Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-v2cwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-08T11:11:42.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new possible case of mimicry between two Brazilian endemic reef fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2011

Thiago C. Mendes ,
Renata C.B. Mazzei ,
Gabriel O. Correal  and
Carlos Eduardo L. Ferreira
Thiago C. Mendes*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Marinha, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 24001-970, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
Renata C.B. Mazzei
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Gabriel O. Correal
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Marinha, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 24001-970, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
Carlos Eduardo L. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia Marinha, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 24001-970, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: T.C. Mendes, Departamento de Biologia Marinha, Universidade Federal Fluminense, 24001-970, Niterói, RJ, Brazil email: tcmendes@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

It is proposed herein that the juvenile parrotfish Scarus zelindae is a mimic of the barber goby Elacatinus figaro. Juvenile S. zelindae not only resemble E. figaro but also present changes in behaviour that helps establish the existence of a mimic–model system. When approached by divers juvenile S. zelindae remained stationary at the bottom adopting a site-attached behaviour similar to E. figaro. Because of S. zelindae's colour similarity and behaviour changes, we propose that juvenile S. zelindae may be acting as a mimic to the model E. figaro gaining advantage due to the low rate of predation upon cleaner fish.

Keywords

mimic–model systemBatesian mimicrycleaningScarinaeGobiidaeScarus zelindaeElacatinus figaroArraial do Cabo

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Marine Biodiversity Records , Volume 4 , December 2011 , e29
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Altmann, J. (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 226–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, H.W. (1862) Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon Valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 23, 495–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caley, M.J. and Schluter, D. (2003) Predators favour mimicry in a tropical reef fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270, 667–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, K.L., Bshary, R. and Grutter, A.S. (2008) Cleaner fish cause predators to reduce aggression toward bystanders at cleaning stations. Behavioral Ecology 19, 1063–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, K.L. and Marshall, N.J. (2009) Mimicry in coral reef fish: how accurate is this deception in terms of color and luminance? Behavioral Ecology 20, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, I.M. (2000) The evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 38, 311–355.Google Scholar
Côté, I.M. and Cheney, K.L. (2004) Distance-dependent costs and benefits of aggressive mimicry in a cleaning symbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271, 2627–2630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagle, J.V. and Jones, G.P. (2004) Mimicry in coral reef fishes: ecological and behavioural responses of a mimic to its model. Journal of Zoology 264, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francini-Filho, R.B., Moura, R.L. and Sazima, I. (2000) Cleaning by the wrasse Thalasoma noronhanum, with two records of predation by its grouper client Cephalopholis fulva. Journal of Fish Biology 56, 802–809.Google Scholar
Grutter, A.S. (1999) Cleaner fish do clean. Nature 398, 672–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G.P. and McCormick, M.I. (2002) Numerical and energetic processes in the ecology of coral reef fishes. In Sale, P.F. (ed.) Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. San Diego, CAAcademic Press, pp. 221–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moland, E., Eagle, J.V. and Jones, G.P. (2005) Ecology and evolution of mimicry in coral reef fishes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 43, 445–482.Google Scholar
Moland, E. and Jones, G.P. (2004) Experimental confirmation of aggressive mimicry by a coral reef fish. Oecologia 140, 676–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moura, R.L., Figueiredo, J.L. and Sazima, I. (2001) A new parrotfish (Scaridae) from Brazil, and revalidation of Sparisoma amplum (Ranzani, 1842), Sparisoma frondosum (Agassiz, 1831), Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878) and Scarus trispinosus Valenciennes, 1840. Bulletin of Marine Science 68, 505–524.Google Scholar
Munday, P.L., Eyre, P.J. and Jones, G.P. (2003) Ecological mechanisms to coexistence of colour polymorphism in a coral-reef fish: an experimental evaluation. Oecologia 137, 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, M.M. (2010) Evidence of a geographically variable competitive mimicry relationship in coral reef fishes. Journal of Zoology 279, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J.E. (2005) A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zoological Studies 44, 299–328.Google Scholar
Sazima, I., Moura, R.L. and Rosa, R.S. (1997) Elacatinus figaro sp. n. (Perciformes: Gobiidae), a new cleaner goby from the coast of Brazil. Aqua: Journal of Ichthyology and Aquatic Biology 2, 33–38.Google Scholar
Smith-Vaniz, W.F., Satapoomin, U. and Allen, G.R. (2001) Meiacanthus urostigma, a new fangblenny from the northern Indian Ocean, with discussion and examples of mimicry in species of Meiacanthus (Teleostei: Blenniidae: Nemophini). Aqua: Journal of Ichthyology and Aquatic Biology 5, 25–43.Google Scholar
Snyder, D.B. (1999) Mimicry of initial-phase bluehead wrasse, Thalassoma bifasciatum (Labridae) by juvenile tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris (Serranidae). Revue Française d'Aquariologie 26, 17–20.Google Scholar
Wickler, W. (1965) Mimicry and the evolution of animal communication. Nature 208, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar