| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Avoiding detection | |
| |
| |
| |
| Background matching | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why crypsis? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Industrial melanism in Biston betularia | |
| |
| |
| |
| Background is a multivariate entity | |
| |
| |
| |
| Combining background matching with other functions | |
| |
| |
| |
| Flicker fusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Polymorphism of background matching forms | |
| |
| |
| |
| A case study: polymorphism in Cepaea | |
| |
| |
| |
| Polymorphism through neutral selection | |
| |
| |
| |
| Positive selection for polymorphism | |
| |
| |
| |
| Definitions related to frequency-dependent predation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Search images | |
| |
| |
| |
| Control of search rate | |
| |
| |
| |
| Comparing search image and search rate mechanisms | |
| |
| |
| |
| Neutral selection again | |
| |
| |
| |
| Coping with multiple backgrounds | |
| |
| |
| |
| Masquerade | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Disruptive colouration | |
| |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Separating disruptive colouration from background matching | |
| |
| |
| |
| Empirical evidence | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Countershading and counterillumination | |
| |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Self-shadow concealment and countershading | |
| |
| |
| |
| Direct empirical tests of the advantages of countershading | |
| |
| |
| |
| Indirect evidence | |
| |
| |
| |
| The naked mole-rat | |
| |
| |
| |
| Countershading in ungulates | |
| |
| |
| |
| Countershading in aquatic environments | |
| |
| |
| |
| Counterillumination in marine animals | |
| |
| |
| |
| Countershading in aerial, aquatic, and terrestrial systems | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Transparency and silvering | |
| |
| |
| |
| Transparent objects still reflect and refract | |
| |
| |
| |
| More reasons why perfect transparency need not translate to perfect crypsis | |
| |
| |
| |
| Polarization | |
| |
| |
| |
| Other wavelengths of light | |
| |
| |
| |
| Snell's window | |
| |
| |
| |
| Imperfect transparency can be effective at low light levels | |
| |
| |
| |
| Some parts of an organism cannot be made transparent | |
| |
| |
| |
| The distribution of transparency across habitats | |
| |
| |
| |
| Silvering as a form of crypsis | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Avoiding attack after detection | |
| |
| |
| |
| Secondary defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| The diversity of secondary defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Costs and benefits of some behavioural and morphological secondary defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Behavioural defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Morphological and other mechanical defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Chemical defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Some characteristics of chemical defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Are chemical defences costly? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Costs, benefits, and forms of defence | |
| |
| |
| |
| The evolution of defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evolutionary pathways | |
| |
| |
| |
| Theoretical approaches to the evolution of defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Formal modelling of the evolution of defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary and conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Signalling to predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Signalling that an approaching predator has been detected | |
| |
| |
| |
| Signalling that the prey individual is intrinsically difficult to catch | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary of theoretical work | |
| |
| |
| |
| Empirical evidence from predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| Stotting by gazelle | |
| |
| |
| |
| Upright stance by hares | |
| |
| |
| |
| Push-up displays by lizards | |
| |
| |
| |
| Singing by skylarks | |
| |
| |
| |
| Predator inspection behaviour by fish | |
| |
| |
| |
| Calling by antelope | |
| |
| |
| |
| Fin-flicking behaviour by fish | |
| |
| |
| |
| Studies where predator behaviour is not reported | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tail-flicking by rails | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tail-signalling by lizards | |
| |
| |
| |
| Calling by Diana monkeys | |
| |
| |
| |
| Snorting in African bovids | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tail-flagging by deer | |
| |
| |
| |
| Barking by deer | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| The form and function of warning displays | |
| |
| |
| |
| Characteristics of aposematic warning displays | |
| |
| |
| |
| Aposematism does not require complete avoidance by predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conspicuous animals are not necessarily aposematic | |
| |
| |
| |
| Design of aposematic displays I: why conspicuousness? | |
| |
| |
| |
| The opportunity costs of crypsis | |
| |
| |
| |
| Forms of secondary defence and the need for conspicuous components of warning displays | |
| |
| |
| |
| Design of aposematic displays II: the psychological properties of predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| Unlearnt wariness | |
| |
| |
| |
| Aposematism and predator learning | |
| |
| |
| |
| Memorability | |
| |
| |
| |
| Recognition | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Co-evolution: which came first, conspicuousness or special psychological reponses to conspicuousness? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion: designing a warning display | |
| |
| |
| |
| The initial evolution of warning displays | |
| |
| |
| |
| The initial evolution of aposematism: the problem | |
| |
| |
| |
| Stochastic-deterministic scenarios | |
| |
| |
| |
| Spatial aggregation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Experimental simulations of aggregation effects | |
| |
| |
| |
| More complex population and predator models for aposematism | |
| |
| |
| |
| Individual selection models | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evaluations of predator psychology models | |
| |
| |
| |
| Alternatives to the rare conspicuous mutant scenario | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sexual selection | |
| |
| |
| |
| Defences, optimal conspicuousness and apparency | |
| |
| |
| |
| Aposematism originated to advertise 'visible' defences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Facultative, density-dependent aposematism | |
| |
| |
| |
| Simultaneous evolution of defence and conspicuousness | |
| |
| |
| |
| Phylogeny and evolutionary history | |
| |
| |
| |
| The evolution of aposematism: a trivial question with interesting answers? | |
| |
| |
| |
| The evolution and maintenance of Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Where Mullerian mimicry fits in | |
| |
| |
| |
| Chapter outline | |
| |
| |
| |
| A brief early history of Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Some potential examples of Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Neotropical Heliconius butterflies | |
| |
| |
| |
| European burnet moths | |
| |
| |
| |
| Bumble bees | |
| |
| |
| |
| Cotton stainer bugs (genus Dysdercus) | |
| |
| |
| |
| Poison arrow frogs | |
| |
| |
| |
| Experimental evidence for Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Direct assessments of the benefits of adopting a common warning signal | |
| |
| |
| |
| Proportions of unpalatable prey consumed by naive predators in the course of education | |
| |
| |
| |
| Models of Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Questions and controversies | |
| |
| |
| |
| Which is the model and which is the mimic? | |
| |
| |
| |
| How can mimicry evolve through intermediate stages? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why are mimetic species variable in form between areas? | |
| |
| |
| |
| How can multiple Mullerian mimicry rings co-exist? | |
| |
| |
| |
| What is the role of predator generalization in Mullerian mimicry? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why are some Mullerian mimics polymorphic? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Do Mullerian mutualists only benefit simply from shared predator education? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deceiving predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| The evolution and maintenance of Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Scope | |
| |
| |
| |
| Taxonomic distribution of Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Examples of Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Comparative evidence for Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Experimental evidence for Batesian mimicry and its characteristics | |
| |
| |
| |
| Predators learn to avoid noxious models and consequently their palatable mimics | |
| |
| |
| |
| Palatable prey altered to resemble an unpalatable species sometimes survive better than mock controls | |
| |
| |
| |
| Batesian mimics generally require the presence of the model to gain significant protection | |
| |
| |
| |
| The relative (and absolute) abundances of the model and mimic affects the rate of predation on these species | |
| |
| |
| |
| The distastefulness of the model affects the rate of predation on the model and mimic | |
| |
| |
| |
| The model can be simply difficult to catch rather than noxious on capture | |
| |
| |
| |
| The success of mimicry is dependent on the availability of alternative prey | |
| |
| |
| |
| Mimics do not always have to be perfect replicas to gain protection, particularly when the model is relatively common or highly noxious | |
| |
| |
| |
| Frequency-dependent selection on Batesian mimics can lead to mimetic polymorphism | |
| |
| |
| |
| The theory of Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Questions and controversies | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why are not all palatable prey Batesian mimics? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Is the spatio-temporal coincidence of the models and mimics necessary? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why is Batesian mimicry often limited to one sex? | |
| |
| |
| |
| How is mimicry controlled genetically and how can polymorphic mimicry be maintained? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why are imperfect mimics not improved by natural selection? | |
| |
| |
| |
| How does Batesian mimicry evolve, and why do models simply not evolve away from their mimics? | |
| |
| |
| |
| What selective factors influence behavioural mimicry? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview | |
| |
| |
| |
| The relationship between Batesian and Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Context | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evidence of interspecific differences in levels of secondary defence | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why should weakly defended mimics increase the likelihood that more highly defended models are attacked? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Predator hunger | |
| |
| |
| |
| Differences in predatory abilities: the 'Jack Sprat' effect | |
| |
| |
| |
| Psychological models | |
| |
| |
| |
| Observational data on the nature of the relationship between Batesian and Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Other forms of adaptive resemblance | |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview | |
| |
| |
| |
| Aggressive mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pollinator (floral) mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Intraspecific sexual mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| Automimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| The phenomenon of automimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| The challenge to theoreticians | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deflection and startling of predators | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deflection defined | |
| |
| |
| |
| Empirical evidence for deflection | |
| |
| |
| |
| Lizard tails | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tadpole tails | |
| |
| |
| |
| Eyespots on fish | |
| |
| |
| |
| False head marking on butterflies | |
| |
| |
| |
| Weasel tails | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary of empirical evidence for deflective signals | |
| |
| |
| |
| How can deflective marking evolve if they make prey easier for predators to detect? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why do predators allow themselves to be deceived? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Startle signals | |
| |
| |
| |
| General considerations | |
| |
| |
| |
| Distress calls as startle signals | |
| |
| |
| |
| Visual startle signals | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sound generation by moths attacked by bats | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary of empirical evidence | |
| |
| |
| |
| Why would predators be startled? | |
| |
| |
| |
| Tonic immobility | |
| |
| |
| |
| Distraction displays | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| General Conclusions | |
| |
| |
| Appendices | |
| |
| |
| |
| A summary of mathematical and computer models that deal with Mullerian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| |
| A summary of mathematical and computer models that deal with Batesian mimicry | |
| |
| |
| References | |
| |
| |
| Author Index | |
| |
| |
| Species Index | |
| |
| |
| Subject Index | |