Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Flat lizard female mimics use sexual deception in visual but not chemical signals

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Whiting, Martin
Webb, Jonathon
Keogh, J Scott

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Royal Society of London

Abstract

Understanding what constrains signalling and maintains signal honesty is a central theme in animal communication. Clear cases of dishonest signalling, and the conditions under which they are used, represent an important avenue for improved understanding of animal communication systems. Female mimicry, when certain males take on the appearance of females, is most commonly a male alternative reproductive tactic that is condition-dependent. A number of adaptive explanations for female mimicry have been proposed including avoiding the costs of aggression, gaining an advantage in combat, sneaking copulations with females on the territories of other males, gaining physiological benefits and minimizing the risk of predation. Previous studies of female mimicry have focused on a single mode of communication, although most animals communicate using multiple signals. Male Augrabies flat lizards adopt alternative reproductive tactics in which some males (she-males) mimic the visual appearance of females. We experimentally tested in a wild population whether she-males are able to mimic females using both visual and chemical signals.We tested chemical recognition in the field by removing scent and relabelling females and she-males with either male or female scent. At a distance, typical males (he-males) could not distinguish she-males from females using visual signals, but during close encounters, he-males correctly determined the gender of she-males using chemical signals. She-males are therefore able to deceive he-males using visual but not chemical signals. To effectively deceive he-males, she-males avoid close contact with he-males during which chemical cues would reveal their deceit. This strategy is probably adaptive, because he-males are aggressive and territorial; by mimicking females, she-males are able to move about freely and gain access to females on the territories of resident males.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2037-12-31