For us as scientists, it might be pleasing when we can indicate a mimic’s model with taxonomic precision. When we consider the anglerfish and the caudal-luring snakes, we can say the aggressive mimic’s model was the prey of the aggressive mimic’s prey, but without specifying

any particular species. It might be tempting to say that the three femmes fatales we considered are more precise aggressive mimics than the anglerfish and the snakes because the models used by each femmes fatale are the signals that are used by a particular prey species during male–female AZD1208 order interactions (female moths of particular species when the mimic was a bolas spider, male Euryattus when the mimic was Portia fimbriata and a mature, receptive female Portia AZD1152-HQPA purchase labiata when the mimic was a subadult female P. labiata). However, if our goal is to understand why aggressive mimicry works, it is the prey’s own classification system that matters, not formal scientific taxonomy. Curio (1976) used the expression ‘predatory versatility’ for predators that deploy a conditional predatory strategy consisting of distinctly different prey-specific prey-capture tactics, with each of these tactics being used for distinctly different prey. In turn, a predator’s repertoire of different prey-capture tactics reveals a predator’s own prey-classification schemes. Aggressive mimics may be especially predisposed

to predatory versatility and it is with Portia that we find the most pronounced expression of predatory versatility known for spiders and among the most pronounced for any predators. Predatory versatility in Portia illustrates, in a striking way, the importance of being clear about the classification system referred to when the labels ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ are applied to predators. In community ecology, the intended meaning is that a generalist’s diet is wide and a specialist’s is narrow,

although euryphagous and stenophagous are actually more appropriate words for this distinction. Spiders, in general, are often characterized as being primarily euryphagous predators (Wise, 1993), with the underlying notion being that they tend to feed rather indiscriminately on Erastin molecular weight a wide variety of insects and other arthropods, including other spiders. As Portia’s natural diet is dominated by spiders, it might be tempting to label Portia as stenophagous, and perhaps this is useful in the context of community ecology. However, it is Portia’s own prey-classification scheme that pertains to how Portia experiences its prey (Jackson & Wilcox, 1998; Harland & Jackson, 2004). Portia assigns prey to more distinct categories than is known for any other spider and, in the animal kingdom as a whole, there are few predators known to have behaviour specific to as many different prey categories as is known for Portia. When we consider how predators categorize prey, ‘euryphagy’, not ‘stenophagy’, is the appropriate label for Portia.