Talk:Mimicry in plants/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi CC, I'll give this a go. Review coming within a few days. Esculenta (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments:

Lead

• useful links: Darwinian fitness, pollinator. Actually, maybe the lead sentence should avoid saying the esoteric expression "Darwinian fitness" (it's not used again in the article).
  • Done.
• there are some aspects of the lead that are not discussed in the article, such as the comparison with animal mimicry. "deceptively" is used in the lead, but not in the article, which seems a big omission considering the subject matter. Leading me to …
  • Fixed.

• "However, it may provide protection against herbivory" The "However" is unnecessary, as there's no contrast or contradiction with the previous statement.
  • Done.
• it's impressive that the entire second paragraph is a single sentence! If you indeed intended this structure, I suggest use semicolons as "supercommas" to better separate the ideas.
  • Done.
• image caption: suggest a little trim, "The climber Boquila trifoliata is thought to vary varies its leaf shape …" because uncertainty is later expressed with "perhaps"
  • Done.
• The supportive article text for this lead sentence "Mimicry in plants has been studied far less than mimicry in animals, with fewer documented cases and peer-reviewed studies." is pretty much "...though mimicry in animals is better known.", which I hope you agree is insufficient. Barrett (1987) says a few words about this that might be used to provide a little more context in the article.
  • Edited lead; added a bit from Barrett to Intro.

Introduction

• It seems that the article is missing something. Currently, the article jumps almost immediately into specific types of mimicry without providing a solid foundation for understanding the concept as a whole–I think this is important in an article like this, which is supposed to provide a general overview of a biological concept. An introduction section could help the reader by:

• Defining plant mimicry more thoroughly
• Explaining the general evolutionary purposes and advantages of mimicry in plants
• Providing an overview of how plant mimicry differs from or relates to mimicry in other organisms
• Briefly touching on the historical context of the discovery and study of plant mimicry. Who first introduced the concept?
• Mentioning some of the challenges in studying plant mimicry, which could explain why it's less studied than animal mimicry

This proposed introduction would set the stage for the more specific examples that follow, giving readers a better framework for understanding the various types of mimicry described later in the article.

OK, drafted. I agree there's a need for a brief bit of setting the frame here.

• "Mimicry mechanisms in plants were first described in the 20th century, starting with Pouyannian (1916)"; according to this source (doi:10.1017/S0007087416000352), Darwin's work was foundational in understanding plant-insect interactions and evolutionary adaptations, including mimicry. His book On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids Are Fertilised by Insects (1862) was particularly important in this field. Darwin's observations and theories laid the groundwork for much of the subsequent research on plant mimicry, including the work that led to the discovery of pseudocopulation. Including Darwin's contributions would provide important historical context and highlight the origins of scientific inquiry into plant mimicry. His inclusion would strengthen the article's coverage of the topic's historical development and scientific foundations. This source could also be used to say a bit about how Darwin's ideas about plants (including plant mimicry) influenced popular culture, including fiction writing. Author also shows how the language used to describe plant behaviour evolved, with terms like "cunning," "sagacity," and "intelligence" being applied to plants.
  • Added a bit in intro, and a short pop culture section.

Comments

• Another complaint: first section says the "Main" article is "Pouyannian mimicry", which is actually a redirect to pseudocopulation. First sentence of this section then again links the redirecting "Pouyannian mimicry". Then, just to make sure, that actual target, pseudocopulation, is linked again soon after. Surely there must be a better way?
  • Insofar as this concerns the other article, the comment is out of scope, but I agree that Pouyannian mimicry should be its own article... which it now is, so the "main" link is now certainly correct, as is the link to pseudocopulation: even if they felt a bit queasy yesterday. On the whole I feel that article text should link major concepts even if there's a "main" link, not least because people who browse headings and "main" links aren't necessarily the same people as those who study the text; such links are cheap and certainly useful to readers of different habits.

• this source suggests that plants also mimic fungi and animals. Are there any interesting examples?
  • Pouyannian is obviously the 'exciting' example of plants mimicking animals.

• any comment about Endler's framework doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb01840.x (e.g. division into six classes of phenomena: crypsis, masquerade, Batesism, Müllerism, polymorphism, and convergence) and whether this is still accepted?
  • I'd seen the paper. Personally I feel that the paper's attack on the mimicry/crypsis split is something of a strawman job; it's clear from any sort of look at the field that there are plenty more variables than that. Whether the six classes that Endler comes up with are specially significant is a bit doubtful: for example, what is "background"? Resembling a twig could be mimicry of a plant or background crypsis, according to taste, and it's not obvious how these'd be distinguished really. Nor, for instance, is convergence anything much to do with mimicry. For what it's worth, Pasteur's multi-dimensional classification seems a deal more robust (table at Mimicry). I've used a bit of Pasteur to organise this article as quietly as possible.

• it seems to me that source Pannell & Famer (2016) is underutilised; for example, there's neither mention of "colonisation mimicry" or the interesting bird dropping mimicry example.
  • Added examples and images. Colonisation mimicry was named Gilbertian by Pasteur.

• is it worth mentioning the "ocelli concept of Gottlieb Haberlandt" mentioned in doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0760 and further expounded here doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2016.07.008?
  • Possibly; I've added a sentence; it's certainly speculative at the moment; but then, nobody's explained how a flounder can actively camouflage itself to the seabed's pattern while it is lying flat on it with its eyes pointing upwards...

I'm going to stop there and see if you agree with my initial assessment of 3a before getting too deep into the other aspects of the review. Esculenta (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Esculenta: Comments look useful, have tweaked the article and replied above as briefly as possible! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The structure is much improved with the addition of the introduction. I've added some fresh comments and suggestions for the lead, and commentary for the remainder. Will do a source spotcheck on my next pass. Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, only just noticed this by checking manually, maybe the flag didn't go up properly or something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Reproductive

• possibly useful links: carrion; might be handy to link oligosulfide to polysulfide (I know technically they're not necessarily precisely the same, but the target link is useful for any who wish to further investigate the term); nectar (earlier), oviposition, epiphytic, Lamellicorn, morphologically, social wasp, olfactory, volatiles
  • Done.
• (not GA) I suppose the decaying smell of Phallaceae fungi is an example of brood-site deception for another Kingdom; Puccinia monoica indulges in flower mimicry (some rust fungi do this too I think); some mycorrhizal fungi produce compounds that mimic plant hormones, and some false truffles mimic the scent of true truffles to attract animals for spore dispersal (chemical mimicry); birds nest fungi make spore packets that resembles seeds and might be dispersed by animals; bioluminescent fungi are perhaps imitating bioluminescent insects. Am I tempting you into creating mimicry in fungi?
  • It may be so.
• suggest to add bolded bit "The decaying smell of the flower comes from oligosulfides, compounds found in decayed proteins"
  • Done.
• "that contain the amino acids" suggest "the sulfur-containing amino acids"
  • Done.

Defensive

• possibly useful links: parasite, selection pressure, thorn, Liliaceae (should not be italicised), Palmaceae, Agave, A. applanta, A. salmiana, and A. obscura (redlinks are OK and encourage people like me to bluelink), buds, trichomes, fronds, herbivory
  • Done.
• " host-parasite aggressive mimicry" if I'm reading it correctly the MoS says an en-dash should be used here ("Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound.")
  • Done. FFR it's quicker to fix that sort of minor stuff (way below my attendability threshold) than to explain it.
• is it worth considering including an image of the butterfly egg-mimicking stipules of Bulbophyllum scabratum beside or as an inset of the existing image (I'm assuming that's what they are because a common name of this orchid is "Butterfly egg bulbophyllum")
  • Found a usable image.
• "characteristic of Aloe sp. (Liliaceae)" no need to abbreviate here (later instance too)
  • Done.
• we haven't been told what the genus of W. filifera is
  • Fixed.
• I think "aposematic" needs more than just a link
  • Glossed.
• I think it's Am. Eng. but I saw a "centre"
  • Fixed.
• "and in dusty dry conditions among stones are "virtually impossible to spot"" in the spirit of using quotes sparingly (unless they really add value to the presentation or it's essential to present the original wording) I suggest "they are extremely difficult to detect" or similar.
  • Done.
• image caption: "…have irregular white blotches which may look like..." which->that
  • Done.

In cultivation

• "Vavilovian mimicry (also known as crop mimicry)" Does Vavilov call it crop mimicry in his 1951 source? It might be a good idea to also mention the alternate term "weed mimicry" and cite a modern source for these terms.
  • Added.

Sources

• the sources look reliable and appropriate for this sort of article, with a mixture of important relevant historical publications, more recent journal articles, and a bit of Pasteur 1982 for background.
  • Noted.
• Images: all images have suitable licensing and are appropriately captioned
  • Noted.
• + category:Evolutionary biology?
  • Category mimicry is in a tree of evolution categories.
• spotchecks: pending ...

• The year of the Barrett 1983 source is actually 1987 (see JSTOR 24979480

• Fixed.

• in the image caption cited to Johnson 2016 ("Carrion flowers such as Orbea variegata attract flies and other carrion-feeding insects by their smell."), the bulk of the statement is supported by the source, but the specific flower named is not. Perhaps this caption doesn't need a source b/c it's repeating sentiment already sourced in the text?

• Rearranged caption.

Otherwise, spot checks were fine (no other issues noted). Esculenta (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Noted.

Alright, all of my suggestions have been adeptly addressed, so I think we're done here. In my assessment, the article meets all of the good article criteria, and I will promote it as such now. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)