Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes eyespots effective antipredator signals

Stevens, Martin; Hardman, Chloe J.; Stubbins, Claire L.

Behavioral Ecology, 2008

Peer-reviewedfield experimentwild

Presented artificial prey to wild birds carrying marks that varied independently in how eye-like they were and in how conspicuous they were — including circular eye-like marks, equally conspicuous bars and squares, and less conspicuous versions of each — and scored survival.

Studied in
Aves, Lepidoptera
Sample size
artificial prey targets exposed to wild bird predation

Survival was predicted by conspicuousness rather than by resemblance to eyes. Highly conspicuous non-circular marks protected prey as well as eye-like circles of equivalent conspicuousness.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Eyespots deter predators because they are highly conspicuous signals, not because they resemble the eyes of a larger animal.

How NatureHQ reads it

The experiment that separated two explanations which a century of observation had left tangled. It is the clearest case in this corpus of an intuitively appealing hypothesis being tested against its rival and losing — and the design is simple enough that the delay in running it is the surprising part.

  • Artificial prey with abstract marks rather than real butterflies, so how far it explains any particular species is untested.
  • Avian predators in one region; a mammal or reptile might respond differently.
  • It does not exclude eye mimicry mattering in some specific cases, only that conspicuousness accounts for the general effect.
  • Circles, bars and squares

    Do eyespots deter birds because they look like eyes, or because they are simply very hard to ignore?

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: University press journalsPublished in a university press journal.

doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arm162

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.