Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry pp 35–53Cite as

Semiotics of Mimicry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 16))

Abstract

Biological mimicry is often described as a deceptive resemblance of some physical traits between representatives of different species. In such cases, attention predominantly stays at the physiological level and focuses on the evolution of mimetic features. In mimicry studies, much less consideration is given to the ways in which such resemblances are achieved, expressed and managed by specific individuals in specific behavioural encounters. In this chapter, I analyse the semiotic and communicational aspects of the mimicry system : what the semiotic features of mimicry are, how deceptive communication takes place, what mimicry is as a sign structure, and what the common interpretations of mimicry have been in the field of semiotics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A short overview of the concept of mimicry has been also published in S – European Journal for Semiotic Studies by mimicry historian Stanislav Komárek (1992). In biosemiotics, mimicry as a specific phenomenon has also been shortly discussed in relation to recognition and species concept (Kull 1992), intentionality in evolutionary processes (Hoffmeyer 1995), and types of information valuation in communication (Sharov 1992).

  2. 2.

    My own understanding of this issue is somewhat more complex and is presented in the Chap. 5, “Iconicity and mimicry”.

  3. 3.

    Distinction between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions of sign comes from the works of eminent American semiotician Charles Morris. Syntactics is concerned with relations between different signs (sign vehicles), semantics with the relation between the sign and its meanings or objects referred to and pragmatics with the relations between signs and interpreters or participants of communication (Morris 1971a: 21–22).

References

  • Ayasse, M., Schiestl, F. P., et al. (2003). Pollinator attraction in a sexually deceptive orchid by means of unconventional chemicals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B–Biological Sciences, 270(1514), 517–522.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30(354), 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blough, D. S. (2001). The perception of similarity. In R. G. Cook (Ed.), Avian visual cognition. On-line: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/dblough/. Accessed at 13 June 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, M. F. (1952). Abbott Thayer and natural history. Osiris, 10, 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitkopf, H., Onstein, R. E., Cafasso, D., Schlüter, P. M., & Cozzolino, S. (2015). Multiple shifts to different pollinators fuelled rapid diversification in sexually deceptive Ophrys orchids. New Phytologist, 207(2), 377–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, K. L., & Marshall, N. J. (2009). Mimicry in coral reef fish: how accurate is this deception in terms of color and luminance? Behavioral Ecology, 20(3), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bona, S., Valkonen, J. K., López-Sepulcre, A., & Mappes, J. (2015). Predator mimicry, not conspicuousness, explains the efficacy of butterfly eyespots. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20150202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F. (2011 [1916]). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans., P. Meisel, H. Saussy, Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York/London: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2010). Firefly femmes fatales: A case study in the semiotics of deception. Biosemiotics, 3(1), 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, E. B. (1986). Mimicry. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Vol. 1, pp. 522–553). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, Y., Ennos, R., Sullivan, M., & Edmunds, M. (2005). Hoverfly mimicry deceives humans. Journal of Zoology, 266, 395–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grutter, A. S. (2004). Cleaner fish use tactile dancing behavior as a preconflict management strategy. Current Biology, 14(12), 1080–1083.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (2001). The role of similarity in natural categorization. In U. Hahn & M. Ramscar (Eds.), Similarity and categorization (pp. 13–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer J. (1995). The semiosic body-mind. In N. Tasca (Ed.), Cruzeiro Semiótico 22(25), 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse, P. E. (2013). Lepidopteran wing patterns and the evolution of satyric mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 109(1), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. (1981). Linguistics and poetics. In R. Jakobson. Selected writings III. Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry (pp. 18–51.) The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevan, P. G., Chittka, L., & Dyer, A. G. (2001). Limits to the salience of ultraviolet: Lessons from colour vision in bees and birds. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 204, 2571–2580.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Komárek, S. (1992). Mimikry und verwandte Erscheinungen. S—European Journal for Semiotic Studies, 4(4), 693–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, C., & Mills, B. (2002). Information warfare and evolution. Conference paper. In Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Information Warfare & Security Conference. Online: www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/archive/PAPERS/_JIW-2002-2-CK-BIM-S.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (1992). Evolution and semiotics. In T. A. Sebeok, J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The Semiotic Web 1991 (pp. 221–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. E. (1975). Aggressive mimicry in Photuris fireflies: Signal repertoires by femmes fatales. Science, 187(4175), 452–453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. E. (1986). Firefly communication and deception: Oh what a tangled web. In R. W. Mitchell & N. S. Thompson (Eds.), Deception. Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (pp. 113–128). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLaury, R. E. (1991). Prototypes revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T. (2007b). Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica, 167(1/4), 223–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, D. (2010). A critical companion to zoosemiotics. People, paths, ideas (Biosemiotics 5). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1987). Categorization processes and categorical perception. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 455–490). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moksnes, A., & ØSkaft, E. (1995). Egg-morphs and host preference in the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus): An analysis of cuckoo and host eggs from European museum collections. Journal of Zoology, 236(4), 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moksnes, A., Røskaft, E., Hagen, L. G., Honza, M., Mørk, C., & Olsen, P. H. (2000). Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and host behaviour at Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus nests. Ibis, 142(2), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, J. A. (1996). Pitcher dimorphism, prey composition and the mechanisms of prey attraction in the pitcher plant Nepenthes rafflesiana in Borneo. Journal of Ecology, 84(4), 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. (1971a). Foundations of the theory of signs. In C. Morris (Ed.), Writings on the general theory of signs (pp. 13–71). The Hague: Mouton.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, L. A. (1983). Mimesis of bellflower (Campanula) by the red helleborine orchid Cephalanthera rubra. Nature, 305, 799–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, M., Løvlie, H., Tibblin, J., Jakobsson, S., & Wiklund, C. (2013). Eyespot display in the peacock butterfly triggers antipredator behaviors in naive adult fowl. Behavioral Ecology, 24(1), 305–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, H. L. (1885). Mimicry among marine mollusca. Science, 6(126), 9–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. B., Payne, L. L., Woods, J. L., & Sorenson, M. D. (2000). Imprinting and the origin of parasite–host species associations in brood-parasitic indigobirds, Vidua chalybeate. Animal Behaviour, 59(1), 69–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pietrewicz, A. T., & Kamil, A. C. (1979). Search image formation in the Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Science, 204(4399), 1332–1333.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., Stjernfelt, F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2012). Dicent symbols in mimicry. In T. Maran, K. Lindström, R. Magnus & M. Tonnessen (Eds.), Semiotics in the wild. Essays in Honour of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 79–86). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., Stjernfelt, F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Dicent symbols and proto-propositions in biological mimicry. In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (Eds.), Peirce and Biosemiotics (Biosemiotics 11) (pp. 199–213). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiestl, F. P. (2005). On the success of a swindle: pollination by deception in orchids. Naturwissenschaften, 92(6), 255–264.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1989). Iconicity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), The sign and its masters (pp. 107–127). Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1990a). Can animals lie? In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Essays in zoosemiotics, Monograph series of the Toronto semiotic circle 5 (pp. 93–97). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle, Victoria College in the University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (1992). Biosemiotics: A functional-evolutionary approach to the analysis of the sense of information. In T. A. Sebeok, J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991 (pp. 345–373). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solan, Z., & Ruppin, E. (2001). Similarity in perception: A window to brain organization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(1), 18–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sonesson, G. (2010). From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 18–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stummer, L. E., Weller, J. A., Johnson, M. L., & Cote, I. M. (2004). Size and stripes: How fish clients recognize cleaners. Animal Behaviour, 68(1), 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, A. H. (1896). Further remarks on the law which underlies protective coloration. The Auk, 13(4), 318–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, G. H. (1909). Concealing coloration in the animal kingdom. An exposition of the laws of disguise through color and pattern: Being a summary of Abbott H. Thayer’s discoveries. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, L. (1960). The natural control of insects in pine woods I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds. Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie, 13, 265–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1982). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals (R. D. Martin, Trans.). London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Timo Maran

Authors
  1. Timo Maran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maran, T. (2017). Semiotics of Mimicry. In: Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry. Biosemiotics, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50317-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation