ライフサイエンスコーパス: aposematic

1 hypothesis that coloration in this group is aposematic.

2 ining plants often sequester the toxins, are aposematic, and possess several physiological adaptation

3 e frogs generally have been considered to be aposematic, but relatively little research has been carr

4 unprofitability to predators via conspicuous aposematic coloration [1].

5 evidence for directional sexual selection on aposematic coloration and document sexual dimorphism in

6 The conditions favoring the evolution of aposematic coloration remain largely unidentified.

7 mimicry [4, 5] (where species share the same aposematic coloration), and consequently this cognitive

8 Aposematic coloration, or warning coloration, is a visua

9 in the initial evolution and persistence of aposematic coloration.

10 We argue in this paper that the evolution of aposematic displays is therefore often best understood w

11 mstances there is an infinite array of these aposematic ESSs, where the precise appearance is unimpor

12 election should not be ignored in studies of aposematic evolution.

13 a has been experimentally demonstrated to be aposematic, forewarning of the animal's cyanide-based to

14 read of aposematism required fixation of the aposematic form in one or more isolated sub-habitats pri

15 ouring sink habitats is then repeated as the aposematic form spreads via a moving cline.

16 We observed that changes in frequency of new aposematic forms within source habitats are likely to be

17 oups of primitively cryptic and more derived aposematic frogs.

18 voided; simultaneously, the addition of more aposematic individuals enhances the overall warning effe

19 omic affiliation, were more likely to evolve aposematic larvae than were lineages feeding only on tre

20 cal specialization facilitated the origin of aposematic larvae.

21 the signal environment and the evolution of aposematic larvae.

22 ere are at least four independent origins of aposematic larval coloration within Papilio.

23 t the evolution of mimicry in the absence of aposematic models or third party participants remains po

24 (ii) avoidance-learning inducers, and (iii) aposematic odorant cues.

25 ew mutation will produce an entire family of aposematic offspring, thereby providing an immediate fit

26 Most aposematic poison frogs are ant specialists, from which

27 tion tends to reduce the probability that an aposematic prey can increase from rarity and spread acro

28 The predator has the choice of including an aposematic prey in its diet or to forage on alternative

29 First, aposematic prey tend to decline in frequency as they mig

30 rved another function and was co-opted as an aposematic signal later in the diversification of the ge

31 In this article, the authors describe how an aposematic signal, the rattling sound of rattlesnakes (C

32 siveness does not always necessarily trigger aposematic signalling, and highly toxic prey can still b

33 Here, we demonstrate that aposematic signals are shaped by sexual selection as wel

34 Although aposematic signals have long been upheld as exemplars of

35 Aposematic signals that warn predators of the noxious qu

36 ator avoidance tactics demonstrate different aposematic solutions for two potentially costly signal c

37 does not however properly consider that many aposematic species (such as members of the hymenoptera,

38 Polymorphic warning signals in aposematic species are enigmatic because predator learni

39 We found that aposematic species have greater aerobic capacity, also r

40 micking the appearance of a heavily defended aposematic species, members of a second species gain pro

41 The phylogenetic distribution of the aposematic syndrome suggests two scenarios for its evolu

42 molecular phylogenetic analyses using mostly aposematic taxa supported this conclusion and proposed a

43 -based toxins, these results are contrary to aposematic theory and empirical evidence that a warning

44 To characterize the aposematic trait network more fully, we analyzed phyloge

45 Explaining the evolution and spread of aposematic traits in previously cryptic species has been

46 he prevailing force driving the evolution of aposematic traits.