Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T03:12:30.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Avian Cognition and the Evolution of Warning Signals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2017

By
Candy Rowe ,
John Skelhorn  and
Christina G. Halpin
Edited by
Carel ten Cate  and
Susan D. Healy
Carel ten Cate
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Susan D. Healy
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews, Scotland
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Avian Cognition , pp. 75 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Aronsson, M. and Gamberale-Stille, G. (2008). Domestic chicks primarily attend to colour, not pattern, when learning an aposematic coloration. Animal Behaviour, 75, 417–423.Google Scholar
Aronsson, M. and Gamberale-Stille, G. (2009). Importance of internal pattern contrast and contrast against the background in aposematic signals. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 1356–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronsson, M. and Gamberale-Stille, G. (2013). Evidence of signaling benefits to contrasting internal color boundaries in warning coloration. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 349–354.Google Scholar
Bain, R. S., Rashed, A., Cowper, V. J., Gilbert, F. S. and Sherratt, T. N. (2007). The key mimetic features of hoverflies through avian eyes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 1949–1954.Google Scholar
Barnett, C. A., Bateson, M. and Rowe, C. (2007). State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, C. A., Bateson, M. and Rowe, C. (2014). Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive. Biology Letters, 10, 20140533. DOI:10.1098/rsbl.2014.0533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, C. A., Skelhorn, J., Bateson, M. and Rowe, C. (2012). Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 418–424.Google Scholar
Bates, H. W. (1862). Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 23, 495–566.Google Scholar
Blum, M. S. (1981). Chemical defenses of arthropods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brodie, E. D. and Agrawal, A. F. (2001). Maternal effects and the evolution of aposematic signals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 7884–7887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodie, E. D. and Janzen, F. J. (1995). Experimental studies of coral snake mimicry- generalized avoidance of ringed snake patterns by free-ranging avian predators. Functional Ecology, 9, 186–190.Google Scholar
Brower, L. P. and Calvert, W. H. (1985). Foraging dynamics of bird predators on overwintering Monarch Butterflies in Mexico. Evolution, 39, 852–868.Google Scholar
Carpenter, G. D. H. (1938). Audible emission of defensive froth by insects. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, A108, 242–251.Google Scholar
Chai, P. (1986). Field observations and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) to free-flying butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 29, 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatelain, M., Halpin, C. G. and Rowe, C. (2013). Ambient temperature influences birds' decisions to eat toxic prey. Animal Behaviour, 86, 733–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claridge, M. F. (1974). Stridulation and defensive behaviour in the ground beetle, Cychrus caraboides (L). Journal of Entomology (A), 49, 7–15.Google Scholar
Cott, H. B. (1940). Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Cuthill, I. C., Partridge, J. C., Bennett, A. T., et al. (2000). Ultraviolet vision in birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 159–214.Google Scholar
Daly, J. W., Spande, T. F. and Garraffo, H. M. (2005). Alkaloids from amphibian skin: a tabulation of over eight-hundred compounds. Journal of Natural Products, 68, 1556–1575.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dittrich, W., Gilbert, F., Green, P., McGregor, R. P. and Grewcock, D. (1993). Imperfect mimicry: a pigeon's perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 251, 195–200.Google Scholar
Fink, L. S., Brower, L. P., Waide, R. B. and Spitzer, P. R. (1983). Overwintering Monarch butterflies as food for insectivorous birds in Mexico. Biotropica, 15, 151–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Franchina, J. J., Moon, C. and Peters, S. (1997). Effects of toxin magnitude on taste aversion and taste-potentiated aversion to visual cues in chicks (Gallus domesticus). Physiology & Behavior, 62, 605–609.Google Scholar
Gagliardo, A. and Guilford, T. (1993). Why do warning-coloured prey live gregariously? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 251, 69–74.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R. and Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B. S. (1996). Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 263, 1329–1334.Google Scholar
Gamberale, G. and Tullberg, B. S. (1998). Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 265, 889–894.Google Scholar
Gamberale-Stille, G. and Tullberg, B. S. (1999). Experienced chicks show biased avoidance of stronger signals: an experiment with natural colour variation in live aposematic prey. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 579–589.Google Scholar
Gamberale-Stille, G. and Tullberg, B. S. (2001). Fruit or aposematic insect? Context-dependent colour preferences in domestic chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 2525–2529.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. and Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123–124.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. and Hastings, A. (1998). Coevolutionary chase in two-species systems with applications to mimicry. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 191, 415–427.Google Scholar
Ghirlanda, S. and Enquist, M. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour, 66, 15–36.Google Scholar
Gilbert, F. S. (2005). The evolution of imperfect mimicry. In Insect Evolutionary Ecology, eds. Fellowes, M. D., Holloway, G. J. and Rolff, J.. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 231–288.Google Scholar
Gittleman, J. L. and Harvey, P. H. (1980). Why are distasteful prey not cryptic? Nature, 286, 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A. and Sneddon, I. (1977). The effect of distastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial Batesian mimics. Animal Behaviour, 25, 660–665.Google Scholar
Green, P. R., Gentle, L., Peake, T. M., Scudamore, R. E., McGregor, P. K., Gilbert, F. and Dittrich, W. H. (1999). Conditioning pigeons to discriminate naturally lit insect specimens. Behavioural Processes, 46, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, T. (1994). “Go-slow” signalling and the problem of automimicry. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 170, 311–316.Google Scholar
Guilford, T. and Dawkins, M. S. (1991). Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behaviour, 42, 1–14.Google Scholar
Guilford, T. and Dawkins, M. S. (1993). Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends in Neuroscience, 16, 430–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gullan, P. J. and Cranston, P. S. (2004). The Insects: An Outline of Entomology, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Halpin, C. G., Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2008a). Being conspicuous and defended: selective benefits for the individual. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 1012–1017.Google Scholar
Halpin, C. G., Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2008b). Naïve predators and selection for rare conspicuous defended prey: the initial evolution of aposematism revisited. Animal Behaviour, 75, 771–781.Google Scholar
Halpin, C. G., Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2012). The relationship between sympatric defended species depends upon predators' discriminatory behaviour. PLoS One, 7, e44895.Google Scholar
Halpin, C. G., Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2013). Predators’ decisions to eat defended prey depend on the size of undefended prey. Animal Behaviour, 85, 1315–1321.Google Scholar
Halpin, C. G., Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2014). Increased predation of nutrient-enriched aposematic prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281, 20133255.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.Google Scholar
Hauglund, K., Hagen, S. B. and Lampe, H. M. (2006). Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals. Behavioral Ecology, 17, 392–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L. and Mappes, J. (2007). Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 780–791.Google Scholar
Järvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B. and Wiklund, C. (1981). The cost of being aposematic. An experimental study of predation on larvae of Papilio machaon by the great tit Parus major. Oikos, 36, 267–272.Google Scholar
Jetz, W., Rowe, C. and Guilford, T. (2001). Non-warning odors trigger innate color aversions – as long as they are novel. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 134–139.Google Scholar
Jones, M. P., Pierce, K. E. and Ward, D. (2007). Avian vision: a review of form and function with special consideration to birds of prey. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine, 16, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazemi, B., Gambarale-Stille, G., Tullberg, B. S. and Leimar, O. (2014). Stimulus salience as an explanation for imperfect mimicry. Current Biology, 24, 1–5.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, D. W. and Pfennig, D. W. (2013). Imperfect mimicry and the limits of natural selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 88, 297–315.Google Scholar
Leimar, O., Enquist, M. and Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1986). Evolutionary stability of aposematic coloration and prey unprofitability: A theoretical analysis. The American Naturalist, 128, 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Lyytinen, A. and Mappes, J. (2001a). Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 9181–9184.Google Scholar
Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V. and Mappes, J. (1997). Imperfect Batesian mimicry-The effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 264, 149–153.Google Scholar
Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V. and Mappes, J. (1999). Reactions of hand-reared and wild-caught predators toward warningly colored, gregarious, and conspicuous prey. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 317–322.Google Scholar
Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J., Riipi, M. and Vertainen, L. (2001b). Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change? Nature, 397, 249–251.Google Scholar
Lindström, L., Lyytinen, A., Mappes, J. and Ojala, K. (2006). Relative importance of taste and visual appearance for predator education in Müllerian mimicry. Animal Behaviour, 72, 323–333.Google Scholar
Lindström, L., Rowe, C. and Guilford, T. (2001c). Pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 159–162.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). An analysis of overshadowing and blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 118–125.Google Scholar
Mallet, J. and Singer, M. C. (1987). Individual selection, kin selection, and the shifting balance in the evolution of warning colours: the evidence from butterflies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 32, 337–350.Google Scholar
Mappes, J. and Alatalo, R. V. (1997). Batesian mimicry and signal accuracy. Evolution, 51, 2050–2053.Google Scholar
Mappes, J., Marples, N. M. and Endler, J. A. (2005). The complex business of survival by aposematism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 598–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marples, N. M. and Roper, T. J. (1996). Effects of novel colour and smell on the response of naïve chicks towards food and water. Animal Behaviour, 51, 1417–1424.Google Scholar
Marples, N. M. and Roper, T. J. (1997). Response of domestic chicks to methyl anthranilate odour. Animal Behaviour, 53, 1263–1270.Google Scholar
Müller, F. (1879). Ituna and Thyridia; a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, July, xx–xxix.Google Scholar
Owen, J. and Gilbert, F. S. (1989). On the abundance of hoverflies (Syrphidae). Oikos, 55, 183–193.Google Scholar
Poulton, E. B. (1890). The Colors of Animals: their meaning and use especially considered in the case of insects. London: Trübner & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Rettenmeyer, C. W. (1970). Insect mimicry. Annual Review of Entomology, 15, 43–74.Google Scholar
Riipi, M., Alatalo, R. V., Lindstrom, L. and Mappes, J. (2001). Multiple benefits of gregariousness cover detectability costs in aposematic aggregations. Nature, 413, 512–514.Google Scholar
Roper, T. J. (1990). Responses of domestic chicks to artificially coloured insect prey: effects of previous experience and background colour. Animal Behaviour, 39, 466–473.Google Scholar
Roper, T. J. (1993). Effects of novelty on taste-avoidance learning in chicks. Behaviour, 125, 265–281.Google Scholar
Roper, T. J. and Cook, S. E. (1989). Responses of chicks to brightly coloured insect prey. Behaviour, 110, 276–293.Google Scholar
Roper, T. J. and Marples, N. M. (1997). Odour and colour as cues for taste-avoidance learning in domestic chicks. Animal Behaviour, 53, 1241–1250.Google Scholar
Rothschild, M., Moore, B. P. and Brown, W. V. (1984). Pyrazines as warning odour components in the Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, and in moths of the genera Zygaena and Amata (Lepidoptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 23, 372–380.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. (1999). Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behaviour, 58, 921–931.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. (2002). Sound improves visual discrimination learning in avian predators. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 1353–1357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, C. and Guilford, T. (1996). Hidden colour aversions in domestic chicks triggered by pyrazine odours of insect warning displays. Nature, 383, 520–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, C. and Guilford, T. (1999a). The evolution of multimodal warning displays. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 655–671.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. and Guilford, T. (1999b). Novelty effects in a multimodal warning signal. Animal Behaviour, 57, 341–346.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. and Halpin, C. G. (2013). Why are warning displays multimodal? Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 67, 1425–1439.Google Scholar
Rowe, C., Lindström, L. and Lyytinen, A. (2004). The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 407–413.Google Scholar
Rowe, C. and Skelhorn, J. (2005). Colour biases are a question of taste. Animal Behaviour, 69, 587–594.Google Scholar
Rowland, H. M., Hoogesteger, T., Ruxton, G. D., Speed, M. P. and Mappes, J. (2010a). A tale of 2 signals: signal mimicry between aposematic species enhances predator avoidance learning. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 851–860.Google Scholar
Rowland, H. M., Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J. and Speed, M. P. (2007). Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature, 448, 64–67.Google Scholar
Rowland, H. M., Mappes, J., Ruxton, G. D. and Speed, M. P. (2010b). Mimicry between unequally defended prey can be parasitic: evidence for quasi-Batesian mimicry. Ecology Letters, 13, 1494–1502.Google Scholar
Rowland, H. M., Wiley, E., Ruxton, G. D., Mappes, J. and Speed, M. P. (2010c). When more is less: the fitness consequences of predators attacking more unpalatable prey when more are presented. Biology Letters, 6, 732–735.Google Scholar
Rusiniak, K. W., Hankins, W. G., Garcia, J. and Brett, L. P. (1979). Flavor-illness aversions: potentiation of odor by taste in rats. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 25, 1–17.Google Scholar
Schuler, W. and Hesse, E. (1985). On the function of warning coloration: a black and yellow pattern inhibits prey-attack by naive domestic chicks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 16, 249–255.Google Scholar
Sherratt, T. N. (2011). The optimal sampling strategy for unfamiliar prey. Evolution, 65, 2014–2025.Google Scholar
Shettleworth, S. J. (1972). The role of novelty in learned avoidance of unpalatable ‘prey’ by domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Animal Behaviour, 20, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddall, E. C. and Marples, N. M. (2008). Better to be bimodal: the interaction of color and odor on learning and memory. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 425–432.Google Scholar
Siddall, E. C. and Marples, N. M. (2011). Hear no evil: The effect of auditory warning signals on avian innate avoidance, learned avoidance and memory. Current Zoology, 57, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillén-Tullberg, B. (1985). Higher survival of an aposematic than of a cryptic form of a distasteful bug. Oecologia, 67, 411–415.Google Scholar
Sillén-Tullberg, B. and Leimar, O. (1988). The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. The American Naturalist, 132, 723–734.Google Scholar
Simmons, R. B. and Weller, S. J. (2002). What kind of signals do mimetic tiger moths send? A phylogenetic test of wasp mimicry systems (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Euchromiini). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 983–990.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J., Halpin, C. G. and Rowe, C. (2016). Learning about aposematic prey. Behavioral Ecology, 27, 955-964.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2005). Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Mullerian mimicry? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 339–345.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2006). Prey palatability influences predator learning and memory. Animal Behaviour, 71, 1111–1118.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2007). Predators’ toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Current Biology, 17, 1479–1483.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. (2010). Birds learn to use distastefulness as a signal of toxicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 1729–1734.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. and Ruxton, G. D. (2006). Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation. Biology Letters, 2, 488–490.Google Scholar
Smith, K. E., Halpin, C. G. and Rowe, C. (2014). Body size matters for aposematic prey during predator aversion learning. Behavioural Processes, 109, 173–179.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M. (1975). Innate recognition of coral snake pattern by a possible avian predator. Science, 187, 759–760.Google Scholar
Speed, M. (1993). Muellerian mimicry and the psychology of predation. Animal Behaviour, 45, 571–580.Google Scholar
Speed, M. (1999). Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Mullerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry research. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 755–776.Google Scholar
Speed, M. P. (2001). Can receiver psychology explain the evolution of aposematism? Animal Behaviour, 61, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speed, M. P. and Ruxton, G. D. (2005). Aposematism: what should our starting point be? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 431–438.Google Scholar
Speed, M. P., Ruxton, G. D., Mappes, J. and Sherratt, T. N. (2012). Why are defensive toxins so variable? An evolutionary perspective. Biological Reviews, 87, 874–884.Google Scholar
ten Cate, C. and Rowe, C. (2007). Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22, 380–387.Google Scholar
ten Cate, C., Verzijden, M. N. and Etman, E. (2006). Sexual Imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Current Biology, 16, 1128–1132.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. J., Marples, N. M., Cuthill, I. C., Takahashi, M. and Gibson, E. A. (2003). Dietary conservatism may facilitate the initial evolution of aposematism. Oikos, 101, 458–466.Google Scholar
Turner, J. R. (1987). The evolutionary dynamics of batesian and muellerian mimicry: similarities and differences. Ecological Entomology, 12, 81–95.Google Scholar
Turner, J. R. G. and Speed, M. P. (2001). How weird can mimicry get? Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 807–827.Google Scholar
Verzijden, M. N., Etman, E., van Heijningen, C., van der Linden, M. and ten Cate, C. (2007). Song discrimination learning in zebra finches induces highly divergent responses to novel songs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, A. R. (1867). Proceedings of the Entomological Society London, 4 March: LXXXv. Reprinted in The Zoologist, 2, 797.Google Scholar
Weis, R. and McIsaac, R. J. (1971). Cardiovascular and muscular effects of venom from coral snake, Micrurus fulvius. Toxicon, 9, 219–228.Google Scholar
Westbrook, R. F. and Brooks, N. (1988). Potentiation and blocking of conditioned flavour and context aversions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40B, 3–30.Google Scholar
Wiklund, C. and Järvi, T. (1982). Survival of distasteful insects after being attacked by naive birds: a reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution, 36, 998–1002.Google Scholar
Woolfson, A. and Rothschild, M. (1990). Speculating about pyrazines. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 242, 113–119.Google Scholar
Zylinksi, S. and Osorio, D. (2013). Visual contrast and color in rapid learning of novel patterns by chicks. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 4184–4189.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
×