title: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON AGGRESSIVE MIMICRY.
abstract: We use the term 'aggressive mimic' for predators that communicate with their prey by making signals to indirectly manipulate prey behaviour. For understanding why the aggressive mimic's signals work, it is important to appreciate that these signals interface with the prey's perceptual system, and that the aggressive mimic can be envisaged as playing mind games with its prey. Examples of aggressive mimicry vary from instances in which specifying a model is straight forward to instances where a concise characterisation of the model is difficult. However, the less straightforward examples of aggressive mimicry may be the more interesting examples in the context of animal cognition. In particular, there are spiders that prey on other spiders by entering their prey's web and making signals. Web invasion brings about especially intimate contact with their prey's perceptual system because the prey spider's web is an important component of the prey spider's sensory apparatus. For the web-invading spider, often there is also a large element of risk when practising aggressive mimicry because the intended prey is also a potential predator. This element of risk, combined with exceptionally intimate interfacing with prey perceptual systems, may have favoured the web-invading aggressive mimic's strategy becoming strikingly cognitive in character. Yet a high level of flexibility may be widespread among aggressive mimics in general and, on the whole, we propose that research on aggressive mimicry holds exceptional potential for advancing our understanding of animal cognition.
authors: School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.
authors: Robert R
authors: RR
authors: Jackson
authors: Fiona R
authors: FR
authors: Cross
keywords: Communication; categorisation; information; perceptual systems; representation; sensory exploitation; signals
references: Neuropsychol Rev. 2007 Sep;17(3):213-33
references: 17786559
references: Annu Rev Entomol. 2010;55:267-84
references: 19728835
references: Nature. 1990 Jan 4;343(6253):66-7
references: 2296291
references: Brain Behav Evol. 2000 Aug;56(2):94-106
references: 11111136
references: Science. 1977 Dec 16;198(4322):1173-5
references: 17818935
references: Oecologia. 1997 Nov;112(4):572-576
references: 28307636
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1-29
references: 21961947
references: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Mar;40(2):138-71
references: 10716876
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Oct 1;13(10):415-20
references: 21238370
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:155-89
references: 2648974
references: Curr Biol. 2007 Aug 7;17(15):1345-8
references: 17683939
references: Brain Behav Evol. 2001;58(4):218-40
references: 11964498
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):113-118
references: 12639692
references: Science. 1987 May 22;236(4804):964-7
references: 17812752
references: Oecologia. 1996 Apr;106(2):266-271
references: 28307652
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):111-112
references: 12639691
references: Science. 1978 Jul 28;201(4353):369-70
references: 17793734
references: Anim Cogn. 2002 Dec;5(4):215-23
references: 12461599
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Dec;24(12):676-85
references: 19683828
references: Science. 1995 Nov 3;270(5237):764-9
references: 7481763
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2001 May 22;268(1471):1017-22
references: 11375085
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Aug;58(2):255-265
references: 10458876
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):109-111
references: 12639690
references: Neuroscience. 2006 Apr 28;139(1):23-38
references: 16324795
references: J Evol Biol. 2007 Jul;20(4):1478-89
references: 17584241
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 May 7;278(1710):1427-33
references: 20980305
references: J Vis. 2011 May 26;11(5):4
references: 21617025