Zoologists challenge longstanding theory that 'eyespots' mimic the eyes of predators' enemies

Feb 21, 2008

Circular markings on creatures such as butterflies are effective against predators because they are conspicuous features, not because they mimic the eyes of the predators’ own enemies, according to research published today in the journal, Behavioral Ecology. Zoologists based at the University of Cambridge challenge the 150-year-old theory about why these markings are effective against predators.

Many animals possess protective markings to avoid predation, including patterns to reduce the risk of detection (camouflage), to indicate that the animal is toxic or inedible (‘warning colours’), or to mimic another animal or object (‘mimicry’ and ‘masquerade’).

In addition, many creatures such as butterflies, moths, and fish possess two or more pairs of circular markings, often referred to as ‘eyespots’. Many eyespots are effective in startling or intimidating predators, and can help to prevent or stop an attack. For the past 150 years it has been assumed that this is because they mimic the eyes of the predator’s own enemies.

However, recent work by University of Cambridge zoologists, Martin Stevens, Chloe Hardman, and Claire Stubbins, indicates that this widely-held hypothesis has no experimental support.

Stevens, Hardman, and Stubbins tested the response of wild avian predators to artificial moths, created from waterproof paper. Specific patterns, such as intimidating eyespots of different shapes, sizes and number, and with different levels of eye mimicry, were printed on to the paper using a high quality printer. These ‘moths’ were then pinned to trees of various species at a height of one to three metres in the mixed deciduous Madingley Woods in Cambridgeshire, UK. Attached to each of the artificial moths was an edible mealworm as a temptation for woodland birds such as the blue tits, great tits, blackbirds, and house sparrows.

The zoologists discovered that artificial moths with circular markings survived no better than those with other conspicuous features and that the features of eyespots which most encouraged predators to avoid them are large size, a high number of spots, and conspicuousness in general.

As Dr Stevens explains, ‘the birds were equally likely to avoid artificial moths with markings such as bars and squares as they were to avoid those with two eye-like markings. This leads us to conclude that eyespots work because they are highly conspicuous features, not because they mimic the eyes of the predators’ own enemies. This suggests that circular markings on many real animals need not necessarily, as most accounts claim, mimic the eyes of other animals.’

Source: Oxford University

Explore further: Woolly mammoth genome sequencer at UWA

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Woolly mammoth genome sequencer at UWA

14 minutes ago

How can a giant woolly mammoth which lived at least 200,000 years ago help to save the Tasmanian Devil from extinction? The answer lies in DNA, the carrier of genetic information.

Big science from small insects

47 minutes ago

Anniversaries are often a time to look back. But after taking stock of the past, it can be just as important to look to the future.

Battling superbugs with gene-editing system

18 hours ago

In recent years, new strains of bacteria have emerged that resist even the most powerful antibiotics. Each year, these superbugs, including drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis and staphylococcus, infect ...

Dwindling wind may tip predator-prey balance

Sep 19, 2014

Bent and tossed by the wind, a field of soybean plants presents a challenge for an Asian lady beetle on the hunt for aphids. But what if the air—and the soybeans—were still?

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MikeyK
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2008
One major flaw with this experiment, it does not take into account the startling effect a flash of the eye spots have. Virtually all insects that use eyespots have them concealed at rest and 'flash' them when threatened, the rapidity not giving the potential predator time to analyse the image to indicate whether it saw an eyespot as a predators eye or not. Like all biological processes there is not one part to the puzzle but a mixture of components, you can't take one structure in isolation. Maybe a new experiment with robotic wings that flash when a predator is nearby will be a more valuable experiment.