Talk:Müllerian mimicry/Archive 1

Additions

I have added an example of a butterfly displaying Mullerian mimicry. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Changes

Three ways the article could be improved:

1. In the second paragraph where it says, “Occasionally, individuals of the predatory third species will encounter one or the other type of noxious prey, and thereafter avoid it.” the author might want to take out the word third; It doesn’t really add anything to the article and I found it confusing.

2. There is no conversation in this article about how Müllerian mimicry may have developed from an evolutionary standpoint; maybe an inclusion of the particular genes that have been found to be the reason behind specific coloration in the mimicry world such as the Optix gene in Heliconius butterflies or another example.

3. It may be beneficial to include that some species of butterflies become polymorphic and mimic multiple models as a way to spread out the amount of mimics so that there is greater ratio of models to mimics (co-mimicry); increasing fitness of both populations compared to if all mimics followed the same model. If there were too many mimics in the population there would be a decrease in predators suffering negative effects of eating the poisonous models and therefore both the models and mimics would have a higher chance of being eaten.

I added a few sentences about co-mimicry if that is okay.

Willey.54 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Include experimental data as support.
2. Change the tone of some sections into a more professional one - "Surely if they could all get together and agree on a common warning signal."
3. Provide more examples of non-visual Mullerian mimicry since page mentions that this type of mimicry can affect any sense but is mostly about visual cues and a mention of an auditory one.

Added

The negative correlation between the amount of mimics and the “survivability” of both species involved[7]. This suggests that it is reproductively beneficial for both species if the number of models outnumber the mimics; this increases the negative interactions between predator and prey.

Some insight into the evolution of mimetic color mimicry in Lepidoptera in particular can be seen through the study of the Optix gene. The Optix gene is responsible for the Heliconius butterflies signature red wing patterns that help it signal to predators that it is toxic. By sharing this coloration with other poisonous red winged butterflies the predator may have pursued previously the Heliconius butterfly increases its chance of survival through association. By mapping the genome of many related species of Heliconius butterflies “show[s] that the cis-regulatory evolution of a single transcription factor can repeatedly drive the convergent evolution of complex color patterns in distantly related species…” [8]. This suggests that the evolution of a non-coding piece of DNA that regulates the transcription of nearby genes can be the reason behind similar phenotypic coloration between distant species, making it hard to determine if the trait is homologous, meaning that it evolved in both species because it existed in a previous ancestor, or that it is convergent in that both species came to a similar phenotypic expression through their own means and mutations.


Viceroy butterflies and monarchs (admiral butterflies) have often been called Batesian mimics; however, this is not the case as both are poisonous which makes them Müllerian mimics. Extensive mitochondrial DNA analysis of admiral butterflies has led to the discovery that the viceroy is the basal lineage of two western sister species in North America. The variation in the wing patterns are thought to precede the evolution of toxicity therefore challenging the hypothesis that the toxicity of the admiral butterflies is a conserved characteristic from a common ancestor. This explanation suggests that because some of the species of admiral butterflies that evolved after the node split from the viceroy lineage are not poisonous but look similar to their ancestor, the propensity for chemical defense is an analogous adaptation (an example of convergent evolution) that evolved separately after the species developed different phenotypic wing patterns.

Willey.54 (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Material added to 'Background'

The following was recently added to the Background section. I've tidied it up, but on reading the section with it and without it, felt that the section was markedly easier to understand without it, so I don't believe the addition is 'background'. It is cited and might be useful somewhere else (maybe in another article), so here it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Also, while the butterflies Eulaema and Eufriesa mimic each other through color scheme and patterns, mimicry within Euglossa is much less obvious because there is less variation."

References