DOCSLIB.ORG

Behavior in Insect Mimicry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Behavior in Insect Mimicry Gendernalik 1 Behavior in Insect Mimicry Alex Gendernalik [email protected] Keywords: mimicry, batesian, wasmannian, peckhamian, aggressive, ant, spider, firefly Abstract Arthropods use insect mimicry to gain predatory advantages over other insects in the form of increased resource availability and protection from predators. They do this through several different mechanisms, 4 of which are described in the paper; Batesian, Peckhamian, Wasmannian, and Tephritid mimicry. ‘Mimicry’ includes resemblances in both appearance and behavior. Without mimicry in both appearance and behavior (given both are displayed by the model) the organism will be unsuccessful in mimicking its selected model1. This was shown through Greene and Mather’s research on tephritid flies and salticid spiders. Appearance and behavior must be conspicuous to be detected by the deceived. Photuris fireflys and Portia spiders use aggressive mimcry to lure their prey near to them. Then they capture their prey and enjoy the meal. This type of mimicry is not as common as Batesian mimicry but a very interesting strategy nonetheless. Ants are especially formidable prey. Their defenses are strong and relentless, which keeps them safe from common ant predators (birds, other arthropods, etc.). A successful mimic of an ant would enjoy the same protection from predators. Several different spider families have evolved to do just that. 1. Mimicry, as described in this paper, is developed over the course of thousands of years through the mechanism of natural selection. It is not a choice made by the organism. Gendernalik 2 Introduction Over thousands of years arthropods have developed a practically infinite number of strategies for surviving and reproducing and in doing so they have become the most successful phylum, containing the most successful class; the insects. Every organism in the animal kingdom has evolved to fulfill a particular niche. As organisms speciate and as ecosystems change new niches become available and new species evolve to fill those new niches. No matter how obscure or seemingly insignificant the opportunity, something will evolve to take advantage of the new niche. Interactions between organisms can have infinite numbers of outcomes, which outcome occurs depends on the abilities of each organism. The organisms will evolve until one has an advantage over the other or until they develop a mutually beneficial relationship. Insect mimicry is one of the greatest examples of natural selection. It allows the observer to visualize the available niche and determine what adaptations were necessary to fill that particular niche – you only need to observe the model, the mimic, the predators and their behaviors. Insect mimicry is generally defined as the resemblance to a model through color, pattern, body structure, behavior or any combination of the previous characteristics. All mimics gain some fitness through their mimicry abilities and there are many advantages to mimicking an insect. Mainly, mimics are protected from predators and (or) have the ability to deceive their prey, their mimicry grants them the ability to have more success in capturing prey. Gendernalik 3 Types of Insect Mimicry In this review I will concentrate on implications of behavior in four types of insect mimicry; (1) Batesian mimicry, (2) Peckhamian (aggressive) mimicry, (3) Wasmannian mimicry and (4) Tephritid mimicry2. In Batesian mimicry, described by Henry Walter Bates in 1861, the model is distasteful or venomous and the mimic is not. Predators learn to associate the appearance of the model with unpalatability. Ultimately, the palatable mimic is protected because it resembles the unpalatable model. Aggressive (Peckhamian) mimicry was described by Poulton in 1890; it was Poulton who coined the term ‘Peckhamian’ mimicry because his work was largely based on the observations of E.G. Peckham (Rettenmeyer 1970). Cases of aggressive mimicry involve a harmless looking mimic (resembles the model or another harmless species) that uses its harmless appearance to either lure the prey to within attacking distance or to safely enter the prey’s nest, web, or territory to devour the prey and any resources the prey has collected. In Wasmannian mimicry (described by Eric Wasmann and termed by Rettenmeyer in 1970) the mimic resembles the model in order to enter the models’ territory and either hide among the crowded colony (“schooling” in fish) or feast on the models’ resources. The mimic is not always harmful to the host – they may sure a mutually beneficial relationship 2. Tephritid mimicry has only been termed such by the author for the purposes of this paper. Gendernalik 4 In Tephritid mimcry (unofficially termed by the author for the purposes of this review), described by Eisner, is a unique form of mimicry in which the mimic (fruit fly) resembles its predator (the jumping spider) in order to escape predation by the jumping spider. Mimic Behavior A common perception when one hears the word ‘mimic’, is that of creatures that have evolved to look identical. This is true; most mimics do physically resemble each other. However, the organism also mimics the models behavior. Morphological or structural adaptations are additional to foremost behavioral adaptations (Mayr 1970). This is easy to consider, a population or community of individuals will always adapt or evolve its organism behavior to fit its new niche prior to the evolution of its organism structure. In the examples below, the displayed behavior of the mimic is a “semi” pre- adaptation – the type of behavior (grooming, courtship, time active, etc.) was already in use by the mimic before it evolved into ‘mimicry’ behavior. Mimics tend to display the model’s most conspicuous characteristic (Rettenmeyer 1970). In many insects, the most conspicuous characteristic is their behavior. For example, an ant moves in curious, zig- zag maneuvers as it scans the ground and sky for direction cues – a jumping spider moves in fast, jerky maneuvers as it hunts for prey to pounce on. In fact, these exact conspicuous behaviors are mimicked by other species of jumping spider and flies, respectively. Most insects have very poor eye sight – these insects rely on conspicuous body structures, color patterns and the behavior of their potential prey to identify whether or not their prey is palatable. This suggests that small changes in behavior or body Gendernalik 5 structure/color would be undetectable to most insects - obvious behavior (relative to the observer) and colorful or large body structures are most important in insect mimicry. Tephritid Mimicry Even an insect with extraordinarily acute vision, such as the territorial jumping spider (Salticidae), can be fooled into thinking it’s facing a conspecific by a few cryptic patterns and some confusing behavior exhibited by the mimic. The tephritid fly mimics a jumping spider by raising its wings to reveal salticid leg-resembling patterns, spots on the end of its abdomen mimic the eyes of a salticid jumping spider. The fly also closely mimics the leg waving and jerky movements of a jumping spider by moving its wings up and down and dancing from side to side when disturbed (Mather and Roitberg 1987). A jumping spider displays the same jerky behavior when another salticid enters its territory, likewise, a salticid that wanders into another’s territory will display back before retreating, each encounter usually begins with leg waving and ends with a retreat. A salticidid that encounters a conspecific will usually retreat because the first salticid inhabitant is always dominant – size not being an issue (Mather and Roitberg 1987). Many flies use wing flicking (leg waving to jumping spiders) and wing markings displays, especially common in courtship of tephritids (Greene, Orsak, Whitman 1987). It is possible that the tephritid mimicry of salticids was a small evolutionary step from courtship behavior to salticidid mimicry. In their experiments, Greene, Orsak, and Whitman tested the effects of wing- waving and wing patterns on the behavior of salticid spiders by gluing housefly wings (no leg resembling patterns) on tephritids and releasing a salticid in the same area. In most cases the spider attacked the tephrited with housefly wings despite its defensive Gendernalik 6 display. Likewise in most cases, the spider attacked houseflies that had tephritid wings glued onto them. Mather and Roitberg’s experiments show that tephritid flies require both behavioral and visual mimicry to be effective in deterring salticid spiders. The tephritid fly has evolved to use the territorial displays of jumping spiders to its advantage by mimicking its own predator in order to deter it from attacking, which is a rarely reported case (Mather and Roitberg 1987). Greene, Orsak, and Whitman (1987) postulated that displays of tephritid mimicry of salticids might also deter other common fly predators (other spiders, Assassin bugs, Mantids, and lizards), this theory was proven false when the research team put salticid mimicking tephritid flies in the presence of the aforementioned predators – in almost every case the predator attacked and killed the tephrited fly. Aggressive Mimicry The behavior of the salticid spiders of the genus Portia poses an interesting example of aggressive mimicry. The diet of Portia consists mostly of other spiders and their captures, which is quite unusual as most salcitid spiders prey on insects (Jackson and Pollard 1996). Portia uses a combination of camouflage and aggressive mimicry to fool its prey into believing it is a piece of debris caught in the web and then trick the prey by luring it closer through mimicking web vibrations of ensnared insects. Portia uses its palps, legs, and abdomen to manipulate different vibrations sent through the web – when the resident spider responds to a certain vibration pattern. This behavior is thought to be an adaptation of some grooming behaviors, which closely resembles the insect- mimicking behavior of Portia on resident spider webs. After the resident spider responds to a certain vibration pattern, Portia begins to continuously reproduce that pattern, luring Gendernalik 7 the spider closer.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dynamics of Salticid-Ant Mimicry Systems
    ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following reference: Ceccarelli, Fadia Sara (2006) Dynamics of salticid-ant mimicry systems. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1311/ If you believe that this work constitutes a copyright infringement, please contact [email protected] and quote http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1311/ TITLE PAGE Dynamics of Salticid-Ant Mimicry Systems Thesis submitted by Fadia Sara CECCARELLI BSc (Hons) in March 2006 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Zoology and Tropical Ecology within the School of Tropical Biology James Cook University I STATEMENT OF ACCESS I, the undersigned author of this thesis, understand that James Cook University will make it available for use within the University Library and, by microfilm or other means, allow access to users in other approved libraries. All users consulting this thesis will have to sign the following statement: In consulting this thesis I agree not to copy or closely paraphrase it in whole of part without the written consent of the author; and to make proper public written acknowledgement for any assistance which I have obtained from it. Beyond this, I do not wish to place any restriction on access to this thesis. ------------------------------ -------------------- F. Sara Ceccarelli II ABSTRACT Mimicry in arthropods is seen as an example of evolution by natural selection through predation pressure. The aggressive nature of ants, and their possession of noxious chemicals, stings and strong mandibles make them unfavourable prey for many animals. The resemblance of a similar-sized arthropod to an ant can therefore also protect the mimic from predation.
    [Show full text]
  • Queensland Museum Annual Report 2004–2005 Queensland Museum Annual Report 2004–2005 Directory
    Queensland Museum Annual Report 2004–2005 Queensland Museum Annual Report 2004–2005 Directory Queensland Museum Queensland Museum Museum of Tropical Queensland PO Box 3300, Hendra Annexe 70 –102 Flinders Street SOUTH BRISBANE, QLD, 4101 122 Gerler Road TOWNSVILLE, QLD, 4810 Telephone: (07) 3840 7555 HENDRA, QLD, 4011 Telephone: (07) 4726 0600 Fax: (07) 3846 1918 Loans Service Fax: (07) 4721 2093 www.qm.qld.gov.au Telephone: (07) 3406 8344 www.mtq.qm.qld.gov.au Fax: (07) 3406 8355 The Workshops Rail Museum Geology Store North Street Telephone: (07) 3406 8344 PO Box 2234 Queensland Museum South Bank NORTH IPSWICH, QLD, 4305 Telephone: (07) 3432 5100 Corner Grey and Melbourne Streets Fax: (07) 3432 5114 PO Box 3300, www.theworkshops.qm.qld.gov.au SOUTH BRISBANE, QLD, 4101 Telephone: (07) 3840 7555 Cobb+Co Museum Fax: (07) 3846 1918 27 Lindsay Street www.southbank.qm.qld.gov.au TOOWOOMBA, QLD, 4350 Telephone: (07) 4639 1971 Fax: (07) 4638 5791 www.cobbandco.qm.qld.gov.au Lands, Mapping and Surveying Museum Corner Main and Vulture Streets PO Box 40 WOOLLOONGABBA, QLD, 4102 Telephone: (07) 3896 3000 Fax: (07) 3896 3275 WoodWorks: the Forestry and Timber Museum Corner Bruce Highway and Fraser Road Locked Bag 13, Fraser Road GYMPIE, QLD, 4570 Telephone: (07) 5483 7691 Fax: (07) 5482 1773 The Hon. Rod Welford, MP Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts Dear Minister, I take pleasure in presenting to you the Annual Report of the Board of the Queensland Museum for the year ending 30 June 2005. Anne Jones Chair Board of the Queensland Museum Presented to Parliament Queensland Museum Annual Report 2004–2005 Queensland Museum Our Vision The Queensland Museum is valued as an innovative, exciting and accessible museum of science, environment and human achievement, of international standing.
    [Show full text]
  • Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven
    Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Namadgi, ACT Bush Blitz Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven Nomenclature and taxonomy used in this report is consistent with: The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home Page 1 of 12 Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Survey techniques ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 5 2.3 Identifying the collections .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plant-Environment Interactions: from Sensory Plant Biology to Active
    Signaling and Communication in Plants Series Editors František Baluška Department of Plant Cell Biology, IZMB, University of Bonn, Kirschallee 1, D-53115 Bonn, Germany Jorge Vivanco Center for Rhizosphere Biology, Colorado State University, 217 Shepardson Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1173, USA František Baluška Editor Plant-Environment Interactions From Sensory Plant Biology to Active Plant Behavior Editor František Baluška Department of Plant Cell Biology IZMB University of Bonn Kirschallee 1 D-53115 Bonn Germany email: [email protected] ISSN 1867-9048 ISBN 978-3-540-89229-8 e-ISBN 978-3-540-89230-4 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-89230-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008938968 © 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: WMXDesign GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com František Baluška dedicates this book to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Repeated Evolution in Overlapping Mimicry Rings Among North American Velvet Ants
    ARTICLE Received 22 Jun 2012 | Accepted 8 Nov 2012 | Published 11 Dec 2012 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2275 Repeated evolution in overlapping mimicry rings among North American velvet ants Joseph S. Wilson1, Kevin A. Williams2, Matthew L. Forister3, Carol D. von Dohlen2 & James P. Pitts2 Mu¨llerian mimicry, in which two or more harmful species share a similar appearance for mutual benefit, is a widely appreciated, yet relatively uncommon natural phenomenon. Although Mu¨llerian mimicry occurs in vertebrates, most studies are focused on tropical, herbivorous invertebrates. Here we identify a large Mu¨llerian mimicry complex in North American velvet ants (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae). These are conspicuous, diurnal parasitoids of bees and wasps that defend themselves with a powerful sting. We investigate morpho- logical and genetic variation and ask whether morphological similarities are the result of convergent evolution or shared ancestry. We find that 65 species in the velvet ant genus Dasymutilla can be placed into one of six morphologically distinct and geographically delimited mimicry rings. Mu¨llerian colour patterns are primarily the result of independent evolution rather than shared, phylogenetic history. These convergent colour syndromes represent one of the largest known Mu¨llerian mimicry complexes yet identified, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. 1 Department of Biology, Utah State University, 1021 W. Vine Street, Tooele, Utah 84074, USA. 2 Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322, USA. 3 Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.S.W. (email: [email protected]). NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 3:1272 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2275 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 & 2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Chemical Senses in Predation, Risk Assessment, and Social
    THE ROLE OF CHEMICAL SENSES IN PREDATION, RISK ASSESSMENT, AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR OF SPINY LOBSTERS by SHKELZEN SHABANI Under the direction of Dr. Charles D. Derby ABSTRACT Chemical senses play a critical role in predator-prey and social interactions of many animals. Predators often evoke adaptive escape responses by prey, one of which is the release of chemicals that induce adaptive avoidance behaviors from both predators and conspecifics. I explore the use of chemicals in predator-prey and social interactions, using a crustacean model system, the spiny lobster. As predators, spiny lobsters are opportunistic, polyphagous feeders, and they rely heavily on their chemical senses during feeding. Some of their potential prey deter attacks through chemical defenses that act through the spiny lobsters‟ chemical senses. An example of this is sea hares, Aplysia californica, which secrete an ink when vigorously attacked by sympatric spiny lobsters, Panulirus interruptus. I show that that this ink defends sea hares from spiny lobsters through several mechanisms that include phagomimicry, sensory disruption, and deterrence, and that the ink‟s efficacy is enhanced by its naturally high acidity. As prey, spiny lobsters rely heavily on their chemical senses to assess risk from predators. One way to assess risk of predation is through „alarm cues‟, which are injury-related chemicals. I show that injured Caribbean spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus, release alarm cues in their hemolymph, and that nearby conspecifics detect these cues using olfaction. Hemolymph from conspecifics induces primarily alarm behavior in the form of retreat, sheltering, and suppression of appetitive responses. In contrast, hemolymph from heterospecifics, depending on phylogenetic relatedness, induces either mixed alarm and appetitive behaviors or primarily appetitive behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • Rattan Spiny Morphology and Litter Collecting Structures in Association with Ant Colonies
    RATTAN SPINY MORPHOLOGY AND LITTER COLLECTING STRUCTURES IN ASSOCIATION WITH ANT COLONIES LIU KUNPENG UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA 2019 RATTAN SPINY MORPHOLOGY AND LITTER COLLECTING STRUCTURES IN ASSOCIATION WITH ANT COLONIES by LIU KUNPENG Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Nik Fadzly N Rosely, Dr. Asyraf Mansor, Dr. Nadine Ruppert and Prof. Lee Chow Yang. Without their assistance and dedicated involvement in every step throughout the process, this thesis would have never been accomplished. I really need to thank my supervisors’ dedicated guidance not only in my research project, but also in giving me the knowledge that will benefit my entire life. Besides my supervisors, I would like to thank Dr. Foong Swee Yeok for always discussing with me and giving me advice in my research and daily life. In addition, I need thank Dr. Hasnuri Mat Hassan, Prof. Aileen Tan Shau Hwai and Dr. Faradina Merican Mohd Sidik Merican for teaching and offering me favours in different fields. I also need thank all the facilities and assistance from all stuff of School of Biological Sciences, University Science Malaysia. My sincere thanks also go to my friends, labmates and former coursemates who gave me plenty of unforgettable memories. I really appreciate Kathrine Tan for helping me translate my abstract. Not to forget my friend Sangsang for numerous conversation that touched the deepest of my heart. I am heartily thankful to my family, especially my parents, for supporting me not only financially but also mentally even they are thousands of miles away.
    [Show full text]
  • 085•Fl Success of Batesian Mimicry in the Ant-Mimicking Spider
    Success of Batesian Mimicry in the Ant-Mimicking Spider Myrmarachne formicaria Julia Ophals, Niaomi VanAlstine, and Jennifer L. Apple Department of Biology, SUNY Geneseo Geneseo, NY Introduction Results Myrmarachne formicaria (Salticidae) is an ant-mimicking spider native to Eurasia Ant-mimicking spiders which arrived in North America fairly recently, first noted in Ohio in 2001. M. were attacked significantly formicaria spiders mimic ants in both their body shape and their movements. less often than non- These spiders move their first pair of forelegs to mimic ant antennae, as well as mimicking spiders. Ant- bob their abdomen (Durkee et. al., 2011). In these ways the spider may be using mimics that were not the antipredator strategy of Batesian mimicry, in which a harmless or palatable attacked displayed more organism mimics the appearance of a more dangerous or distasteful species. chelicerae movement and abdomen movement The goal of this study was to evaluate the A male M. during the trial than those success of Batesian mimicry in this spider formicaria that were attacked. Figure 1. Ant-mimicking spiders are less likely to be Figure 2. Ant-mimics that were not attacked exhibited a Figure 3. Ant-mimics that were not attacked exhibited a with its attacked by the predators than are non-mimic spiders (χ2 longer duration of chelicerae movement than those that longer duration of abdomen movement than those that through experiments that staged encounters distinctive test of independence, χ2 = 4.01, p = 0.045). were attacked (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 48 p = 0.018). were attacked (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 21, p <0.001).
    [Show full text]
  • Defensive Ant, Aphid and Caterpillar Mimicry in Plants?
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2002 77 Original Article DEFENSIVE INSECT MIMICRY IN PLANTSS. LEV-YADUN and M. INBAR Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 77, 393–398. With 10 figures Defensive ant, aphid and caterpillar mimicry in plants? SIMCHA LEV-YADUN* and MOSHE INBAR Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Science Education, University of Haifa–Oranim, Tivon 36006, Israel Received 22 January 2002; accepted for publication 21 August 2002 Here we describe three apparently novel types of visual insect mimicry in plants. In the first type, plants of Xanth- ium trumarium L. have dark spots and flecks that resemble ants (Formicidae) in size and shape in the epidermis of stems, branches and petioles, and plants of Arisarum vulgare Targ.-Tozz. have them on petioles and inflorescence stems. In the second type, the dark anthers of Paspalum paspaloides (Michaux) Scribner (= P. distichum) are the size, shape and colour of aphids (Homoptera; Aphidoidea) and they sway in the wind like swivelling aphids. Similarly, the stems of Alcea setosa (Boiss.) Alef. are covered with dark flecks that look like aphids. Finally, immature pods of three wild annual legumes (Lathyrus ochrus (L.) DC.; Pisum fulvum Sm.; Vicia peregrina L.) have conspicuous reddish spots, arranged along the pods, that appears to mimic lepidopteran caterpillars. In one of the species (V. peregrina) two different mimicking morphs were found. We propose that these morphological traits may serve as herbivore repellent cues and are part of the defence system of the plants. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 77, 393–398.
    [Show full text]
  • Mimicry Some Heliconius (Heliconiinae) from Peru and Colombia, So He Assumed the Resemblance Was the Result of Some Inorganic Mathieu Joron Or Environmental Factors
    Preprint for: Joron, M. 2003. In Encyclopedia of insects (R. T. Cardé & V. H. Resh, eds), pp. 714-726. Academic Press, New York. Melinaea, Mechanitis (Ithomiinae), Lycorea (Danainae), and Mimicry some Heliconius (Heliconiinae) from Peru and Colombia, so he assumed the resemblance was the result of some inorganic Mathieu Joron or environmental factors. In 1879, German naturalist Fritz Leiden University, The Netherlands Müller was the first to develop a mathematical demonstration that two unpalatable prey could benefit from mutual resem- imicry is the adaptive resemblance in signal be- blance. He understood that, if the community of predators tween several species in a locality. The most had to kill a certain (fixed) number of prey to learn to avoid M spectacular and intriguing cases are of course them, two indistinguishable distasteful species would to- those of accurate resemblance between distantly related spe- gether suffer this mortality and both reduce their death rate cies, such as spiders mimicking ants. Closely related animals per unit time. Müller actually showed that this benefit was can also benefit from mutual resemblance, in which case biased in favor of the rarer species, to a factor equal to the mimicry results from selection against signal divergence. square of the ratio of the species’ abundance. Therefore, un- equal population sizes translate into even more unequal, The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of insect spe- although still mutual, benefits: Müllerian mimicry, thus de- cies are described and identifiable on the basis of fined, could be beneficial for both species, and perhaps also morphological characters. This bewildering diversity is, how- for the predators, in contrast to parasitic Batesian mimicry.
    [Show full text]
  • Westring, 1851)
    Nieuwsbr. Belg. Arachnol. Ver. (2012), 27(3): 131 Bibliografische referenties betreffende de Belgische arachnofauna, aangevuld met de arachnologische werken gepubliceerd door Belgische arachnologen. Léon Baert KBIN, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussel [email protected] Lijst 1: Publicaties met betrekking tot de Belgische spinnenfauna. Lijst 2: Publicaties met betrekking tot de Belgische hooiwagen- en pseudoschorpioenenfauna Lijst 3: Publicaties met betrekking tot de niet-Belgische spinnenfauna gepubliceerd door Belgische auteurs. Lijst 4: Publicaties met betrekking tot de niet-Belgische arachnidenfauna (niet-spinnen) gepubliceerd door Belgische auteurs. Lijst 5: Scripties (Licentiaat/Masters) met betrekking tot de spinnenfauna. Lijst 6: Doctoraten (chronologisch) met betrekking tot de spinnenfauna. Inleiding De eerste literatuurlijsten met betrekking tot faunistische nota’s over de Belgische spinnenfauna werden gepubliceerd in de reeks “Catalogus van de Belgische spinnen, delen I t/m XIV”. De publicaties werden per jaar alfabetisch naar auteur opgelijst en genummerd zodat er in de database en de teksten vrij gemakkelijk kon naar gerefereerd worden. Het betrof hier enkel faunistische werken. VANUYTVEN publiceerde voor het eerst een alfabetisch naar auteur gerangschikte lijst van alle in de catalogi I t/m VII opgesomde publicaties in 1990. Vanaf 2002 werd in de Nieuwsbrief van de Belgische Arachnologische vereniging regelmatig een compilatie opgenomen van de Belgische spinnenliteratuur van de voorbije jaren. De lijst (Lijst 1) die hier is opgenomen, bevat naast de vele faunistische artikels, de eveneens talrijke niet-faunistische publicaties, aangevuld met de werken gepubliceerd tussen 1994 (Catalogus XIV) en eind 2012. In totaal werden tussen 1878 en heden 765 werken gepubliceerd. Ter aanvulling worden de publicaties betreffende de overige arachniden (hooiwagens en pseudoschorpioenen) in een aparte lijst opgenomen (Lijst 2).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Innate Aversion to Ants
    INNATE AVERSION TO ANTS (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE) AND ANT MIMICS: EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS FROM MANTISES (MANTODEA) Running Title: Ant mimicry Ximena J. Nelson1, Robert R. Jackson1, Daiqin Li2, Alberto T. Barrion3, G. B. Edwards4 1School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand Email: [email protected] Phone: 64-3-3642064 Fax: 64-3-3642950 2Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119260 3Entomology Division, International Rice Research Institute, Manila 1099, Philippines 4Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida 32614-7100, U.S.A. 1 ABSTRACT Field data suggest that ants may be important predators of mantises which, in turn, may be important predators of jumping spiders (Salticidae). Using a tropical fauna from the Philippines as a case study, the reactions of mantises to ants, myrmecomorphic salticids (i.e., jumping spiders that resemble ants) and ordinary salticids (i.e., jumping spiders that do not resemble ants) were investigated in the laboratory. Three mantis species (Loxomantis sp., Orthodera sp. and Statilia sp.) were tested with ten ant species, five species of Myrmarachne (i.e., myrmecomorphic salticids) and 23 ordinary salticid species. Two categories of the myrmecomorphic salticids were recognized: ‘typical Myrmarachne’ (four species with a strong resemblance to ants) and M. bakeri (a species with less strong resemblance to ants). Ants readily killed mantises in the laboratory, confirming that, for the mantises we studied, ants are dangerous. In alternate-day testing, the mantises routinely preyed on the ordinary salticids, but avoided ants. The mantises reacted to myrmecomorphic salticids similarly to how they reacted to ants (i.e., myrmecomorphic salticids appear to be, for mantises, Batesian mimics of ants).
    [Show full text]