Past exam of the zoology course of the University of Cambridge / 2025 / Paper zl3 / 1

The strength of conflicting interests, opportunities for exploitation and receiver defences matter more than the species boundary itself. Many striking examples occur between species, where shared descent usually supplies little inclusive fitness restraint. However, competition for mates and resources also creates substantial conflict within a species, including between relatives. The available examples do not establish a universal numerical ranking of the two settings.

A useful distinction is between deceptive signalling and the broader category of behavioural manipulation. A deceptive display exploits a receiver response in a context in which that response no longer provides the normally associated benefit. Manipulation also includes changing another organism's physiology or behaviour without conveying misleading information. Neither definition requires conscious lying or knowledge of another individual's beliefs. Ordinary persuasion is not a helpful biological criterion: the relevant comparison is between the reproductive success consequences for sender and receiver, relative to appropriate alternatives.

Between species, exploitation can borrow a response that is maintained for another reason. A predator can mimic an attractive prey cue; a parasite can exploit a host's provisioning or avoidance mechanism; and a plant can attract a pollinator without providing the expected reward. Such interactions can favour sensory exploitation and aggressive mimicry. Receiver resistance is selected when the losses outweigh its costs, but resistance need not eliminate deception. Rejecting a genuine mate or ignoring a real predator can be more costly than occasionally accepting a false signal.

In fork-tailed drongos, observations and playback experiments showed that false alarm calls can make other foragers abandon food, which the drongo steals. Receivers habituated to repeated alarms, while switching among alarm types, including mimicked calls, helped sustain responses. This demonstrates both an exploiter benefit and a receiver counterresponse. It does not require an inference that drongos attribute beliefs to their victims.^[ref]

A different mechanism occurs in the orchid Ophrys sphegodes. Chemical analyses and behavioural tests implicated a floral blend matching components of female Andrena nigroaenea sex pheromone in attracting males that transfer pollen during attempted mating. Here deception exploits a reproductive response maintained in the pollinator's own species, rather than a communication system jointly serving orchid and bee. The orchid example demonstrates a specific mechanism, not the frequency of deception across all pollination systems.^[ref]

Behavioural manipulation can go beyond signals. In experimental comparisons, Toxoplasma gondii-infected rats showed altered responses to cat-associated odours, sometimes approaching locations avoided by uninfected rats. This is consistent with a transmission-enhancing effect because felids are the parasite's definitive hosts. However, an odour preference assay does not itself demonstrate increased predation by cats, greater parasite transmission, or that every infection-associated behavioural change is an adaptation. Illness, host defence and collateral pathology remain alternative explanations requiring separate tests.^[ref]

Within species, common ancestry does not imply identical interests. A mating partner may benefit from extra copulations that impose costs on the other partner; competitors may benefit by concealing food or exaggerating fighting ability; offspring may demand more care than maximizes parental lifetime reproductive success. Kin selection weakens some conflicts because harming a relative can also reduce an actor's inclusive fitness, but it does not generally remove them. For an unrelated rival, even that indirect cost may be absent.

Male topi provide a direct counterexample to the claim that deceptive communication is mainly possible across species. Field observations and playback work associated false alarm snorts with retaining receptive females within male territories and obtaining mating opportunities. Alarm responsiveness remains useful to females when a predator really is present, allowing a sexual conflict to exploit an otherwise protective response. The relevant opposition is male versus female mating interests, despite their membership of the same species.^[ref]

There are also reasons why repeated interactions can restrain exploitation in either setting. A receiver can learn, recognize individuals, stop responding, abandon a partner, or impose a cost on it. In many mutualisms, both parties gain from preserving the association, even though each would benefit from obtaining more while supplying less. Conversely, within-species relatedness need not be high, and a short-lived encounter may give little opportunity for retaliation. Thus “between species” is an imperfect proxy for the underlying distribution of benefits, costs, encounter rates and alternatives.

To establish comparative prevalence, one would need a denominator: deceptive acts per interaction, the fraction of signal types exploited, the proportion of individuals using manipulation, or the number of independent evolutionary origins. Those measures can rank systems differently. Sampling would also need to control for observation effort, interaction frequency, detection probability and phylogenetic nonindependence. A concealed false signal can be harder to identify than an obvious parasite-induced change; spectacular cases attract disproportionate study.

The defensible prediction is conditional. Exploitation should be favoured where it increases the actor's reproductive success, the receiver's defences are ineffective or costly, and countervailing relatedness or future-interaction costs are small. Interspecific antagonism often meets these conditions, but so do some intraspecific sexual and competitive interactions. A comparative answer should therefore explain those conditions and acknowledge that the examples alone cannot settle a universal prevalence claim.