Darwin’s Hawkmoth ( Xanthopan praedicta ) responds to bat ultrasound at sonar‐jamming rates

Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics

Echolocating bats and their eared insect prey are in an acoustic evolutionary war. Moths produce anti-bat sounds that startle bat predators, signal noxiousness, mimic unpalatable models and jam bat sonar. Tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) also purportedly produce ultrasound in response to bat attacks. Here we tested 19 tiger beetle species from seven genera and showed that they produce anti-bat signals to playback of authentic bat echolocation. The dominant frequency of beetle sounds substantially overlaps the sonar calls of sympatric bats. As tiger beetles are known to produce defensive chemicals such as benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, we hypothesized that tiger beetle sounds are acoustically advertising their unpalatability. We presented captive big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) with seven different tiger beetle species and found that 90 out of 94 beetles were completely consumed, indicating that these tiger beetle species are not aposematically signalling. Instead, we show that the primary temporal and spectral characteristics of beetle warning sounds overlap with sympatric unpalatable tiger moth (Arctinae) sounds and that tiger beetles are probably Batesian mimics of noxious moth models. We predict that many insect taxa produce anti-bat sounds and that the acoustic mimicry rings of the night sky are hyperdiverse.

A framework for understanding post-detection deception in predator-prey interactions

Predators and prey exist in persistent conflict that often hinges on deception-the transmission of misleading or manipulative signals-as a means for survival. Deceptive traits are widespread across taxa and sensory systems, representing an evolutionarily successful and common strategy. Moreover, the highly conserved nature of the major sensory systems often extends these traits past single species predator-prey interactions toward a broader set of perceivers. As such, deceptive traits can provide a unique window into the capabilities, constraints and commonalities across divergent and phylogenetically-related perceivers. Researchers have studied deceptive traits for centuries, but a unified framework for categorizing different types of post-detection deception in predator-prey conflict still holds potential to inform future research. We suggest that deceptive traits can be distinguished by their effect on object formation processes. Perceptual objects are composed of physical attributes (what) and spatial (where) information. Deceptive traits that operate after object formation can therefore influence the perception and processing of either or both of these axes. We build upon previous work using a perceiver perspective approach to delineate deceptive traits by whether they closely match the sensory information of another object or create a discrepancy between perception and reality by exploiting the sensory shortcuts and perceptual biases of their perceiver. We then further divide this second category, sensory illusions, into traits that distort object characteristics along either the what or where axes, and those that create the perception of whole novel objects, integrating the what/where axes. Using predator-prey examples, we detail each step in this framework and propose future avenues for research. We suggest that this framework will help organize the many forms of deceptive traits and help generate predictions about selective forces that have driven animal form and behavior across evolutionary time.