Masquerading predators deceive prey by aggressively mimicking bird droppings in a crab spider

In aggressive mimicry, a predator accesses prey by mimicking the appearance and/or behavior of a harmless or beneficial model in order to avoid being correctly identified by its prey. The crab spider genus Phrynarachne is often cited as a textbook example of masquerading as bird droppings in order to avoid predation. However, Phrynarachne spiders may also aggressively mimic bird droppings in order to deceive potential prey. To date, there is no experimental evidence to support aggressive mimicry in masquerading crab spiders, therefore, we performed a field survey, a manipulative field experiment, and visual modeling to test this hypothesis using Phrynarachne ceylonica. We compared prey-attraction rates among bird droppings, spiders, and control empty leaves in the field. We found that although all prey combined and agromyzid dipterans in particular were attracted to bird droppings at a higher rate than to spiders, other dipterans and hymenopterans were attracted to bird droppings at a similar rate as spiders. Both spiders and bird droppings attracted insects at a significantly higher rate than did control leaves. As predicted, prey were attracted to experimentally blackened or whitened spiders significantly less frequently than to unmanipulated spiders. Finally, visual modeling suggested that spiders and bird droppings can be detected by dipterans and hymenopterans against background leaves, but they are indistinguishable from each other. Taken together, our results suggest that insects lured by spiders may misidentify them as bird droppings, and bird dropping masquerading may serve as aggressive mimicry in addition to predator avoidance in P. ceylonica.

The visual ecology of a color polymorphic reef fish: the role of aggressive mimicry

ABSTRACTSince all forms of mimicry are based on perceptual deception, the sensory ecology of the intended receiver is of paramount importance to test the necessary precondition for mimicry to occur, i.e. model-mimic misidentification, and to gain insight in the origin and evolutionary trajectory of the signals. Here we test the potential for aggressive mimicry by a group of coral reef fishes, the color polymorphic Hypoplectrus hamlets, from the point of view of their most common prey, small epibenthic gobies and mysid shrimp. We build visual models based on the visual pigments and spatial resolution of the prey, the underwater light spectrum and color reflectances of putative models and their hamlet mimics. Our results are consistent with one mimic-model relationship between the butter hamlet H. unicolor and its model the butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus but do not support a second proposed mimic-model pair between the black hamlet H. nigricans and the dusky damselfish Stegastes adustus. We discuss our results in the context of color morphs divergence in the Hypoplectrus species radiation and suggest that aggressive mimicry in H. unicolor might have originated in the context of protective (Batesian) mimicry by the hamlet from its fish predators.

Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry

‘Mimicry’ is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection's power to produce stunning adaptations. However, there remains a lack of clarity over how mimetic resemblances are conceptually related to each other. The result is that categories denoting the traditional subdivisions of mimicry are applied inconsistently across studies, hindering attempts at conceptual unification. This review critically examines the logic by which mimicry can be conceptually organized and analysed. It highlights the following three evolutionarily relevant distinctions. (i) Are the model's traits being mimicked signals or cues? (ii) Does the mimic signal a fitness benefit or fitness cost in order to manipulate the receiver's behaviour? (iii) Is the mimic's signal deceptive? The first distinction divides mimicry into two broad categories: ‘signal mimicry’ and ‘cue mimicry’. ‘Signal mimicry’ occurs when mimic and model share the same receiver, and ‘cue mimicry’ when mimic and model have different receivers or when there is no receiver for the model's trait. ‘Masquerade’ fits conceptually within cue mimicry. The second and third distinctions divide both signal and cue mimicry into four types each. These are the three traditional mimicry categories (aggressive, Batesian and Müllerian) and a fourth, often overlooked category for which the term ‘rewarding mimicry’ is suggested. Rewarding mimicry occurs when the mimic's signal is non-deceptive (as in Müllerian mimicry) but where the mimic signals a fitness benefit to the receiver (as in aggressive mimicry). The existence of rewarding mimicry is a logical extension of the criteria used to differentiate the three well-recognized forms of mimicry. These four forms of mimicry are not discrete, immutable types, but rather help to define important axes along which mimicry can vary.