Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry pp 15–34Cite as

The Structure of Mimicry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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

Abstract

A property that makes mimicry both fascinating and difficult to comprehend is its diversity. Mimetic resemblances can occur as colours and forms in the visual medium, as imitations of hissing , buzzing and other sounds, or as similarities of chemical components in pheromones . Mimicry can be based on different ecological relations (predation , parasitism, symbiosis , competition) and the number and composition of involved species can vary to a great extent. Mimicry can take place inside organisms at the cellular level, a phenomenon that is known as molecular mimicry. In some cases, mimicry requires the coordinated behaviour of several individuals to create or enhance the mimetic effect (e.g. myrmecomorph ic jumping spiders aggregating to emphasise their resemblance with ants, Nelson and Jackson 2009). Indeed, there seems to be little in common between the cases of fully behavioural mimicry, such as the mimic octopus Thaumoctopus mimicus , in which the cephalopod uses its tentacles to create sporadic imitations of flatfish, sea snakes , lionfish and other sea creatures, and the stillness of the perfect resemblance between the eggs of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and those of reed warblers, pipits, redstarts and other hosts species, whose nests the cuckoo uses to lay its eggs.

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.

    The typology was in active use in the first half of the twentieth century, being discussed in length, for instance, in Carpenter and Ford (1933).

  2. 2.

    Broad overviews of different visual adaptations also include Oren Hasson’ s unified typology of the signals (Hasson 1997) and Andrew Starrett’s typology of the adaptive resemblances (Starrett 1993).

  3. 3.

    In addition, many loosely organised lists of different mimicry types have been published that do not seem to follow any typological criteria (e.g. Dafni 1984; Wickler 1968).

  4. 4.

    Günter Tembrock’s recent studies have been explicitly related to biosemiotics . For instance, he has proposed an overview of various types of semiosis in an animal world (Tembrock 1997).

  5. 5.

    This does not necessarily mean that there are three species involved in the mimicry system. Quite often two species fill the three roles: for instance the model and the receiver belong to the same species, as is the usual case in aggressive mimicry. Common mimicry typologies also acknowledge such possibility and include the category of bipartite mimicry systems.

References

  • Amaoka, K., Senou, H., & Ono, A. (1994). Record of the bothid flounder Asterorhombus fijiensis from the western Pacific, with observations on the use of the first dorsal-fin ray as a lure. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 41(1), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augner, M., & Bernays, E. A. (1998). Plant defence signals and Batesian mimicry. Evolutionary Ecology, 12(6), 667–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avilés, J. M., & Møller, A. (2004). How is host egg mimicry maintained in the cuckoo (Cuculus canorus)? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bacharach, M., & Gambetta, D. (2001). Trust in signs. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 148–184). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, E. M. (2011). Animal behavior desk reference: A dictionary of animal behavior, ecology, and evolution (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, H. W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidæ. Transactions of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 23, 495–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosset, A. (1997). Aggressive mimicry by the characid fish Erythrinus erythrinus. Ethology, 103(11), 926–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. D. H., & Ford, E. B. (1933). Mimicry. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. (1981). Comments on the nature of deception. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dafni, A. (1984). Mimicry and deception in pollination. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, M. (1972). Defensive behaviour in Ghanaian praying mantids. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 51(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, M. (1974). Defence in animals. A survey of anti-predator defences. Essex: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, M. (1976). The defensive behaviour of Ghanaian praying mantids with a discussion of territoriality. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 58(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Even, M., & Geoffrey, P. J. (2004). Experimental confirmation of aggressive mimicry by a coral reef fish. Oecologia, 140(4), 676–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. M. (1988). Observations on the behaviours of three European cuckoo bumble bee species (Psithyrus). Insectes Sociaux, 35(4), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, E., & Kotagama, S. W. (2006). Context-dependent vocal mimicry in a passerine bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 875–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, H. W., & McDiarmid, R. W. (1981). Coral snake mimicry: Does it occur? Science NS, 213(4513), 1207–1212.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grim, T. (2005). Mimicry vs. similarity: Which resemblances between brood parasites and their hosts are mimetic and which are not? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 84, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, O. (1997). Towards a general theory of biological signalling. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 139–156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heikertinger, F. (1925). Über die Begriffe “Mimikry” und “Mimese” mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Myrmekoidie: Zugleich eine Antwort an E. Wasmann. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 45(5), 272–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008a). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs, Approaches to Postmodernity 2. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008b). The semiotic niche. Journal of Medical Economics, 9, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren, N. M. A., & Enquist, M. (1999). Dynamics of mimicry evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 66(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honk, C. V., Röseler, P.-F., Velthuis, H., & Malotaux, M. (1981). The conquest of a Bombus terrestris colony by a Psithyrus vestalis female. Apidologie, 12(1), 57–67.

    Article  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 

  • Howse, P. E., & Allen, J. A. (1994). Satyric mimicry—The evolution of apparent imperfection. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, 257(1349), 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huheey, J. E. (1964). Studies of warning coloration and mimicry IV. A mathematical model of model–mimic frequencies. Ecology, 45(1), 185–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huheey, J. E. (1976). Studies in warning coloration and mimicry VII. Evolutionary consequences of a Batesian–Müllerian spectrum: A model for Müllerian mimicry. Evolution, 30(1), 86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huheey, J. E. (1988). Mathematical models of mimicry. In L. P. Brower (Ed.), Mimicry and the evolutionary process (pp. 22–41). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, F., Hashim, R., Huei, Y. S., Kaufmann, E., Akino, T., & Billen, J. (2004). Spectacular Batesian mimicry in ants. Naturwissenschaften, 91(10), 481–484.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joron, M. (2005). Polymorphic mimicry, microhabitat use, and sex-specific behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 18(3), 547–556.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jürgens, A., & Shuttleworth, A. (2015). Carrion and dung mimicry in plants. In M. E. Benbow, J. K. Tomberlin, & A. M. Tarone (Eds.), Carrion ecology, evolution, and their applications (pp. 361–386). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K. (2008). The semantic morphology of Adolf Portmann: A starting point for the biosemiotics of organic form? Biosemiotics, 1(2), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner, K., & Markoš, A. (2005). Semetic rings: Towards the new concept of mimetic resemblances. Theory in Biosciences, 123(3), 209–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Komárek, S. (2003). Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. München: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küpper, G., & Schwammberger, K. H. (1995). Social parasitism in bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae): Observations of Psithyrus sylvestris in Bombus pratorum nests. Apidologie, 26(3), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev-Yadun, S. (2014). Defensive masquerade by plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 113(4), 1162–1166.

    Article  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 

  • Mallet, J., & Joron, M. (1999). Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 201–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T. (2007a). Mimicry. In P. Bouissac & A. Lewis (Eds.), Semiotics encyclopedia online. E.J. Pratt Library, Victoria University. http://www.semioticon.com/seo/. Accessed 13 June 2016.

  • Martin, S. J., Carruthers, J. M., Williams, P. H., & Drijfhout, F. P. (2010). Host specific social parasites (Psithyrus) indicate chemical recognition system in bumblebees. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 36(8), 855–863.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, J. S. (2014). Vavilovian mimicry: Nikolai Vavilov and his little-known impact on weed science. Weed Science, 62(2), 207–216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McIver, J. D., & Stonedahl, G. (1993). Myrmecomorphy—Morphological and behavioral mimicry of ants. Annual Review of Entomology, 38, 351–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, R. (1956). Das Problem der Mimikry bei Korallenschlangen. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematik, Ökologie und Geographie der Tiere, 84, 541–576.

    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 

  • Müller, F. (1878). Ueber die Vortheile der Mimicry bei Schmetterlingen. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1, 54–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. N., & Wrangham, R. (2002). Sexual mimicry in hyenas. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 77(1), 3–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, X. J., & Jackson, R. R. (2009). Collective Batesian mimicry of ant groups by aggregating spiders. Animal Behaviour, 78(1), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasteur, G. (1982). A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 169–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, R. (1977). The ecology of brood parasitism in birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peckham, E. G. (1889). Protective resemblances in spiders. Occasional Papers of the Natural History Society of Wisconsin, 1, 61–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekár, S., & Křál, J. (2002). Mimicry complex in two central European zodariid spiders (Araneae: Zodariidae): How Zodarion deceives ants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 75(4), 517–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowright, R. C., & Owen, R. E. (1980). The evolutionary significance of bumble bee color patterns: A mimetic interpretation. Evolution, 34(4), 622–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1964). New paths in biology (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. B. (1890). The colours of animals. Their meaning and use, especially considered in the case of insects. New York: D. Appleton and Co..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, M. M., & Grether, G. F. (2007). Competitive mimicry: Synthesis of a neglected class of mimetic relationships. Ecology, 88(10), 2440–2448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, J. E. (2005). A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zoological Studies, 44(3), 299–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. H. (1981). A stick is a stick and not worth eating: On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M. (1984). Aide mémoire mimicry. Ecological Entomology, 9(3), 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. A., & Widmer, A. (1999). Floral mimicry: A fascinating yet poorly understood phenomenon. Trends in Plant Science, 4(8), 325–330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton, G. D., Sherratt, T. N., & Speed, M. P. (2004). Avoiding attack. The evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  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 

  • Speed, M. P. (1999). Robot predators in virtual ecologies: The importance of memory in mimicry studies. Animal Behaviour, 57(1), 203–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Srygley, R. B. (1999). Incorporating motion into investigations of mimicry. Evolutionary Ecology, 13(7), 691–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starrett, A. (1993). Adaptive resemblance: A unifying concept for mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 48(4), 229–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tembrock, G. (1997). Ökosemiose. In R. Posner, K. Robering, & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), Semiotik: Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen Grundlagen von Natur und Kultur (Vol. 1, pp. 571–591). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Someren, V. G. L., & Jackson, T. H. E. (1959). Some comments on protective resemblance amongst African Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera). Journal of Lepidopterists’ Society, 13(3), 121–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I. (1976). A unified classification of mimetic resemblances. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 8(1), 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I. (1980). On the definition of mimicry. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 13(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I. (1981). Only connect. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldbauer, G. P. (1988). Asyncrony between Batesian mimics and their models. In L. P. Brower (Ed.), Mimicry and the evolutionary process (pp. 103–121). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner, A. (1969). The study of animal communication: An overview. In T. A. Sebeok & A. Ramsay (Eds.), Approaches to animal communication (pp. 232–243). Mouton: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler, W. (1965). Mimicry and the evolution of animal communication. Nature, 208, 519–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler, W. (2013). Understanding mimicry—With special reference to vocal mimicry. Ethology, 119(4), 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, D. (1978). Mimicry in plants. Evolutionary Biology, 11, 364–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. B. M., & Schiestl, F. P. (2002). How an orchid harms its pollinator. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1529–1532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wüster, W., Allum, C. S. E., Bjargardóttir, I. B., Bailey, K. L., Dawson, K. J., et al. (2004). Do aposematism and Batesian mimicry require bright colours? A test, using European viper markings. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271(1556), 2495–2499.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zabka, H., & Tembrock, G. (1986). Mimicry and crypsis—A behavioural approach to classification. Behavioural Processes, 13(1–2), 159–176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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). The Structure 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_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation