IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v35y2024i5p495-566..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does viewing angle affect the perceived accuracy of Batesian mimicry in hoverflies?

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy Baker
  • Chris Taylor
  • Francis Gilbert
  • Tom Reader

Abstract

Despite Batesian mimicry often eliciting predator avoidance, many Batesian mimics, such as some species of hoverfly (Syrphidae), are considered to have an “imperfect” resemblance to their model. One possible explanation for the persistence of apparently imperfect mimicry is that human perceptions of mimicry are different from those of natural predators. Natural predators of hoverflies have different visual and cognitive systems from humans, and they may encounter mimics in a different way. For example, whilst humans often encounter hoverflies at rest on vegetation, or in photographs or textbooks, where they are typically viewed from above, natural predators may approach hoverflies from the side or below. To test how viewing angle affects the perception of mimicry, images of mimetic hoverflies and their models (wasps and bees) were shown from different angles in an online survey. Participants were asked to distinguish between the images of models and mimics. The results show that the viewing angle does affect perceived mimicry in some species, although it does not provide a complete explanation for the persistence of imperfect mimicry in nature. The effect is also highly species-specific. This suggests that to understand better how selection has shaped mimetic accuracy in hoverflies and other taxa, further study is required of the viewing angles that predators utilize most commonly in nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy Baker & Chris Taylor & Francis Gilbert & Tom Reader, 2024. "How does viewing angle affect the perceived accuracy of Batesian mimicry in hoverflies?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 35(5), pages 495-566.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:35:y:2024:i:5:p:495-566.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arae054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:35:y:2024:i:5:p:495-566.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.