Denk-Übungen in Sachen Mimikry. Warum gibt es Nachahmung in der Natur?

Wickler, Wolfgang

doi:10.1002/biuz.200610403

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…His chapter in the book on the evolution of organisms (Heberer, 1967: ‘Evolution der Organismen’)‚ ‘Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung und Phylogenetik’ (later published as a separate book), provided the best survey of the ethological literature of its time and stressed the importance of separating homologous and convergent similarities. Similarly, although of much wider reception, his book on Mimikry (1968) was a superb survey and ordering of a wide field of phenomena. Not enough with these books, he additionally wrote 93 book chapters covering many different aspects of ethology and its impact on neighbouring fields.…”

Section: Services To Science and The Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obituary: Professor Wolfgang Wickler (November 18, 1931– January 12, 2024)

Trillmich,

Arnold

2024

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Services To Science and The Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obituary: Professor Wolfgang Wickler (November 18, 1931– January 12, 2024)

Trillmich,

Arnold

2024

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Von Bedeutung für die Produktion von Ähnlichkeit ist die Erkenntnis der Mimikryforschung, Mimikry als einen Prozess zu verstehen, der zwischen einem Vorbild, einer Nachahmerin und einer Signalempfängerin abläuft (Wickler, 1968). Es handelt sich also um eine Triade, auf deren Bedeutung für das Soziale schon Simmel (2015Simmel ( [1908) aufmerksam macht.…”

Section: Verwechslungunclassified

Liminale Kreativität

Hondros¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neue Produkte herzustellen, die bereits existierenden bis zur Verwechslung ähneln, verlangt von Kreativen den paradoxen Spagat zwischen Neuheit und Bekanntheit auf die Spitze zu treiben. Gerade Auftragszusammenhänge der Kreativwirtschaft können die Produktion ähnlicher Artefakte einfordern und dem Wunsch nach Einzigartigkeit widersprechen, der Gegenwartsgesellschaften angeblich auszeichnet. Diese bewerten das Besondere, das Werk als kreativ und stellen ihm Kopien oder Plagiate gegenüber, die als unkreativ gelten. Die Analyse intentionaler Produktionen von Ähnlichkeit öffnet hier den Blick auf die vielfältige und von Unsicherheiten geprägte liminale Kreativität der Versionen. Fallbeispiele der Herstellung von Soundalikes zeigen anhand von Beobachtungen, Interviews und Gerichtsfällen, wie ästhetische, rechtliche, wissenschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Grenzziehungen musikalisches Versionieren anleiten. Kreative nutzen Kombinationen kleinster Transformationen, um Musikprodukte einer Referenz anzunähern und von ihr zu entfernen, und produzieren dabei Artefakte im Graubereich zwischen Werk und Plagiat.

show abstract

Understanding Mimicry – with Special Reference to Vocal Mimicry

Wickler

2013

Ethology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term mimicry was introduced to biology in 1862 by Henry Walter Bates in his evolutionary explanation of deceptive communication in nature, based on a three‐part interaction system of a mimicked organism or object (called model), a mimicking organism (called mimic), and one or more organisms as selecting agents. Bates gave two incongruous definitions of mimicry: one from the viewpoint of a natural agent that selects for, and in consequence is deceived by, the close resemblance of a toxic model's warning signal and the similar appearance of a palatable mimic, and another one from the viewpoint of a human taxonomist who under an evolutionary aspect focuses on convergent resemblance between model and mimic. Later definitions of Müllerian (F. Müller), arithmetic (A. Wallace) and social (M. Moynihan) mimicry abolish deception in the natural selecting agent, rely on the convergence criterion alone, fuse the roles of model and mimic but have to accept a mix of homologous and convergent resemblance amongst them for a functional explanation. The definition of vocal mimicry (E. Armstrong) refers to a learned resemblance between mimic and heterospecific model by character duplication (no convergence), so far without known (deceived or not deceived) natural selecting agents. It excludes Batesian vocal mimicry. The functional ethological understanding of mimicry as a tripartite communication system (W. Wickler) is consistent with Bates' concept and accepts deception as key element of Batesian mimicry beyond homologous and convergent resemblances. Deception is seen as caused by the divergence between a sign and its meaning for the natural selecting agent. This understanding covers mimicry in all behaviour domains, provides a generally applicable definition of mimic and model so far missing in any mimicry concept, and it distinguishes – still in line with Henry Bates – cultural from genetically determined model‐mimic‐resemblance; this applies to vocal mimicry in particular. Convergently evolved model‐mimic‐resemblance, not essential in Batesian mimicry but mandatory for its alternatives, marks a fundamental distinction between Batesian mimicry (including Mimesis) and all other conceptualized mimicries and accounts for the non‐existence of a unified meaning of the term mimicry. However, character convergence does not help to explain the mere existence of mimicry phenomena and is irrelevant for their permanence in nature. I therefore propose to remove the convergence argument from any mimicry definition.

show abstract

Denk-Übungen in Sachen Mimikry. Warum gibt es Nachahmung in der Natur?

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Obituary: Professor Wolfgang Wickler (November 18, 1931– January 12, 2024)

Obituary: Professor Wolfgang Wickler (November 18, 1931– January 12, 2024)

Liminale Kreativität

Understanding Mimicry – with Special Reference to Vocal Mimicry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About