Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T21:51:14.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Mimicry as deceptive resemblance: beyond the one-trick ponies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

Mark D. Norman
Affiliation:
Department of Marine Invertebrates, Museum Victoria, Australia
Tom Tregenza
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, Centre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter, UK
Chrystopher L. Nehaniv
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Kerstin Dautenhahn
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The primary aim of research into artificial intelligence is to replicate biological capabilities either through attempting to directly copy biological mechanisms or by engineering solutions from non-biological principles. Either way, the first hurdle is to replicate the behaviour of animals. The biological phenomenon of mimicry includes a range of behaviours that are of particular interest because they represent a signal–receiver relationship in which the interests of both signallers and receivers are much more clearly defined than in many communication systems. Unlike examples of communication such as mate attraction where it is far from clear what the best evolutionary interests of signaller and receiver are, in mimicry it is generally clear that the mimic aims to deceive the receiver and the receiver aims to avoid being deceived. A second interesting feature of mimicry is that it is possible for human observers to estimate how accurate particular examples of mimicry are through their own (albeit subjective) observations. It is striking that examples of mimicry vary substantially in their accuracy, providing information about the selection pressures acting on the evolution of the trait.

Mimicry is widespread in nature and the term encompasses diverse behaviours, morphologies and/or capacities involving three parties (of up to three species): the imitator (mimic), the imitated (model) and the recipient (signal receiver). These terms may refer to one organism resembling another in order to fool a third (as in the familiar butterfly mimics), in other situations they may refer to mechanisms that aid an individual's reproductive success (as in female impersonation by sneaker males), in others again it may refer to complex learned and acquired abilities used to pass skills from one generation to the next within a species (as in primate learning).

Type
Chapter
Information
Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals
Behavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions
, pp. 441 - 454
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boal, J. G., Wittenberg, K. M. and Hanlon, R. T. (2000). Observational learning does not explain improvement in predation tactics by cuttlefish (Mollusca cephalopoda). Behavioural Processes, 52, 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgar, M. A. and Allan, R. A. (2004). Predatory spider mimics acquire colony-specific cuticular hydrocarbons from their ant model prey. Naturwissenschaften, 91(3), 143–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosliner, T. M., Behrens, D. W. and Williams, G. C. (1996). Coral Reef Animals of the Indo-Pacific. Monterey: Sea Challengers.Google Scholar
Higgins, P. J., Peter, J. M. and Steele, W. K., eds. (2001). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Volume 5 (Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats). Oxford University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Hanlon, R. T. and Messenger, J. B. (1996). Cephalopod Behaviour.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Japan Underwater Films (2001). Amazing Creatures: Squid and Octopus. Natural History Documentary Film.
Jones, E. C. (1963). Tremoctopus violaceus uses Physalia tentacles as weapons. Science, 139, 764–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joron, M. and Mallet, J. L. B. (1998). Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 461–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallet, J. R. B and Joron, M. (1999). Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms shifting balances, and speciation. Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems, 30, 201–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold, K., Bidder, A., Bidder, M. and Portmann, A. (1989). Structures cutanées. In Mangold, K. (ed.), Traité de Zoologie, Tome V, Cephalopodes.Paris: Masson, 121–62.
Moyniham, M. (1985). Communication and Noncommunication by Cephalopods.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, L. and Cannon, L. (2003). Marine Flatworms: The World of Polyclads.Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
Nixon, M., Allen, R. E. and Young, J. Z. (2003). The Brains and Lives of Cephalopods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norman, M. D., Finn, J. and Tregenza, T. (1999). Female impersonation as an alternative reproductive strategy in giant cuttlefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 266, 1347–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, M. D. (2000). Cephalopods: A World Guide. IKAN Publishing, Frankfurt, 320.Google Scholar
Norman, M. D., Finn, J. and Tregenza, T. (2001). Dynamic mimicry in an Indo-Malayan octopus. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 268, 1755–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, M. D. and Hochberg, F. G. (2005). The “Mimic Octopus” (Thaum-octopus mimicus n. gen. et sp.), a new octopus from the tropical Indo-West Pacific (Cephalopoda Octopodidae). Molluscan Research, 25, 57–70.Google Scholar
Norman, M. D., Paul, D., Finn, J. and Tregenza, T. (2002). First encounter with a live male blanket octopus: the worlds most sexually size-dimorphic large animal. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 36, 733–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speed, M. P. (1993). Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Animal Behaviour, 45, 571–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steene, R. (1998). Coral Seas. Bathurst: Crawford House Publishing.Google Scholar
Stensmyr, M. C. Urru I., Collu, I., Celander, M., Hansson, B. S. and Angioy, A. (2002). Rotting smell of Dead-horse Arum florets. Nature, 420, 625–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, J. R. G. (1984). Mimicry, the palatability spectrum and its consequences. In Vane-Wright, R. I. and Ackery, P. R. eds. The Biology of Butterflies. London, Orlando: Published for The Royal Entomological Society by Academic Press, 141–61.Google Scholar
Wickler, W. (1968). Mimicry in Plants and Animals. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 153.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×