The key difference from the LMR hypothesis is that, because mimicry is the source of frequency dependence, there is no equivalent frequency-dependent advantage for heteromorphs when they

are rare – they are assumed always to be readily identifiable as mates. Instead, the MM hypothesis assumes that there is some frequency-independent cost borne by the andromorphs: either they are more likely to be attacked by predators than heteromorphs because they are less cryptic (Robertson, 1985), or they are more likely than heteromorphs to be encountered by males, because they are more conspicuous or behave more like males (Sherratt, 2001). Several studies have found evidence that appears

to support the MM hypothesis (Sirot et al., 2003; Rivera & Sánchez-Guillén, 2007; Hammers click here & Van Gossum, 2008; Van Gossum et al., 2011), but in some cases, the reported data are also consistent with the LMR hypothesis (Ting et al., 2009). Hence, the need for predictions that are unique to one or the other hypothesis, and experimental studies, which can test those predictions, has been highlighted (Sherratt, 2001; Van Gossum & Sherratt, 2008). Because LMR is based on males learning to recognize the common female morph as a mate, this morph should always receive a higher number of mating attempts. In contrast, this website the MM hypothesis does not predict that the common morph will always receive more mating attempts, but instead, it predicts (uniquely) that andromorphs should be less harassed when they are rare relative to males, and hence that under equilibrium conditions andromorphs should be relatively more common in populations where the sex

see more ratio is male biased (Sherratt, 2001; Van Gossum & Sherratt, 2008). Although both of these predictions have some empirical support (Hinnekint, 1987; Cordero, 1992; Forbes, Richarson & Baker, 1995; Hammers & Van Gossum, 2008), the problem with testing them in real populations is that female morph frequency may correlate with sex ratio in the wild (e.g. Hammers & Van Gossum, 2008), making it difficult to disentangle cause and effect. A more fruitful line of enquiry may be to examine male behaviour in more detail. There are two studies where andromorph females have been observed to behave similarly to males, and males have responded to them as if they were other males, suggesting that they might actually be fooled by andromorphs (Andrés, Sánchez-Guillén & Cordero-Rivera, 2002; Sirot et al., 2003).