These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15615689)
1. Automimicry destabilizes aposematism: predator sample-and-reject behaviour may provide a solution. Gamberale-Stille G; Guilford T Proc Biol Sci; 2004 Dec; 271(1557):2621-5. PubMed ID: 15615689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence. Skelhorn J; Rowe C Biol Lett; 2006 Sep; 2(3):348-50. PubMed ID: 17148400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Conditions for the spread of conspicuous warning signals: a numerical model with novel insights. Puurtinen M; Kaitala V Evolution; 2006 Nov; 60(11):2246-56. PubMed ID: 17236418 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Perspective: the evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical. Marples NM; Kelly DJ; Thomas RJ Evolution; 2005 May; 59(5):933-40. PubMed ID: 16136793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of predator learning, forgetting, and recognition errors on the evolution of warning coloration. Servedio MR Evolution; 2000 Jun; 54(3):751-63. PubMed ID: 10937250 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How can automimicry persist when predators can preferentially consume undefended mimics? Ruxton GD; Speed MP Proc Biol Sci; 2006 Feb; 273(1584):373-8. PubMed ID: 16543181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Gamberale G; Tullberg BS Proc Biol Sci; 1996 Oct; 263(1375):1329-34. PubMed ID: 8914330 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Skelhorn J; Rowe C Proc Biol Sci; 2005 Feb; 272(1560):339-45. PubMed ID: 15705561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Rowe C; Lindström L; Lyytinen A Proc Biol Sci; 2004 Feb; 271(1537):407-13. PubMed ID: 15101700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Social transmission of avoidance among predators facilitates the spread of novel prey. Thorogood R; Kokko H; Mappes J Nat Ecol Evol; 2018 Feb; 2(2):254-261. PubMed ID: 29255302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diversity in warning coloration: selective paradox or the norm? Briolat ES; Burdfield-Steel ER; Paul SC; Rönkä KH; Seymoure BM; Stankowich T; Stuckert AMM Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2019 Apr; 94(2):388-414. PubMed ID: 30152037 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey. Skelhorn J; Rowe C Biol Lett; 2005 Dec; 1(4):500-3. PubMed ID: 17148243 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The model of early evolution of aposematic coloration]. Grabovskiĭ VI Zh Obshch Biol; 2012; 73(1):37-48. PubMed ID: 22567966 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Aposematic signals and the relationship between conspicuousness and distinctiveness. Merilaita S; Ruxton GD J Theor Biol; 2007 Mar; 245(2):268-77. PubMed ID: 17157321 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. Lindström L; Alatalo RV; Lyytinen A; Mappes J Evolution; 2004 Jun; 58(6):1294-302. PubMed ID: 15266978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Endler JA; Mappes J Am Nat; 2004 Apr; 163(4):532-47. PubMed ID: 15122501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation. Skelhorn J; Ruxton GD Biol Lett; 2006 Dec; 2(4):488-90. PubMed ID: 17148269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]