Both Palatable And Unpalatable Butterflies Use Bright Colors To Signal Difficulty Of Capture To Predators

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Birds are able to recognize and learn to avoid attacking unpalatable, chemically defended butterflies after unpleasant experiences with them. It has also been suggested that birds learn to avoid prey that are efficient at escaping. This, however, remains poorly documented. Here, we argue that butterflies may utilize a variety of escape tactics against insectivorous birds and review evidence that birds avoid attacking butterflies that are hard to catch. We suggest that signaling difficulty of capture to predators is a widespread phenomenon in butterflies, and this ability may not be limited to palatable butterflies. The possibility that both palatable and unpalatable species signal difficulty of capture has not been fully explored, but helps explain the existence of aposematic coloration and escape mimicry in butterflies lacking defensive chemicals. This possibility may also change the role that putative Mullerian and Batesian mimics play in a variety of classical mimicry rings, thus opening new perspectives in the evolution of mimicry in butterflies.45107113FAPDF/CNPq/Pronex [563/2009]Brazilian Research Council [302585/2011-7]Brazilian Research Council (SISBIOTA-Brasil/CNPq) [563332/2010-7]National Science Foundation [DEB-1256742]FAPESP (BIOTA-FAPESP Program) [2011/50225-3]Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP

Phylogenetic Codivergence Supports Coevolution of Mimetic Heliconius Butterflies

The unpalatable and warning-patterned butterflies _Heliconius erato_ and _Heliconius melpomene_ provide the best studied example of mutualistic Müllerian mimicry, thought – but rarely demonstrated – to promote coevolution. Some of the strongest available evidence for coevolution comes from phylogenetic codivergence, the parallel divergence of ecologically associated lineages. Early evolutionary reconstructions suggested codivergence between mimetic populations of _H. erato_ and _H. melpomene_, and this was initially hailed as the most striking known case of coevolution. However, subsequent molecular phylogenetic analyses found discrepancies in phylogenetic branching patterns and timing (topological and temporal incongruence) that argued against codivergence. We present the first explicit cophylogenetic test of codivergence between mimetic populations of _H. erato_ and _H. melpomene_, and re-examine the timing of these radiations. We find statistically significant topological congruence between multilocus coalescent population phylogenies of _H. erato_ and _H. melpomene_, supporting repeated codivergence of mimetic populations. Divergence time estimates, based on a Bayesian coalescent model, suggest that the evolutionary radiations of _H. erato_ and _H. melpomene_ occurred over the same time period, and are compatible with a series of temporally congruent codivergence events. This evidence supports a history of reciprocal coevolution between Müllerian co-mimics characterised by phylogenetic codivergence and parallel phenotypic change

The evolution of Müllerian mimicry

It is now 130 years since Fritz Müller proposed an evolutionary explanation for the close similarity of co-existing unpalatable prey species, a phenomenon now known as Müllerian mimicry. Müller’s hypothesis was that unpalatable species evolve a similar appearance to reduce the mortality involved in training predators to avoid them, and he backed up his arguments with a mathematical model in which predators attack a fixed number (n) of each distinct unpalatable type in a given season before avoiding them. Here, I review what has since been discovered about Müllerian mimicry and consider in particular its relationship to other forms of mimicry. Müller’s specific model of associative learning involving a “fixed n” in a given season has not been supported, and several experiments now suggest that two distinct unpalatable prey types may be just as easy to learn to avoid as one. Nevertheless, Müller’s general insight that novel unpalatable forms have higher mortality than common unpalatable forms as a result of predation has been well supported by field experiments. From its inception, there has been a heated debate over the nature of the relationship between Müllerian co-mimics that differ in their level of defence. There is now a growing awareness that this relationship can be mediated by many factors, including synergistic effects between co-mimics that differ in their mode of defence, rates of generalisation among warning signals and concomitant changes in prey density as mimicry evolves. I highlight areas for future enquiry, including the possibility of Müllerian mimicry systems based on profitability rather than unprofitability and the co-evolution of defence

Crying wolf to a predator: deceptive vocal mimicry by a bird protecting young

Animals often mimic dangerous or toxic species to deter predators; however, mimicry of such species may not always be possible and mimicry of benign species seems unlikely to confer anti-predator benefits. We reveal a system in which a bird mimics the alarm calls of harmless species to fool a predator 40 times its size and protect its offspring against attack. Our experiments revealed that brown thornbills (Acanthiza pusilla) mimic a chorus of other species' aerial alarm calls, a cue of an Accipiter hawk in flight, when predators attack their nest. The absence of any flying predators in this context implies that these alarms convey deceptive information about the type of danger present. Experiments on the primary nest predators of thornbills, pied currawongs (Strepera graculina), revealed that the predators treat these alarms as if they themselves are threatened by flying hawks, either by scanning the sky for danger or fleeing, confirming a deceptive function. In turn, these distractions delay attack and provide thornbill nestlings with an opportunity to escape. This sophisticated defence strategy exploits the complex web of interactions among multiple species across several trophic levels, and in particular exploits a predator's ability to eavesdrop on and respond appropriately to heterospecific alarm calls. Our findings demonstrate that prey can fool predators by deceptively mimicking alarm calls of harmless species, suggesting that defensive mimicry could be more widespread because of indirect effects on predators within a web of eavesdropping