Chemical Mimicry and Camouflage

Abstract

Since mimicry was first defined in 1862 by HW Bates, a great number of biologists have been inspired to search for new examples of this phenom­ enon. They have directed their attention mostly to visual mimicry, which is not surprising in that humans readily perceive these signals (see 61, 82, 86, 87). By contrast, deception of a signal-receiver by means of chemical stimuli was ignored for a long time, although chemical communication might dominate in the majority of organisms. This ommission partly resulted from the fact that chemical communication often operates in low-light environments (e.g. soil, nocturnal) where field work is difficult. However, in the past few years more and more mimetic relationships have been discovered and chemically analyzed because of the progress in trace analysis of organic natural compounds. In our search of the literature we found only one review on chemical mimicry phenomena: Stowe (76) provided a com­ prehensive collection of such systems with remarks on their possible evo­ lutionary patterns. Some important examples of chemical deception are also discussed in the reviews cited above, but these papers mainly emphasize visual cues. The goal of this review is not to present the whole array of examples in detail but to describe, analyze, and explain some strategies used by organisms to gain access to food, mates, or other important resources. Following a discussion of terminology, the different strategies described have been arranged jnto seven categories: (a) integration into colonies of social insects, (b) exploitation of mutualisms between ants and other organisms, (c)