type of model and the degree of perfection of the mimic. Specifically, warblers discriminated gray cuckoos from sparrowhawks but did not discriminate rufous cuckoos from kestrels. However, both gray and rufous cuckoos were attacked vigorously and much more than control doves. The ratio of aggression to gray vs. rufous cuckoo was very similar to the ratio between frequencies of gray vs. rufous cuckoo morphs in our study population.

Conclusions

Overall, our data combined with previous results from other localities suggest polymorphism dynamics are not strongly affected by local predator model frequencies. Instead, hosts responses and discrimination abilities are proportional, other things being equal, to the frequency with which hosts encounter various cuckoo morphs near their nests. This suggests that female cuckoo polymorphism is a counter-adaptation to thwart a specific host adaptation, namely an ability to not be fooled by predator mimicry. We hypothesize the dangerousness of a particular model predator (sparrowhawks are more dangerous to adult birds than kestrels) may be another important factor responsible for better discrimination between the gray cuckoo and its model rather than between the rufous cuckoo and its model. We also provide a review of relevant existing literature, detailed discussion of plumage polymorphism in cuckoos, methodological recommendations and new ideas for future work.