|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6130 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
No problem. What do you propose is the cause and origin of aposematism in wasps?
I don't know, but preliminary I doubt it is natural selection due predators.
I didn't see a question about non aposematic colouration of bees, only a question about the honeybee complex. I'm not sure what a honeybee complex is in this context. Are you suggesting that honeybees are not aposematically coloured, or are you suggesting their mimics aren't, or both?
Looking at honeybees I would say they haven't any "warning coloration", they are almost cryptic. It is very strange considering the fact that wasps are "aresposematics" according the neodarwinian hypothesis. Honeybee's venom is more efficient that the venom of wasps. Because the stings obviously play no role in aposematism of wasps I wonder if "natural selection" forget honeybees or what. Even some scientists (and their researches which are no way "outdated") are surprised by the fact that honeybees should be protected by stings or their venom as neodarwinists claim (and called such claims as "belief"). "Poisonous" bees are very often preyed upon:
quote: If you want to save some money do not order the artile at blackwell synergy but have a look here instead: http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dukas/Dukas%202001.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What do you propose is the cause and origin of aposematism in wasps? I don't know, but preliminary I doubt it is natural selection due predators. OK, so perhaps we should skip the coming to agreement about this?
Looking at honeybees I would say they haven't any "warning coloration", they are almost cryptic. It is very strange considering the fact that wasps are "aresposematics" according the neodarwinian hypothesis Let us just accept your premise, though I'd appreciate if you could provide some information as to why you think they are cryptic rather than aposematic. Nevertheless that wouldn't mean it was strange, there are many different strategies to survival and reproduction. There is no compulsion for Mullerian mimicry to affect all stinging insects, it can just explain it when it occurs. As far as I am aware, honeybees and yellow-jacket wasps are considered to be a complex that is considered Mullerian in nature. Honeybees taste a bit less noxious to predators, from Imperfect Mimicry:
quote: It goes on to mention that where honeybees are more noxious (Africa) there seems to more mimicry. You might not think this mimicry is based on aposematisism and that's fine - it's still mimicry though.
Even some scientists (and their researches which are no way "outdated") are surprised by the fact that honeybees should be protected by stings or their venom as neodarwinists claim (and called such claims as "belief"). "Poisonous" bees are very often preyed upon: Once again, I've not stated that bees don't have natural predators. You are just repeating points raised earlier (indeed, you raised this point in your first message), I responded in Message 16, and you changed the subject. I don't feel like doing it again. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Once again, I've not stated that bees don't have natural predators. You are just repeating points raised earlier (indeed, you raised this point in your first message), I responded in more or less (Message 16), and you changed the subject. I don't feel like doing it again.
But this is the crucial point even if you don't want to address it again. The article about the predators of bees (and waps, have you ever heard about birds family specialised on bees, wasps, hornets called Meropidae? Meropidae or "bee-eaters" bird's family has many species). Again:
quote: It might mean that poisonous hymenoptera are preyed upon in the same degree as other insects that are not poisonous and are not aposematics. Using conclusions of McAtee who summarized results of contents of 80.000 birds stomach:
quote: You only repeat again and again:
Once again, I've not stated that bees (wasps) don't have natural predators.
But if wasps and bees are to be eaten in the same degree as other insect species then the protective value of their venom should be reconsidered. Many bird's species maybe don't like wasps venom, but they get rid of it beating wasps on branches. Considering all these facts there is no need to suppose that "warning coloration" of wasps has any effect to predators. You may repeat that "some birds eat some wasps but it shouldn't be use as an evidence that aposematism is ineffective" of course again and again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Looking at honeybees I would say they haven't any "warning coloration", they are almost cryptic. Have you ever tried looking at them with your eyes open?
Because the stings obviously play no role in aposematism of wasps ... What a strange lie. I'd ask you if you had any evidence for it, only having read this thread I know that the answer is no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But if wasps and bees are to be eaten in the same degree as other insect species then the protective value of their venom should be reconsidered. Agreed.
Considering all these facts there is no need to suppose that "warning coloration" of wasps has any effect to predators. The evolution of aposematism is not the topic, but mimicry is. All that needs to happen, for whatever reason, is that predators learn to avoid noxious models and we have the potential for mimicry. There are other driving factors to mimicry which we haven't touched on, and we'll skip by them for now. If predators avoid non-noxious mimics after having eaten a noxious model more than they would have had they not eaten a noxious model, then we have a selective pressure towards mimicry. Studies explicitly designed to test this hypothesis have been carried out in the field and in naturalistic lab conditions. They show that birds do come to recognize noxious models and that they also mistake mimics for them and if there is choice towards something tastier, they tend to avoid them. This has been carried out with things other than birds - such as toads with similar results. If an insect can fool a predator just one in ten thousand times into not eating it because it looks like something that the predator would rather not eat right now - we have selective pressure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Even if birds have evolved behaviors that allow the predation of noxious insects, those insect species may previously have gained benefits from their noxious venom. The arms race of prey v. predator is dynamic, not static, and evolved bird hehaviors become new selective pressures on the insects.
Everything changes. For example, South American macaws ingest clays that buffer toxic fruit: nonetheless, the toxicity of the fruit has benefits in regard to other potential consuming species, and no doubt once deterred the macaws. Further, the existence of bird species that have evolved behaviors that allow the predation of noxious insects does not mean that the noxious venom is useless: many bird species may be deterred, even if all are not. In addition, there are species other than birds that may be deterred. Finally, many noxious insects are social. The complete elimination of predation on individuals may not be the point: the recognition of an erupting hive of noxious insects may evoke avoidance behaviors by predators, even if the appearance of a single such insect does not. Thus, the predation of noxious individuals may be opportunistic and of relatively trival importance to the hive. It is tempting to oversimplify that which we wish to refute, and I believe this is what you have done. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
If an insect can fool a predator just one in ten thousand times into not eating it because it looks like something that the predator would rather not eat right now - we have selective pressure.
Then you have to explain the coloration of honey-bees. Honey-bees have no way "aposematic coloration". If your neodarwinian hypothesis is right than you must explain the force that prevents honeybees to get "aposematic coloration". What kind of force it is? You must also explain the force that prevent "imperfect mimics" of wasps to look like a "perfect mimics" of wasps. Every "imperfect mimic" of wasps having more resemblance to wasps should obtain "survival advantage". Such an "imperfect mimic" looking more waspish should have more offsprigs you know. Yet there is the abundance of "imperfect mimics" of wasps. What's the force preventing them to look like a "perfect mimics"? They have the ability to fool predators "one in ten thousand times" as you have written. Doesn't "natural selection" give some "survival advantage" to the more waspish looking individuals or what?If yes, why there are so many "imperfect mimics" of wasps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then you have to explain the coloration of honey-bees. Why?
Honey-bees have no way "aposematic coloration". What difference does aposematicism make to the argument?
If your neodarwinian hypothesis is right than you must explain the force that prevents honeybees to get "aposematic coloration". What kind of force it is? If honeybees have no aposematic colouration, they share this fact with many species. Why single out honeybees?
You must also explain the force that prevent "imperfect mimics" of wasps to look like a "perfect mimics" of wasps. Every "imperfect mimic" of wasps having more resemblance to wasps should obtain "survival advantage". Sometimes, in a fitness landscape, there are some chasms that cannot be leapt without taking a significant drop in fitness. Natural selection isn't about perfection, just 'good enough'. You could drop mimicry all together and simply say "If having stings or tasting noxious is a good defence mechanism, why don't all insects have this defence mechanism?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
If honeybees have no aposematic colouration, they share this fact with many species. Why single out honeybees?
Really? How many Hymenoptera and Diptera have poisonous sacks and stings? Why some of them having it (wasps) are "aposematics" and the others (bees which venom is more effective than that of wasps) are no aposematics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Really? Yes.
Why some of them having it (wasps) are "aposematics" and the others (bees which venom is more effective than that of wasps) are no aposematics? The topic isn't about the evolution of aposematicism. Care to get back to mimicry? Whether or not honeybees are aposematic is irrelevant - things mimic them, and predators confuse the two is the relevant discussion here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The point is that "mimicry" of wasps doesn't exist. If you want to prove it you should prove that "warning coloration" of wasps have some effect regarding predators. Because the venom of bees is more effective than the venom of the wasps you should also give some explanation of the fact that bees are no aposematics.
The topic isn't about the evolution of aposematicism.
If there is no aposematism why to think about mimicry of aposematic species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Further, the existence of bird species that have evolved behaviors that allow the predation of noxious insects does not mean that the noxious venom is useless: many bird species may be deterred, even if all are not.
What species do you have in your mind? Be more precise: eagles, hawks, owls? You know eagles do not prey upon wasps but I doubt it is due wasps "aposematism".
In addition, there are species other than birds that may be deterred.
What species do you have in your mind? Frogs, dragonflies, spiders or what? No problem to discuss it. Give just examples. Dragonflies?
quote:JSTOR: Access Check
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
In my previous post I addressed also mimicry. But there is no need to think that wasp coloration deters predators other than birds:
quote: Obviously in the case it is the size that counts, not "warning coloration" of wasps. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17244503
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The point is that "mimicry" of wasps doesn't exist. If you want to prove it you should prove that "warning coloration" of wasps have some effect regarding predators. Because the venom of bees is more effective than the venom of the wasps you should also give some explanation of the fact that bees are no aposematics. All I need to show is that after eating noxious tasting insects, there is a tendency in predators to avoid things that look like noxious tasting insects. It doesn't matter why an insect looks noxious, only that a predator is able to discriminate a noxious insect from a non-noxious one - fooled only by non-noxious mimics of course.
If there is no aposematism why to think about mimicry of aposematic species? That question doesn't even make sense. Either way it doesn't matter. As long as predators can identify a noxious insect in the future after having eaten one in the past - regardless of how that discrimination takes place, we can be assured that there is a possibility that mimicry may occur in non-noxious insects. Where mimicry does occur, it should be some characteristic that the birds use to discriminate between noxious and non-noxious insects. That might be a certain colouration or it might be a smell or a flight pattern. You chose to focus on colouration, but now you are trying to steer the topic into realms of suggesting that birds don't discriminate in terms of colouration - yet evidence exists that they do. You have simply dismissed this evidence. And that's basically where we stand. The evolution of these characteristics in models is not important, the evolution of these characteristics in mimics is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
One possible solution to this paradox is that perhaps they are not mimics at all. If they aren't mimics, they aren't the topic. However, read the next two sentences where it says that they are mimics according to pigeons.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024