Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds

Experiments with wild birds feeding on pastry ‘prey’ were performed to test competing theories of Müllerian mimicry. Conventional theories predict that all resemblances between defended prey will be mutually advantageous and, hence, Mullerian. In contrast, unconventional theories predict that, if there are inequalities in defences between mimetic species, the less well–defended prey may dilute the protection of the better defended species in a quasi–Batesian manner.This unconventional prediction follows from an assumption that birds learn about the edibilities of prey using rules of Pavlovian learning.We report on two experiments, each lasting 40 days, which showed that a moderately defended prey can dilute the protection of a better defended mimic in a quasi–Batesian fashion, but can add protection to a mimic which has the same moderate levels of defence. These results match predictions of unconventional theories of mimicry and go some way to resolving the long–running arguments over the nature of Mullerian mimicry.

[1]  J. Mallet.  Shift happens! Shifting balance and the evolution of diversity in warning colour and mimicry , 2010 .

[2]  James Mallet,et al.  EVOLUTION OF DIVERSITY IN WARNING COLOR AND MIMICRY: Polymorphisms, Shifting , 1999 .

[3]  J. Turner,et al.  Virtual predators, receiver psychology and doubts about Müllerian mimicry: comments on MacDougall & Dawkins , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  J. Turner,et al.  Learning and memory in mimicry: II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum? , 1999 .

[5]  M. Speed.  Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  M. Speed.  Mistakes not necessary for Müllerian mimicry , 1998, Nature.

[7]  M. Joron,et al.  Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  D. Harper,et al.  Responses of Wild Birds to Novel Prey: Evidence of Dietary Conservatism , 1998 .

[9]  Graeme D Ruxton,et al.  Mimicry: Sheep in wolves' clothing , 1998, Nature.

[10]  M. Dawkins,et al.  Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  R. B. Srygley,et al.  Red‐wing blackbird reproductive behaviour and the palatability, flight performance, and morphology of temperate pierid butterflies (Colias, Pieris, and Pontia) , 1998 .

[12]  Michael P. Speed,et al.  Learning and Memory in Mimicry. I. Simulations of Laboratory Experiments , 1996 .

[13]  M. Speed.  When is mimicry good for predators? , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  N. Marples.  Do wild birds use size to distinguish palatable and unpalatable prey types? , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  M. Speed.  Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  Lange Rh.  Wolves in sheep's clothing. , 1993 .

[17]  James E. Huheey,et al.  Mathematical Models of Mimicry , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[18]  J. Turner,et al.  The evolutionary dynamics of batesian and muellerian mimicry: similarities and differences , 1987 .

[19]  J. Turner,et al.  Mimicry and the Monte Carlo predator: the palatability spectrum, and the origins of mimicry , 1984 .

[20]  R. Owen,et al.  Mathematical paradigms for mimicry: Recurrent sampling , 1984 .

[21]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The evolution of conspicuous coloration: Some experiments in bad taste , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  J. Huheey.  STUDIES IN WARNING COLORATION AND MIMICRY. VII. EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF A BATESIAN‐MÜLLERIAN SPECTRUM: A MODEL FOR MÜLLERIAN MIMICRY , 1976, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  J. Turner,et al.  Experiments on Mimicry: Gestalt Perception and the Evolution of Genetic Linkage , 1972, Nature.

[24]  R. Coppinger,et al.  DEMONSTRATION OF THE SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE OF MIMETIC LIMENITIS BUTTERFLIES PRESENTED TO CAGED AVIAN PREDATORS , 1971, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  J. Alcock.  Punishment levels and the response of black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus) to three kinds of artificial seeds , 1970 .

[26]  Jane Van Zandt Brower,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF MIMICRY IN SOME NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLIES: PART I. THE MONARCH, DANAUS PLEXIPPUS, AND VICEROY, LIMENITIS ARCHIPPUS ARCHIPPUS , 1958 .

[27]  JANE VAN ZANDT BROWER,et al.  Experimental Studies of Mimicry in some North American Butterflies , 1957, Nature.

[28]  T. D. Sargent.  On the relative acceptabilities of local butterflies and moths to local birds , 1995 .

[29]  Speed Mp.  Mimicry and the psychology of predation. , 1990 .

[30]  J. Turner,et al.  Experiments On Mimicry: Ii. the Effect of a Batesian Mimic On Its Model , 1972 .

[31]  J. Turner.  Studies of Müllerian Mimicry and its Evolution in Burnet Moths and Heliconid Butterflies , 1971 .

[32]  Gillian M. Morrell,et al.  Experiments On Mimicry: I. the Response of Wild Birds To Artificial Prey , 1970 .

[33]  L. Brower,et al.  Experimental studies of mimicry. 7. Relative palatability and Müllerian mimicry among neotropical butterflies of the subfamily Heliconiinae , 1963, Zoologica : scientific contributions of the New York Zoological Society..

[34]  F. Muller.  Ituna and Thyridia; a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies , 1879 .