Mimicry: Please help me understand how

quote:

---

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.

---

Fine. If neodarwinists position is antiselectionist as well in the case discussed so much better.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is probably because of my grasp of English that I was misunderestood. I wanted to say that neodarwinian experiments indoors have probably no relevance to real behaviour of birds outdoors. 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.It is not only US. Biological survey that made such vast research of contents of birds stomachs. The same research was done by Csiki in Hungary in 1905-1910 but only in 2.800 birds compared with those 80.000. But their stomachs contain also lot of aposematics and Heikertinger used this research to back his idea of ineffetiviness of aposmatism (of models I addded for better underestanding).Because of both researches done in the nature I see no point discussing some neodarwinian indoors experiments (did you give any link to them at least?) that should invalidate conclusions of mentioned outdoors data.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?

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. I see. You have obviously accepted the fact that sting play no role in protection of wasps. 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. We know many animals that eat poisonous organisms and eating of which would kill us or other mammals. That some birds after eating wasps vomits do not prove anything in my opinion. They vomit to feed their youngs, they often vomit to get rid of indigestible parts of food they ate.

I am a little bit perplexed. Mostler in the point 27). claims that
negative experience take effect 14 months, but in average 3 months.On the other side he claims in the point 13.) that after 3 weeks when birds were offered mimics they ate those mimics like this: Seracomya borealis 71,5%, bei Chrysothorax festivum 74,5%, bei Eristalomya ienax und Myatropa florea 85,2%, bei Eristalis arbustorum 87,6%, bei Helophilus trivitattus 90,8%.I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad.http://www.springerlink.com/content/vm6p110542322302/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.

Our article stated about wasps that "It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds." It is weird how birds are extraordinary taste-sensitive in these neodarwinian experiments. I suppose that such sensiteveness to "terrible taste" is some kind of speciality of researches proving aposematism. Because in cases where "natural selection" is not the issue of the research the experiments show something different and birds are more relaxed:

quote:

---

One of the first experiments we did with taste some years ago was with pheasants, at Cornell. We sprayed prospective repellant on the feed in troughs. The birds would come over to the feeders and take one mouthful offered; since birds are not very bright they would shift their heads and take another mouthful. Then they would start wiping their beaks and move away from the feed. But a few birds enjoyed the fact that there was no competition at the feeder troughs and continued eating. It is obvious that the minority experienced a taste sensation different from that of the majority, in this case failing to perceive the offensive chemical.

---

And these sentences also contradicts the observed fact that birds avoid 3 months distatesful aposematics:

quote:

---

Generally, if you offer a bird two food choices, and you add a
chemical to one that is so offensive to them that they will not take any of it in a choice situation, and then give them no choice but the flavored food, food intake will be normal over a 14-day period. You have to increase the offensiveness 10-fold to reduce food intake by 10%. Taste offensiveness is of little consequence when the test is of reasonable duration.

---

Birds do not have very good memory and they do not have good taste (except in expertiments proving effectiveness of aposematism where birds obviously always somehow surpass all expectation):

quote:

---

Birds have an interesting sense of taste. They have taste receptors like other animals, and their general structure is essentially the same as that in other vertebrates.
The starling and chicken have a few dozen taste buds as compared to 25000 for the cow.

---

The chemical senses of birds 1970:http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

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. I have given you link that chemical senses of birds are poor. 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.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.

quote:

---

The colored stripes contain pigment granules underneath the translucent cuticle where light sensila were detected (Ishay et al., 1986). These granules are cylindrical in shape and in Vespa orientalis they comprise of what seems to be spores of a symbiotic fungus (Ishay and Shmuelson, 1994).In the hornet the pigment is of a prominent yellow color but in other hornets or wasps the pigment can appear in various shades of green, beige, black (Vecht, 1957, 1959; Ishay et al., 1967; Kemper and D"hring, 1967; Wilson, 1971; Matsuura and Sakagami, 1973; Spradbery, 1973; Edwards, 1980; Akre et al, 1981; Brian, 1983; Matsuura and Yamane, 1990).

---

According this research it is spores of fungus that are responsible for the yellow stripes of Vespa orientalis.I am not sure if that shades of green, beige, black are also due to the color of spores of fungi. But it would be more simple explanation of difference of coloration of these Hymenoptera as those neodarwinian questionable "protective coloration" of them.One should be really blind not to ask why are wasps aposematic and bees almost cryptic when "aposematism" for poisonous bees should have given them the same "survival advantage".Fungi and coloration of some hymenoptera:http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/article.php?27251http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/Publica....R_3.htm---
As to dr. Adequate, I don't read his posts anymore. His posts should probably gave some arguments or elucidate problems from darwinian point of view, so let his posts serve for discussion with other participants.

What kind of mimics do you have on your mind? Some given species from Diptera or Lepidoptera? 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. And we should also find out if birds are so mislead by it as neodarwinists are.

First we should perhaps agree in the cause and the origin of the aposematism of wasps. Bees venom is stronger that those of wasps and wasps do not have so much venom as bees have. Wasps use their venom often when preying (maybe their sacks are are full of venom in experiments in cages, something that doesn't occurs in the free - hence the difference of bird predation in cages and in the free. Just a thought.)Anyway you didn't answer to the question about non-aposematic coloration of bees. And the question is important, because it has been posed even in the article we discussed about:

quote:

---

Given that they are noxious, and birds learn to avoid them, why is the honeybee complex not aposematically coloured (Holloway, 1976) ?

---

So why?

I don't know, but preliminary I doubt it is natural selection due predators. 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:

---

Many researchers seem to assume that predators avoid
bees, the most commonly observed pollinators, due to
their sting. This belief is in disagreement with the long list
of species that prey on bees, most notably, bee eaters
(Meropidae) (Fry 1983), Old and New World ycatchers
(Muscicapidae and Tyrannidae) (Ambrose 1990), beewolves
(Philanthus spp.) (Evans & O'Neill 1988), some
social wasps (Evans & Eberhard 1970; De Jong 1990),
crab spiders (Thomisidae) (Morse 1981; Morse 1986),
predacious bugs (Hemiptera) (Balduf 1939; Greco &
Kevan 1995) and praying mantids (Mantidae) (Caron 1990).
.
.
.
Research in other systems, a long list of bee predators and
formal theory all suggest that bees and other pollinators
should show antipredatory behaviour, which may affect
pollinatorplant interactions (Dukas, in press).

---

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

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:

---

This belief is in disagreement with the long list
of species that prey on bees, most notably, bee eaters
(Meropidae) (Fry 1983),

---

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:

---

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.

---

You only repeat again and again: 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.

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?

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?

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. If there is no aposematism why to think about mimicry of aposematic species?

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". What species do you have in your mind? Frogs, dragonflies, spiders or what? No problem to discuss it. Give just examples. Dragonflies?

quote:

---

Despite the dearth of field-based evidence from natural model-mimic communities, theory suggests that Batesian mimicry should have limits placed upon the model:mimic ratio for mimics to benefit. Paradoxically, hoverflies that are apparently mimics are often superabundant, many times more abundant than their supposed models. One possible solution to this paradox is that perhaps they are not mimics at all.

---

JSTOR: Access Check

In my previous post I addressed also mimicry. But there is no need to think that wasp coloration deters predators other than birds:

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.

---

Obviously in the case it is the size that counts, not "warning coloration" of wasps.http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17244503