Study
Predator cognition permits imperfect coral snake mimicry
Kikuchi, David W.; Pfennig, David W.
The American Naturalist, 2010
Placed plasticine snake replicas differing in how closely their banding matched the venomous coral snake model, and scored attacks by wild predators from the marks left in the plasticine.
- Studied in
- Micrurus, Lampropeltis, Aves
- Sample size
- artificial snake replicas exposed to wild predators
Replicas that resembled the model only approximately were attacked no more often than accurate mimics, provided they shared the key features predators appear to generalise over.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Imperfect mimicry persists because predators generalise across a range of appearances rather than discriminating finely, so accuracy beyond a threshold confers no additional benefit.
How NatureHQ reads it
The record that answers the standing objection to mimicry — that many mimics are not very good likenesses. They do not need to be. Selection acts through what the predator distinguishes, and predators lump broadly, which is again the receiver deciding what counts.
- Plasticine replicas are static and lack behaviour, scent and movement, which real predators may use.
- Attack marks identify that something struck but often not what, so predator identity is partly inferred.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Warning coloration
A warning colour is not a property of the animal wearing it. It works because predators learn, remember and generalise — and a signal nothing has learned about offers no protection at all.
Warning coloration
Bright colouring is not a reliable guide to whether an animal is dangerous. Conspicuous animals may be signalling to mates, mimicking something defended, or simply not conspicuous to the eyes that matter.
Published by: University press journalsPublished in a university press journal.
Checked against Crossref 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 2026-09-03.