/mim"ik ree/, n., pl. mimicries.1. the act, practice, or art of mimicking.2. Biol. the close external resemblance of an organism, the mimic, to some different organism, the model, such that the mimic benefits from the mistaken identity, as seeming to be unpalatable or harmful.3. an instance, performance, or result of mimicking.[1680-90; MIMIC + -RY]
* * *Similarity between organisms that confers a survival advantage on one.In Batesian mimicry, an organism lacking defenses mimics a species that does have defenses. In Müllerian mimicry, all species in a group are similar even though all individually have defenses. In aggressive mimicry, a predatory species mimics a benign species so that it can approach its prey without alarming it, or a parasitic species mimics its host. Some plant species mimic the colour patterns and scents of animals for the purposes of pollination and dispersal. Mimicry differs from camouflage in that camouflage hides the organism, whereas mimicry benefits the organism only if the organism is detected.
* * *▪ biologyIntroductionin biology, phenomenon characterized by the superficial resemblance of two or more organisms that are not closely related taxonomically. This resemblance confers an advantage—such as protection from predation—upon one or both organisms through some form of “information flow” that passes between the organisms and the animate agent of selection. The agent of selection (which may be, for example, a predator, a symbiont, or the host of a parasite (parasitism), depending on the type of mimicry encountered) interacts directly with the similar organisms and is deceived by their similarity. This type of natural selection distinguishes mimicry from other types of convergent resemblance that result from the action of other forces of natural selection (e.g., temperature, food habits) on unrelated organisms.In the most studied mimetic relationships the advantage is one-sided, one species (the mimic) gaining advantage from a resemblance to the other (the model). Since the discovery of mimicry in butterflies in the mid-19th century, a great many plants and animals have been found to be mimetic. In many cases the organisms involved belong to the same class, order, or even family, but numerous instances are known of plants mimicking animals and vice versa. Although the best-known examples of mimicry involve similarity of appearance, investigations have disclosed fascinating cases in which the resemblance involves sound, smell, behaviour, and even biochemistry.A key element in virtually every mimetic situation is deception by the mimic, perpetrated upon a third party, which mistakes the mimic for the model. This third party may be the collective potential predators upon the mimic, potential prey of a predacious mimic, or even one sex of the mimic's own species. In some cases, such as host mimicry by parasites, the organism deceived is the model.Because of the variety of situations in which mimicry occurs, a formal definition must rest upon the effect of certain key communicative signals upon the appropriate receiver and the resultant evolutionary effect upon the emitters of the signals. Mimicry may be defined as a situation in which virtually identical signals, emitted by two different organisms, have in common at least one receiver that reacts in the same manner to both signals because it is advantageous to react in that manner to one of them (that of the model), although it may be disadvantageous to react thus to the counterfeit signal.The distinction between camouflage and mimicry is not always clear when only the model and the mimic are at hand. When the receiver is known and its reactions understood, however, the distinction is quite clear: in mimicry the signals have a special significance for the receiver and for the sender, which has evolved the signals in order to be perceived by the receiver; in camouflage the sender seeks to avoid detection by the receiver through imitation of what is neutral background to the receiver. For information on camouflage, see coloration: Camouflage (coloration).Basic types of mimicryBatesian mimicryIn 1862 the English naturalist Henry W. Bates (Batesian mimicry) published an explanation for unexpected similarities in appearance between certain Brazilian forest butterflies of two distinct families. Members of one family, the Heliconiidae, are unpalatable to birds and are conspicuously coloured; members of the other family, the Pieridae, are edible to predators (predation). Bates concluded that the conspicuous coloration of the inedible species must serve as a warning for predators that had learned of their inedibility through experience. The deceptively similar colour patterns of the edible species would provide protection from the same predators. This form of mimicry, in which a defenseless organism bears a close resemblance to a noxious and conspicuous one, is called Batesian, in honour of its discoverer.Bates observed, but could not explain, a resemblance among several unrelated butterflies, including danaids (see milkweed butterfly), all of which were known to be inedible. There seemed to be no reason for these species, each of which had an ample defense with which to back up the warning coloration, to be similar. In 1878 Fritz Müller, a German zoologist, suggested that an explanation for this so-called Bates's paradox might lie in the advantage to one inedible species in having a predator learn from another. Once the predator has learned to avoid the particular colour pattern with which it had its initial contact, it would then avoid all other similarly patterned species, edible and inedible. The initial learning experience of the predator often results in death or damage to the inedible individual that provided the lesson; there is thus some cost to the species that teaches the predator of its inedibility. Evidence indicates that there is little or no inherited recognition by certain predators; each individual learns of noxious or inedible species by sampling them. Other inedible species resembling the first, however, do not have to sacrifice individuals to teach this same predator, and the number of individuals sacrificed in educating the entire predator population is spread over all of the species sharing the same warning pattern. The tendency of inedible or noxious species to resemble each other is called Müllerian mimicry.In some situations it is of advantage to a predator to resemble its prey, or a parasite its host. Aggressive mimicry, for which the phrase “a wolf in sheep's clothing” is an apt description, does not involve warning mechanisms. The mimic adopts certain of the recognition marks of its model in order to secure advantage over the model itself or over a third species that interacts with the model. The model may be mimicked during only a single stage of the life cycle, as in the case of parasitic cuckoos, the eggs of which resemble those of their hosts (see below The occurrence of mimicry among plants and animals (mimicry)), or the model may be a prey of the mimic's victim, as in the case of angler fishes, which possess rodlike spines tipped with a fleshy “bait” to lure other fishes within reach.AutomimicryThe phenomenon of automimicry involves the advantage gained by some members of a species from its resemblance to others of the same species. Males of many bees and wasps, although defenseless, are protected from predators by their resemblance to females that are equipped with stingers. Some butterflies are able to gain protection against predators through the ability to absorb, tolerate, and retain in the immature (larval) stage, poisons from the plants on which they feed. Individuals or even subpopulations of such butterflies may fail to acquire such protection, as a result of feeding on nonpoisonous plants, but they are avoided by predators that have sampled protected individuals of the same species.Other formsMany forms of mimicry do not fit neatly into any of the above categories. The roles of mimic, model, and receiver may be juxtaposed and multiplied to provide intricate and remarkable relationships, the unraveling of which may take years of study. One such case involves the South American coral snakes (coral snake) (Micrurus), long recognized as dangerously poisonous—which possess a brilliant red, black, and yellow ringed pattern—and several genera of nonpoisonous and mildly poisonous “false coral snakes” with nearly identical colour patterns.Warning systemsThe chemical basis for repulsionMany plants are characterized by the production of large amounts of metabolic end products, often called secondary metabolites—complex chemicals that include alkaloids, terpenes, phenylpropanes, resins, lignins, saponins, flavonols, and anthocyanins—stored in the plant tissues. Many such substances are also found in animals that feed upon such plants. Some animals produce substances similar to the secondary metabolites of plants; they store these substances in glandular pockets (as in toads, salamanders, and some insects) or in musk glands (as in beavers and muskrats). Arthropods, particularly insects, are notable for the production of excretory substances that serve as means of defense. Millipedes (millipede) of the family Glomeridae, for example, secrete a bitter substance (a quinazoline) that repels birds; similar substances, differing only slightly in molecular structure, are found in palms. The fact that a certain chemical substance is restricted to a specific function, such as sex attraction, does not necessarily mean that it was evolved solely for that purpose. It seems rather that natural selection follows the easiest course and makes use of substances already present, and sometimes widely distributed. If so, the appearance of such substances in other organisms is not too surprising.Among the chemical compounds that protect certain plants from insects or other animals that might feed on them are the cardenolides, or cardiac glycosides. These substances have a highly specific toxic effect on the vertebrate heart and also activate the nerve centre in the brain that causes vomiting. Because the amount necessary to cause vomiting is about half the amount necessary to cause death through heart failure, an animal that samples a plant containing cardenolides is not killed but survives with the knowledge that the plant is inedible. Certain milkweeds (Asclepias) that contain cardenolides are the primary food of the larvae of danaine butterflies, including the familiar monarch (monarch butterfly) and queen butterflies (Danaus plexippus and D. gilippus). The larvae consume the poison without ill effects and retain it through the pupal stage to adulthood. As adult butterflies, they enjoy protection from vertebrate predators.There is, of course, no such thing as complete protection. Just as danaine larvae are able to eat the protected milkweeds, some predators are able to prey upon the protected butterflies. Birds of the Old World bee eater (bee-eater) family (Meropidae) and a few other birds are able to eat bees because the horny beak protects them from being stung while the insect is being killed and because they have evolved behavioral mechanisms for removing the stinger (usually by wiping the insect on a perch) before swallowing the prey. Rabbits are able to eat the extremely poisonous mushrooms of the genus Amanita without ill effects. The larvae of the Florida feather moth (Trichoptilus parvulus) consume the insect-trapping glands on the leaves of the sundew (Drosera).The evolution of warning systemsThe selective advantage of warningWhen an organism possesses a mechanism that provides protection from predators, there is a further advantage in preventing the potential predator from even sampling the protected organism. By the act of learning of the danger, the predator may well kill or maim the individual if, for instance, the protected species must be tasted for its inedibility to become known. Many protected insects are provided with tougher skins than their unprotected relatives, but the sampling by a vertebrate predator is almost sure to do some damage. Many noxious organisms have evolved warning (aposematic) mechanisms (aposematic mechanism) that serve to identify them clearly to a predator who has had prior experience with the same or similar species.Warning systems often rely primarily on bright colours, but these may be supplemented by olfactory, acoustic, or behavioral means. The New World skunks (skunk), for example, have a prominent black and white pattern that renders them clearly recognizable to potential nocturnal predators. When threatened, skunks perform a highly stylized display dance, thus ensuring that the predator will see and recognize the warning coloration.Acoustic warning signals are often favoured over visual ones because they allow the animal the option of remaining hidden. The rattlesnakes (rattlesnake) (Crotalus and relatives), which need protective coloration to avoid alerting their prey, are able to provide acoustic warning to large animals that threaten them. Many moths of the families Arctiidae (tiger moth) and Ctenuchidae are foul-tasting but would be vulnerable to nocturnal predation by bats (bat) were it not for the emission of a series of high-pitched clicks, audible to bats, made when the moths hear the bats' own ultrasonic navigational pulses. That the moth clicks actually do serve as warnings is borne out by the fact that captive bats ignore thrown mealworms (which they normally eat) when the mealworms are accompanied by recorded moth clicks. Several species of edible moths also produce clicks and may be regarded as Batesian mimics of the unpalatable species.The role of the receiver (instinct)In some cases, the animal who serves as the receiver of the warning signal reacts by means of an innate system that exists independently of experience. Generally, however, a predator must learn the significance of the warning signal through experience. If the predator is a slow learner, or if the warning signal is not sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion with beneficial sensory impressions that the predator receives, several experiences may be necessary. Natural selection, therefore, will favour warning systems that are devoid of ambiguity. Experimentation has shown that certain birds and mammals, at least, are capable of acquiring and retaining knowledge of some aposematic mechanisms from a single experience.Combination of warning systems with concealing colorationIt is of obvious advantage for an aposematic organism to be able to control the display of the warning system, partly to minimize the amount of sampling, with its concomitant liability of injury, by naive receivers. Acoustic and chemical warning systems allow this. Many protected animals are coloured to match their backgrounds but provided with flash areas of warning coloration. Examples of these organisms are the tiger moths (certain of the Arctiidae), in which the hind wings are yellow or orange but are kept under the streaked brown forewings until the moth is molested.The occurrence of mimicry among plants and animalsBatesian mimicryThe stinging Hymenoptera (particularly the bees, wasps, and hornets), well protected from most predators and usually equipped with conspicuous warning coloration (Batesian mimicry), are mimicked by insects of many other orders. Ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) and leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) are inedible and are provided with prominent colours and usually with contrasting spots. A whole group of Philippine roaches of the genus Prosoplecta mimics these beetles, having undergone profound modification to achieve the similarity. To simulate the short, rounded form of the ladybirds, the large hind wings of the roaches are rolled and folded in a manner unparalleled in other insects.The order Lepidoptera (lepidopteran) abounds with Batesian mimics, the best known of which is a swallowtail butterfly, Papilio dardanus, a widespread African species. In many populations of this species the females are polymorphic; (polymorphism) i.e., a number of different types (morphs) of coloration are found, with each morph a mimic of a species of inedible butterfly of another genus (either Danaus or Amauris). In all populations, the males are nonmimetic, retaining the same yellow and black pattern throughout. The presence of polymorphism, coupled with the ability of the lepidopterist to breed and rear this species in the laboratory, makes this an apt species for the study of colour inheritance. Investigators have found that mimicry in P. dardanus depends upon the action of certain primary genes, the expression of which is switched on or off by modifier genes. The modifier genes reduce the number of possible morphs to the restricted number of mimetic forms. The effects of modifier genes are not carried to the offspring when members of different geographic races are crossed. This finding suggests that each set of modifier genes is adapted to the gene complex in which it normally occurs and in which it probably evolved.Müllerian mimicry often occurs in groups of unrelated species, all noxious or inedible and all possessing the same conspicuous warning coloration. Such groups, called mimicry rings, often have associated Batesian mimics. It is not always easy to evaluate the palatability of members of such rings, and thus to distinguish Müllerian from Batesian mimics. Parallel Müllerian mimicry rings are known from South Africa, Borneo, and the tropical Americas; each contains such unrelated insects as malacodermoid and longicorn beetles, butterflies, true bugs, and spider wasps. In South America inedible butterflies of many distinct nymphalid subfamilies (brush-footed butterfly) (Danainae, Ithomiinae, Acraeinae, and Heliconiinae) share the same warning coloration. Certain species show a highly perplexing divergence from the usual mimicry principles, however. It is axiomatic that maximum protection is gained by Müllerian mimics when all individuals employ the same signal, a principle known as signal standardization. Two species of Heliconius (H. melpomene and H. erato) are polymorphic, however, with each morph in one species duplicated by one in the other and with the morphs of each pair having virtually contiguous geographic ranges. Ecological and genetic evidence indicates that the racial divergence within these species was produced by differences in the abundance (or degree of protection) of different mimicry rings in different refuges, as have lasted for several thousand years, with the species coming to mimic whichever abundant, protected species was within reach by a single mutation.Examples of aggressive mimicry are abundant and varied; each demonstrates its own particular variation of basic mimicry principles. The examples cited below illustrate a few of the remarkable extremes in the evolution of mimicry.Parasitic worms (fluke)The flukes (Trematoda) are a class of parasitic worms belonging to the phylum Platyhelminthes. One species, Leucochloridium macrostomum, resides principally in the intestine of songbirds. The eggs of the parasite pass to the outside in the feces of the birds and are readily ingested by a terrestrial snail, Succinea, an inhabitant of waterlogged meadows and riverbanks. The parasite eggs hatch into the first larval form (larva) within the snail. The next stage, called the sporocyst, is strikingly green in colour and bears yellow-brown rings. The sporocyst develops in the snail tissues and carries several sacs of “spores,” one of which is placed into each of the snail's tentacles, or eyestalks. The sac then begins to pulsate violently, at about 40 to 70 beats per minute. The tentacle of the snail becomes greatly enlarged and eventually is transformed into a transparent covering over the pulsating sporocyst. Succinea usually avoids light, but specimens with this parasite do not. When the snail appears with its conspicuous, pulsing eyestalks, birds mistake the eyestalks for insect larvae, bite them off, and eat them. Within the bird, the sporocyst then hatches into the final larval stage, which grows into an adult worm. In the meantime the snail's eyestalk regenerates, and the cycle is repeated when another sac passes into the new eyestalks. Because the sporocysts of other trematodes are neither brightly coloured nor mobile, it can be concluded that the colour and pulsation of Leucochloridium are adaptations for arousing the interest of the insectivorous birds. Under normal circumstances the host birds do not eat snails, so the sporocyst must imitate the bird's proper food in order to be eaten and to complete its life cycle in the bird host. The process represents an unusual case of aggressive mimicry, for the parasite manipulates its hosts and causes the bird to infect itself with the parasite.Another trematode, Cercaria mirabilis, is notable for its unusually large larvae form, called a cercaria. The size of this cercaria and its hopping mode of locomotion cause it to resemble a small, swimming crustacean or mosquito larva, with the result that fish mistake it for food and swallow it. Research on parasites of this kind is much easier when it is recognized that the larval stages often mimic the food of their respective hosts. Examination of the parasite often provides a suggestion as to the probable host.Insect-luring plantsNewly hatched flesh flies (Sarcophaga), blowflies (Calliphora), and greenbottle flies (Lucilia) are attracted to glistening droplets or imitations of droplets. The grass of Parnassus (Parnassia palustris) has flowers with five nectar petals, which bear glistening buttons but no nectar. They attract flies, nevertheless, and reward them with nectar in two depressions on the upper surfaces of the petals. The insectivorous sundew (Drosera; see photograph—>), on the other hand, presents a deceptive lure, consisting of glistening secretory droplets on the glandular leaves, which trap insects that are then dissolved with digestive juices. The pitcher plants (pitcher plant) (Nepenthes, Darlingtonia, Sarracenia, Cephalotus) have juglike leaves, which may bear flowerlike markings near their openings. Some have a flap or hood that enhances the resemblance to a flower and prevents filling with rainwater. One form, Nepenthes (see photograph—>), secretes nectar at the lip of the pitcher. A foraging insect landing on this apparent flower slips on the edge and falls in. A band of gland cells below the slippery region secretes an enzyme that digests protein. The lower part of the pitcher contains a watery mixture of digestive fluids.The cleaner mimicOne of the few cases of mimicry reported among vertebrates is that of a so-called cleaner fish. This example involves a particularly close model imitation involving shape, coloration, and behaviour. The model, a wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) of the Indo-Pacific Ocean, is known as a cleaner fish because it removes and eats externally attached parasites and, occasionally, damaged skin fragments from other marine fish. It occupies specific sites, or territories, on coral reefs, where, within a six-hour period, the individual cleaner may be visited by up to 300 other fish seeking its services. The other fish are attracted by the conspicuous black and white coloration of the cleaner and by its dancelike swimming pattern, in which the tail fin is spread and the posterior part of the fish oscillates up and down. The fish undergoing cleaning acts as though it were in a trance, while the cleaner fish cleans its body, including the inside of the mouth and gills. Even large predatory fish allow themselves to be cleaned, and the much smaller cleaner almost invariably emerges uninjured from their throats. It is quite apparent that the cleaners are protected from these predators although neither inedible nor capable of self-defense.At the cleaning stations of the cleaner fish, there is often found quite another fish, the sabre-toothed blenny (Aspidontus taeniatus). It is similar to the cleaner fish in size, coloration, and swimming behaviour, and it even exhibits the same dance as the cleaner. Fish that have had experience with the cleaner position themselves unsuspectingly in front of this mimic, which approaches carefully and bites off a semicircular piece of fin from the victim and eats it. After having been repeatedly bitten in this way, fish become distrustful even toward genuine cleaners. Observations in the wild indicate that younger fish are the principal victims of the mimic, whereas older fish avoid it whenever possible. It is unlikely that the ability to discriminate between the mimic and the model develops automatically with age and is independent of experience; this is borne out by the finding that adult fish kept in an aquarium and not previously exposed to the mimic confuse cleaner and mimic just as younger fish do. If such adult fish are kept with the mimics for a certain length of time, however, they eventually avoid these and the genuine cleaners. The obvious conclusion from these experiments is that other fish cannot distinguish between the model and the mimic without having had experience with both. Evidently victims of the mimic seek out and learn characteristics that enable them to distinguish between reliable and unreliable cleaners—that is, between the model and mimic, respectively. The most successful individuals among the mimics, therefore, are those that most confuse their victims. As a result, the further development of the mimic is steered in the direction determined by the characteristics of the cleaner; for example, the model occurs as a number of local races within its area of distribution, each of which shows its own peculiarities in coloration, such as a small or large black vertical stripe at the base of the pectoral fins or an orange-red spot on the flanks. In every case, the local population of the mimic shows the same special coloration as does the model in that particular area.One of the interesting and highly unusual aspects of the cleaner–mimic relationship is that the individual characters of the mimicry pattern, especially the behavioral ones, have been traced to their origins. Certain characteristics, such as body size and shape and swimming pattern, amount to chance similarities. The mimic's drive to approach other fish, for example, is a specialization of a more general pattern, observable in non-mimicking relatives of the blenny, involving searching for food on suitable surfaces. The basic colour pattern of light and dark horizontal stripes is characteristic of fish that swim in open water, but the actual coloration of the mimicking blenny, owing to the forces of natural selection, bears a close resemblance to the cleaner wrasse. Interestingly enough, the blenny alters its coloration with its motivational state and adopts the appearance of the cleaner only under the specific conditions of self-confidence and intent to attack. As a group, blennies tend to wriggle while swimming, in order to counteract a strong tendency to sink at the tail. The sabre-toothed blenny, however, when confronted with danger holds the body stiffly without wriggling, allowing the hindquarters to sink somewhat, and advances solely by the use of the pectoral fins, in the manner common to wrasses. Superimposed on this motion is a nodding of the blenny's head, which is typical of approach-retreat conflict behaviour in blennies but which results in a simulation of the swaying dance of the cleaner. The combination of coloration and behavioral signals has a particular significance for the experienced visitor to the cleaner's station and causes it to adopt the posture that invites cleaning. In so doing, the visitor gives the mimic an opportunity to take a bite from a fin.Fireflies (firefly)A form of aggressive mimicry that relies entirely on behaviour occurs in certain North American fireflies (Lampyridae). Males of these familiar nightflying beetles emit light bursts (bioluminescence) in flight according to highly specific patterns. The females, usually stationary, respond to the flash patterns of males of their own species with specific patterns of their own. The flying male responds to the appropriate female signal by approaching, landing, and courting (courtship). Most adult fireflies are short-lived and do not feed at all, but females of the genus Photuris have been found to feed on other beetles, including males of the genus Photinus. Upon perceiving a flashing male Photinus, the female Photuris responds with a flash that mimics the slower response time of the female Photinus. As the male Photinus approaches, the female Photuris even reduces the intensity of her flashes, to resemble more closely the weaker signals of the smaller female Photinus. The hapless male, after landing, is seized and eaten by the Photuris. In response to males of her own species, of course, the female Photuris gives a flash response quite different from that of Photinus.Host mimicry by parasitesAnother form of mimicry, sometimes considered an extension of aggressive mimicry, is mimicry of a host by its parasite. Most of the best-known examples occur among birds and represent some of the few known instances of mimicry in that class of animals.Cuckoos (cuckoo)The European cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) is a brood parasite; i.e., it lays its eggs (egg) in the nests of other birds, which act as foster parents for the young cuckoos. The most frequent foster parents are various species of small songbirds. Although the eggs of the various host species span a great range of colours and spotting, there is a striking correspondence in appearance between the eggs of the cuckoo and those of the host. Most small birds react unfavourably if they perceive a foreign egg in the nest and either abandon the nest, build another nest right over the first, or eject the strange egg. Each female cuckoo consistently lays eggs of one colour pattern and must therefore parasitize a particular host species. One survey has shown that of 1,642 cuckoo eggs laid in the nests of the correct (matching) hosts, only 8 percent were lost, whereas of 298 in the nests of the wrong hosts, 24 percent were lost. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that a cuckoo that lays its egg randomly, leaving the survival of the eggs to chance, would produce fewer offspring than one that selects hosts whose eggs match her own. Although the control of egg coloration is probably genetically determined, the choice of correct hosts is believed to be the result of a learning process that takes place when the female cuckoo is a nestling and learns to recognize her own foster parents.Parasitic weaverbirdsBrood parasitism is also found in African whydahs (whydah), or widow birds, of the subfamily Viduinae of the weaverbird family, Ploceidae. Each species of whydah parasitizes a single species of estrildid finch (Estrildidae). In this case, egg colour does not seem to be a factor in acceptance of the parasite's egg, because both groups have pure white eggs. It has been argued that the whydah, many relatives of which have spotted eggs, have evolved white eggs in order to match those of their estrildid hosts.More significant than the mimicry of egg colour, however, is the highly specific pattern of spots and protuberances at the corners of the mouth (gape) and on the palate, tongue, and lower mandible of the nestling. This pattern, which varies from one species of finch to another, serves as a releaser for feeding behaviour on the part of the parents, which ignore any nestling that does not display the proper pattern for the particular species. In every species of parasitic weaverbird studied, the nestling has been found to match perfectly the mouth pattern of the estrildid host. In addition to mimicking the mouth patterns of their hosts, whydah nestlings also duplicate the specific begging calls (birdsong) and peculiar head movements of their hosts. The coloration of the juvenile plumage of the young whydah is identical to that of the host species, ensuring that the whydah will be fed after fledging. The digestive system of the young whydah is closely adapted to the particular type of food utilized by its host species, unlike that of the young cuckoo, which seems to be able to accept a variety of foods, from insects to mouse meat.With each species of parasitic weaverbird closely committed to a single species of estrildid finch, it is obviously important that whydah species not hybridize, for the hybrid offspring would certainly not match either possible host in all of the important features. It is surprising to find seven forms of the paradise whydah (Steganura) so similar in appearance that they were once considered races of one species. Each of the seven, however, has its own estrildid host species, indicating that seven species of paradise whydah are represented.As is frequently the case with closely similar bird species, hybridization is effectively prevented through the use of species-specific vocalizations by the males. An unusual feature of this situation is that each whydah species uses the same vocal pattern as its estrildine host. The young parasitic weaverbirds learn the songs of their host species during the critical learning period common to songbirds generally. As adults, the male whydahs use these estrildid vocalizations and gain response only from females that have been reared by the same foster species. This example is the only known one of a species-isolating mechanism consisting of vocalizations learned from another species. Vocal imitations by some bird species that have not been shown to give rise to mimicry systems are nevertheless frequently called mimicry.Mimicry to effect pollination and dispersalIn some instances, plants have been found to rely on mimicry to attract insects as aids in pollination or in the dissemination of seeds or spores.Orchids (orchid)Many flowering plants lure insects through the use of bright colours that indicate the presence of nectar. Some orchids mimic other flowering plants without offering any nectar, relying on those that do provide nectar to reward the nectar seekers.A group of orchids, often known by such descriptive names as fly orchid, bee orchid, and spider orchid, carries the deception further, actually mimicking the insects themselves. The best-known orchids of this type are members of the genus Ophrys. The labellum (lip) of the Ophrys flower is a specialized median petal that acts as a dummy female of a species of bee or wasp (depending on the species of Ophrys), the resemblance being so close that males visit the flower in an attempt to copulate with the dummy female (see photograph—>). In the course of precopulatory and copulatory movements, the visiting insect acquires the pollen sacs (pollinia) of the orchid and subsequently transmits them to other blossoms. A similar situation occurs in an Australian orchid, Cryptostylis leptochila, which bears a sufficient resemblance to the female of the ichneumon wasp Lissopimpla semipunctata to induce copulation by the male wasp.An important feature in the mimicry of female insects by orchids is flower size. Flowers that are too small do not provide adequate stimulus for the copulatory attempts necessary to plant the pollinia on the insect. Conversely, if the flower is too large for the insect, the insect's head does not reach the stigma of the flower (the female receptor site for pollen), and the pollinia are not deposited on the insect.The colour of the orchid's labellum is also important in attracting and properly orienting the male insect. The males are more attracted to dark than to light colours and to a contrasting dark spot on a light background. A velvety surface is a more effective attractant than a shiny one. The centre of the labellum of Ophrys insectifera bears a dark red spot, almost black, whereas the lateral lobes of the labellum are a somewhat lighter purple-red. Female wasps of the genus Gorytes, males of which are highly attentive to this orchid, are black dorsally with dark purple wings. Where the folded wings overlap over the female's body, there is a glistening area closely resembling the shiny central spot on the flower. The overall effect is further enhanced by movements of the flower in the wind.Odour plays a particularly strong role in attracting male insects to the mimicking orchids. Some female Hymenoptera (hymenopteran) secrete odoriferous substances (pheromones (pheromone)) that initiate search behaviour in the males and guide them to the stationary females. Such attractant chemicals are usually limited in effectiveness to the producing species or a few close relatives. Ophrys flowers give off odours similar to, if not identical with, those produced by females of their associated insects. In a few cases the odour of the flower is a more potent attractant for the male than that of the appropriate female.Carrion flowers (carrion flower), stinkhorn mushrooms, and mossesA group of flowers are able to attract dung beetles (certain of the Scarabaeidae) and carrion flies (Calliphoridae) by mimicking the odours of dung or rotting flesh used by these insects as guides to sites for egg deposition. In some carrion flowers (e.g., Stapelia) the deception is so complete that blowflies actually lay their eggs in the flowers. The cuckoopint (Arum maculatum), which has a metabolic level unequaled among plants, spreads its odour over a wide area by an elevation of temperature that increases the vaporization rate of the volatile odour substance. An elaborate mechanism in the cuckoopint ensures that a pollen-laden visitor remains long enough to deposit the pollen. The sheath of the floral structure, upon which the insect lands, is made slippery by oil droplets with the result that the insect slides down into a cup equipped with a ring of spines to prevent escape. In trying to climb out, the insect deposits pollen on the tiny female flowers, from which the insect receives nectar. During the night, the male flowers mature and cover the resting insect with pollen. Then the spines shrink, and the insect is released. The production of the attractant odour occurs at midday, when many carrion-seeking insects are active, on the day before the male flowers mature; the timing of the cuckoopint's odour production is controlled by a substance produced by the male flowers six to 18 hours before maturity.A similar situation is found in stinkhorn mushrooms (mushroom) of the genus Phallus, found in woodlands and meadows of the Northern Hemisphere. The cap of the young stinkhorn is covered with a thick, greenish-black, shiny layer of gelatinous spore slime (gleba), which is eaten by blowflies and other insects attracted by the carrion-like odour. The spores pass through the digestive tracts of the insects and are voided with the feces, thus ensuring dispersal (dispersion).Some mosses (moss) (e.g., some members of the genus Splanchnum) have flowerlike structures that are designed to attract flies to aid in spore dispersal. Insects are attracted by the mimic of a nectar-bearing true flower and by a carrion-like odour.Defensive egg dummiesSeveral species of passion-flower (Passiflora) and cruciferous plants (Streptanthus) decrease their attractiveness to ovipositing female butterflies (thus reducing predation from butterfly larvae) by producing pigmented callosities that mimic the eggs of those insects. Prior to ovipositing, females visually assess the egg load on individual host plants, avoiding parts that are already “occupied.” Removal of the egg mimics significantly increases the probability of an oviposition relative to similar, intact plants.Mimicry within speciesThe three essential participants in mimicry—model, mimic, and receiver—need not always be members of different species. In mimicry of the host by a parasite, for instance, the host species provides both model and receiver. In another type of mimicry the mimic and receiver are members of the same species. An example of this type of mimicry is found in the small South American characoid fish Corynopoma riisei, in which the gill cover of the male is elongated into a thin, whitish stalk that terminates in a small, blackish plate. During courtship, the male raises the stalk and waves it jerkily in view of the female, who mistakes the tip of the stalk for an edible object, such as a tiny crustacean. As the female nears the male to grasp this supposed prey, mating takes place.Another remarkable form of mimicry within the same species occurs in the African mouth-breeding cichlid fish of the genus Haplochromis. The female takes the eggs into her mouth immediately after they are laid, even before the male can fertilize (fertilization) them. The male, however, carries conspicuous yellow or orange spots near the base of the anal fin, which closely resemble the eggs of the particular species. Although the female is inhibited from eating while carrying eggs, she is strongly motivated to pick up loose eggs in her mouth. The male displays the fin spots to the female while releasing sperm; the female, as she attempts to pick up the false eggs, takes in sperm that fertilize the eggs in her mouth. In this case the model (real eggs), mimic (false eggs), and receiver (adult female) are all of the same species.The evolution of mimicryThe effectiveness of warning systemsThere is considerable experimental evidence to illustrate how effectively predators learn to avoid certain adverse stimuli. Chickens (chicken) conditioned by electric shock to avoid drinking dark green water drank progressively more from paler solutions in proportion to the intensity of the colour. This experiment suggests that even an incomplete warning system provides a modicum of protection. The degree of protection provided is also affected by the strength of the punishment; after strong shocks the chickens drank only from very light coloured solutions. In the presence of severe punishment, an improved warning system made little additional effect once a threshold level was reached.In other experiments, starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were fed normal mealworms, two segments of which had been painted orange. To provide aposematic “models,” the experimenter made other mealworms distasteful and painted the same segments green. “Mimics” were marked with green but not rendered unpalatable. There is no known instance in nature in which animals employ green for warning; there was therefore no possibility that the birds had already learned to avoid the experimental colour pattern. Before long the green-marked worms were completely avoided, regardless of palatability, even when the ratio of edible to distasteful was 60:40. This indicates that the number of mimics can exceed that of the model, when the resemblance is close, without loss of protection. When the ratio was increased to 90:10, 17 percent of the mimics were avoided, probably sufficient to a selective advantage in nature. Although a test bird would occasionally peck at a model, then reject it, the same action was sometimes shown to a mimic that it had picked up, suggesting that a premature response had been subsequently corrected.The reconstruction of evolutionary pathwaysAnalysis and understanding of a given mimicry system require a rather comprehensive knowledge of morphology, behaviour, ecology, and mutual relationships of animals usually in different classes—for example, wasps (Hymenoptera), flies (Diptera), insect-eating amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Tracing the evolution of such a complicated system requires a detailed acquaintance with a large group of forms related to each of the animals involved. Such data, in fact, are seldom available.Reconstructing the evolution of a case of mimicry within the same species, however, is relatively simple, requiring detailed knowledge of but one rather narrow taxonomic unit. Such a reconstruction is valuable, because mimicry is an indispensable tool in the study of the evolution of animal communication, and usually starts from conspicuously elaborated signals, which postulate a signal receiver interested in them. The receiver practically always has undergone a special molding toward optimal receiving of the signal. The mutual adaptations of the sender and the receiver must be examined separately.This examination is easily made, so far as the evolution of a reaction or of a receiving mechanism is concerned, in all predators trying to find their prey and in all prey animals attempting to escape an approaching predator. The suppression of signals may be studied in predators trying to sneak up on a prey unnoticed. The elaboration of a signal, which must, of course, be important to the receiver, can only be studied after consideration of compensatory adaptations in the receiver and in situations where the sender has a one-sided interest in the signal. The deceiving signal can be derived only from one of two types: a signal developed by the receiver and another signal sender in their common interest or a signal emitted by another signal sender and made use of by the receiver only in its own interest. Both cases, by the definition given above, are called mimicry. An additional advantage is that the model is known to be the final stage toward which the mimic will evolve (so far as the signal characters are concerned), thus indicating a trend in evolution that is still operating and that probably over time will further elaborate the mimetic signals.If the female Haplochromis fish were to discriminate between real eggs and the egg dummies of the male and were to stop reacting toward the latter, her eggs would remain unfertilized. In such cases of deceptive signals developed within the same species, natural selection operates against better signal discrimination on the part of the signal receiver.The importance of the signal receiverFundamental characteristics of mimicry are determined mainly by behavioral properties of the signal receiver. A precise knowledge of the identity of the receiver and a thorough study of its behaviour are therefore indispensable for the understanding of mimicry. Moreover, mimicry gradually merges into other sender–receiver systems. Palatability is a matter of degree; whole ranges of distastefulness therefore exist, even in the mimics, model and mimic in the case of Müllerian mimicry being equally unpalatable and sharing the same warning coloration. Müllerian mimicry could be considered not to be true mimicry, after all, because no one is deceived, and it is impossible to designate one as model and the other as mimic.Although all individuals of a given wasp species look alike and are all equally protected, this phenomenon is not usually called Müllerian mimicry, simply because the signals were not independently evolved, a property known as convergence. Because, however, the male wasps have no protective properties but retain their group-specific warning coloration, this is Batesian mimicry, although model and mimic are of the same species and their signals homologous (evolved from the same source). Convergence (or independent evolution) of the signal characters, therefore, is essential only for the so-called Müllerian mimicry, and thus Müllerian mimicry is distinguished from other cases of signal standardization. The typical (Batesian) mimicry merges into Müllerian mimicry if the difference between the consequences for the receiver of reacting similarly to model and mimic diminishes; and by homology of the signal characters it further merges into general signal standardization.An insect may be protectively coloured to resemble, for example, a wasp or a twig. In the first case the coloration is called mimicry, in the second, mimesis, or protective coloration. The difference lies within the signal receiver. If the mimetic signal does not release any reaction in the receiver, the mimic is said to exhibit mimesis. This distinction is illustrated by the experiments of the Dutch biologist L. de Ruiter with stick caterpillars (caterpillar), which, by virtue of their close resemblance to twigs, are protected against insect-eating birds. As soon as the number of “twigs” becomes too large, however, the bird develops an interest in them, attacks some real twigs, and also finds some caterpillars. If one positive experience with the caterpillar has the same weight as a negative one with the twig (the signal remaining unchanged), the relative abundance of caterpillars and twigs determines whether all twigs are mistakenly exterminated or whether the feeding reaction toward twiglike objects disappears, thus protecting the caterpillars.This study again illustrates the importance of the bird's ability to decide correctly which is the model and further shows how easily an object (the twig) may quite involuntarily become a “mimic.” Another example illustrating the importance of a correct model is found in the common farming relationship between ants (ant) and aphids (aphid). The protuberances, called the siphones and cauda, on the abdomens of aphids resemble respectively the bases of the antennae and labium of the ant's head. The aphid's abdomen is thus mistaken by the ant for the head of a fellow ant, thereby eliciting the food-begging response, which is identical with milking. Saturated ants in turn even try to feed the abdomens of the aphids. Aphid species with reduced abdominal siphones use their hind legs as antennae dummies, the movements elicited being originally defensive movements. This situation is exactly the way in which mimicry arises. Mimetic characters need not have evolved under the selection pressure of mimicking; in fact, their earliest evolutionary stages could not even have been brought about in this way. All cases studied thus far can be traced back to an incipient stage of deceptive resemblance, initiated as a preadaptive, nondirected by-product of pre-existing species-specific features, thus providing a point of attack for new selective pressure.The effects of selective pressureThe selective consequences for the signal receiver of responding to the model are always positive (the reaction would disappear if, on balance, it were unfavourable to the receiver). The mimic always has a selective advantage in releasing the reaction from the receiver. An unfavourable signal by the mimic would also disappear by natural selection.The selective consequence for the model eliciting and obtaining the reaction from the receiver may be of several types. Consequences may be absent, if the model is an inanimate object on which natural selection does not act. They may be negative, if the model is non-aposematic (non-warning), such as the tiny crustacean, usually eaten by the signal receiver and mimicked by the male Corynopoma characin in order to attract the female. Or they may instead be positive, as in the wasp, which remains alive if it is avoided by the predator; in the cleaner, which feeds on parasites harmful to other fish; or in those hymenopteran females whose male-attracting signals are mimicked by certain orchids. Mutual interest is present between model and receiver in cases of aggressive mimicry where both parties belong to the same particular species and also in typical Batesian mimicry.Constant learning by the signal receiver results in a strong selective pressure on the mimic against detectable differences from the model, but at the same time it also exerts a complementary strong pressure on the model to develop just such new differences from the mimic. Typically, it is the group of songbirds parasitized by cuckoos (cuckoo) that has developed the most divergent egg-colour patterns; the group of estrildine finches parasitized by whydahs that has developed particular gape patterns; and among the cleaner wrasses the species Labroides dimidiatus mimicked by the blenny Aspidontus that develops into many different local races.There is a boomerang effect, characteristic of the parasite–host relationship, that the more successfully a bird rears young cuckoos, the more certain it is that it will lose its own young, because they are killed off by the young cuckoo. Parasites that are too successful, therefore, harm themselves, for each female cuckoo needs several nests of the same host species for her eggs. In an area that contains particularly successful cuckoos, the number of reed warbler nests has been found to decrease from year to year, while the percentage of nests parasitized by cuckoos increases from year to year. This ratio means that a cuckoo that is too well adapted reduces the availability of its own hosts, while one insufficiently adapted kills off its own offspring. Presumably, selection in both directions produces a continual oscillation in the densities of hosts and cuckoos.A similar dilemma is inflicted on human beings, who act as predators against weeds (weed) in crop fields and by winnowing select the wanted seeds from the usually smaller weed seeds. The flax dodder (Cuscuta epilinum), for example, which grows as a creeper around flax and linseed plants and damages them, originally had small seeds that could be easily separated from the larger flax seeds. By a mutation that produced twin seeds, the dodder has evolved the capability of being separated out and planted with the desirable flax seeds. This mutant of the flax dodder is now cultivated and spread by growers, despite being against their interests. In this case, the parasite mimics the protected plant, receiving the same protection.The effects of geographic distribution and population densityIt has been postulated that the model and the mimic should always occur in the same area—i.e., be sympatric. They need not always be sympatric, however, but must always have a signal receiver in common: a model might be in Africa, for instance, and its mimic might be in Europe (or vice versa), functionally connected by a migratory bird.Another postulate, that mimics must naturally be less numerous than their models, means, correctly stated, that the receiver has to meet the mimic less often than the model; this postulate is based on the assumption that one experience with the model has the same aftereffect, the same weight, as has one with the mimic. This assumption, however, has been proved not always to be so; in fact, the negative experience seems usually to be the stronger one. This negative experience may result from an encounter with the model (such as a wasp) or with the mimic (for example, the sabre-toothed blenny). There might be more wasp mimics than wasps, but in cases such as that of the cleaner wrasse mimic, the mimic probably has to be less numerous than the model. The protective power of the model, of course, is reduced with an increasing number of mimics, because the predator may eat larger numbers of them before his first encounter with the model.The importance of mimicry to evolutionary theoryThe mimicry hypothesis emerged in the middle of the Darwinian controversy and provided an ideal test case for the views of Charles Darwin and his contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace on the operation of natural selection in the evolutionary change of living organisms. It is now quite evident that the basic theory of natural selection is correct and that the theory is strengthened by many detailed studies of the process by which a mimetic resemblance is brought about and selected for. In addition, investigating suitable cases of mimicry provides important insight into the evolution of signals and the “semantization” process by which signals get their meaning.Additional ReadingSignificant aspects of mimicry are discussed in Wolfgang Wickler, Mimicry in Plants and Animals (1968; originally published in German, 1968); Bastiaan J.D. Meeuse, The Story of Pollination (1961), on insect–flower relationships; Hugh B. Cott, Adaptive Coloration in Animals (1940, reprinted 1966); Bertil Kullenberg, Studies in Ophrys Pollination (1961), on mimicry in orchids; and Denis Owen, Camouflage and Mimicry (1980). More research is described in Thomas Eisner and Edward O. Wilson (comps.), Animal Behavior: Readings from Scientific American (1975), and The Insects: Readings from Scientific American (1977). Types of mimicry are discussed in G. Pasteur, “A Classificatory Review of Mimicry Systems,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13:169–199 (1982). A series of articles in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, analyzes the mechanism of specific Batesian mimicS: Cyril A. Clarke, Philip M. Sheppard, and I.W.B. Thornton, “The Genetics of the Mimetic Butterfly Papilio memnon L.,” 254:37–89 (1968); Cyril A. Clarke and Philip M. Sheppard, “Further Studies on the Genetics of the Mimetic Butterfly Papilio memnon L.,” 263:35–70 (1971), and “The Genetics of the Mimetic Butterfly Hypolimnas bolina L.,” 272:229–265 (1975). Other journal articles on mimicry include J.R.G. Turner, “Adaptation and Evolution in Heliconius: A Defense of Neo-Darwinism,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 12:99–121 (1981); on plants, D. Wiens, “Mimicry in Plants,” Evolutionary Biology, 11:365–403 (1978); Spencer C.H. Barrett, “Crop Mimicry in Weeds,” Economic Botany, 37:255–282 (1983), and “Mimicry in Plants,” Scientific American, 257(3):76–83 (September 1987); and on birds, P.K. McGregor and J.R. Krebs, “Song Learning and Deceptive Mimicry,” Animal Behaviour, 32:280–287 (1984).Wolfgang J.H. Wickler
* * *