Mimicry in motion: A grasshopper species that looks like, and moves like, a sympatric butterfly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flash displays describe the sudden revealing of a conspicuous signal by an otherwise cryptic animal as it is fleeing from predators. One hypothesis for flash displays is that they have evolved to mislead predators into adopting an inappropriate search strategy following pursuit. Thus, if predators believe that the fleeing prey item will also be conspicuous when settled, then they will tend to give up searching sooner if they fail to find it. Naturally, if this hypothesis is correct then one might expect that the value of the flash display would cease once predators learn the flasher’s true resting appearance. However, even if predators are aware that the resting appearance of the signaller could be cryptic, flash displays will still be selected for if the flasher resembles another species that maintains its conspicuous appearance throughout. Motivated by this insight, we quantified the degree of chromatic and behavioral resemblance between the Carolina grasshopper ( Dissosteira carolina ) and mourning cloak butterfly ( Nymphalis antiopa ), a sympatric species with which it is commonly confused. The close similarity in both morphology and flight behavior (in the field and lab) between these distantly related species strongly suggests that they are in a mimetic relationship. It is unclear why this mimicry has evolved. One explanation is that mimicry has arisen through selection to maintain the efficacy of the flash display through search disruption even after predator learning. Another possibility is that the grasshopper has evolved to resemble the butterfly because the latter is harder to catch (evasive mimicry). However, we argue that pursuit and search disruption are entirely complementary explanations for the mimetic resemblance because they interfere with predation at two different stages of the attack sequence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".