|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6130 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Perhaps you may support your neodarwinian conclusions regarding "warning coloration" of insects also with some modern researches in natural conditions. Any relevant link? I think the study we were already discussing was good enough. Unless you think that being in captivity allows birds to suddenly become able to successfully discriminate between mimics and models if they ate the models first, and not if it happens the other way around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Again. You didn't give a link I've asked you. A link has already been posted. I referred you to that. You want me to post it again? You've posted it yourself more than anyone else I suspect.
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 Written in 1932. In the past 75 years, other work has been done with better methodology to establish bird eating behaviour with regard to mimes. You posted a paper which discusses this work.
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. Well, once again, I ask you - does being in captivity generate abilities in birds to discriminate between insects in a pattern consistent with the mimic hypothesis? However, you and I have both posted a paper which conducted outdoor observations.
quote: As I said - you're just repeating yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So if the same research of 80.000 contentns of stomach's birds would have been done today the outcome would be different? Who knows? But that wasn't my point. Better studies have been done that explore the question of mimics specifically.
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. Obviously it isn't more complicated. I've not said at any point that birds might not change their eating habits. What I've asked you is - do you think that being in captivity gives birds the ability to discriminate between mimics and models that they apparently didn't have when in the wild? Because the data presented so far shows that at least some birds will eat mimics happily if they have not eaten a model - but if they begin with a model, they will tend to avoid the mimics. Does living in captivity shift the habits of these birds so specifically? Is that what you are suggesting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. Nobody is disputing that birds eat models. What we are saying is that birds have been observed to generally avoid eating mimics after having eaten a model. You suggest that this is something to do with cages. I've asked you a question about this many times now. Do you believe that becoming caged changes a bird's habit so that it starts avoiding mimics only after first eating a model? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Obviously it's your duty to give evidence that birds feeding behaviour in cages is the same as in the free. Why? I'm not making that assertion. I'm asking if you think that being in captivity can produce such a strange and specific change in eating behaviour as you are claiming has happened. A bird that never discriminated before, when captured, suddenly eats mimics unless it has previously eaten a model and then tends to avoid mimics from there on in. You are making this assertion - I just want you to either accept you are making it, or drop the feeding change in captivity argument. If you accept that you are making this claim, I'd like you to explain how it came to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You are pushing me into something I have never insisted upon discussing McAtee work as far as I remember. McAtee is irrelevant. I'm just asking you a simple question based on your stated position.
I have claimed that birds feed on aposematics outdoors but neodarwinists claim that birds avoid eating aposemtaics in cages. That is not what the neodarwinist position is at all. We all agree that birds eat both mimics and their models - both indoors and outdoors. What you seem to be saying is that being kept indoors somehow induces a specific behaviour pattern whereby they will begin avoiding models and mimics only after having eaten a model. I'm just asking how you propose that happens.
This is the main point, not if birds discriminate between models and mimics. Unless they've eaten a model before and they are caged. How did they develop this feeding behaviour?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy? No.
Fine. If neodarwinists position is antiselectionist as well in the case discussed so much better. Seems unrelated to what I said.
I wanted to say that neodarwinian experiments indoors have probably no relevance to real behaviour of birds outdoors. I understand that. Your position is that being indoors changes the behaviour of birds somehow. I agree that it does to some extent. If this is the explanation for the results of indoor tests then it must follow that being indoors makes birds behave in a very specific fashion ie., they avoid mimics only after eating models.
It is very strange that neodarwinists observing birds in cages came to conclusion that birds avoid poisonous aposematics and yet stomach contets of birds in free show opposite. Not really. Nobody is disputing that birds don't eat mimics or models. Do I have to keep repeating that this isn't in dispute?
Because of both researches done in the nature I see no point discussing some neodarwinian indoors experiments We need to understand how birds can behave so very specifically when indoors.
(did you give any link to them at least?) Yes, the paper we have discussed extensively in this thread already.
Heikertinger quoted a reserach of some caged bird that eats wasps until beeing stung. Then it avoid them. Neverhenless the stunged bird eat wasps after few hours as readily as before. Is this the point you aim at? I'm not talking about stinging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How long did they avoid them? I am almost sure if they are hungry they will eat them again. No one claims that they would rather die from starvation as far as I know. So why bring up a claim nobody is making? As for the length of time, why don't you look it up? That's the kind of data you should be presenting to make your case. Try Beobachtungen zur Frage der Wespenmimikry (1935). Mostler G - referenced from the paper we've been discussing.
I see. You have obviously accepted the fact that sting play no role in protection of wasps. I've not even bothered to argue either way on it -since it really isn't the topic.
Anyway one would say that no other protective mechanism remains to deter wasps predators as birds. Because "only after eating models" - as you depicted it - is very vague. It's very specific. Some birds show a tendency to avoid wasps after they have partaken. Not completely never ever eat them, just if they had the choice, they'd eat something else first because wasps aren't tasty. I'd rather eat chocolate than coconut, but if I had no choice I'd eat coconut.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad. What makes you say that?
I know you would insist whatever the time is it will give wasps small "survival advantage". But this is only one neo-darwinian research that you offered against the research of 80.000 birds done by US Agricalture Survey. It still shows that the tendency exists. You have at least come to accept this fact, and are not arguing that birds magically develop unique abilities in cages. Since I have not for a moment denied that birds eat wasps, the other study doesn't contradict my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad. What makes you say that? What has this got to do with birds not remembering for 3 months that wasps taste bad? Then you site a study which says that birds, if given the choice will avoid unpleasant tasting things, but will eat them if given no choice. A point that was never in contention.
Birds do not have very good memory Are we back to repeats again? Is this related to the writer's strike? How about you bring some evidence to the table regarding avian memory? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The problem of aposematism doesn't rest on the bird's memory. You alwasy pick up some lateral argument and focus your attention to it. You brought up memory, I just asked for evidence that bird's don't have a good enough memory to support the hypothesis. You could not do it, you change the subject and now you are criticising me for addressing your points as you bring them up? Poor form, Martin.
I have given you link that chemical senses of birds are poor. Yes you have. It was never in dispute, so it doesn't advance the debate.
They have only small fraction of taste buds comparing mammals. But there are also mammals that eat wasps so that "terrrible taste" wouldn't be so terrible as darwinists would like us to believe. The article you linked to also pointed out that that mammals and birds consider different things untasty or tasty, so I fail to see your point. The important point, as far as we are concerned, in the article you linked to is that birds do find some things untasty and will avoid those things if given the choice.
You should better focus yourself to the "selective pressure" that led to the change of ovipositors into stings when stings do not - at least in the cases of birds - do not offer any significant protection. I would like to know your explanation of it. Another thread would be better for that, I'd imagine. However the simple answer would be that stings were presumably developed to protect the queen from predator attack; I haven't looked into it in any depth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
According this research it is spores of fungus that are responsible for the yellow stripes of Vespa orientalis. OK so you have provided the mechanism behind the colouration of some potential models. What has this got to do with with the fact that mimics have also utilized a mechanism for looking similar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What kind of mimics do you have on your mind? Whatever mimics you would like to discuss.
Some given species from Diptera or Lepidoptera? Why limit ourselves?
You know we should find out if the given "mimicry" is not pure chance of looking alike by transforamtion sequences which would exist also without wasp model. Indeed, we've discussed this before already.
And we should also find out if birds are so mislead by it as neodarwinists are. Why limit ourselves to bird predation? There are plenty of other mimics out there. What has this got to do with my post? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
First we should perhaps agree in the cause and the origin of the aposematism of wasps. No problem. What do you propose is the cause and origin of aposematism in wasps?
Anyway you didn't answer to the question about non-aposematic coloration of bees. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024