4.5 Article

Aposematism in mammals

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 75, 期 10, 页码 2480-2493

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14320

关键词

Anal secretions; antipredator defenses; black-and-white coloration; body mass; pugnacity; spines; toxicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Black-and-white coloration in mammals serves as a multifunctional warning signal to predators, indicating various defenses beyond noxious anal secretions, as well as being involved with sexual signaling and environmental factors linked to crypsis.
Aposematic coloration is traditionally considered to signal unpalatability or toxicity. In mammals, most research has focused on just one form of defense, namely, noxious anal secretions, and its black-and-white advertisement as exemplified by skunks. The original formulation of aposematism, however, encompassed a broader range of morphological, physiological, and behavioral defenses, and there are many mammal species with black-and-white contrasting patterns that do not have noxious adaptations. Here, using Bayesian phylogenetic models and data from 1726 terrestrial nonvolant mammals we find that two aspects of conspicuous coloration, black-and-white coloration patterns on the head and body, advertise defenses that are morphological (spines, large body size), behavioral (pugnacity), and physiological (anal secretions), as well as being involved with sexual signaling and environmental factors linked to crypsis. Within Carnivora, defensive anal secretions are associated with complex black-and-white head patterns and longitudinal black-and-white body striping; in primates, larger bodied species exhibit irregular patches of black-and-white pelage; and in rodents, pugnacity is linked to sharp countershading and irregular blocks of white and black pelage. We show that black-and-white coloration in mammals is multifunctional, that it serves to warn predators of several defenses other than noxious anal secretions, and that aposematism in mammals is not restricted to carnivores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据