Study
Male lyrebirds create a complex acoustic illusion of a mobbing flock during courtship and copulation
Dalziell, Anastasia H.; Maisey, Alex C.; Magrath, Robert D.; Welbergen, Justin A.
Current Biology, 2021
Displays by wild male superb lyrebirds were recorded and the mimetic sequences analysed, comparing what the males produced during courtship and copulation with the alarm calls and wingbeats of the species being imitated, and with recordings of genuine mobbing flocks.
- Studied in
- Menura novaehollandiae
- Sample size
- wild superb lyrebird displays recorded and analysed acoustically
Males produced a mimetic sequence closely resembling a mixed-species mobbing flock — several species’ alarm calls together with imitated wingbeats — specifically at moments during courtship and while copulating.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
The mimicry is a coordinated acoustic illusion of a mobbing flock, produced in contexts where a female might otherwise leave, and plausibly functions to deter her departure.
How NatureHQ reads it
The single most interesting result in vocal mimicry, and a useful antidote to the idea that mimicry is an exuberance. This is context-specific, structured, deployed at a particular moment and imitates a *scene* rather than a sound — several species plus wingbeats, assembled into something that does not exist. The functional interpretation is a strong inference from timing rather than a demonstration; no playback experiment has confirmed what a female does when she hears it.
- Observational. The proposed function rests on when the display occurs, not on a manipulation.
- What the female actually perceives, and whether she is deterred, is untested.
- One population of one species, and lyrebirds are the extreme case rather than a representative mimic.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Cell PressPublished in a Cell Press journal.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.02.003
Checked against Crossref and OpenAlex on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-02.