Literature DB >> 20547863

A tropical horde of counterfeit predator eyes.

Daniel H Janzen1, Winnie Hallwachs, John M Burns.   

Abstract

We propose that the many different, but essentially similar, eye-like and face-like color patterns displayed by hundreds of species of tropical caterpillars and pupae-26 examples of which are displayed here from the dry, cloud, and rain forests of Area de Conservacion Guanacaste (ACG) in northwestern Costa Rica-constitute a huge and pervasive mimicry complex that is evolutionarily generated and sustained by the survival behavior of a large and multispecific array of potential predators: the insect-eating birds. We propose that these predators are variously and innately programmed to flee when abruptly confronted, at close range, with what appears to be an eye of one of their predators. Such a mimetic complex differs from various classical Batesian and Müllerian mimicry complexes of adult butterflies in that (i) the predators sustain it for the most part by innate traits rather than by avoidance behavior learned through disagreeable experiences, (ii) the more or less harmless, sessile, and largely edible mimics vastly outnumber the models, and (iii) there is no particular selection for the eye-like color pattern to closely mimic the eye or face of any particular predator of the insect-eating birds or that of any other member of this mimicry complex. Indeed, selection may not favor exact resemblance among these mimics at all. Such convergence through selection could create a superabundance of one particular false eyespot or face pattern, thereby increasing the likelihood of a bird species or guild learning to associate that pattern with harmless prey.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20547863      PMCID: PMC2900645          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0912122107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  3 in total

1.  Innate recognition of coral snake pattern by a possible avian predator.

Authors:  S M Smith
Journal:  Science       Date:  1975-02-28       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Masquerade: camouflage without crypsis.

Authors:  John Skelhorn; Hannah M Rowland; Michael P Speed; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Integration of DNA barcoding into an ongoing inventory of complex tropical biodiversity.

Authors:  Daniel H Janzen; Winnie Hallwachs; Patrick Blandin; John M Burns; Jean-Marie Cadiou; Isidro Chacon; Tanya Dapkey; Andrew R Deans; Marc E Epstein; Bernardo Espinoza; John G Franclemont; William A Haber; Mehrdad Hajibabaei; Jason P W Hall; Paul D N Hebert; Ian D Gauld; Donald J Harvey; Axel Hausmann; Ian J Kitching; Don Lafontaine; Jean-François Landry; Claude Lemaire; Jacqueline Y Miller; James S Miller; Lee Miller; Scott E Miller; Jose Montero; Eugene Munroe; Suzanne Rab Green; Sujeevan Ratnasingham; John E Rawlins; Robert K Robbins; Josephine J Rodriguez; Rodolphe Rougerie; Michael J Sharkey; M Alex Smith; M Alma Solis; J Bolling Sullivan; Paul Thiaucourt; David B Wahl; Susan J Weller; James B Whitfield; Keith R Willmott; D Monty Wood; Norman E Woodley; John J Wilson
Journal:  Mol Ecol Resour       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 7.090

  3 in total
  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Stable structural color patterns displayed on transparent insect wings.

Authors:  Ekaterina Shevtsova; Christer Hansson; Daniel H Janzen; Jostein Kjærandsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-01-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Preys' exploitation of predators' fear: when the caterpillar plays the Gruffalo.

Authors:  Sergio Castellano; Paolo Cermelli
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Body size affects the evolution of eyespots in caterpillars.

Authors:  Thomas John Hossie; John Skelhorn; Jesse W Breinholt; Akito Y Kawahara; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Predator mimicry, not conspicuousness, explains the efficacy of butterfly eyespots.

Authors:  Sebastiano De Bona; Janne K Valkonen; Andrés López-Sepulcre; Johanna Mappes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Visual motion and the perception of surface material.

Authors:  Katja Doerschner; Roland W Fleming; Ozgur Yilmaz; Paul R Schrater; Bruce Hartung; Daniel Kersten
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  Sexual selection on wing interference patterns in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Natsu Katayama; Jessica K Abbott; Jostein Kjærandsen; Yuma Takahashi; Erik I Svensson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Eyespots divert attacks by fish.

Authors:  Karin Kjernsmo; Sami Merilaita
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Deimatic display in the European swallowtail butterfly as a secondary defence against attacks from great tits.

Authors:  Martin Olofsson; Stephan Eriksson; Sven Jakobsson; Christer Wiklund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naïve adult fowl.

Authors:  Martin Olofsson; Hanne Løvlie; Jessika Tibblin; Sven Jakobsson; Christer Wiklund
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 2.671

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.