Mimicry: Please help me understand how

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.

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. 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. 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:

---

Possibly the scarcity of attacks is due to the
ability of social wasps to defend themselves so
that relatively few species of birds are able to
ingest them. Similarly there seem to be few avian
attacks on caterpillars of the family Arctiidae
(which includes the Ctenuchinae). Many species
of moths of this family sequester alkaloids from
their host plants which results in the caterpillar
being impalatable to potential predators (Watson
1975). An additional variable to be considered in
gaining an understanding of avian predation on
noxious insects is the ability of individual birds
to learn how to process a prey item prior to
ingestion. Such behaviour results in big differences
in the species of insects taken -even among
individuals of a particular species of bird. Sometimes
a bird learns to recognize particular types
of insects and is able to manipulate the prey so
as to avoid the insect's defense system (Brown &
Vasconcelos 1976). A bird can also learn to recognize
a particular sex of an insect species. For
example, one White- throated Kingbird (Tyrannus
albogularis caught and ate numerous male of
the solitary bee (Epicharis melanoxantha Moure),
but was never seen to capture a female though the
males have a faster, erratic flight (Raw 1992, in
press).

---

As I said - you're just repeating yourself.

Who knows? But that wasn't my point. Better studies have been done that explore the question of mimics specifically. 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?

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.

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.

McAtee is irrelevant. I'm just asking you a simple question based on your stated position. 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. Unless they've eaten a model before and they are caged. How did they develop this feeding behaviour?

No. Seems unrelated to what I said. 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. 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? We need to understand how birds can behave so very specifically when indoors. Yes, the paper we have discussed extensively in this thread already. I'm not talking about stinging.

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've not even bothered to argue either way on it -since it really isn't the topic. 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.

What makes you say that? 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.

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. 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.

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. Yes you have. It was never in dispute, so it doesn't advance the debate. 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. 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.

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?

Whatever mimics you would like to discuss. Why limit ourselves? Indeed, we've discussed this before already. 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.

No problem. What do you propose is the cause and origin of aposematism in wasps? 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?

OK, so perhaps we should skip the coming to agreement about this? 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:

---

When tasted or eaten, honeybees induced the same unpalatability reactions as for wasps (see below), but these were more limited in degree, and appeared less frequently.

---

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. 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.