QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Movie Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chiao, C.-C. Articles by Hanlon, R. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chiao, C.-C. Articles by Hanlon, R. T.

Cuttlefish camouflage: visual perception of size, contrast and number of white squares on artificial checkerboard substrata initiates disruptive coloration

Chuan-Chin Chiao^* and Roger T. Hanlon

Marine Resources Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA
^* Present address: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 50 Blossom Street, Wellman 429, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA

View larger version (135K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Disruptive body patterning by a young cuttlefish on a rocky substratum. Notice the strongly expressed ‘White square’ chromatic component on the mantle of the animal that resembles other randomly scattered white rocks amidst the substratum. Scale bar, 9mm.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Grading criteria for judging disruptive coloration in young cuttlefish. (A) Cuttlefish outline showing (i) the White square, (ii) the White mantle bar (which includes the White square) and (iii) the White head bar. (B) Actual close-up images of the White square on the cuttlefish shown in Fig.3 to illustrate different expressions that were used to assign grades 1, 2 and 3. Compare Figs3–5. Images are life-size and exactly the same region of skin.

View larger version (81K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (A–E) The same individual cuttlefish on substrata with checker sizes of 2.6, 6.5, 13.0, 19.5 and 26.0mm. Assigned grades were ‘1’ for A and E, ‘2’ for B and D, and ‘3’ for C. (F) Plot of the means (± S.D.) of the gradings of four cuttlefish for their patterning expression on the different square sizes; the peak response occurred at a checker size of 13.0mm. See video at http://www.biologists.com/JEB/movies/jeb3276.html.

View larger version (87K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. (A–E) The same individual cuttlefish on different substrata in which the square size was constant (13.0mm) but the black/white contrast was 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100%. Assigned grades were ‘1’ for A, ‘2’ for B and C, and ‘3’ for D and E. (F) Plot of the means (± S.D.) of the gradings of five cuttlefish for their patterning on all contrasts; responses plateaued at 50% contrast or greater. See video at http://www.biologists.com/JEB/movies/jeb3276.html.

View larger version (87K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. (A–E) The same individual cuttlefish on different substrata in which the number of white squares (13.0mm each side, 100% contrast) was 0, 4, 20, 40 or 80. Assigned grades were ‘1’ for A, ‘2’ for B, and ‘3’ for C–E. Note the two round dark spots on either side of the White square in B–E; this is a feature of mottle patterns. (F) Plot of the means (± S.D.) of the gradings of four cuttlefish. See video at http://www.biologists.com/JEB/movies/jeb3276.html.