ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2008, 76, 521e528
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.04.012

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

REVIEWS
Vocal mimicry in songbirds
LAURA A. K ELLEY* , REBECCA L. COE* , JOAH R. MA DDEN † & SUSA N D. H EALY **Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh
ySchool of Psychology, University of Exeter(Received 23 September 2006; initial acceptance 13 November 2006;
ﬁnal acceptance 9 April 2008; published online 13 June 2008; MS. number: RV-68R)

Baylis (1982, Acoustic Communication in Birds, Academic Press) decried the serious lack of experimental veriﬁcation for the various hypotheses proposed to explain vocal mimicry in songbirds. With few exceptions,
our understanding of the function and acquisition of this fascinating behaviour seems to have scarcely
progressed. We examine the proposed functional explanations and supporting evidence, and summarize
advances made since Baylis’s (1982) review. We conclude that there is no compelling evidence to support
any of the functional hypotheses but, rather, that almost all of the data concerning song mimicry are consistent with the learning mistakes hypothesis, whereby birds learn simple and common sounds, frequently
using them in inappropriate contexts. Additionally, many apparently mimicked sounds are calls, notsongs, which themselves may not be learned by the models. It is plausible that many examples of callmimicry are, in fact, due to evolutionary convergence.
Ó 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: call convergence; learning; song; songbird; vocalization; vocal mimicry

Vocal learning may be broadly split into two categories:
copying of conspeciﬁcs and copying of heterospeciﬁcs orother sounds. In this review we focus on vocal mimicry, thecopying of the vocalizations of another species or anenvironmental sound, speciﬁcally in songbirds, the mostwidely documented group. Twenty-six years ago, Baylis(1982) wrote an extensive review of vocal mimicry in songbirds, outlining possible functional explanations. It
seemed likely then that there might be more than one
such explanation for the existence of vocal mimicry but
there were too few appropriate data to be sure. The purposeof this review is to revisit those functional explanations inlight of the data that have been produced since 1982.
Functional explanations for vocal mimicry are inherently attractive given the complexity and accuracy ofsome of the mimicry. Additionally, there are many
anecdotes in which birds are described as having used
mimicry in a seemingly appropriate context. For example,
egg collectors at nests of great bowerbirds, Chlamydera
Correspondence: L. A. Kelley, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, U.K. (email: l.a.kelly@sms.ed.
ac.uk). J. R. Madden is at the School of Psychology, University of Exeter,
Exeter EX4 4QJ, U.K.
0003e 3472/08/$34.00/0

nuchalis, have reported hearing mimicry of cats, dogs
and whistling kites, Haliastur sphenurus (a local raptor species) and this has been interpreted as an attempt by thenesting female to intimidate the approaching human(Frith & Frith 2004). However, as we will show, such interpretations do not explain the mimicry of other sounds
and their use in other contexts by great bowerbirds oralmost all other songbird mimicry.
Throughout this review we focus entirely on data published subsequent to Baylis’s (1982) review, as in that review
no consensus as to the importance of one functional explanation over another was reached. These data involve fewer
species than the data in a recent comparative review by Garamszegi et al. (2007) but are geographically more widespread, and the detail allows us to examine mimetic
structure and the context in which mimicry is used.
We think it helpful to distinguish between calls andsongs, although the distinction is somewhat arbitrary andthere is no universal deﬁnition in the literature (Spector
1994). Here, we deﬁne calls as being simple, short, andproduced by both males and females throughout theyear in particular contexts, for example alarm, threatand so on (Catchpole & Slater 1995). Importantly, it isusually considered that they are not learned (although521
Ó 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

522

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 76, 3

see Vicario et al. 2002) and that a brain pathway (with nuclei located in the midbrain) different from that involved
in song is used in their production (Seller 1981). We deﬁnesongs as, typically, long, complex, and largely produced bymales for reproductive and territorial purposes (Marler
2004). They are usually learned either in early juvenile development or, in some cases, acquired throughout the
bird’s lifetime and a complex of brain nuclei in the forebrain is involved in learning and production.
Another distinction is that between mimicry via learning and mimicry caused by convergence over generations,as the processes involved in sound acquisition are entirely
different. True vocal mimicry is typically considered to be
the acquisition of sounds within an individual’s lifetime,and, as such, must be learned. The learning mechanisms
involved in mimicry are not the focus of this review,
although they may show signiﬁcant similarities to thoseseen in song learning (Beecher & Brenowitz 2005). In contrast to true vocal mimicry, there is another process bywhich birds arrive at sounds that are very like the vocalizations of heterospeciﬁcs. Evolutionary convergence islikely to be seen between closely related species or result
from the occurrence of similar selection pressures, wherea common form of vocalization is favoured. This process
is the result of the genetic effects of selection accumulating over time and one in which learning plays no part.
There is a third instance of mimicry, often termed vocal
convergence or vocal matching, in which an individualchanges its vocalization to match that of another (see below). This type of matching is usually a response to conspeciﬁcs rather than to heterospeciﬁcs and is not theconvergence we describe above (Gahr 2000). As such, wehave not included instances of vocal matching amongconspeciﬁcs in this review.

FUNCTIONS OF HETEROSPECIFIC VOCAL MIMICRY
A number of possible functional explanations for vocal
mimicry have been suggested, which fall into two major
categories: (1) interspeciﬁc communication, for avoidanceof threats and/or competitors; and (2) intraspeciﬁc communication, either in a sexual context or for social
afﬁliation. Two common assumptions in all of thesehypotheses are that mimicry is a separate category ofsounds from calls and songs, and it is used in preference
over other sounds in speciﬁc contexts.

INTERSPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONThe Beau Geste Hypothesis
By singing many different types of (species-speciﬁc)song, an individual may give a false impression that many
individuals inhabit a territory and so deter potential
intruders. Krebs (1977) originally proposed this Beau
Geste hypothesis to explain the occurrence of large, species-speciﬁc song repertoires and Rechten (1978) suggested that it may apply to vocal mimicry, particularly
for territorial birds. By mimicking the vocalizations ofa wide range of heterospeciﬁcs, birds may reduce thechance that competitors for food or other resources enter
their territory, especially if these potential intruders arethemselves highly territorial and thus pay close attention
to vocal signals.
In the 1970s there was anecdotal evidence that somespecies incorporate heterospeciﬁc mimicry into theirterritorial advertisements, perhaps acting to deter heterospeciﬁc competitors (Curio 1978). Not only has there beenno subsequent support for the hypothesis in the context
of species-speciﬁc vocalizations (Yasukawa 1981; Dawson& Jenkins 1983; Haftorn 1995), it is also unclear why heterospeciﬁc song would be more effective at deterring potential competitors than conspeciﬁc song, unlesscompetitors pay attention to the number of different species heard in an area. Without evidence to support this hypothesis in either a species-speciﬁc or mimetic context,
this seems an unlikely explanation for the occurrence of
mimicry (MacDougall-Shackleton 1998).
The Beau Geste hypothesis also does not explain theoccurrence of species (usually closely related) including
sounds like those of heterospeciﬁcs in their own songs,
seemingly so as to reduce aggression over territory boundaries (Baptista & Catchpole 1989). For example, great tits,
Parus major, may include blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, songs(which sound signiﬁcantly different) in their own vocalizations (Gorissen et al. 2006). There are at least two possible explanations for this kind of mimicry: ﬁrst, because ofcompetition for resources, mimicry has arisen so as tolower interspeciﬁc aggression, an idea that is similar to vocal matching of group members seen in parrots (Wrightet al. 2005). Alternatively, it could be that great tits, because they interact so frequently with blue tits, mistakenly
learn blue tit song. Discrimination between these twowould be possible if the use of heterospeciﬁc mimicryleads to a reduction in aggressive interactions with theseheterospeciﬁcs. Other instances seem best explained bycopying of an inappropriate tutor as occurs when individuals are isolated or when allopatric species occasionallyoverlap (Helb et al. 1985).

Batesian Acoustic Mimicry
Dobkin (1979) suggested that mimics may deter competitors or potential predators by copying the vocalizations of animals that are predatory or agonistic, ina manner akin to that of a palatable species attempting
to avoid predation by visually resembling a noxious species (Bates 1862). Competitor species may perceive a threat
from an apparent predator, avoid entering the territory of
the mimic, and thus not compete for resources. The intended audience may also include potential predatorsthat are deterred from attacking the mimic by the threatof encountering another predator (Vernon 1973; Dobkin1979), or are perhaps confused as to the identity of their
proposed prey by the conﬂicting acoustic signals comingfrom the mimic (Harcus 1977; Curio 1978). We consider
that the identiﬁcation of mimicry of predators with Batesian mimicry in the coloration pattern context has caused
some unnecessary confusion in that visual mimicry comes
about through evolutionary convergence and not

REVIEW

learning. None the less, the predictions are that vocal
mimics should learn predator vocalizations and then use
those sounds in response to the presence of a predator
or a competitor.
There have been no compelling experimental datacollected in the past 26 years that support or refute
this hypothesis. One possible example comes from theAustralian magpie, Gymnorhina tibicen, which mimics potential nest predators, the barking owl, Ninox connivens,and the boobook owl, Ninox novaeseelandiae (Kaplan
1999). However, not only are there no data on the context in which these sounds are used, but, given the diversity of sounds that magpies mimic, it would seem that
Batesian mimicry is not the most parsimonious explanation for the mimicry of these two owls. Australian magpies can have a considerable mimetic repertoire, a verysmall proportion of which is mimicry of predatory species (other mimicry includes rosellas, Platycercus spp. lapwings, Vanellus spp. lyrebirds, Menura spp.). Callconvergence in this species might be ruled out if there
is considerable between-individual variation in repertoire
content. However, if they learn these sounds from conspeciﬁcs (not yet known) they would be not considered
to be true vocal mimics (copying from heterospeciﬁcs
or the environment).
Another Australian species that mimics aggressive or
predatory species is the spotted bowerbird, Chlamydera
maculata (Coe 2005). However, as mimicry is commonly
produced in bouts along with nonpredatory models suchas grey-crowned babblers, Pomatostomus temporalis, andyellow-throated miners, Manorina ﬂavigula, it seems unlikely that the mimicry would be an effective deterrent
for potential predators. Additionally, although one might
expect this kind of deterrent to be effective only when the
mimic is hidden from view, spotted bowerbirds frequently
vocalize (including mimicry of predators) from conspicuous perches.
Experimental manipulations demonstrating that signallers give mimetic calls of predators or agonistic
species when their territory, nest or safety is threatened,
and that receivers respond to mimicry as if to vocalizations by a genuine predator, would provide compelling
evidence that mimicry is used as an acoustic aposematic
signal (i.e. appropriate response to a speciﬁc context). In
an apparent experimental test of the Batesian mimicry
hypothesis, burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, hisses(claimed to be mimicry of rattlesnake rattles) wereplayed to ground squirrels, Spermophilus beecheyi, eliciting more avoidance behaviour from ground squirrels
sympatric with rattlesnakes than from rattlesnake-na€ıve
ground squirrels (Rowe et al. 1986). Playback of rattlesnake noise elicited a stronger response from the groundsquirrels than did the owl hiss, but it is not clear
whether the owls naturally use this hiss in a defensive
response to rattlesnakes, a potential nest predator, or
whether it functions to deter ground squirrels fromcompeting for nest burrows. Importantly, this is not vocal mimicry as the hisses are not learned; rather, it appears that the hisses are a modiﬁed juvenile begging
call and are the result of call convergence (Owings
et al. 2002).

In our view, then, while there is a possibility theBatesian mimicry hypothesis may explain some of thecomponents of the mimetic repertoire of some species, formost species’ mimicry this is an implausible hypothesis. It
is also clear how very few quantitative data exist that
document the natural context in which mimicry is used.

Attracting a Third Species
Mimics might beneﬁt by inducing mobbing of theirown predators or competitors by individuals of one ormore other species. Alternatively, alarm calls, including
apparently mimetic ones, may attract a second predator,
possibly coming in search of injured prey, giving the callera chance to escape during the ensuing contest with theﬁrst predator (Curio 1978; Hogstedt 1983). While thismight explain the use by phainopeplas, Phainopepla nitens,of mimicry of heterospeciﬁc alarm calls when distressed(e.g. when captured in mist nets) as it can elicit mobbingby heterospeciﬁcs, it does not ﬁt with the stronger mobbing response evoked by playback of the phainopepla’s
own alarm calls (Chu 2001a, b). At the very least, thisseems an inefﬁcient use of mimicry. Eastern towhees, Pipilo erythrophthalmus, will also substitute their own alarm
calls with mimicry of heterospeciﬁc alarm calls when disturbed. It is not yet clear what beneﬁt is gained by doing
this as behavioural responses of heterospeciﬁcs and conspeciﬁcs were not investigated (Greenlaw et al. 1998).
Greater racket-tailed drongos, Dicrurus paradiseus, insert
calls thought to be mimicry of alarm calls of heterospeciﬁc
ﬂockmates alongside their own mobbing calls (Goodale &Kotagama 2006a). They also use apparently heterospeciﬁc
alarm calls in alarm situations, but this is done only as
they increase the number of their own alarm notes andnot all of the calls used are alarm calls. As phainopeplas
also include nonalarm calls in stressful situations alongside alarm calls, it is possible that this less-than-perfectmatching of context to the use of speciﬁc mimicry is
due to a lack of our understanding of the context. However, there is no evidence that the drongos preferentiallyuse heterospeciﬁc calls in alarm situations. There is also
no evidence, yet, that they learn these calls in spite ofthese calls being labelled as heterospeciﬁc mimicry. Unusually, however, drongos do mimic songs of heterospeciﬁcs although these are relatively uncommon and areused inappropriately, that is, in the same contexts as thealarm calls.
As drongos’ feeding efﬁciency is higher when they
forage within a ﬂock (comprising conspeciﬁcs and heterospeciﬁcs) than when foraging alone, Goodale & Kotagama(2006b) proposed that these birds use nonalarm mimetic
sounds to attract other birds to form ﬂocks. Indeed, playbacks of drongo nonalarm mimicry were more likely to attract other birds than were playbacks without mimicry
although the species attracted tended not be those species
being mimicked (Goodale & Kotagama 2006b). Until there
are substantive data on the context in which drongos
themselves produce nonalarm calls, these playback data,
while consistent with the attraction of a third species
hypothesis, do not demonstrate that the drongos use

523

524

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 76, 3

mimicry in a context-speciﬁc way, that is, only using
mimicry appropriate to a speciﬁc situation.

Facilitating Brood Parasitism
Brood parasites face discrimination by their hosts andare commonly rejected at the egg stage, driving theevolution of visually mimetic eggs (Davies 2000). Hosts
may also discriminate against brood parasite nestlings,
perhaps noting the differences in begging calls that theygive. To counter this, brood parasite nestlings might
have been selected to produce begging calls very like thoseof their host young. For example, nestling Horsﬁeld’sbronze-cuckoos, Chrysococcyx basalis, may be accepted bysuperb fairy-wrens Malurus cyaneus, which reject shining
bronze-cuckoo chicks, C. lucidus (Langmore et al. 2003).
Horsﬁeld’s bronze-cuckoo chicks have a similar begging
call to that of the superb fairy-wren chicks, both of which
differ from the begging call of shining bronze-cuckoo
chicks. The chicks of this latter species have a begging
call very like that of the chicks of their usual host, thethornbill, Acanthiza spp. (Langmore et al. 2003). Thismay be mimicry by direct copying, especially if the parasite is raised alongside host young, so gaining an opportunity for learning the host chicks’ begging calls (Redondo &Dereyna 1988). However, as this similarity in vocalization
has also been described for cuckoo species that eject thehost’s young and are raised alone, it is likely that this is
not vocal mimicry but call convergence (McLean &Waas 1987; Madden & Davies 2006).
Vocal mimicry has been demonstrated in another broodparasite, the village indigobird, Vidua chalybeata, which
parasitizes and mimics the songs of the red-billed ﬁreﬁnch, Lagonosticta senegala. Female indigobirds matewith males that mimic the song of their host species.
When indigobirds were experimentally foster-reared by
Bengalese ﬁnches, Lonchura striata, they developed songs
similar to those of their new foster parents, despite being
able to hear and see ﬁreﬁnches, their usual host (Payne
et al. 1998). Irrespective of host species, indigobird males
did not copy songs directly from their host parents (unlessisolated with them after ﬂedging) but from other adults ofthe foster species or other indigobirds mimicking the same
foster species. Learning host songs may occur in twostages: early life when the general features of host song
are learned from parents, and a later developmental period
when songs are learned from nonparents. This example
does appear to be one of learning and the implication isthat these mimicked songs are used to attract conspeciﬁc
females.
In summary, with the exception of some brood parasites, none of the functional explanations for mimicry in
an interspeciﬁc context has yet been strongly supported.
In all cases, it appears that the birds either do not produce
mimicry relevant to the appropriate context or, if they do,they are not very good at doing so. There is also nocompelling evidence to suggest that the models mimicked
are speciﬁcally chosen for later use in a particular context.
Finally, there is almost no evidence for learning of
vocalizations in any of these studies and thus no support
for vocal mimicry itself.

INTRASPECIFIC COMMUNICATION

Sexual Selection
A wide variety of models mimicked might be explainedby sexual selection, as mimetic vocalizations could provide an honest indicator of male quality (Zahavi 1975),with only the best males being able to learn and giveaccurate renditions of mimicry (Loffredo & Borgia 1986;
Nowicki et al. 2002). Alternatively, females might showa preference for novelty, which could be achieved bya male by incorporating heterospeciﬁc song into his display (ten Cate & Bateson 1988). However, if females
were interested only in repertoire size we would expect
high levels of improvization or invention.
The occurrence of mimetic sounds in the courtshipdisplays of several bowerbird species is consistent withmimicry playing a role in mate choice. For example,
a satin bowerbird, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus, male may include mimicry of up to ﬁve sympatric bird species alongside species-speciﬁc vocalizations in his courtshipdisplay. While older males tended to produce longer andhigher-quality bouts (of mimicry of laughing kookaburra,
Dacelo novaeguineae, calls, spectrograms assessed by eye)than did younger males, in only 1 of 2 years in whichmimicry was quantiﬁed did mimetic duration and quality
result in higher mating success (Loffredo & Borgia 1986).
More recently, and using a more sophisticated methodof assessing accuracy of mimicry (spectrographic cross correlation), male satin bowerbird mimetic accuracy of bothkookaburra and Lewin’s honeyeater, Meliphaga lewinii,
calls was correlated positively with mating success andaccuracy was correlated positively with repertoire size
(Coleman et al. 2007). However, these satin bowerbirds
mimicked only ﬁve species, two of which featured only
rarely in the vocal displays, suggesting that much potential for expanding repertoire was not being used. The possibility that satin bowerbird females prefer sounds that arephysically difﬁcult for males to produce (rather thana large repertoire) has not been investigated (as is thecase in canaries, Serinus canaria: Vallet & Kreutzer 1995).
There is some evidence that quality of mimicry iscorrelated with male age in the satin bowerbird (Loffredo& Borgia 1986), which might lead to female preference for
vocalizations that are complex and difﬁcult to mimic.
However, male satin bowerbirds mimic calls and notsongs, and the calls they mimic do not appear to be very
complex. There has been no explicit demonstration oflearning although this has been implied for the more distinctive sounds, such as the laughing kookaburra-likenoises that the bowerbirds produce. If these sounds arelearned, it is not clear whether they are learned from themodels or from conspeciﬁcs. Mimetic ability provides
an indicator of male age in superb lyrebirds, Menura novaehollandiae, as subadults produce less accurate mimicry
and have smaller repertoires than adults (Zann & Dunstan
2008). Although these data are consistent with mimicry
playing a role in mate choice, alternative hypotheses cannot be excluded without explicitly testing the relationshipbetween mating success and variation in mimetic quality
and/or repertoire size.

REVIEWIn the only other species for which there has been an
investigation into the relationship between mimicry andmating success, male black-browed reed warblers, Acrocephalus bistrigiceps, sing long, complex songs but do notachieve higher mating success (as measured by pairingdate) when the mimetic component (syllables rather
than whole songs) of their repertoire is higher (DowsettLemaire 1979; Hamao & Eda-Fujiwara 2004).
In sum, then, the only data supporting the sexual
selection hypothesis have come from bowerbirds andthese are not especially compelling as yet. To determinethat mimicry is preferentially used as a different andadditional cue in female choice, both learning of sounds
and speciﬁc beneﬁts to using mimicry in displays stillneed to be demonstrated.

Social Affiliation
The ability to match vocalizations of conspeciﬁcs forsocial cohesion has been reported in several species of birds
and is likely to be prevalent in the taxa that learn their
vocalizations (Hile et al. 2000; Vehrencamp et al. 2003;
Cortopassi & Bradbury 2006). Robinson (1991) suggested
that lyrebirds, Menura spp., might use vocal mimicry inthis kind of way, too, for maintaining contact in the dense
rainforest in which they live. However, the value of using
mimicry, rather than species-speciﬁc calls, to maintaincontact is unclear. It may be that certain types of songtransmit especially well in certain habitats and that it ismore cost effective to copy these from the environment
than it is to establish them as part of a species-speciﬁc repertoire. Structural adaptation for maximum transmissionin each particular habitat appears to be the most suitable
explanation for satin bowerbird vocalizations and, as Albert’s lyrebirds, Menura alberti, mimic the calls of local satinbowerbirds, they may also produce effectively transmitted
sounds (Nicholls & Goldizen 2006; Putland et al. 2006).
However, this fails to explain why the lyrebirds mimic
many more environmental sounds than just the most efﬁcient call type. Importantly, models do not respond to lyrebird mimicry and there are, as yet, no data on the responseby lyrebirds to mimicry produced by conspeciﬁcs.
LEARNING
In 26 years, then, almost no signiﬁcant evidence supporting any of the functional hypotheses for vocal mimicryhas been produced. Any of the data that do appear
somewhat consistent with the predictions of one hypothesis or another are not convincing even for the hypothesis
they have been invoked to support. And yet, the widespread existence and degree of accuracy of heterospeciﬁc
vocal copying surely needs some kind of explanation.
There is, however, one hypothesis that is consistent withalmost all of the instances of vocal mimicry in songbirds.
Hindmarsh (1984) suggested that, at least in the European starling, Sturnus vulgaris, avian vocal mimicry may
be a result of mistakes made during song learning andtherefore the mimicry serves no function. If mimicry is indeed a collection of sounds mistakenly picked up during

song learning (during imprinting in some cases), rather
than a result of speciﬁc context-dependent learning, we
would expect one or more of the following: (1) mimetic
repertoires to contain notes that are similar to the species-speciﬁc repertoire; (2) simple sounds to be mimicked
more often than expected by chance; (3) mimetic repertoires should contain sounds that are commonly heard;(4) mimicry is not always used in the appropriate context.
In one of the few studies to test the predictions of morethan one hypothesis, mimicry in robin chats, Cossypha
spp., is consistent with several predictions that comefrom the learning mistakes hypothesis: robin chats are
more likely to mimic simple songs and do not mimic signiﬁcantly more predators or competitors (Ferguson et al.
2002). There was no correlation between model prevalence in the acoustic environment and presence or absence in the mimetic repertoire: many species that werecommonly heard at study sites were never mimicked
and several mimicked models were never heard at thatsite. However, the mimetic repertoire of the black-browed
reed warbler (see above) does seem to be a reﬂection of thesounds of the common birds in its environment rather
than of any speciﬁc group of species (Hamao & EdaFujiwara 2004), as is that of the marsh warbler, Acrocephalus palustris (Dowsett-Lemaire 1979).
There is at least one prediction that follows from thelearning mistakes hypothesis that could readily be tested:
we would expect to hear mimicry often being used ininappropriate contexts. However, tests of the potential
predictions will have to wait until we know more about
what and how sounds are learned, and in what context.
For example, while it seems plausible that sounds that are
similar to species-speciﬁc vocalizations are more likely tobe learned in error than are dissimilar sounds, there is, asyet, little relevant evidence. The plausibility of such an
idea is enhanced by ﬁndings such as the learning by songsparrows, Melospiza melodia, of swamp sparrow, Melospiza
georgiana, songs if the swamp sparrow syntax is edited tohave a similar syntax to song sparrow conspeciﬁc songs(Marler & Peters 1988).
If mimicry is a result of making mistakes during songacquisition, then mimicry acquisition should be conﬁned
to the stages at which normal song learning occurs(Hindmarsh 1986). This should be relatively straightforward to examine in closed-ended learners. With a relatively limited window of opportunity, closed-ended
learners might also be expected to have small mimetic repertoires. Open-ended song learners, however, which modify their species-speciﬁc song repertoires after their ﬁrst
year of life, have greater opportunities to learn new
sounds and may, then, learn more heterospeciﬁc songsby mistake.
The mimicry of alarm calling or of vocalizations ofpredatory species might also be explained through mistaken learning. This is because learning about any particular individual, location, object or event is always affectedby the motivational state of the learner, which itself isaffected by stress. Although high acute stress (which itself
may be good or bad) may make it difﬁcult to recollectremembered information at the time, it is often correlatedwith good acquisition of information and long-term

525

526

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 76, 3

retention of that information (Rowe 2002). Hearing predators or alarm calls of other prey species is likely to increase stress levels acutely and may lead to enhanced
uptake of lots of information pertinent to that instance.
Not only would this lead to learning the speciﬁc sound,it may also lead to learning the context in which thatsound was heard (Greenlaw et al. 1998). Such one-trial
learning of complex information is the hallmark of learning to avoid unpalatable prey, imprinting, snapshot memory and, indeed, all episodic memory. Later production ofa sound learned in a speciﬁc context may be expected tooccur when the context is reproduced or when the animal
is stressed. This would explain all of the apparent intentional insertion of mimicked alarm calls into alarm callingand mobbing in the appropriate context. As the neural
structures underlying alarm call production are signiﬁcantly different from those operating in song learning, it
may also be the case that mimicry of song or complex
sounds differs signiﬁcantly in other ways from that ofalarm calls.
Vocal learning may, in some cases, be the result of
operant conditioning, whereby there is gradual acquisition in response to a reward (C. ten Cate, unpublisheddata). Mimicry by parrots such as Alex seems best
explained in this way (Pepperberg 1981). Until we know
more about the context in which mimicry is acquired,
we cannot determine whether or not it is gradual or the
result of a one-trial episode. Either of these explanations
could lead to the apparent complexity of any one
mimicked sound, or both may be involved, which might
explain the observation of an Australian magpie mimicking a kookaburra 2 days after hearing a single call, andadding to its repertoire duetting kookaburras when exposed to these at a later date (Kaplan 1999).
Understanding the acquisition of mimicry could help toaddress associated questions such as choice of models. For
example, reports of sedentary starlings mimicking species
that are found many miles away seem best explained by
the mimicry passing from one starling to another (Hausberger et al. 1991; P. J. B. Slater, personal communication).
This process may also maintain mimetic calls across many
generations, but not always: starlings in New Zealand, introduced in the 19th century, are proﬁcient mimics, but
their mimetic repertoire does not contain calls from any
nonintroduced European birds (Hausberger et al. 1991).
Once a mimicked sound is part of a bird’s repertoire it
may then be learned by a conspeciﬁc as part of the overall
species-speciﬁc repertoire and, as such, would no longer bemimicry. Marsh warblers cease singing before their young
hatch and repertoires are learnt entirely from heterospeciﬁcs, copied from species at both their European breeding
grounds and Africa, where they overwinter (Dowsett-Lemaire 1979). Local mimetic ‘dialects’ of Albert’s lyrebirds indicates vocalizations are learned directly from models,although the stereotyped sequence of different models
produced during a mimetic bout suggests this componentof mimicry is transmitted between conspeciﬁcs.
As yet we do not know whether any selectivity of modelis accompanied by auditory or physiological constraints
on models that are mimicked. Bill and vocal tract
morphology are likely to limit the rate of syllable

repetition and hence the type of models that a species isable to mimic (Podos 2001). For example, birds use bothsides of the syrinx independently during song production,and mockingbirds, Mimus polyglottus, that produce moreaccurate mimicry use an identical motor pattern to theirmodel species (Zollinger & Suthers 2004). When mimicking songs with notes outside their frequency range, mockingbirds either substitute a note within their frequency
range, or omit the note. When notes are omitted, othernotes in the sequence are lengthened, so that the song is
identical in duration to the model song, as if in recognition that song duration is important. When mimicking
songs with high syllable repetition rates such as the canary’s, mockingbirds cluster notes into discrete groups because of pauses for inspiration but, again, maintain theoverall song length. In mockingbirds, at least, there may
be physiological constraints on the accuracy of mimetic
songs. By investigating these questions in other mimics,
we would be able to examine whether species with smaller
mimetic repertoires are physiologically constrained in themodels that they mimic, or whether they have other constraints acting upon them. Captive rearing and deafening
experiments can also provide valuable insights into thedevelopment and production of mimicry. As with species-speciﬁc song production, the roles of tape and live tutors and the importance of auditory feedback can beinvestigated (Kroodsma et al. 1997).

Conclusions
Twenty-six years on and we are no closer to determining
even a single function for vocal mimicry. While this may,in part, be because of the relative paucity of work, there is
only one study that has been carried out in this time thatoffers any credible support for the proposed functional
hypotheses (indigobirds mimicking ﬁreﬁnches in a matechoice context). This view is consistent with the main
outcome of a recent comparative analysis of vocal mimicry in western Palaearctic songbirds (Garamszegi et al.
2007): there was no signiﬁcant support for any of the proposed functional hypotheses but, importantly, those authors concluded that research effort is the best predictorof the existence of vocal mimicry. We would add to thisby concluding that future research effort should be directed towards determining the mechanisms underpinning the acquisition of mimicry and contexts of use.
Just as the following questions have been useful guides
for directing research in song learning generally, wesuggest that effort should be put into addressing themin the context of vocal mimicry. Is mimetic learning an
open process with the potential for acquiring new vocalizations throughout an individual’s life, or is it restrictedto speciﬁc periods? Does learning depend on reﬁnementof sounds after repeated exposure, or can a sound be
mimicked after a single hearing? Does an individual
increase its quality or repertoire size as it ages, thus
providing information about its status? Do mimics learn
directly from model species, indirectly from conspeciﬁc
mimics or a combination of both? In what contexts is
mimicry produced? Answers to these questions would
help us go a long way to understanding just what avian

REVIEW

vocal mimics are doing and the extent of their cognitive
capabilities.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to C. ten Cate and several anonymousreferees for helpful comments on the manuscript.
L. Kelley and R. Coe thank NERC for providing funding.
References
Baptista, L. F. & Catchpole, C. K. 1989. Vocal mimicry and interspecific aggression in songbirds: experiments using white-crowned
sparrow imitation of song sparrow song. Behaviour, 109, 247e
257.
Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon
Valley (Lepidoptera, Heliconidae). Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 23, 495e566.
Baylis, J. R. 1982. Avian vocal mimicry: its function and evolution.
In: Acoustic Communication In Birds (Ed. by D. E. Kroodsma &E. H. Miller), pp. 51e80. New York: Academic Press.
Beecher, M. D. & Brenowitz, E. A. 2005. Functional aspects of songlearning in songbirds. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 143e149.
Catchpole, C. K. & Slater, P. J. B. 1995. Bird Song: Biological Themes
and Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chu, M. 2001a. Heterospecific responses to scream calls and vocal
mimicry by phainopeplas (Phainopepla nitens) in distress. Behaviour, 138, 775e787.
Chu, M. 2001b. Vocal mimicry in distress calls of phainopeplas. Condor, 103, 389e395.
Coe, R. L. 2005. Vocal mimicry in the spotted bowerbird Chlamydera
maculata. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Coleman, S. W., Patricella, G. L., Coyle, B., Siani, J. & Borgia, G.
2007. Female preferences drive the evolution of mimetic accuracy
in male sexual displays. Biology Letters, 3, 463e466.
Cortopassi, K. A. & Bradbury, J. W. 2006. Contact call diversity
in wild orange-fronted parakeet pairs, Aratinga canicularis. Animal
Behaviour, 71, 1141e1154.
Curio, E. 1978. Adaptive significance of avian mobbing. 1. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie,
48, 175e183.
Davies, N. B. 2000. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. London: T.
& A.D. Poyser.
Dawson, S. M. & Jenkins, P. F. 1983. Chaffinch song repertoires
and the Beau Geste hypothesis. Behaviour, 87, 256e269.
Dobkin, D. S. 1979. Functional and evolutionary relationships of vocal copying phenomena in birds. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 50,348e363.
Dowsett-Lemaire, F. 1979. Imitative range of song of marsh warbler, with special reference to imitations of the African birds.
Ibis, 121, 453e467.
Ferguson, J. W. H., van Zyl, A. & Delport, K. 2002. Vocal mimicryin African Cossypha robin chats. Journal für Ornithologie, 143, 319e
330.
Frith, C. B. & Frith, D. W. 2004. The Bowerbirds. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gahr, M. 2000. Neural song control system of hummingbirds:
comparison to swifts, vocal learning (songbirds) and nonlearning(suboscines) passerines, and vocal learning (budgerigars) and nonlearning (dove, owl, gull, quail, chicken) nonpasserines. Journal ofComparative Neurology, 426, 182e196.
Garamszegi, L. Z., Eens, M., Pavlova, D. Z., Aviles, J. M. & Møller,
A. P. 2007. A comparative study of the function of heterospecificvocal mimicry in European passerines. Behavioral Ecology, 18,1001e1009.
Goodale, E. & Kotagama, S. W. 2006a. Context-dependent vocal
mimicry in a passerine bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 273, 875e880.
Goodale, E. & Kotagama, S. W. 2006b. Vocal mimicry by a passerine bird attracts other species involved in mixed-species flocks.
Animal Behaviour, 72, 471e477.
Gorissen, L., Gorissen, M. & Eens, M. 2006. Heterospecific songmatching in two closely related songbirds (Parus major andP. caeruleus): great tits match blue tits but not vice versa. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60, 260e269.
Greenlaw, J. S., Shackelford, C. E. & Brown, R. E. 1998. Call mimicry by eastern towhees and its significance in relation to auditory
learning. Wilson Bulletin, 110, 431e434.
Haftorn, S. 1995. Coal tit Parus ater song repertoires and the BeauGeste hypothesis. Journal für Ornithologie, 136, 279e283.
Hamao, S. & Eda-Fujiwara, H. 2004. Vocal mimicry by the blackbrowed reed warbler Acrocephalus bistrigiceps: objective identification of mimetic sounds. Ibis, 146, 61e68.
Harcus, J. L. 1977. Functions of mimicry in vocal behavior of chorister robin. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 44, 178e193.
Hausberger, M., Jenkins, P. F. & Keene, J. 1991. Speciesspecificity and mimicry in bird song: are they paradoxes? A
re-evaluation of song mimicry in the European starling. Behaviour, 117, 53e81.
Helb, H. W., Dowsett-Lemaire, F., Bergmann, H. H. & Conrads, K.
1985. Mixed singing in European songbirds: a review. Zeitschriftfür Tierpsychologie, 69, 27e41.
Hile, A. G., Plummer, T. K. & Striedter, G. F. 2000. Male vocal imitation produces call convergence during pair bonding in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Animal Behaviour, 59, 1209e1218.
Hindmarsh, A. M. 1984. Vocal mimicry in starlings. Behaviour, 90,
302e324.
Hindmarsh, A. M. 1986. The functional significance of vocal mimicry in song. Behaviour, 99, 87e100.
Hogstedt, G. 1983. Adaptation unto death: function of fear
screams. American Naturalist, 121, 562e570.
Kaplan, G. 1999. Song structure and function of mimicry in the Australian magpie compared to the lyrebird. International Journal ofComparative Psychology, 12, 219e241.
Krebs, J. R. 1977. Significance of song repertoires: Beau Geste
hypothesis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 475e478.
Kroodsma, D. E., Houlihan, P. W., Fallon, P. A. & Wells, J. A. 1997.
Song development by grey catbirds. Animal Behaviour, 54, 457e464.
Langmore, N. E., Hunt, S. & Kilner, R. M. 2003. Escalation of a coevolutionary arms race through host rejection of brood parasitic
young. Nature, 422, 157e160.
Loffredo, C. A. & Borgia, G. 1986. Male courtship vocalizations ascues for mate choice in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Auk, 103, 189e195.
MacDougall-Shackleton, S. A. 1998. Sexual selection and the evolution of song repertoires. Current Ornithology, 14, 81e125.
McLean, I. G. & Waas, J. R. 1987. Do cuckoo chicks mimic the begging calls of their hosts? Animal Behaviour, 35, 1896e1898.
Madden, J. R. & Davies, N. B. 2006. A host-race difference in begging calls of nestling cuckoos Cuculus canorus develops throughexperience and increases host provisioning. Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London, Series B, 273, 2343e2351.
Marler, P. 2004. Bird calls: their potential for behavioural neurobiology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1016, 31e44.
Marler, P. & Peters, S. 1988. The role of song phenology and syntax
in vocal learning preferences in the song sparrow, Melospiza melodia. Ethology, 77, 125e149.

527

528

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 76, 3

Nicholls, J. A. & Goldizen, A. W. 2006. Habitat type and density influence vocal signal design in satin bowerbirds. Journal of Animal
Ecology, 75, 549e558.
Nowicki, S., Searcy, W. A. & Peters, S. 2002. Quality of song learning affects female response to male bird song. Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London, Series B, 269, 1949e1954.
Owings, D. H., Rowe, M. P. & Rundus, A. S. 2002. The rattlingsound of rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) as a communicative resource for ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and burrowing
owls (Athene cunicularia). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116,
197e205.
Payne, R. B., Payne, L. L. & Woods, J. L. 1998. Song learning inbrood-parasitic indigobirds Vidua chalybeata: song mimicry of
the host species. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1537e1553.
Pepperberg, I. M. 1981. Functional vocalizations by an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 55, 139e160.
Podos, J. 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal
structure in Darwin’s finches. Nature, 409, 185e188.
Putland, D. A., Nicholls, J. A., Noad, M. J. & Goldizen, A. W. 2006.
Imitating the neighbours: vocal dialect matching in a mimicmodel system. Biology Letters, 2, 367e370.
Rechten, C. 1978. Interspecific mimicry in birdsong: does the Beau
Geste hypothesis apply? Animal Behaviour, 26, 305e306.
Redondo, T. & Dereyna, L. A. 1988. Vocal mimicry of hosts by greatspotted cuckoo Clamator glandarius: further evidence. Ibis, 130,540e544.
Robinson, F. N. 1991. Phatic communication in bird song. Emu, 91,
61e63.
Rowe, C. 2002. Sound improves visual discrimination learning inavian predators. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series
B, 269, 1353e1357.
Rowe, M. P., Coss, R. G. & Owings, D. H. 1986. Rattlesnake rattles
and burrowing owl hisses: a case of acoustic Batesian mimicry.
Ethology, 72, 53e71.

Seller, T. J. 1981. Midbrain vocalization centres in birds. Trends in
Neuroscience, 12, 301e303.
Spector, D. A. 1994. Definition in biology: the case of ‘bird song’.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 168, 373e381.
ten Cate, C. & Bateson, P. 1988. Sexual selection: the evolution ofconspicuous characteristics in birds by means of imprinting. Evolution, 42, 1355e1358.
Vallet, E. & Kreutzer, M. 1995. Female canaries are sexually
responsive to special song phrases. Animal Behaviour, 49,1603e1610.
Vehrencamp, S. L., Ritter, A. F., Keever, M. & Bradbury, J. W. 2003.
Responses to playback of local vs. distant contact calls in the orange-fronted conure, Aratinga canicularis. Ethology, 109, 37e54.
Vernon, C. J. 1973. Vocal imitation by southern African birds.
Ostrich, 44, 23e30.
Vicario, D. S., Raksin, J. N., Naqvi, N. H., Thande, N. & Simpson,
H. B. 2002. The relationship between perception and production
in songbird vocal imitations: what learned calls can teach us. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 188, 897e908.
Wright, T. F., Rodriguez, A. M. & Fleischer, R. C. 2005. Vocal dialects, sex-based dispersal, and microsatellite population structurein the parrot Amazona auropalliata. Molecular Ecology, 14, 1197e
1205.
Yasukawa, K. 1981. Song repertoires in the red-winged blackbird(Agelaius phoeniceus): a test of the Beau-Geste hypothesis. Animal
Behaviour, 29, 114e125.
Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection: selection for a handicap. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 53, 205e214.
Zann, R. & Dunstan, E. 2008. Mimetic song in superb lyrebirds:
species mimicked and mimetic accuracy in different populations
and age classes. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1043e1054.
Zollinger, S. A. & Suthers, R. A. 2004. Motor mechanisms of a vocal
mimic: implications for birdsong production. Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London, Series B, 271, 483e491.