The Concorde Fallacy
The Concorde fallacy is the same error as the sunk cost fallacy under a different name, coined in animal behaviour rather than in economics. Richard Dawkins and Tamsin Carlisle named it in 1976 after the politicians who kept backing Concorde because so much had already been spent on it, and argued that a decision should turn only on the costs and benefits still to come. Whether animals actually commit it is a live argument.
What it is
The two terms differ mainly by which species they have been applied to. The economists' version, at sunk cost fallacy, carries the primary reading for humans. This one carries the animal literature and the question it opens: is this a quirk of human reasoning, or a general feature of any creature that has already invested in something?
The biological test case is parental effort. A parent bird has already spent weeks feeding a brood. Whether to keep feeding them or desert and breed again should depend on what the brood is worth from here, not on the weeks already spent. Dawkins and Carlisle made that argument against a particular reading of Robert Trivers on parental investment, and the empirical work that followed, including a 1980 study of digger wasps, mostly found animals adjusting their effort to future value rather than to past effort.