Mimicry and neodarwinism

What kind of screwy logic is that? Insects cannot be selected to look like leaves or twigs because they do not develop in the same way plants do? Anyone who would argue from such biological ignorance should not be on a science board.

No this is quite incorrect all the way around. Even a small resemblance of the model gives a selective advantage because it makes it slightly less likely that the animal will be eaten. Tuning to the model occurs because closer resemblence gives even more protection for the animal which possesses the trait. And I have never heard this "well established Darwinian explanation" for mimicry, somehow that was left out of the courses I took in Insect Ecology and Animal Ecology - both of which addressed the phenomenon of mimicry. So where pray tell do you get your knowledge?

The more distasteful models there are, the more likely that a predator has encountered one and thus knows to avoid that particular pattern. It is not complicated. Simple old strength in numbers.

Bees that have mimics are not cryptic. Here is a robber fly bee mimic capturing its model bee. I think you will agree that neither the mimic nor the bee is cryptic in any usual sense of the word.ATSHQ: American Tarantula & Animals

You scold Jar for bringing up mimicry in vertebrates and now you want to talk mushrooms? Not all bright colors/patterns are examples of warning coloration. Propose a new topic if you wish to discuss it.

MartinV, I see no need to address any questions you raise, as you ignore responses and links that address your questions and assertions. Furthermore you string together comments and links and throw in off the wall tangental topics and think that this suffices for serious debate. It doesn't. I am beginning to think you are not really interested in this debate but just want to stir things up as much as possible in some kind of sophomoric game.