Parasitism and mimicry?

Question

I was reading [this article](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13112.html) which states this: > Classical Batesian mimicry, in which an undefended mimic evolves to > look like a toxic model, is a parasitic relationship in which the > mimic gains an advantage at the expense of the model I don't understand why this mimicry is equivalent to parasitism. Do the authors call it parasitic because eventually it may cause threat to the model, as the predator learns that it is being fooled around ? I don't see a clear and certain antagonistic relationship here. Can someone please explain.

Answer 1

In their example, it seems that the model is the "host" and the mimic is the "parasite". I don't fully understand the connection to parasitism here because it does not seem like the model is being harmed in a traditional physical way. I assume they are suggesting that the presence of a mimic poses a threat to the model because the model will be more likely to be eaten by predators. This is due to the fact that predators would be more likely to take risks if they have had successful encounters with a mimic in the past. However, if the model is eaten, the result is death. A parasite's goal is not to kill the host because this poses a risk to the survival of the parasite. So, I guess I can somewhat see a connection, but it's kind of a reach.