Mimicry and neodarwinism

Thank for link. It shows, that red colour bands are sometimes so important, that they override appeal of their own race: "The broad red forewing band of the two ”postman’ races was generally attractive to all H. melpomene races and in some cases led to a higher probability that males would approach a pattern other than their own."Anyway I encounter again the proposition, that is not supported by any evidence (except "must have"): "...even though much, if not all of the diversity must have initially arisen through natural selection for mimicry."As we know, Heliconius is unpalatable, so the mimicry should be Mullerian. So I do not see any as so dramatic selection pressure that would have led to - as paper states - "... has evolved into a dramatic array of colour pattern races that mimic H. erato and other species (Turner, 1976; Brower, 1996)."Yet I found most interesting this sentence:"In the visually complex tropical rainforest environment, where conspecific individuals are inevitably rare and hard to encounter, it seems likely that the bright colour patterns of these butterflies would be used in finding mates."It completely contradicts to Suchantkes claim (link sended by RAZD): The vegetative lushness of the rainforest can present itself to the traveler as depressingly one-dimensional. The green leaf prevails-so much so that one can walk for hours without any change of scenery. "Finding a blossom provides very welcome relief for senses saturated by the endless monochrome of the lush foliage" (p. 100)."( http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic7/rainforest.htm )I am unable judge wihich opinion is more correct - I never visited rainforest btw - but we see, how differently rainforest can be percepted by two scientists and experts: "visually complex tropical rainforest" vs "An Intense Monotony of Green". On this perception they based further reflections and therefore they may - in case of mimicry - come to different conclusions as to the nature of selective pressure (to look inconspicuos in green vs. visually complex environment is not the same.) I do not see point. Why is selective pressure on butterfly males of Papilio d. in Africa much more less than on males of Heliconius in South America? Do birds in Africa prefer eating only females of Papilio dardanus, so the males are not under selective pressure? On the other hand we know that Heliconius is unpalatable. I do not see reason, why Heliconius males should always look like their females, if eatable males of palatable Papilio d. do not look like their cryptic females and even do not mimics anybody to protect themselves.

Maybe you can find some opposite information to support your view - I would like read it - but according Professor of Chemical Ecology at Cornell University Thomas Eisner:1) "Butterflies are the most conspicuous of insects...they are recognizable for what they are from further away than any other insects."2) "The fact is that butterflies are not at all easy to catch. They are erratic fliers whose aerial trajectory is all but linear."3) "but as regards insectivorous birds as a whole, the evidence indicates that most simply don’t go after butterflies."Even though Eisner added some mandatory darwinian explanations of the fact, that butterflies are most conspicuous insects and that birds do not go after butterflies, it is evident - if Eisner is right in above mentioned point 1 and 3 - that puzzle of mimicry of Papilio dardanus remains not only intact but your selectionistic explanations seem in the light of these new facts even more shaky.I only do not agree that butterflies are not easy to catch - it seems to me, that to catch a fly
is much more diffcult, but swallows do not have any problem to catch them. So the reason why birds do not massively eat butterflies is maybe another.Scales: On the Wings of Butterflies and Moths | VQR Online

Maybe you should read some of my responses. I suppose, that behind evolution are other forces that rm/ns and that evolution is somehow directed by internal creative forces, preprogrammed or something like that. Butterflies mimicry and realm of insects put before us puzzles, that can be hardly explained by RM/NS mechanism except one believe strongly in darwinism.

Yes. I suppose, that baffling cases of Melpomene and Papilio dardanus invalidate neodarwinistic explanation, that everything in animal world is a result of blind chance cultivated by natural selection.

Anyway I see difference. But when you mentioned layers of overlapping foliage: do you have any explanation of differenet shapes of leaves of trees? Because when we observe trees in forest we can notice, that every species of trees have them different -often are of very complicated and characterized forms. Yet I do not see any selective pressure to form this. Maybe it is only creative forces of nature that want represent itself.Maybe darwinism is so popular in liberal british-american countries where philosophy "to eat or be eaten" is more acute then in more social states (communist Russia was other example - darwinism there was in 50ties strongly criticized.) Because to see everywhere only chance and struggle and therefore everything as outcome of these forces can hardly explains not only mimetics phenomenons but also exuberance of shapes and forms of leaves. Because what do ruminata prefer: long leaves or round leaves with sligth intendation on edges? May you explain your proposition? Because to look conspicuous in these cases of Helioconus means, that unpalatable species (as this is the thread of Heliconius and therefore of Mullerian mimicry) "want" to look like another unpalatable aposematic species. Whats the point? Couldnot birds remember the original colour pattern of mimic as aposematic pattern too? They are unpalatable. Or taste birds occassionaly both of them - then I do not know, if the signal is aposematic, if it does not protect before tasting.

Jar, I would rather stay at butterflies like Monarch, Heliconius or Papilio Dardanus and not skip into vertebrata.

Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.

Yet we see, that insects with same "weapons" looks different. Wasps
(hornets) and bees have stings. Wasps (hornets) are aposematics, bees
are cryptic. Yet both groups serves as models for their own mimics (bees have their mimimcs in group of flies Eristalis, that copy even their buzz frequency). So sometimes it is better with stings look like aposematic and sometimes more cryptic, but why? Again omnipotent selection?

Do you have any explanation for mushrooms? As far as I have read, there is no selective pressure on them from vision oriented animals (except squirells) yet the shapes and colours are astonishing. Is there any darwinistic explanation of this at all?palatable fly agaric:
http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/atlas_detail.php?id=285&o...deadly one:http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=41370other shapes and colours from many:http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=8583http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=16149

Honey bees as I know them from Central Europe are in no way conspicuous:TrekNature | Eristalis tenax Photo"This hoverfly is an excellent honey bee mimic, so much so that it is often wrongly featured in photographs of bees":http://www.plantpress.com/wildlife/search.php?name=erista...Neither bees nor hoverfly are conspicuous. Point is, that wasps and hornets are. So according darwinism the same selective pressure on these insects bees/wasps - both having stings to protect themselves - should have had totaly different outcome: aposematic hornets/cryptic bees.
Or was selective pressure different on bees?

This message vanished(?), so I resend it: Yet this claim contradicts Nijhout conclusion as to origin of Papilio dardanus mimics as wellas conclusions of Helioconus (see my first post in the thread). Even great Bates as darwinist supposed great starting resemblance between butterfflies mimic species to mislead birds and only them small steps could proceed.Yet I suppose that same predators should be present in same area to enable darwinian fancy to present its explanations as science. But do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia? Strona gwna | Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w PoznaniuAccueil | INRAE INSTIT

WoundedKing,all these examples shows that some internal factors should be accepted as creative force independent from mutation/selection.
Darwinistic attempts to explain these mentioned phenomenons are
fairy-tales. One claims that there is no selective pressure to males of Papilio darnanus to mimics anybody, another say (Darwin itself) that females do prefer only males that do not change, even though we now see, that males developed their patterns on wings most recently and females are archaic.Wasp are aposematic, bees not. If bees would look like wasps, darwinists would say - look, Mullerian mimicry, both have advantage to be tasted/eaten only half.
But why do not bees protect themselves also by aposematism I see no explanation, selective pressure should be same as to wasps.Mushroom are really interesting, totally overlooked by darwinists.
They did not exist for them.This thread is on mimicry - I agree that mushrooms and plants should be discussed in other thread - yet I see no reason to limit myself only to some examples. Maybe is here a reader, who likes these examples of mimicry (as me), that darwinists like to overlook and left unexplained , or even better trying these to stretch on Prokrusts bed of mutation/selection .

According wikipedia there are 20,000 species of bees.
I have no doubt, that there are some of them, that looks like
aposematics. But the question remains - is there realy different selective pressure on them, that some of them are cryptic and some of them aposematic?These honeybees do seem anything but aposematic:File:Honeybee thermal defence01.jpg - WikipediaMaybe we should use traditional method of some darwinists and glue dead specimens on different tree trunks, take picture of them and so corroborate respective arguments.

Maybe you can interpret what neo-Darwinist actually do say and where I was "invariably" wrong.Many of baffling mimicry desribed by Poulton, Heikertinger etc... are not to be found on Internet, so I restrict myself to send only those you can see on pictures at least. There is no interest to study them in Amazonia etc. any more as was the case untill WW2. It is better indulge in darwinian omnipotent all-explaining fancy of mimicry while sitting in armchair.Yet it is a fact, that many scientists had very different explanation of mimicry as darwinist at that time- Punnett, Heikertinger, Eimer, Portmann...I would like add, that my arguments have to do more with sober senses than with "whiny complaint ".

There are 11 results for "fungus evolution" at scholar.google. Which one of them would you reccomend me? Which one of them give comprehensive neodarwinian account for astonishing shape/colour diversity of mushroom sporocarps?Thank you.