Just a quick point that I saw really quickly; you mention snail and snake myrmecomorphs, but don't give any examples. These seem to be considerably less-known than the arthropod ant mimics and it would be worth putting in one or two examples of each and how and why a snake, for example, would mimic an ant.
"jumping spider genus Myrmarachne are Batesian mimics" Genus is singular, needs to be reworded for grammar.
Dipteran flies ... are: plural.
"and the act of creating an antennal illusion" unclear and unnecessarily long, could be reworded.
Split.
"revealed the major selection force, the avoidance of ants" to "revealed that the major selection force is the avoidance of ants"?
Done.
"such as spider wasps" One of the sources also focuses entirely on pressure due to predation by larger salticids, maybe worth mentioning?
That's basically the same point, so let's leave it.
"(predatory)" the parentheses are superfluous.
Gone.
"aggressive Eciton army ants" You can probably link directly to burchelli, it's the only species in the source and Eciton army ant is its common name anyway.
Added.
"The Jesuit...1894" Is such an old and probably very inaccurate estimate worth mentioning?
Added that he discovered this sort of mimicry (and Wasmannian mimicry is named for him).
"On first...then tolerated" bit run-on.
Edited.
'"social releasers", whether by imitating "solicitation signals"' these terms should be explained in-text instead of just being quoted.
Done.
"Hölldobler and Wilson (1990)" Doesn't the MOS discourage this style of citation (not exactly a citation in this case, but still)?
Edited.
"The effect is presumed to be that when" Kind of awkward phrasing.
Edited.
"while their adults...coloration" I feel like the more important trait is the adults not being myrmecomorphs; them have aposematic or camouflaged appearances is somewhat irrelevant.
Edited.
"Odontomantis (Euantissa)" why mention the subgenus for only this species?
Removed.
"The snail...colonies" should be mentioned under myrmecophily instead of in Taxonomic range.
Scientific names in ref titles should be italicized.
Formatted.
"Viegas, Jennifer (15 November 2014). "More Than 300 Spiders Pretend to be Ants". Discovery." Link isn't working. Also, if this is the TV channel, is this really the best source for this?
Archived. A general source is best for overview statements; scientific sources mostly talk about highly specific details.
Ref 4 verifies all claims made.
McLean and Herberstein does not cites the claims made; they mention locomotion only in passing, and never directly say it occurs in Myrmarachne.This would be a better ref.
Thanks, added.
Following up on this, "ants to near perfection" seems to actually be cited to Ref 6, Huang et al., not ref 5 as the cites would suggest.
Moved ref.
Link does not work for Ref 7. Also, the page range is too large.
Removed link. It's normal to cite whole scientific papers, specially when they're entirely on-subject as here.
Ref 9 verifies all claims made.
Ref 11 verifies all claims made.
Ref 13 verifies all claims made.
Ref 16 verifies all claims made.
Ref 19 verifies all claims made.
Yeah that's all from me. Nice article, pretty comprehensive and really well illustrated.
