Match!

Natural selection in mimicry.

Published on Apr 1, 2020in Biological Reviews10.288
· DOI :10.1111/brv.12564
Bruce Anderson18
Estimated H-index: 18
(Stellenbosch University),
Marinus L. de Jager8
Estimated H-index: 8
(Stellenbosch University)
Abstract
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 Mullerian 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 Mullerian 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.
  • References (75)
  • Citations (0)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
14 Citations
3 Citations
50 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References75
Newest
#1Marinus L. de Jager (Stellenbosch University)H-Index: 8
#2Bruce Anderson (Stellenbosch University)H-Index: 18
3 CitationsSource
#1Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 8
#2Nicholas Guttenberg (TITech: Tokyo Institute of Technology)H-Index: 10
Last. Blanca Huertas (AMNH: American Museum of Natural History)H-Index: 5
view all 5 authors...
Traditional anatomical analyses captured only a fraction of real phenomic information. Here, we apply deep learning to quantify total phenotypic similarity across 2468 butterfly photographs, covering 38 subspecies from the polymorphic mimicry complex of Heliconius erato and Heliconius melpomene. Euclidean phenotypic distances, calculated using a deep convolutional triplet network, demonstrate significant convergence between interspecies co-mimics. This quantitatively validates a key prediction o...
3 CitationsSource
#1Christopher K. Akcali (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 4
#2David W. Kikuchi (UA: University of Arizona)H-Index: 9
Last. David W. Pfennig (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 46
view all 3 authors...
3 CitationsSource
#1Gabriel A. Jamie (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 5
‘Mimicry’ is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection9s 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 l...
12 CitationsSource
#1Carlos P. Muñoz-Ramírez (UM: University of Michigan)H-Index: 6
#2Pierre-Paul Bitton (U of W: University of Windsor)H-Index: 9
Last. L. Lacey Knowles (UM: University of Michigan)H-Index: 39
view all 4 authors...
The ground beetle genus Ceroglossus contains co-distributed species that show pronounced intraspecific diversity in the form of geographical colour morphs. While colour morphs among different species appear to match in some geographical regions, in others, there is little apparent colour matching. Mimicry is a potential explanation for covariation in colour patterns, but it is not clear whether the degree of sympatric colour matching is higher than expected by chance given the obvious mismatches...
4 CitationsSource
#1Anastasia H. Dalziell (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 8
#2Justin A. Welbergen (USYD: University of Sydney)H-Index: 20
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 re...
21 CitationsSource
#1Mathieu Chouteau (University of Montpellier)H-Index: 12
#2Mónica Arias (CNRS: Centre national de la recherche scientifique)H-Index: 5
Last. Mathieu Joron (University of Montpellier)H-Index: 29
view all 3 authors...
Positive frequency-dependent selection (FDS) is a selection regime where the fitness of a phenotype increases with its frequency, and it is thought to underlie important adaptive strategies resting on signaling and communication. However, whether and how positive FDS truly operates in nature remains unknown, which hampers our understanding of signal diversity. Here, we test for positive FDS operating on the warning color patterns of chemically defended butterflies forming multiple coexisting mim...
45 CitationsSource
#1Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 8
#2Michael A. Charleston (UTAS: University of Tasmania)H-Index: 25
Examples of long-term coevolution are rare among free-living organisms. Mullerian mimicry in Heliconius butterflies had been suggested as a key example of coevolution by early genetic studies. However, research over the last two decades has been dominated by the idea that the best-studied comimics, H. erato and H. melpomene, did not coevolve at all. Recently sequenced genes associated with wing color pattern phenotype offer a new opportunity to resolve this controversy. Here, we test the hypothe...
8 CitationsSource
#1Jeremy J. Midgley (UCT: University of Cape Town)H-Index: 38
#2Joseph D.M. White (UCT: University of Cape Town)H-Index: 3
Last. Gary N. Bronner (UCT: University of Cape Town)H-Index: 10
view all 4 authors...
Mimicry, deception and sensory exploitation of animals by plants is controversial, especially for seed dispersal. A field experiment in a South African nature reserve suggests that the large brown, round, strongly scented seeds of Ceratocaryum argenteum that emit many volatiles found to be present in herbivore dung, attract dung beetles that roll and bury them.
21 CitationsSource
#1Eleanor M. Caves (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 7
#2Martin Stevens (University of Exeter)H-Index: 39
Last. Claire N. Spottiswoode (University of Cambridge)H-Index: 23
view all 4 authors...
Hosts of brood-parasitic birds must distinguish their own eggs from parasitic mimics, or pay the cost of mistakenly raising a foreign chick. Egg discrimination is easier when different host females of the same species each lay visually distinctive eggs (egg ‘signatures’), which helps to foil mimicry by parasites. Here, we ask whether brood parasitism is associated with lower levels of correlation between different egg traits in hosts, making individual host signatures more distinctive and inform...
13 CitationsSource
Cited By0
Newest