| Introduction |
|
1 | (4) |
|
Part I: Avoiding detection |
|
|
5 | (44) |
|
|
|
7 | (19) |
|
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
Industrial melanism in Biston betularia |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
Background is a multivariate entity |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
Combining background matching with other functions |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
Polymorphism of background matching forms |
|
|
12 | (8) |
|
A case study: polymorphism in Cepaea |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Polymorphism through neutral selection |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Positive selection for polymorphism |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
Definitions related to frequency-dependent predation |
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
Comparing search image and search rate mechanisms |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
Coping with multiple backgrounds |
|
|
20 | (3) |
|
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
|
26 | (4) |
|
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
Separating disruptive colouration from background matching |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (2) |
|
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
Countershading and counterillumination |
|
|
30 | (8) |
|
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Self-shadow concealment and countershading |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
Direct empirical tests of the advantages of countershading |
|
|
31 | (2) |
|
|
|
33 | (3) |
|
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
Countershading in ungulates |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
Countershading in aquatic environments |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
Counterillumination in marine animals |
|
|
35 | (1) |
|
Countershading in aerial, aquatic, and terrestrial systems |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
Transparency and silvering |
|
|
38 | (11) |
|
Transparent objects still reflect and refract |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
More reasons why perfect transparency need not translate to perfect crypsis |
|
|
39 | (3) |
|
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
Other wavelengths of light |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
Imperfect transparency can be effective at low light levels |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
Some parts of an organism cannot be made transparent |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
The distribution of transparency across habitats |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Silvering as a form of crypsis |
|
|
45 | (3) |
|
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
Part II: Avoiding attack after detection |
|
|
49 | (88) |
|
|
|
51 | (19) |
|
The diversity of secondary defences |
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
Costs and benefits of some behavioural and morphological secondary defences |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
Morphological and other mechanical defences |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
|
|
55 | (8) |
|
Some characteristics of chemical defences |
|
|
56 | (3) |
|
Are chemical defences costly? |
|
|
59 | (4) |
|
Costs, benefits, and forms of defence |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
The evolution of defences |
|
|
64 | (4) |
|
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
Theoretical approaches to the evolution of defences |
|
|
64 | (3) |
|
Formal modelling of the evolution of defences |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
|
|
68 | (2) |
|
|
|
70 | (12) |
|
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
Signalling that an approaching predator has been detected |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
Signalling that the prey individual is intrinsically difficult to catch |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
Summary of theoretical work |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
Empirical evidence from predators |
|
|
75 | (4) |
|
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
Push-up displays by lizards |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
Predator inspection behaviour by fish |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
Fin-flicking behaviour by fish |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
Studies where predator behaviour is not reported |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
Tail-signalling by lizards |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
Snorting in African bovids |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
The form and function of warning displays |
|
|
82 | (22) |
|
Characteristics of aposematic warning displays |
|
|
82 | (3) |
|
Aposematism does not require complete avoidance by predators |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
Conspicuous animals are not necessarily aposematic |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
Design of aposematic displays I: why conspicuousness? |
|
|
85 | (4) |
|
The opportunity costs of crypsis |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
Forms of secondary defence and the need for conspicuous components of warning displays |
|
|
87 | (2) |
|
Design of aposematic displays II: the psychological properties of predators |
|
|
89 | (11) |
|
|
|
90 | (4) |
|
Aposematism and predator learning |
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
Co-evolution: which came first, conspicuousness or special psychological responses to conspicuousness? |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
Conclusion: designing a warning display |
|
|
101 | (3) |
|
The initial evolution of warning displays |
|
|
104 | (11) |
|
The initial evolution of aposematism: the problem |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
Stochastic--deterministic scenarios |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
|
|
106 | (2) |
|
Experimental simulations of aggregation effects |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
More complex population and predator models for aposematism |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
Individual selection models |
|
|
109 | (1) |
|
Evaluations of predator psychology models |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
Alternatives to the rare conspicuous mutant scenario |
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
Defences, optimal conspicuousness and apparency |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
Aposematism originated to advertise `visible' defences |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
Facultative, density-dependent aposematism |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
Simultaneous evolution of defence and conspicuousness |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
Phylogeny and evolutionary history |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
The evolution of aposematism: a trivial question with interesting answers? |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
The evolution and maintenance of Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
115 | (22) |
|
Where Mullerian mimicry fits in |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
A brief early history of Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
116 | (2) |
|
Some potential examples of Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
118 | (4) |
|
Neotropical Heliconius butterflies |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
|
|
120 | (2) |
|
Cotton stainer bugs (genus Dysdercus) |
|
|
122 | (1) |
|
|
|
122 | (1) |
|
Experimental evidence for Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
122 | (4) |
|
Direct assessments of the benefits of adopting a common warning signal |
|
|
122 | (2) |
|
Proportions of unpalatable prey consumed by naive predators in the course of education |
|
|
124 | (2) |
|
Models of Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
Questions and controversies |
|
|
126 | (10) |
|
Which is the model and which is the mimic? |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
How can mimicry evolve through intermediate stages? |
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
Why are mimetic species variable in form between areas? |
|
|
129 | (2) |
|
How can multiple Mullerian mimicry rings co-exist? |
|
|
131 | (3) |
|
What is the role of predator generalization in Mullerian mimicry? |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
Why are some Mullerian mimics polymorphic? |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
Do Mullerian mutualists only benefit simply from shared predator education? |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
Part III: Deceiving predators |
|
|
137 | (65) |
|
The evolution and maintenance of Batesian mimicry |
|
|
139 | (25) |
|
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
Taxonomic distribution of Batesian mimicry |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
Examples of Batesian mimicry |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
Comparative evidence for Batesian mimicry |
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
Experimental evidence for Batesian mimicry and its characteristics |
|
|
142 | (10) |
|
Predators learn to avoid noxious models and consequently their palatable mimics |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
Palatable prey altered to resemble an unpalatable species sometimes survive better than mock controls |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
Batesian mimics generally require the presence of the model to gain significant protection |
|
|
144 | (3) |
|
The relative (and absolute) abundances of the model and mimic affects the rate of predation on these species |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
The distastefulness of the model affects the rate of predation on the model and mimic |
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
The model can be simply difficult to catch rather than noxious on capture |
|
|
148 | (2) |
|
The success of mimicry is dependent on the availability of alternative prey |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Mimics do not always have to be perfect replicas to gain protection, particularly when the model is relatively common or highly noxious |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Frequency-dependent selection on Batesian mimics can lead to mimetic polymorphism |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
The theory of Batesian mimicry |
|
|
152 | (2) |
|
Questions and controversies |
|
|
154 | (9) |
|
Why are not all palatable prey Batesian mimics? |
|
|
154 | (1) |
|
Is the spatio-temporal coincidence of the models and mimics necessary? |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
Why is Batesian mimicry often limited to one sex? |
|
|
156 | (2) |
|
How is mimicry controlled genetically and how can polymorphic mimicry be maintained? |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
Why are imperfect mimics not improved by natural selection? |
|
|
159 | (2) |
|
How does Batesian mimicry evolve, and why do models simply not evolve away from their mimics? |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
What selective factors influence behavioural mimicry? |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
The relationship between Batesian and Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
164 | (8) |
|
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
Evidence of interspecific differences in levels of secondary defence |
|
|
165 | (1) |
|
Why should weakly defended mimics increase the likelihood that more highly defended models are attacked? |
|
|
166 | (4) |
|
|
|
166 | (3) |
|
Differences in predatory abilities: the `Jack Sprat' effect |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
Observational data on the nature of the relationship between Batesian and Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
Other forms of adaptive resemblance |
|
|
172 | (11) |
|
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
Pollinator (floral) mimicry |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
Intraspecific sexual mimicry |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
|
|
176 | (7) |
|
The phenomenon of automimicry |
|
|
176 | (3) |
|
The challenge to theoreticians |
|
|
179 | (3) |
|
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
Deflection and startling of predators |
|
|
183 | (17) |
|
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
Empirical evidence for deflection |
|
|
183 | (8) |
|
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
|
|
185 | (2) |
|
False head marking on butterflies |
|
|
187 | (3) |
|
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
Summary of empirical evidence for deflective signals |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
How can deflective marking evolve if they make prey easier for predators to detect? |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
Why do predators allow themselves to be deceived? |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
|
|
192 | (5) |
|
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
Distress calls as startle signals |
|
|
193 | (1) |
|
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
Sound generation by moths attacked by bats |
|
|
195 | (1) |
|
Summary of empirical evidence |
|
|
196 | (1) |
|
Why would predators be startled? |
|
|
196 | (1) |
|
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
|
|
198 | (1) |
|
|
|
199 | (1) |
|
|
|
200 | (2) |
|
|
|
202 | (8) |
|
A: A summary of mathematical and computer models that deal with Mullerian mimicry |
|
|
|
B: A summary of mathematical and computer models that deal with Batesian mimicry |
|
|
| References |
|
210 | (30) |
| Author Index |
|
240 | (3) |
| Species Index |
|
243 | (5) |
| Subject Index |
|
248 | |