Literature DB >> 12152077

The evolution of inaccurate mimics.

Rufus A Johnstone1.   

Abstract

Instances of strikingly accurate Batesian mimicry (in which a palatable prey organism closely resembles an aversive model) are often cited to illustrate the power of natural selection. Less attention has been paid to those mimics, such as many hoverfly (Syrphidae) mimics of wasps or bees, that resemble their models only poorly. Attempts to provide an adaptive explanation for imperfect mimicry have suggested that what seems a crude resemblance to human observers may appear a close match to predators, or that inaccurate mimics may bear a general resemblance to several different model species. I show here, however, that truly inaccurate mimicry of a single model organism may be favoured over perfect resemblance, by kin selection. Signal detection theory predicts that predators will modify their level of discrimination adaptively in response to the relative frequencies and similarity of models and mimics. If models are rare and/or weakly aversive, greater local similarity of mimics can thus lead to greater attack rates. Where individual mimics are related to others in their vicinity, kin selection will then oppose the evolution of accurate mimicry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12152077     DOI: 10.1038/nature00845

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  19 in total

1.  Batesian mimics influence mimicry ring evolution.

Authors:  Daniel W Franks; Jason Noble
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  A comparative analysis of the evolution of imperfect mimicry.

Authors:  Heather D Penney; Christopher Hassall; Jeffrey H Skevington; Kevin R Abbott; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Do unprofitable prey evolve traits that profitable prey find difficult to exploit?

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt; Daniel W Franks
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  The key mimetic features of hoverflies through avian eyes.

Authors:  Roderick S Bain; Arash Rashed; Verity J Cowper; Francis S Gilbert; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  The evolutionary conundrum of pathogen mimicry.

Authors:  Nels C Elde; Harmit S Malik
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 60.633

6.  Frequency-dependent variation in mimetic fidelity in an intraspecific mimicry system.

Authors:  Arne Iserbyt; Jessica Bots; Stefan Van Dongen; Janice J Ting; Hans Van Gossum; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Why many Batesian mimics are inaccurate: evidence from hoverfly colour patterns.

Authors:  Christopher H Taylor; Tom Reader; Francis Gilbert
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Reciprocal mimicry: kin selection can drive defended prey to resemble their Batesian mimics.

Authors:  Øistein Haugsten Holen; Rufus A Johnstone
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Experimental shift in hosts' acceptance threshold of inaccurate-mimic brood parasite eggs.

Authors:  Márk E Hauber; Csaba Moskát; Miklós Bán
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Coevolution of exploiter specialization and victim mimicry can be cyclic and saltational.

Authors:  Niclas Norrström; Wayne M Getz; Noél M A Holmgren
Journal:  Evol Bioinform Online       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 1.625

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.