close
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs

Abstract

Batesian mimicry—resemblance of a toxic model by an edible mimic—depends on deceiving predators1. Mimetic advantage is considered to be dependent on frequency because an increase in mimic abundance leads to breakdown of the warning signal2,3. Where multiple toxic species are available, batesian polymorphism4 is predicted—that is, mimics diversify to match sympatric models. Despite the prevalence of batesian mimicry in nature5, batesian polymorphism is relatively rare6. Here we explore a poison-frog mimicry complex comprising two parapatric models and a geographically dimorphic mimic that shows monomorphism where models co-occur. Contrary to classical predictions, our toxicity assays, field observations and spectral reflectances show that mimics resemble the less-toxic and less-abundant model. We examine “stimulus generalization”7 as a mechanism for this non-intuitive result with learning experiments using naive avian predators and live poison frogs. We find that predators differ in avoidance generalization depending on toxicity of the model, conferring greater protection to mimics resembling the less-toxic model owing to overlap of generalized avoidance curves. Our work supports a mechanism of toxicity-dependent stimulus generalization8, revealing an additional solution for batesian mimicry where multiple models coexist.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Poison-frog mimicry complex and colour analyses.
BERJAYAThe alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Figure 2: Measured features of the poison-frog model–mimic system. a, Relative toxicity of models.
BERJAYAThe alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Figure 3: Predator avoidance learning.
BERJAYAThe alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Figure 4: Generalized avoidance curves.
BERJAYAThe alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bates, H. W. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23, 495–566 (1862)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher, R. A. Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Clarendon, Oxford, 1930)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Brower, L. P. & Brower, J. V. Z. The relative abundance of model and mimic butterflies in natural populations of the Battus philenor mimicry complex. Ecology 43, 154–158 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wallace, A. R. On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan region. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 25, 1–71 (1865)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Edmunds, M. Defence in Animals (Longman, Harlow, 1974)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Joron, M. & Mallet, J. L. B. Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 461–466 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned Reflexes (translated by Anrep, G. V.) (Univ. Press, London, 1927)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Duncan, C. J. & Sheppard, P. M. Sensory discrimination and its role in the evolution of Batesian mimicry. Behaviour 24, 269–282 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ford, E. B. Ecological Genetics 3rd edn (Chapman and Hall, London, 1971)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Turner, J. R. G. The evolutionary dynamics of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry: similarities and differences. Ecol. Entomol. 12, 81–95 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brodie, E. D. Jr & Brodie, E. D. III Differential avoidance of mimetic salamanders by free-ranging birds. Science 208, 181–182 (1980)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Greene, H. W. & McDiarmid, R. W. Coral snake mimicry: does it occur? Science 213, 1207–1212 (1981)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Santos, J. C., Coloma, L. A. & Cannatella, D. C. Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12792–12797 (2003)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Edmunds, M. Why are there good mimics and poor mimics? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 70, 459–466 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sherratt, T. N. The evolution of imperfect mimicry. Behav. Ecol. 13, 821–826 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brower, J. V. Z. Experimental studies of mimicry. IV. The reactions of starlings to the different proportions of models and mimics. Am. Nat. 94, 271–282 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodale, M. A. & Sneddon, I. The effect of distastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial Batesian mimics. Anim. Behav. 25, 660–665 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V. & Mappes, J. Imperfect Batesian mimicry–the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 149–153 (1997)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnstone, R. A. The evolution of inaccurate mimics. Nature 418, 524–526 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Endler, J. A. On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 41, 315–352 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Daly, J. W., Garraffo, H. M. & Spande, T. F. in Alkaloids: Chemical and Biological Perspectives vol. 13 (ed. Pelletier, S. W.) 1–161 (Pergamon, New York, 1999)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Frost, D. R. Amphibian Species of the World 3.0: an Online Reference http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html (American Museum of Natural History, New York, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. SAS Institute. JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide version 4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research 2nd edn (W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Darst, C. R., Menéndez-Guerrero, P. A., Coloma, L. A. & Cannatella, D. C. Evolution of dietary specialization and chemical defense in poison frogs (Dendrobatidae): a comparative analysis. Am. Nat. 165, 56–69 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Master, T. L. Dendrobates auratus (black and green poison dart frog): predation. Herp. Rev. 29, 164–165 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Osorio, D., Vorobyev, M. & Jones, C. D. Colour vision of domestic chicks. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 2951–2959 (1999)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Coloma, J. C. Santos, and S. Ron for discussions on poison frogs; D. Cannatella for frog photos in Fig. 1, assistance with assays and discussion; M. Domjan for advice on predator learning experiments; E. Tapia, S. Padilla, M. Bustamante, P. Menéndez-Guerrero and D. Paucar for assistance in the field; J. Cassaday for assistance with toxicity assays; and M. Ryan for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by University of Texas at Austin EEB graduate program fellowships, a UT Continuing Fellowship, and the Explorer's Club Exploration Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine R. Darst.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Darst, C., Cummings, M. Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs. Nature 440, 208–211 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04297

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04297

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. https://link.springer.com/e...

  2. https://link.springer.com/a...

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing