Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34102888›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2021

Mimicry in motion and morphology: do information limitation, trade-offs or compensation relax selection for mimetic accuracy?

Donald James McLean, Marie E Herberstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Donald James McLeanDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia.
Marie E HerbersteinDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many animals mimic dangerous or undesirable prey as a defence from predators. We would expect predators to reliably avoid animals that closely resemble dangerous prey, yet imperfect mimics are common across a wide taxonomic range. There have been many hypotheses suggested to explain imperfect mimicry, but comparative tests across multiple mimicry systems are needed to determine which are applicable, and which-if any-represent general principles governing imperfect mimicry. We tested four hypotheses on Australian ant mimics and found support for only one of them: the information limitation hypothesis. A predator with incomplete information will be unable to discriminate some poor mimics from their models. We further present a simple model to show that predators are likely to operate with incomplete information because they forage and make decisions while they are learning, so might never learn to properly discriminate poor mimics from their models. We found no evidence that one accurate mimetic trait can compensate for, or constrain, another, or that rapid movement reduces selection pressure for good mimicry. We argue that information limitation may be a general principle behind imperfect mimicry of complex traits, while interactions between components of mimicry are unlikely to provide a general explanation for imperfect mimicry.

Indexed as

Biological MimicryAnimalsAustraliaBiological EvolutionLearningModels, BiologicalPhenotypePredatory Behaviorant mimicBatesian mimicryevolutionimperfect mimicrylocomotor mimicrymulticomponent mimicry

Identifiers

PMID34102888
PMCPMC8187996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.