ORNITOLOGIA NEOTROPICAL 24: 365–367, 2013 © The Neotropical Ornithological Society DO RUFOUS-TAILED JACAMARS (GALBULA RUFICAUDA) PLAY WITH APOSEMATIC BUTTERFLIES? Carlos Eduardo G. Pinheiro1,2 & Vitor César de Campos1 1Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de Brasília, 70910-900 Brasília, DF, Brazil. 2Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Arirambas-da-mata (Galbula ruficauda) brincam com borboletas aposemáticas? Key words: Rufous-tailed Jacamar, Galbula ruficauda, Galbulidae, aposematism, Batesian mimicry, throw-catch behavior. The Rufous-tailed Jacamar (Galbula ruficauda, repeated once or twice. Interestingly, only Galbulidae) is an insectivorous bird com- some Heliconiinae (Nymphalidae) butterflies, monly found in primary and secondary for- such as the yellow, black, orange, and white ests of Central and South America (Sick Heliconius ethilla narcea and Eueides isabella 1985). In central and western Brazil, adult dianasa, and the blue and yellow Heliconius sara individuals feed mostly on wasps (Fry 1970), thamar were observed to elicit such behavior but also attack many moths and butterflies, in wild birds on three different occasions in which they capture on tree trunks and in the central Brazil. The Rufous-tailed Jacamar has air, respectively, and a few other insects (Pin- been used in several palatability and mimicry heiro et al. 2003). From time to time, they experiments with butterflies in both labora- attack and capture aposematic (i.e., warning- tory and field conditions (reviewed in Pin- colored and chemically defended; Poulton heiro 2011), but to date such behavior has 1890) butterflies, which are usually released remained unnoticed. Here we propose two alive and apparently unharmed after being alternative explanations for the “throw-catch” captured, handled, smelled and/or tasted by behavior of this jacamar. birds (see Chai 1986 and Pinheiro 2004 for The first explanation is that birds are just examples of aposematic butterflies attacked checking the butterflies for defensive chemi- and released alive by these jacamars in cals and/or other traits, such as their body nature). In some cases, however, birds seem mass or wing toughness that could be also to play with aposematic butterflies before let- used to classify the butterfly as “palatable” or ting them go. After capturing them in the air “unpalatable,” or even as “models” or “Bate- and returning to the perch, the birds throw sian mimics” (species without chemical the butterflies into the air so as to make them defenses that mimic the aposematic ones, or turn around two or three times before catch- models to deceit predators) (Bates 1862; see ing them again with their long, slender, for- also Brown 1988; Pinheiro 2003, 2007 for ceps-like bill, and such behavior may be examples of Batesian mimicry among 365 PINHEIRO & CAMPOS Neotropical butterflies). In contrast to palat- “drop-catch” behavior of the Herring Gull able species (including Batesian mimics), and other birds that play with food items which usually exhibit soft wings, aposematic (Gamble & Cristol 2002). butterflies have tough wings that help them to Whether or not throw-catch by jacamars resist sampling by birds (DeVries 2002). One constitutes true playing behavior or is a way problem with this view, however, is that birds to evaluate butterfly traits remains obviously could check these traits without the need of an open question. We claim that future obser- throwing the butterflies into the air and mak- vations of such behavior in both captive and ing them turn around, as observed in most wild individuals should be reported in the lit- other attacks by these jacamars on aposematic erature as they could reveal unknown/novel and mimetic butterflies (Chai 1986; Pinheiro and important behavioral traits of this Neo- 2004, pers. observ.). tropical bird. An alternative explanation for such behavior is that birds play with butterflies ACKNOWLEDGMENTS before releasing them. Playing with potential prey is relatively well documented in mam- We are grateful to FAPDF/CNPq/Pronex mals, but only rarely observed and described (project number 563/2009) for financial sup- in birds (see examples in Gamble & Cristol port. 2002, Diamond & Bond 2003, Sazima 2008). Moreover, defining playing is difficult as it REFERENCES covers many behavioral categories, varies con- siderably between and within species, and its Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna functional significance is still being debated of the Amazon valley. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Held & Spinka 2011). In the absence of a 23: 495–566. widely accepted definition, most authors uti- Burghardt, G. M. 2005. The genesis of animal play: lize a list of shared characteristics, such as an testing the limits. MIT Press, Cambridge, activity without an obvious purpose or adap- Massachusetts, USA. Brown Jr., K. S. 1988. Mimicry, aposematism and tive function, utilizing species typical motor crypsis in Neotropical Lepidoptera: the impor- programs exaggerated in intensity or number tance of dual signals. Bull. Soc. Zool. France of repetitions, differing in structure and/or 113: 83–101. timing from the adult “serious” form of the Chai, P. 1986. Field observation and feeding exper- behavior, and others (Gould & Gould 1994, iments on the responses of Rufous-tailed Jaca- Burghardt 2005). Most of these traits, how- mars (Galbula ruficauda) to free-flying butterflies ever, apply only to mammals. In fact, all birds in a tropical rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 29: (n = three individuals) observed to “play” 161–189. with Heliconius butterflies in nature were males DeVries, P. J. 2002. Differential wing toughness in (easily distinguished from females by the distasteful and palatable butterflies: Direct evi- white collar) and apparently adult individuals. dence supports unpalatable theory. Biotropica 34: 176–181. In addition, throwing the butterflies into the Diamond, J., & A. B. Bond. 2003. A comparative air and making them turn around themselves analysis of social play in birds. Behaviour 140: did not seem to be exaggerated in intensity or 1091–1115. in the number of repetitions, as it may be Fry, C. H. 1970. Convergence between jacamars repeated (once or twice) or not. In spite of and bee-eaters. Ibis 112: 257–259. these differences, the jacamars’ throw-catch Gamble, J. R., & D. A. Cristol. 2002. Drop-catch behavior shows some similarities to the behavior is play in Herring Gulls, Larus argenta- 366 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS tus. Anim. Behav. 63: 339–345. (Galbulidae) and tyrant-flycatchers (Tyranni- Gould, J. L., & C. G. Gould 1994. The animal dae). J. Avian Biol. 42: 277–281. mind. Scientific American Library, New York, Pinheiro, C. E. G., M. A. Bagno, & R. A. Brandão. New York, USA. 2003. Diet and foraging behavior of the Held, S. D. E., & M. Spinka. 2011. Animal play and Rufous-tailed Jacamar (Galbula ruficauda, Galbu- animal welfare. Anim. Behav. 81: 891–899. lidae) in central Brazil. Ararajuba 11: 241–243. Pinheiro, C. E. G. 2003. Does Müllerian mimicry Poulton, E. B. 1890. The colour of animals, their work in nature? Experiments with butterflies meaning and use, especially considered in the and birds (Tyrannidae). Biotropica 35: 356–364. case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner, Pinheiro, C. E. G. 2004. Jacamars (Aves, Galbu- London, UK. lidae) as selective agents of mimicry in Neotro- Sazima, I. 2008. Playful birds: cormorants and pical butterflies. Ararajuba 12: 137–139. herons play with objects and practice their Pinheiro, C. E. G. 2007. Asynchrony in daily activ- skills. Biota Neotrop. 8: 259–264. ity patterns of butterfly models and mimics. J. Sick, H. 1985. Ornitologia brasileira, uma introdu- Trop. Ecol. 23: 119–123. ção. Editora Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Pinheiro, C. E. G. 2011. On the evolution of warn- Brazil. ing coloration, Batesian and Müllerian mimicry in Neotropical butterflies: the role of jacamars Accepted 12 September 2013. 367 .