Literature DB >> 24552099

Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection.

David W Kikuchi1, David W Pfennig2.   

Abstract

Mimicry--when one organism (the mimic) evolves a phenotypic resemblance to another (the model) due to selective benefits--is widely used to illustrate natural selection's power to generate adaptations. However, many putative mimics resemble their models imprecisely, and such imperfect mimicry represents a specific challenge to mimicry theory and a general one to evolutionary theory. Here, we discuss 11 nonmutually exclusive hypotheses for imperfect mimicry. We group these hypotheses according to whether imperfect mimicry reflects: an artifact of human perception, which is not shared by any naturally occurring predators and therefore is not truly an instance of imperfect mimicry; genetic, developmental or time-lag constraints, which (temporarily) prevent a response to selection for perfect mimicry; relaxed selection, where imperfect mimicry is as adaptive as perfect mimicry; or tradeoffs, where imperfect mimicry is (locally) more adaptive than perfect mimicry. We find that the relaxed selection hypothesis has garnered the most support. However, because only a few study systems have thus far been comprehensively evaluated, the relative contributions of the various hypotheses toward explaining the evolution of imperfect mimicry remain unclear. Ultimately, clarifying why imperfect mimicry exists should provide critical insights into the limits of natural selection in producing complex adaptations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24552099     DOI: 10.1086/673758

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q Rev Biol        ISSN: 0033-5770            Impact factor:   4.875


  27 in total

1.  Multi-trait mimicry and the relative salience of individual traits.

Authors:  Baharan Kazemi; Gabriella Gamberale-Stille; Olof Leimar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  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

3.  The role of ultraviolet colour in the assessment of mimetic accuracy between Batesian mimics and their models: a case study using ant-mimicking spiders.

Authors:  Guadalupe Corcobado; Marie E Herberstein; Stano Pekár
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2016-10-08

Review 4.  The perfection of mimicry: an information approach.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt; Casey A Peet-Paré
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  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

6.  Increased speed of movement reduced identification of Batesian ant-mimicking spiders by surrogate predators.

Authors:  Stano Pekár
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Moving like a model: mimicry of hymenopteran flight trajectories by clearwing moths of Southeast Asian rainforests.

Authors:  Marta A Skowron Volponi; Donald James McLean; Paolo Volponi; Robert Dudley
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.703

8.  Sexual Deception in the Eucera-Pollinated Ophrys leochroma: A Chemical Intermediate between Wasp- and Andrena-Pollinated Species.

Authors:  Monica Cuervo; Demetra Rakosy; Carlos Martel; Stefan Schulz; Manfred Ayasse
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 2.626

9.  Sensory bias and signal detection trade-offs maintain intersexual floral mimicry.

Authors:  Avery L Russell; David W Kikuchi; Noah W Giebink; Daniel R Papaj
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 6.237

10.  Frequency dependence shapes the adaptive landscape of imperfect Batesian mimicry.

Authors:  Susan D Finkbeiner; Patricio A Salazar; Sofía Nogales; Cassidi E Rush; Adriana D Briscoe; Ryan I Hill; Marcus R Kronforst; Keith R Willmott; Sean P Mullen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.