If aposematic prey are capable of surviving attacks by predators, then this represents a potential defensive benefit of aposematism over crypsis. Many insects experience high rates of predation in the wild, and because of this, species have evolved a range of defensive strategies to avoid detection

and/or deter predators when encountered (Poulton, 1890; Cott, 1940). One way that insects avoid detection is by adopting colour patterns that resemble their backgrounds (Endler, 1984). Another (potentially complementary, see Fraser et al., 2007) strategy is disruptive coloration (Cott, 1940; Cuthill et al., 2005). Disruptively patterned individuals employ contrasting markings to break up their outlines, for instance, this website by bisecting their Selleck Ganetespib bodies with dark lines or breaking up their edges with irregular blotches, thereby hindering recognition (Merilaita & Lind, 2005; Stevens & Merilaita, 2009). Note that the two above camouflage mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and both may be present in a single-prey individual (Endler, 1984; Merilaita & Lind, 2005). Nevertheless, not all insects have evolved camouflage as a response to predation. Many insects, including many species of Lepidoptera (Nishida, 2002; Mappes, Marples & Endler, 2005), are aposematic. Aposematism is a defensive

strategy in which characteristics that render prey unprofitable to attack (for instance, stings or toxins) are coupled with conspicuous colour patterns (Poulton, 1890). Predators that attack

aposematic individuals soon learn to avoid similar-looking prey due to unpleasant or painful secondary defences such as defensive chemicals (Mappes et al., 2005). However, developing chemical defences can be costly (Nishida, 2002; Mappes et al., 2005), and high levels of conspicuousness can potentially Histone demethylase lead to aposematic prey experiencing higher attack rates than cryptic prey, especially at low population densities and in the presence of naïve predators (Lindstrom et al., 2001; Ruxton, Speed & Broom, 2009; Marples & Mappes, 2011). Avian predators are often considered the model receivers when quantifying predation on cryptic and aposematic prey because they are common predators of insects and because they are primarily visual predators, which respond to the colour-based cues involved in both defensive strategies (Endler, 1978, 1981; Cuthill et al., 2005). Many studies have separately quantified the effectiveness of either crypsis or aposematism in reducing predation by wild avian predators (Speed et al., 2000; Cuthill et al., 2005; Stevens et al., 2006; Skelhorn & Rowe, 2009, 2010), and there is some evidence from captive predation studies that aposematic prey experience lower predation rates than cryptic prey (Alatalo & Mappes, 1996), even when both prey types are chemically defended (Sillen-Tullberg, 1985; Halpin, Skelhorn & Rowe, 2008).