Mimicry: Please help me understand how

All of you are like broken records here. So again: stings play no role
in aposematism.Again:

quote:

---

...birds only rarely get stung by wasps, and therefore the sting cannot be the primary source of wasp noxiousness.

---

Do not confuse armchair theories of aposematism with real facts please.

Modulous,as an unbiased man you probably see the difference between birds in countryside and birds held in cages. Stressed birds or birds full of unnatural meal in cages, birds that are often feeded in the same time and consequently do not prey, such birds have different feeding patterns as in free. Do you agree?The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds.These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds.McAtee made statistics from these results and argue with Poulton about efecteveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, etc...The same study was done in Hungary 1905-1910 by Csiki, who studied contents of stomachs of almost 2.800 birds. The result corresponds with those done in USA. Heikertinger quoted results in his book refuting selectionists explanation of mimicry.---

quote:

---

Professor Beal on the Food of our More Important Flycatchers...
Of this hymenoptera-- bees, wasps, etc. constitute more than a
third and as these insects are for the most part beneficial, this element must be weighed against the destruction of noxious species, which Prof. Beal considers more than balances it....

---

Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico

quote:

---

Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." ...
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food."

---

http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html

On my knowledge wasps are readily eaten by birds. But even if we accept darwinian presuppositions that their so called "mimics" are protected by their coloration (like Syrphidae - hoverflies, there are 6.000 species - are they all mimics? All of them?) some resesearchs contaradict to such armchair theories.

quote:

---

On the other hand, all the syrphids were considered to be palatable, and even the superb wasp mimic Temnostoma vespiforme was eaten by Spotted Flycatchers despite the fact that its model was rejected. Dlusski concluded that these experienced birds usually distinguished between models and mimics, even the good ones, and thus mimicry was ineffective here.

---

Temnostoma vespiforme : But again: birds eat wasps readily according many observations and there is no need to see in such similarities darwinian "mimicry".-----
The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies by
Francis Gilbert
eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive/00000096/01/ImperfectMimicry.pdf

Facts are different as your presuppositions:

quote:

---

From these studies it seems clear that although having a dramatic effect when used, birds only rarely get stung by wasps, and therefore the sting cannot be the primary source of wasp noxiousness.
.
.
.
Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary...

---

Stings are ineffective, or in darwinian newspeak "only secondary".Or do you consider daragonflies as selective force? Again:

quote:

---

However, dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic. Moreover, dragonflies avoided attacking both mock-painted and black-painted wasps entirely. Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.

---

It is size, no darwinian "warning coloration" that deter predators.

I don't see what "available data" about syrphids the autor wanted to summarize. Especially when has written:

quote:

---

The only field-based experiments on the protection afforded to syrphid mimics were done by Dlusski (1984) in a forest close to Moscow.

---

I am afraid he summarized only preconceptions and not field-based data. Field-based data shows (Csiki, McAtee, see my above posts)clearly that stomachs of many different birds contain wasps.

The paper deals predominatly with hoverflies mimics, Syrphidae. There are 6.000 species in 200 genera in this family. Either all six thousands species mimic wasps or there is a line where some species are mimicking wasps and others are not. Because author obviously considers hoverflies to be mimic he faced contradicting theories of "imperfect" mimicry and utterly hypothetical forces that hinder perfection of "imperfect" mimicry.
The more simple solution would be accept an idea there is no micry of hoverflies at all. The similarity is pure coincidence of coloration of two animals groups.There are many facts supporting the idea that birds eat wasps readily, so selective force to their mimics is very dubious on my view.---------------------------------------------
Scott, Virgil E., Keith E. Evans, David R. Patton, and Charles P. Stone.
1977. Cavity-nesting birds of North American forests. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handb. 511, 112 p. Region 9 - Home Purple martinJohnston (1967) examined the stomach contents of 34 martins collected in April,
May, June, and August in Kansas. Beetles, true bugs, flies, bees, and wasps were the important food
items.Pygmy nuthatchAbout 80 percent of the diet is animal
material, mostly wasps and spittle insects,
including some ants, beetles, and caterpillars; the
balance is nearly all conifer seeds (Bent 1948).Mountain bluebirdThis is probably the most insectivorous of the bluebirds. Studies indicate that nearly 92 percent
of the diet is animal material, including miscellaneous beetles, weevils, ants, bees, wasps, cicadas,
stinkbugs, negro bugs, assassin bugs, jassids, flies, caterpillars, grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets
(Bent 1949).Common flicker:Sixty percent of common flicker food is animal matter. Of this, 75 percent is ants, more than
taken by any other North American bird. Some flicker stomachs have contained over 2,000 ants. The
rest of the insect material includes beetles, wasps, caterpillars, grubs, and crickets.Chestnut-backed chickadeeOf the animal material, 25 percent is
hemipterans, 18 percent caterpillars, 13
percent wasps, 7 percent spiders, and 2
percent beetles.Yellow bellied sapsucker:About 80 percent of the insect food taken consists of ants (McAtee 1911).
Other insects in their diet include beetles and wasps, but none of the woodboring larvae.Ash-throated flycatcherThe diet of this species consists mainly of
animal material. Beetles, bees, wasps, bugs, flies,
caterpillars, moths, grasshoppers, spiders, etc.,
make up about 92 percent of the diet.Olivaceous flycatcherLimited evidence on food habits of this
species indicates that the major food items are
small insects including grasshoppers, termites,
mayflies, treehoppers, miscellaneous bugs,
moths, bees, wasps, and spiders (Bent 1942).Violet green swallowApparently, the diet of this species is exclusively insects taken on the wing. It includes
leafhoppers, leaf bugs, flies, flying ants, and some wasps, bees, and beetles (Bent 1942).Plain titmouse (especially see seeds of poison oak )Beal (Bent 1946) examined the contents of
76 stomachs and found 43 percent animal
material (true bugs 12 percent, caterpillars 11
percent, beetles 7 percent, ants and wasps 6
percent, daddy longlegs and grasshoppers 5
percent, spiders 1 percent, and 1 percent unreported) and 57 percent vegetable matter (cherries and
pulp of larger fruit and leaf galls 32 percent, seeds of poison oak and weeds 25 percent).Crested mynaScheffer and Cottam (1935) examined the contents of 117 adult myna stomachs and found 39
percent animal and 61 percent vegetable matter. Animal matter included flies, moths and caterpillars,
wasps, bees, ants, bugs, beetles, grasshoppers, spiders, and earthworms.----------http://birdcentral.net/naturalhistoryf.htm
western wood peweeFood: Professor Beal (1912) reports on the contents of 174 stomachs of the western wood pewee, in which 99.93 percent of the food was animal matter and only 0.07 percent vegetable. Beetles of 19 species amount to 5.44 percent, of which only 0.95 percent are useful beetles, ladybird beetles, and predaceous ground beetles. Hymenoptera , wasps, bees, and ants amount to 39.81 percent of the food and were found in 107 stomachs,17 of which contained no other food----------
birdcentral.net/naturalhistory4.htmorange-crowned warbler* * * Hymenoptera amount nearly to 15 percent, and are mostly small wasps, though some ants are eaten.

​

Townssends Warbler

​

Hymenoptera , consisting of both wasps and ants, are eaten to the extent of 25 percent of the food.

​

White-eyed Vireo

​

ilymenoptera and Diptera together amount to 11.64 percent, including wasps, bees, ichneumons, and flies

​

*******************************

​

Birds attack also bird nests

​

In this note we present the first observations on the predation by the curl-crested jay (Cyanocorax cristatellus) upon the nest of a social wasp (Apoica pallens) in cerrados of Central Brazil.

​

...Below the shrub we found nest parts scattered on the ground. Neither larvae nor pupae remained in the nest.
The observations we present here are consistent with the suggestion of Henriques et al. (1992) that nests of social wasps are attacked by vertebrates in cerrados. Windsor (1976) also believed that predation by birds on nests of social wasps is more prevalent in savannas. These observations suggest that predation by birds could play an important role in the dynamics of social wasp populations.

​

Bird predation on nest of a social wasp in Brazilian cerrado

​

*******************************

​

The carton nests of the polistine wasps, Polybia occidentalis and P. barbouri, are frequently destroyed by predators feeding on wasp brood in northwestern Costa Rica. The remains of these nests and the signs left by the predators closely matched those observed after several nests were destroyed by the gray-headed kite, Leptodon cayanensis. The frequency of bird predation appeared lowest during the wet season, increased through the dry season, and reached a peak of 50 percent nest destruction in May 1973.

​

AVIAN PREDATION ON INDIVIDUAL NEOTROPICAL SOCIAL WASPS
(HYMENOPTERA, VESPIDAE) OUTSIDE THEIR NESTS

​

Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico

​

​

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

I base my arguments predominantly on the books of Komarek "Mimcry, aposematism and related phenomena..." - mentioned in the first sentences of the discussed article of hoverflies, and on the facts mentioned by Franz Heikertinger. Heikertinger is also mentioned in the article as "source" but oddly enough no one of his idea has been dealt or mentioned in the article! No wonder, he dismissed the theory of wasps mimicry entirely. His work haven't been translated into English btw.But to your arguments:As we can can see there are "paper wasps" in family polistinae and other conspicuous species. But the question is like this - if there are species, that are more cryptic like bees or species in polistinae - why are they not protected by "aposematism"? They do not need it? But vespinae need it?I am afraid the research done on 80.000 contents of stomach birds showed clearly that wasps are eaten by birds and it were these facts that persuaded McAtee that aposematism of birds is ineffective. I don't see a reason why ornitologist and entomologist McAtee should have omitted the fact of different coloration of wasps. Especially when he adressed the problem of aposematism of wasps. But of course Poulton dismissed his research and made his own that supposedly proved aposematism - but of butterfies. Darwinists do not recognise McAtee research and conclusion as valid.You didn't answer the question I consider as crucial - do you consider all 6.000 species of hoverflies to be wasps mimic?Do not forget there are 600 species of moth's family that possess yellow-black striped patterns and we should consider probably also those species as mimics.There are also dragonflies with black-yellow patterns etc...Maybe yellow-black patterns are so common in insect realm that we shouldn't consider it as mimicry especially when results of experiments of protective value of "model" are so ambiguous and often contradicting each other.

I forget it was there. Anyway on my reading Heikertinger and McAtee were of opinion that wasps as models are eaten and they consequently didn't solve the problem if their mimics are eaten. If the models are eaten there is no survival advantage for some species to look like models.It could be taken for granted that whatever aposematic or "poisonous" species you find there are almost for sure predators specialised on it. See many bee-eaters etc.

quote:

---

Rainbow Bee-eaters eat insects, mainly catching bees and wasps, as well as dragonflies, beetles, butterflies and moths. They catch flying insects on the wing and carry them back to a perch to beat them against it before swallowing them. Bees and wasps are rubbed against the perch to remove the stings and venom glands.

---

Such predators wellcome aposematism of wasps I dare say - they can see wasps from great distance. As far as I can judge one of the most used explanation of aposematism is that it represents a warning - be carefull I am dangerous and remember me! I don't see a point to be dangerous and not to represent it as in the case of many species of wasps, bees, bumble-bees etc...
Natural selection in these cases didn't carry its work toward warning coloration or what? It depends. Other experimets show that after few hours the stinged birds eat wasps as if nothing happened. Yes. Scientists should perhaps reconsider "imperfect mimicry" of those 6.000 species of hoverflies. Maybe we are not facing mimicry but some kind of convergent evolution that has nothing to do with mimicry.

McAtee.Hence the fact that a given animal is indiffirent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.
.
.
.
He clearly shows that many species which have been considered to be protected by noxious secretions or other adaptations are not really so protected, a conclusion supported not only by the definite evidence produced by Dr. McAtee, but also by the fact that if such species were not preyed upon by various enemies they would soon people the whole earth.
.
.
.Hehe. Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico And the cherish on the cake:According Heikertinger (Das Raetsel der Mimikry un seine Loesung - Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Wiederlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen Jena 1954) U.S. Department of Agriculture studied 80.000 contents of birds' stomachs. And it was McAtee from this department who came to the conclusion that aposematism is ineffective to deter predators. Neodarwinian school has never made such extensive and brutal research. Darwinists make only indoor research with multicoloured food... But the question is if such researches have any relevance for studying so called "warning coloration" outdoors.

Perhaps you may support your neodarwinian conclusions regarding "warning coloration" of insects also with some modern researches in natural conditions. Any relevant link?And I mean birds vs. so called "aposematic" insects in natural conditions. Edited by MartinV, : insects addedEdited by MartinV, : The last sentence added.

Again. You didn't give a link I've asked you.According McAtee (and it sounds like Heikertinger has written it in his last work):

quote:

---

Considering bird predation alone this principle predation in proportion to population leads to a high degree of indiscriminancy in attack upon the whole kingdom of animal life. The combined attack of birds plus all other predators still more closely approaches complete indiscriminancy. In other words there is utilization of animals of practically every kind for food approximately in proportion to their numbers. This means that predation takes place much the same as if there were no such thing as protective adaptations. And this is only another way of saying that the phenomena classed by theorists as pro- tective adaptations have little or no effectiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume dis- crimination in the choice of prey. The
principle of proportional predation so obvious from the data contained in this pper vitiates those theories for it denotes indiscrimination, the very antithesis of selection.

---

If you think his arguments has been refuted take into consideration this sentence:

quote:

---

In no other institution
in the country has such a. volume of
data been collected on food habits of birds.
It is therefore extremely valuable to students
throughout the country to have this
mass of data digested, summarized, and
made available for use as Mr. McAtee has
done

---

Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico Again: I am almost sure no such outdoors research has been made by neodarwinists to support their armchair idea of protective meaning of "aposematism". If yes give me a link. I would like to know it.

So if the same research of 80.000 contentns of stomach's birds would have been done today the outcome would be different? Do you think that feeding behaviour of birds today is different from that in the beginning of the 20th century?Do you think that words like "relatively few species of birds are able to ingest them" are sufficently neodarwinian evidence refute this contribution of:

quote:

---

... of data on the food habits of Nearctic birds-data
which have been accumulating in the records of the United States Biological Survey for the past forty-five years.

---

? Obviously the matter is more complicated as you would like to see it:

quote:

---

The evidence seems conclusive that animals in captivity do not react to the stimulus of food as they do in a wild state. Hence the fact that a given animal is indifferent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.

---

Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico

But in the free birds eat models despite of darwinian experiments in cages. That's the conclusion of the researches done by US Department of Agriculture of stomach's contents of 80.000 birds.

Obviously it's your duty to give evidence that birds feeding behaviour in cages is the same as in the free. It cannot be assumed a priori. It should be at the top of every scientifical research that generalise conclusions of experiments made in cages.

You are pushing me into something I have never insisted upon discussing McAtee work as far as I remember. If yes, forget it. I have claimed that birds feed on aposematics outdoors but neodarwinists claim that birds avoid eating aposemtaics in cages. I still mean poisonous models, not their mimics. If birds eat poisonous models there is obviously no selective pressure which could give "survival advantage" to their mimics. This is the main point, not if birds discriminate between models and mimics. Of course some facts back the idea that predators could distinguish very well between different species that looks alike, but it is not the issue McAteee adressed.