DOI: 10.5061/dryad.fbg79cp1t
title: Data from: Efficacy of multiple defences of mimics from the golden mimicry complex against two predators

description: Many prey species employ multiple defences during interactions with
 predators. Multiple defences can provide a selective advantage against a
 single predator at different stages of the interaction or attack, as well
 as against multiple predator types. However, the efficacy of multiple
 defences both during different sequences of an attack and against multiple
 predator types, remains poorly understood. We measured and classified
 defensive traits used by five mimics (Müllerian and Batesian) of the
 myrmecomorphic golden mimicry complex and one non-mimetic species. We then
 performed predatory trials using two different predators that differed
 markedly in their body size, trophic specialisation, and how they handle
 prey – one being an ant specialist (spider) and the other a generalist
 which avoided ants (skink). We identified 12 defensive traits and
 classified them into four groups (primary, chemical, mechanical,
 behavioural), which were strongly correlated. Skinks were much less likely
 to attack and capture mimics than the ant-eating spider predators. Our
 results show that multiple defences (five or six) were used against each
 predator. The defensive behaviours and features that were most effective
 against skinks included appendage waving and large body size, whereas the
 golden ‘shine’ warning signal, large body size, cuticle thickness, and
 defensive gland size were most effective against spiders. Most defences
 appeared to be predator-specific. We conclude that potential prey in the
 golden mimicry complex have been selected for multiple defences because of
 their vulnerability to different predator types and consequently, the
 efficacy of some of these defences likely represents a trade-off.
description: The details are described in the Methods of the article.
description: # Efficacy of multiple defences of mimics from the golden mimicry complex
 against two predators (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fbg79cp1t) Give a
 brief summary of dataset contents, contextualized in experimental
 procedures and results. ## Description of the data and file structure The
 file contains three spreadsheets: Servea includes data from experiment
 using Servea spiders; skink includes data from experiment using skinks,
 and traits includes defensive traits. The Servea sheet includes data on
 the size of spiders [mm], size of prey [mm], prey type. In each trial we
 recorded latency to attack (i.e., time [s] from orienting to prey to when
 they first pounced on prey), latency to capture (i.e., time [s] from the
 first attack to capture), number of attacks, and attack and capture
 frequencies. The skink sheet includes prey type, latency to spot (time [s]
 from prey release to when skink turned to see the prey), latency to
 approach (time [s] from spotting to when the skink started to move towards
 prey), latency to attack (time [s] from approaching to actual capture),
 frequency of tongue-flicking from predator approach to capture, attack and
 capture frequencies, and whether the captured prey was subsequently
 consumed or discarded. The traits sheet includes gland size [mm2], cuticle
 thickness [mm], jaw size [mm], total spine length [mm], number of spines,
 total body length [mm], biting relative frequency, spraying relative
 frequency, proportion of golden area, escape speed [cm/s], leg waving
 frequency [per s] and body shape index. NA values stand for not available.
 All details can be found in the article. ## Sharing/Access information
 Alternatively, data can be obtained from the first author. ##
 Code/Software All analyses were conducted using R as detailed in the
 article.