Reader TTS

ABSTRACT Myrmecomorphy is a strategy utilized by a variety of species, among which spiders are the most common. It is supposed that myrmecomorphy tends to be selected by predator avoidance

of preying on ants rather than by blind ant workers. To date, this hypothesis has been tested mainly on invertebrate predators (mantises and spiders). We are the first to test whether an

imperfect myrmecomorph spider (_Phrurolithus festivus_) gains protection against avian predators (wild adult great tits—_Parus major_) through its appearance. In a set of preferential

trials, we showed that the ant model and the myrmecomorph spider are equally well protected against attack, though the attacked myrmecomorphs are usually eaten. This suggests that the

mimicry of the myrmecomorph spiders is effective against avian predators and works in a Batesian manner. In this study, we have provided evidence toward the evolution of myrmecomorphy in

response to selective pressure elicited by visually-oriented predators like birds. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS CONSTRAINTS ON THE JUMPING AND PREY-CAPTURE ABILITIES OF

ANT-MIMICKING SPIDERS (SALTICIDAE, SALTICINAE, _MYRMARACHNE_) Article Open access 26 October 2020 MANTIDFLY LARVAE USE CUES ON SUBSTRATE TO LOCATE AND DISTINGUISH DIFFERENT SEXES AND LIFE

STAGES OF POTENTIAL SPIDER HOSTS Article Open access 10 November 2024 PREDATOR CUE-INDUCED PLASTICITY OF MORPHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR IN PLANTHOPPERS FACILITATE THE SURVIVAL FROM PREDATION

Article Open access 18 August 2021 INTRODUCTION Myrmecomorphy is a specific type of visual mimicry residing in the visual resemblance of an animal to an ant1. Spiders are common

myrmecomorphs, with myrmecomorph species occurring in 13 families with most species in the family Salticidae2. The resemblance to the ant model may vary in perfection. There are some

stunning examples of perfect resemblance, especially within a predominately tropical genus of salticid spiders, _Myrmarachne_ (Aranea, Salticidae; Fig. 1a). These spiders co-occur with ants,

they build their nest close to the ant nests and encounter them daily3. Aggressive interactions between them are rare, as _Myrmarachne_ spiders usually prey on small invertebrates and their

eggs3 and they adopt a behaviour resembling the interspecific communication of ants to avoid being attacked by them3. Within the genus, the spiders display a variability in the level of

similarity to their ant models, with e.g., _Myrmarachne bakeri_ being seen as an imperfect mimic (4, Fig. 1b). Even spiders with significantly lower levels of myrmecomorphy than _M. bakeri_

are called myrmecomorphs. Their body and leg shapes differ from ants, but they may be confused with ants according to colouration and means of locomotion. _Phrurolithus festivus_ (Aranea,

Phrurolithidae, C. L. Koch 1835; Fig. 1c5,6) may be a good example. Similarly as in the genus _Myrmarachne_, it commonly forages within ant swarms and usually preys on small invertebrates

flushed out by foraging ants7. The evolutionary importance of myrmecomorphy in spiders is still not clear. Ants generally represent a threat to the associated spiders8. Therefore, their

morphological resemblance used to be supposed by human observers to be an adaptive protection against being attacked by the ants. Nevertheless, ant soldiers are almost blind and cannot

perceive the visual appearance of the myrmecomorphs. Thus, the ant mimicry (Wasmannian and/or Peckhamian7,9) securing the confusion in ants regarding myrmecomorphs is usually based on

chemical or tactile cues10,11,12. A less obvious possibility is that the visual resemblance of the myrmecomorph spiders to ants may be a signal to the former’s potential predators. This

hypothesis has been tested repeatedly in perfect mimics of genus _Myrmarachne_. The predators used were mantises4,13 or salticid spiders14,15. The protection of _Myrmarachne_ species against

all of the invertebrate predators was very good when compared with non-myrmecomorph salticid spiders. The only imperfect mimic used in these studies was _Myrmarachne bakeri_ (Fig. 1b).

Mantises showed a slightly higher willingness to prey on them when compared to perfect mimics4, though its protection can be still considered as very effective, when compared to

non-myrmecomorph salticids. The protection of species with less perfect resemblance to ants against predators has been tested experimentally only scarcely and never in the genus Phrurolithus

(Fig. 1c). We can suppose that when inspected from close proximity (by mantises or spiders), such myrmecomorphs may be distinguished from the ants more easily than perfect _Myrmarachne_

mimics. Regardless, there are also other visually oriented predators, which usually do not have this opportunity to inspect the small invertebrate prey in detail: birds. Birds are usually

considered to be the main selective force forming visual mimicry in invertebrates16,17,18. We can expect that imperfect myrmecomorphy in spiders is also selected by avian predators. Foraging

birds must usually identify prey from a distance of tens of centimetres. Moreover, when encountering an ant swarm, even imperfect mimics may be avoided due to the decreased identification

abilities at such a range19. The experimental evidence for the effective function of ant mimicry as a protection against birds is lacking. Most European insectivorous birds collect ants;

nevertheless, the proportion of ants in their diet is usually very low20,21,22,23. With the exception of a few specialized species (e.g. woodpeckers) ants are not the preferred prey of

insectivorous birds and ants may thus act as models in this mimicry system. In the present study, we tested the level of protection of the imperfect myrmecomorph spider _Phrurolithus

festivus_ against an insectivorous avian predator, the great tit (_Parus major_ L. 1758). We simultaneously presented wild caught great tits with the following pairs of prey: myrmecomorph

spider (_Phrurolithus_) and ant (_Lasius niger_ L. 1758—hereafter called _Lasius_); myrmecomorph spider and non-myrmecomorph wolf spider (_Alopecosa_); and ant together with Mediterranean

cricket (_Gryllus bimaculatus_, De Geer 1773, _Gryllus_) as a control for the avoidance of ants. We also recorded the total time birds observed the prey from a distance (i.e. a proxy for

attention paid to the pair of prey). This behaviour was understood as a measure of hesitation before the attack in previous studies24,25. We tested the following hypotheses: * (1) Tits

attack and eat the ants less than an edible insect prey (cricket)—ants can act as models in the evolution of myrmecomorphy selected by avian predators. * (2) Tits attack the myrmecomorph

spiders equally as often as the ants and less often than the non-myrmecomorph spiders—myrmecomorphy is a successful form of mimicry in the evasion of avian predators. * (3) The attacked

myrmecomorph spiders are eaten by tits more often than the ants and equally often as the non-myrmecomorph spiders—the myrmecomorph mimicry works in a Batesian manner. RESULTS OBSERVING THE

PREY FROM DISTANCE The total time the birds spent observing a particular pair of offered prey items from a distance can be seen as a measure of hesitation whether to attack the prey or not.

We showed that it was significantly affected by the particular combination of presented prey (Table 1). Great tits observed the _Phrurolithus_–_Lasius_ combination for the longest time and

the _Gryllus_–_Lasius_ combination for the shortest time (Fig. 2), with the difference between them being significant (Tukey HSD post hoc test, Z = 3.099, P = 0.006).

_Phrurolithus_–_Alopecosa_ combination was observed for a shorter time than _Phrurolithus_–_Lasius_ and for a longer time than _Gryllus_–_Lasius_, but none of these comparisons were

significant (Tukey HSD post hoc test, Z = 1.246, P = 0.426 and Z = 1.812, P = 0.166 respectively). ATTACKING The attacking of prey indicates a lack of visual avoidance since the birds will

be unlikely to perceive any chemosensory differences at this point. The number of prey attacked was significantly affected by the type of prey (Table 1). Ants were attacked significantly

less than crickets (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 11.775, P < 0.001; Fig. 3). Myrmecomorph spiders were attacked less often than non-myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 

7.035, P < 0.001; Fig. 3), and equally often as the ants (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 2.194, P = 0.221; Fig. 3). Ants presented together with crickets were attacked equally often as

ants presented together with myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 0.240, P = 0.999; Fig. 3). Myrmecomorph spiders presented together with ants were attacked equally often as

myrmecomorph spiders presented together with non-myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 0.986, P = 0.914; Fig. 3). EATING OF ATTACKED PREY Eating was scored in a situation when

the attacked prey was at least partially eaten (usually it was completely eaten). It can be seen as an effect of the chemical composition of the prey on the bird, which may or may not eat

the prey following the initial attack. The number of eaten prey, out of those attacked, was significantly affected by the type of prey (Table 1). Ants were eaten significantly less than

crickets (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 7.883, P < 0.001; Fig. 4) and myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 7.386, P < 0.001; Fig. 4). Myrmecomorph spiders were eaten

equally often as the non-myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 0.001, P = 0.999; Fig. 4). Ants presented together with crickets were eaten equally often as ants presented

together with myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 1.830, P = 0.411; Fig. 4). Myrmecomorph spiders presented together with ants were eaten equally often as myrmecomorph

spiders presented together with non-myrmecomorph spiders (Fisher LSD post hoc test, Z = 1.634, P = 0.541; Fig. 4). DISCUSSION Ants were attacked by great tits less than the larval instars of

crickets of the same size. They may thus probably act as protected models in the evolution of myrmecomorphy selected by avian predators. The great tits attacked the myrmecomorph spiders

less than the non-myrmecomorph spiders and equally often as the ants. The visual appearance of myrmecomorph spiders provides an equal level of protection against the insectivorous passerine,

the great tit, as the ants possess themselves. We thus experimentally confirmed that the imperfect myrmecomorph _Phrurolithus festivus_ is effectively protected against bird predators. The

attacked myrmecomorph spiders were eaten very often, significantly more often than the attacked ants and equally often as the attacked non-myrmecomorph spiders. We may thus suggest that

myrmecomorph spiders possess no chemicals acting as repellents to avian predators and can thus be treated as Batesian ant mimics. Ants possessing formic acid (see below) act thus as models

avoided by birds in this system. Our results suggest that the visual signals of at least some ant-mimicking invertebrates may be addressed to avian predators. There are substantial

differences in the vision of invertebrates and birds26; nevertheless, our experiments suggest that the ant-mimicking strategy has a similar effect on birds as was shown by previous studies

on invertebrate predators. Experiments with skinks (Squamata, Scincidae), which possess a similar visual acuity to birds, also exhibited aversion towards myrmecomorph spiders27. Some studies

have shown that the same appearance of myrmecomorphs may affect both visually as well as chemically oriented predators. e.g. sphecid wasps show reduced predation on myrmecomorph spiders28.

The authors presumed that the main cue for identification of the prey in these wasps is the chemical structure of its surface; nevertheless, the body shape also secured protection for the

myrmecomorph spiders, despite their chemical compounds being equal to those in most spiders. Nonetheless, further investigations with multiple predators are needed to better understand the

myrmecomorph mimicry system and its evolution. All of the above-mentioned studies confirming the efficacy of ant-mimicry on invertebrate predators used accurate mimics of ants, spiders of

the genus _Myrmarachne_. It is hard to differentiate these spiders from ants even during close inspection by the human eye. Our results show that birds may be confused even by imperfect

mimics. _Phrurolithus festivus_ has no body and leg shape adaptation to resemble ants, they merely possess a similar manner of movement and colouration creating the impression of an ant body

shape. This makes them imperfect mimics of ants. Despite this imperfection, the mimicry provides good protection against at least some avian predators. The reason may reside in the

different hunting strategies of invertebrates and birds. We can presume that mantises and jumping spiders encounter the ant mimics from a close distance and perceive their visual appearance

from a different perspective than birds searching for prey from larger distances. Even in our experiments, the great tits decided which prey to attack from a perch at a distance of 30 cm.

Many myrmecomorphs appear within ant swarms and the aggregation secures the protection of all members of the swarm19. Other imperfect mimics participating in ant swarms may gain protection

through this effect29. At first sight, our experiments also suggest the importance of this effect. When we presented a myrmecomorph spider together with an ant, the birds spent a long time

observing the prey from a distance. We understand this behaviour as the bird deciding whether to attack the prey or not. Obviously, birds were a little bit confused when challenged by the

recognition between the myrmecomorph and the ant. On the other hand, the great tits did not attack the myrmecomorph even when presented together with a non-myrmecomorph spider. This suggests

that the visual protection of myrmecomorphs is effective regardless of the circumstances and the effect of confusion within an aggregated swarm may not play any role. The method of

recognition of prey by predators will of course differ between different predators. Our experiments showed that the attacked myrmecomorph spiders were often eaten. This was very different

from ants, which were never eaten in our experiments. Ants possess a chemical protection, formic acid, which originally acts as an alarm signal but also has an antipredatory effect30. This

obviously repels most birds that decide to attack ants. Great tits usually do not prey on ants31,32 and our results suggest that the main reason is their chemical protection. At the same

time, myrmecomorph spiders obviously possess no chemical protection against avian predators. Once the bird attacked myrmecomorph, it was not eaten in only one of 20 trials. _Phrurolithus

festivus_ can be thus treated as a Batesian mimic of ants with respect to avian predators. Our study was also the first to experimentally confirm that great tits avoid attacking ants. As

mentioned above, ants do not occur in their natural diet. Most of the great tits in our experiments were able to avoid attacking the ant only according to its visual appearance. Those tits

which decided to attack were further repelled by the chemical signals or cues. Most inedible prey advertise their inedibility with bright colours and patterns33, while ants are usually

uniformly blackish, brownish, or rufous. It is obvious that the typical body, leg, and antennae shape and manner of locomotion are the visual signals enabling the proper recognition of the

ant. The ability to recognize ants according to their shape and size has previously been shown in invertebrates only. Sendoya et al.34 showed that _Eunica_ butterflies (Hübner, 1819) avoid

oviposition on plants artificially associated with ant dummies. Nelson et al.4 also showed that mantises avoid attacking ants based on their specific visual appearance. Our results with

birds thus concur with these conclusions. To conclude, we showed that birds, as visually oriented predators, may drive the evolution of myrmecomorphy in spiders. It is likely that the array

of predators, to which the myrmecomorphs address their visual signals may be much broader and many more experiments are required to broaden our understanding. The signalling of myrmecomorph

spiders is much more complex, potentially encompassing not only vision, but also tactile perception, olfaction, and taste. Still, our study brings a novel view on the understanding of this

spectacular adaptation, which may importantly affect future research. METHODS PREY _Phrurolithus festivus_ is an imperfect myrmecomorph spider commonly occurring in Europe. It preserves a

typical spider body shape but its colouration (shiny black opisthosoma with white transversal stripe and reddish-brown prosoma with median white stripe) creates the visual impression of an

ant (6, Fig. 1c). Moreover, its jerky manner of locomotion strengthens the impression of an ant. The body size ranges from 2.2 to 3.2 mm. It can often be found within foraging ant swarms,

but it does not prey on ants, and the ants also do not attack it5. We compared the responses of avian predators to myrmecomorph spiders with the responses to its presumed model, the black

garden ant, which possesses a similar colouration and body size. As the control non-myrmecomorph prey we used juvenile (2–3 mm in length) wolf spiders of the genus _Alopecosa,_ probably _A.

taeniata_ (C. L. Koch 1835) or _A. pulverulenta_ (Clerck 1757), it was impossible to determine the species in juveniles. These are common spiders at our localities, and we may expect tested

great tits to be familiar with them as a common and palatable prey27,28. A baseline prey was represented by juveniles of the Mediterranean cricket, which are commonly accepted as artificial

insect prey by great tits35. The prey was collected in the surroundings of the town of České Budějovice from July to December a few days prior to the experiment (myrmecomorph, ant,

non-myrmecomorph) or originated from commercial breeding (crickets) and were kept at low temperature (10 °C), under a 12:12 h daylight regime with moist soil provided to keep them in a

diapause status until the experiment (usually only a few days). The myrmecomorph spiders were collected together with the ants used for experiments within the same swarms. PREDATORS As the

avian predator we used the great tit, which is a predominately insectivorous passerine bird of medium body size (body weight 15–20 g36). Its diet consists especially of caterpillars,

spiders, and beetles, with ants being only seldom preyed upon27,28,37. Previous studies have shown that great tits avoid the aposematic insects38, being usually discouraged by the

colouration of the prey39,40 and by the combination of colours forming specific patterns24,41. Nevertheless, the attitude of great tits to ants has not been previously tested experimentally.

The birds used for the experiments were caught in the surroundings of České Budějovice, transported in commercially sold bird cages (40 × 40 × 60 cm) with water, sunflower seeds, and

mealworms (larvae of _Tenebrio molitor_ L. 1758) provided ad libitum, under a 16:8 daylight regime, and a 20 °C ambient temperature. Birds were individually marked with ornithological rings

and each individual bird was subjected to a single experiment only. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Experiments were conducted during the non-breeding season of great tits (July to December in the years

2015, 2016 and 2017), in the morning hours, when the birds were motivated to forage. The presentation of the tested prey was conducted in the experimental cage (70 × 70 × 70 cm) made of a

wooden frame covered with fine wire mesh. The cage was equipped with a front wall made of one-way glass, which allowed the human observer to sit by the cage without being noticed by the

bird. At the bottom of this wall, there was a rotating circular tray with eight white cups (6 cm in diameter), in which the prey was offered. There were always two cups containing a single

prey item in each of them, both prey were available to the bird, and both prey could be attacked. Once the bird was trained to accept mealworms in this cage, it was deprived of food for two

hours to improve its motivation and after this period, the experiment started. The experiment consisted of five successive presentations of a pair of experimental prey items (see below for

combinations) alternated with offering a small mealworm (8 mm) to check the bird’s motivation to forage. Each prey was presented in separate white cups, but both prey items were in view of a

perching bird at the same time. The bird behaviour during the presence of the experimental prey in the cage was always recorded for five minutes. Each prey combination was offered to each

set of birds. We offered three pairs of prey items: (1) _Gryllus_–_Lasius_—100 prey pairs offered to 20 bird individuals; (2) _Lasius_–_Phrurolithus_—120 prey pairs offered to 24 bird

individuals; and (3) _Alopecosa_-_Phrurolithus_—105 prey pairs offered to 21 bird individuals. Altogether, we used 65 bird individuals in our experiments. DATA ANALYSES We evaluated three

behaviours displayed by the tested birds. We firstly recorded the total time (in seconds), that the tested bird spent observing the pair of prey items from a distance. We were not able to

differentiate at which of the two offered prey items the bird was looking; therefore, we evaluated the total time of observation for the entire pair. These data followed the gaussian

distribution of residuals, therefore we used a linear mixed effect model (command lmer in R package lme442) to evaluate the effect of predictors on the variability in this data type. We used

a mixed effect model because five prey pairs were always offered to the same bird, thus the bird ID was included in the model as the random factor. We tested the effect of two predictors:

the prey combination (_Gryllus_–_Lasius_, _Lasius_–_Phrurolithus_, _Alopecosa_–_Phrurolithus_) and the interaction of prey combination and the trial number (coded as categorical predictor

with five values—first to fifth). We used likelihood ratio tests for the Gaussian distribution of data (Chi squared test) to compare the models in the forward stepwise selection. For the

comparison of particular prey types, we used Tukey HSD post hoc tests (Z test) with Tukey correction for repeated comparisons. The second evaluated behaviour of the tested birds was the

occurrence of the attack to the prey, which was recorded once the bird pecked the prey or took the prey into its bill. This response variable scored 1, when the prey was attacked and 0 when

it was not. The effect of predictor variable prey type and the interaction of prey type and trial order (both categorically coded) was evaluated using generalized mixed-effect linear model

following binomial distribution with bird ID as a random factor (command glmer in R package lme442). We used likelihood ratio tests for the binomial distribution of data (Chi squared test)

to compare the models in the forward stepwise selection. For the comparison of the prey, we used Fisher LSD post hoc tests (Z test) with Tukey correction for repeated comparisons. The third

behaviour of tested birds evaluated how often prey were eaten once they had been attacked, therefore only trials in which the attack occurred were included in this analysis. The eating of

the prey was scored in a situation when the bird consumed at least part of the prey item’s body. The prey items were small compared to the great tits; therefore, the tested birds usually ate

the entire prey item. The effect of predictor variable prey type and the interaction of prey type and trial order on the binomially coded occurrence of eating was evaluated using

generalized mixed-effect linear model following binomial distribution with bird ID as a random factor (command glmer in R package lme442). We used likelihood ratio tests for the binomial

distribution of data (Chi squared test) to compare the models in the forward stepwise selection. For the comparison of the prey types, we used Fisher LSD post hoc tests (Z test) with Tukey

correction for repeated comparisons. ETHICS APPROVAL All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Experimental birds

were kept in accredited breeding of birds at the Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia (permit no. 22395/2014-MZE-17214 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech

Republic). Permission for studies on wild great tits was granted by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic (permit no. 18232/ENV/15-833/630/15). The study was approved by the

ethics committee of the Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia. The authors are licenced for experimentation with animals (PV-CZ02766, RF-CZ01629, licences issued by the Ministry of

the Agriculture of the Czech Republic). This research adhered to the ASAB/ABS guidelines for the use of animals in research. Authors declare that the experiments comply with the current

laws of the Czech Republic (and European Union). DATA AVAILABILITY The original data sheet is available as the supplementary information to this manuscript. REFERENCES * McIver, D. J. &

Stonedahl, G. Myrmecomorphy: Morphological and behavioral mimicry of ants. _Annual Rev. Entomol._ 38, 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.38.010193.002031 (1993). Article  Google

Scholar  * Cushing, P. E. Spider-ant associations: An updated review of myrmecomorphy, myrmecophily, and myrmecophagy in spiders. _Psyche_ 2012, 151989. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/151989

(2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J. & Salm, K. The natural history of _Myrmarachne melanotarsa_, a social ant-mimicking jumping spider. _N. Z. J. Zool._ 35,

225–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220809510118 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Nelson, J. X., Jackson, R. R., Li, D., Barrion, T. A. & Edwards, B. G. Innate aversion to ants

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and ant mimics: Experimental findings from mantises (Mantodea). _Biol. J. Linnean Soc._ 88, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00598.x (2006). Article

  Google Scholar  * Pekár, S. & Jarab, M. Life-history constraints in inaccurate Batesian myrmecomorphic spiders (Araneae: Corinnidae, Gnaphosidae). _Eur. J. Entomol._ 108, 255–260.

https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2011.034 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Pekár, S. & Jarab, M. Assessment of color and behavioral resemblance to models by inaccurate myrmecomorphic

spiders (Araneae). _Invertebr. Biol._ 130, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7410.2010.00217.x (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Pekár, S. & Král, J. Mimicry complex in two central

European zodariid spiders (Araneae: Zodariidae): How Zodarion deceives ants. _Biol. J. Linnean Soc._ 75, 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00043.x (2002). Article  Google

Scholar  * Hölldobler, B. Communication between ants and their guests. _Sci. Am._ 224, 86–95 (1971). Article  Google Scholar  * Jackson, R. R. & Wilcox, R. S. Aggressive mimicry,

prey-specific predatory behaviour and predator recognition in the predator-prey interactions of _Portia fimbriata_ and _Euryattus_ sp., jumping spiders from Queensland. _Behav. Ecol.

Sociobiol._ 26, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00171580 (1990). Article  Google Scholar  * Hölldobler, B. Host finding by odor in the myrmecophilic beetle _Atemeles pubicollis_ Bris.

(Staphylinidae). _Science_ 166, 757–758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.166.3906.757 (1969). Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Elgar, A. M. & Allan, A. R. Chemical mimicry of the

ant _Oecophylla smaragdina_ by the myrmecophilous spider _Cosmophasis bitaeniata_: Is it colony-specific?. _J. Ethol._ 24, 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-005-0188-9 (2006). Article

  Google Scholar  * von Beeren, C., Hashim, R. & Witte, V. The social integration of a myrmecophilous spider does not depend exclusively on chemical mimicry. _J. Chem. Ecol._ 38,

262–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0083-0 (2012). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Nelson, X. J. & Jackson, R. R. Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics. _Behav.

Ecol._ 17, 676–681. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ark017 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Edmunds, M. Does mimicry of ants reduce predation by wasps on salticid spiders?. _Mem. Queensl.

Mus._ 33, 23–32 (1993). Google Scholar  * Huang, J. N., Cheng, R. C., Li, D. & Tso, I. M. Salticid predation as one potential driving force of ant mimicry in jumping spiders. _Proc. R.

Soc. B_ 278, 1356–1364. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1896 (2011). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lindström, L. Experimental approaches to studying the initial evolution of

conspicuous aposematic signalling. _Evol. Ecol._ 13, 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011004129607 (1999). Article  Google Scholar  * Ruxton, G. D., Allen, W. L., Sherratt, T. N. &

Speed, M. P. _Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Aposematism, and Mimicry_ (Oxford University Press, 2019). Google Scholar  * Veselý, P. & Fuchs, R. Newly emerged

Batesian mimicry protects only unfamiliar prey. _Evol. Ecol._ 23, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-008-9281-1 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Nelson, X. J. & Jackson, R. R.

Collective Batesian mimicry of ant groups by aggregating spiders. _Anim. Behav._ 78, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.04.005 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Cramp, S. &

Brooks, D. J. _Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Warbles_ Vol. VI (Oxford University Press, 1992). Google Scholar  *

Cramp, S. & Perrins, C. M. _Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Flycatchers to Shrikes_ Vol. VII (Oxford University

Press, 1993). Google Scholar  * Cramp, S. & Simmons, K. E. L. _Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Terns to

woodpeckers_ Vol. IV (Oxford University Press, 1985). Google Scholar  * Cramp, S., Perrins, C. M. & Brooks, D. J. _Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa: The

birds of the Western Palearctic. Crows to finches_ Vol. VIII (Oxford University Press, 1994). Google Scholar  * Veselý, P., Luhanová, D., Prášková, M. & Fuchs, R. Generalization of

mimics imperfect in colour patterns: The point of view of wild avian predators. _Ethology_ 119, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01463.x (2013). Article  Google Scholar  *

Průchová, A., Nedvěd, O., Veselý, P., Ernestová, B. & Fuchs, R. Visual warning signals of the ladybird _Harmonia axyridis_: The avian predators’ point of view. _Entomol. Exp. Appl._ 151,

128–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12176 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Kevan, P. G., Chittka, L. & Dyer, A. G. Limits to the salience of ultraviolet: Lessons from colour vision

in bees and birds. _J. Exp. Biol._ 204, 2571–2580 (2001). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pekár, S., Petráková, L., Bulbert, M. W., Whiting, M. J. & Herberstein, M. E. The golden mimicry

complex uses a wide spectrum of defence to deter a community of predators. _Elife_ 6, e22089. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22089 (2017). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Uma, D., Durkee, C., Herzner, G. & Weiss, M. Double deception: Ant-mimicking spiders elude both visually-and chemically-oriented predators. _PLoS ONE_ 8, e79660.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079660 (2013). Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Lindström, L., Alatalo, R. V., Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. The effect of

alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. _Evolution_ 58, 1294–1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb01708.x (2004). Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * McNab, B. K. Physiological convergence amongst ant-eating and termite-eating mammals. _J. Zool. Lond._ 203, 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1984.tb02345.x (1984).

Article  Google Scholar  * Naef-Daenzer, L., Naef-Daenzer, B. & Nager, R. G. Prey selection and foraging performance of breeding Great Tits _Parus major_ in relation to food

availability. _J. Avian Biol._ 31, 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2000.310212.x (2000). Article  Google Scholar  * Wilkin, T. A., King, L. E. & Sheldon, B. C. Habitat

quality, nestling diet, and provisioning behaviour in great tits _Parus major_. _J. Avian Biol._ 40, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-048X.2009.04362.x (2009). Article  Google Scholar

  * Svádová, K. _et al._ Role of different colours of aposematic insects in learning, memory and generalization of naïve bird predators. _Anim. Behav._ 77, 327–336.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.09.034 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Sendoya, S. F., Freitas, A. V. & Oliveira, P. S. Egg-laying butterflies distinguish predaceous ants by

sight. _Am. Nat._ 174, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/599302 (2009). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Exnerová, A. _et al._ Different reactions to aposematic prey in 2 geographically

distant populations of great tits. _Behav. Ecol._ 26, 1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv086 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Harrap, S. & Quinn, D. _Chickadees, Tits,

Nuthatches & Treecreepers_ (Princeton University Press, 1995). Google Scholar  * Pagani-Núñez, E., Ruiz, Í., Quesada, J., Negro, J. J. & Senar, J. C. The diet of Great Tit _Parus

major_ nestlings in a Mediterranean Iberian forest: The important role of spiders. _Anim. Biodivers. Conserv._ 34, 355–361 (2011). Google Scholar  * Exnerová, A. _et al._ Reactions of

passerine birds to aposematic and non-aposematic firebugs (_Pyrrhocoris apterus_; Heteroptera). _Biol. J. Linnean Soc._ 78, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0024-4066.2002.00161.x (2003).

Article  Google Scholar  * Exnerová, A. _et al._ Importance of colour in the reaction of passerine predators to aposematic prey: Experiments with mutants of _Pyrrhocoris apterus_

(Heteroptera). _Biol. J. Linnean Soc._ 88, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00611.x (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Cibulková, A., Veselý, P. & Fuchs, R. Importance

of conspicuous colours in warning signals: The great tit’s (_Parus major_) point of view. _Evol. Ecol._ 28, 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-014-9690-2 (2014). Article  Google Scholar

  * Prokopová, M., Veselý, P., Fuchs, R. & Zrzavý, J. The role of size and colour pattern in protection of developmental stages of the red firebug (_Pyrrhocoris apterus_) against avian

predators. _Biol. J. Linnean Soc._ 100, 890–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01463.x (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * R Core Team. _R: A Language and Environment for

Statistical Computing_. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). https://www.R-project.org. * Yamasaki, T. Studies on taxonomy, biogeography and mimicry of the genus Myrmarachne in

Southeast Asia. _Acta Arachnol._ 64, 49–56 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Nelson, X. J. & Jackson, R. R. How spiders practice aggressive and Batesian mimicry. _Curr. Zool._ 58,

620–629. https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/58.4.620 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Christopher Mark Steer for his proof reading and prof. Stano

Pekár for his advice during the experiment. FUNDING This project was supported by University of South Bohemia (GAJU 048/2019/P). AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Faculty of

Science, University of South Bohemia, Branišovská 1760, 37005, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic Petr Veselý, Juraj Dobrovodský & Roman Fuchs Authors * Petr Veselý View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Juraj Dobrovodský View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Roman

Fuchs View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS P.V. participated on the design of experiments, conducted the data analyses, and

wrote most of the manuscript. J.D. conducted the experiments and participated on the data analyses and manuscript preparation. R.F. participated on the design of experiments and manuscript

preparation. All authors have read the final version of the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Petr Veselý. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no

competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY LEGENDS. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE S1. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,

provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative

Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not

permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Veselý, P., Dobrovodský, J. & Fuchs, R. Predation by avian predators may have

initiated the evolution of myrmecomorph spiders. _Sci Rep_ 11, 17266 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96737-2 Download citation * Received: 23 February 2021 * Accepted: 09 August

2021 * Published: 26 August 2021 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96737-2 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get

shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative