Abstract
Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated or to augment an already close morphological resemblance. We evaluated these contrasting predictions by assaying the behavior of 57 field-caught species of mimetic hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and quantifying their morphological similarity to a range of potential hymenopteran models. A purpose-built phylogeny for the hover flies was used to control for potential lack of independence due to shared evolutionary history. Those hover fly species that engage in behavioral mimicry (mock stinging, leg waving, wing wagging) were all large wasp mimics within the genera Spilomyia and Temnostoma. While the behavioral mimics assayed were good morphological mimics, not all good mimics were behavioral mimics. Therefore, while the behaviors may have evolved to augment good morphological mimicry, they do not advantage all good mimics.
Highlights
Batesian mimicry arises when members of a palatable species evolve a resemblance to a noxious or otherwise defended prey species, and thereby gain protection from predators (Bates 1862)
Of the 57 species assayed, there were only six species (Spilomyia sayi, S. fusca, S. longicornis, Temnostoma alternans, T. barberi, and T. obscurum) that exhibited any evidence of behavioral mimicry and all six of these hover fly species mimic wasps
Of the 43 hover fly species classed as wasp mimics, the propensity to engage in wing wagging (6 species) was significantly associated with the propensity to engage in mock stinging (G1 = 34.754, P < 0.001)
Summary
Batesian mimicry arises when members of a palatable species (mimics) evolve a resemblance to a noxious or otherwise defended prey species (models), and thereby gain protection from predators (Bates 1862). While Batesian mimics are often recognized through their close morphological similarity to defended models (see Ruxton et al 2004 for a review), mimicry can occur in other sensory modalities (Golding and Ennos 2005). Resembling a model in more than one manner may increase the likelihood that predators will be deceived by the Batesian mimicry, and it may potentially dupe different predators that use different sensory modalities to detect their prey (Pekár et al 2011). If behavioral mimicry is so beneficial one might wonder why all mimics have not evolved such traits. It is widely recognised that not all Batesian mimics can be considered perfect or high fidelity mimics, and one might wonder why natural selection has not improved this resemblance (e.g. Getty 1985; Edmunds 2000; Johnstone 2002; Sherratt 2002; Chittka and Osorio 2007; Kikuchi and Pfennig 2010; Penney et al 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
