However, while he appears to be fumbling around and searching for genital openings that are not there, the subadult female, with a twisting lunge, makes a predatory attack and, when successful, the male becomes her prey (Jackson & Hallas, 1986). The subadult female practises aggressive
mimicry by Lorlatinib mouse behaving like an adult female and by indirectly controlling the behaviour of her prey, a mature conspecific male. She is physically incapable of mating, and yet we cannot rule out the possibility of entanglement between her predatory and mating strategies. A mating tactic often used by a Portia male is to cohabit in a web with a subadult female and then mate with her once she has moulted and become sexually mature.
A sexual-selection hypothesis we might propose is that subadults benefit from cohabiting and mating with males that can evade the lethal subadult-female behaviour. We should emphasize that there is currently no evidence supporting these sexual-selection hypotheses. We should also emphasize that these sexual-selection hypotheses are not simple alternatives to explaining BMS-777607 datasheet adult and subadult-female behaviour as being examples of aggressive mimicry. Entanglement with mating strategies notwithstanding, we still have predators (adult and subadult females) that use signals to control the behaviour of a specific kind of prey (adult conspecific males). When examining the cognitive implications of this predatory behaviour,
P. labiata’s mating and predatory strategy is as relevant as any of the other aggressive-mimicry examples we have considered. Anglerfish, caudal-luring snakes and femmes fatales are all examples of predators indirectly manipulating their prey’s behaviour by providing stimuli to the prey, with the prey’s response being advantageous to the predator, but not necessarily to the prey. Adopting a first-principles approach to understanding communication (Dawkins & Krebs, 1978), we can say that all of these are examples of communication and that there is no pressing need to begin with an emphasis on information. However, we should not ignore the things information might explain. ‘Information’ and ‘correlation’ are sister concepts and identifying correlations learn more between signals and factors that matter to the receiver can be a critical step towards understanding the receiver’s predisposition to respond in some particular way to the signal. When considering aggressive mimicry as communication, we can substitute the term ‘misinformation’ for ‘information’. This is a way of expressing that the stimulus provided by the signal resembles a stimulus for which the elicited response is usually advantageous to the receiver. The term ‘mimicry’ predisposes us to expect an easily specifiable model and, for aggressive mimicry, we can envisage ‘model’ and ‘misinformation’ as meaning much the same thing.
No related posts.