4.4 Review

IMPERFECT MIMICRY AND THE LIMITS OF NATURAL SELECTION

Journal

QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 4, Pages 297-315

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/673758

Keywords

Batesian mimicry; Muullerian mimicry; signal detection; cognition; complexity

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [DEB-1110385, DEB-1019479]
  2. Royster Society of Fellows at UNC-Chapel Hill
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [1019479] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mimicry-when one organism (the mimic) evolves a phenotypic resemblance to another (the model) due to selective benefitsis widely used to illustrate natural selection's power to generate adaptations. However, many putative mimics resemble their models imprecisely, and such imperfect mimicry represents a specific challenge to mimicry theory and a general one to evolutionary theory. Here, we discuss 11 nonmutually exclusive hypotheses for imperfect mimicry. We group these hypotheses according to whether imperfect mimicry reflects: an artifact of human perception, which is not shared by any naturally occurring predators and therefore is not truly an instance of imperfect mimicry; genetic, developmental, or time-lag constraints, which (temporarily) prevent a response to selection for perfect mimicry; relaxed selection, where imperfect mimicry is as adaptive as perfect mimicry; or tradeoffs, where imperfect mimicry is (locally) more adaptive than perfect mimicry. We find that the relaxed selection hypothesis has garnered the most support. However, because only a few study systems have thus far been comprehensively evaluated, the relative contributions of the various hypotheses toward explaining the evolution of imperfect mimicry remain unclear. Ultimately, clarifying why imperfect mimicry exists should provide critical insights into the limits of natural selection in producing complex adaptations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available