|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6130 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
All I need to show is that after eating noxious tasting insects, there is a tendency in predators to avoid things that look like noxious tasting insects. It doesn't matter why an insect looks noxious, only that a predator is able to discriminate a noxious insect from a non-noxious one - fooled only by non-noxious mimics of course.
It's your opinion that it is all you need to show. Obviously if you show that eagles still prefer mice after tasting wasps (in cages of course) it doesn't mean you are right with your explanation. The same is valid for any other bird species preferring other food after tasting wasps. There will be still enough bee-eaters. If you were right then noxious insect would have "small survival advantage" using your terms. Their population should increase every generation. They will soon populate the Earth as Darwin predicted. But we can see it is not the case. Every noxious and aposematic insect species have dozens predators that chceck their populations and that check those mysterious "small survival advantage" of their noxiousness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Also - EVERY species on the planet has some adaptation that gives them a small survival or reproductive advantage and thus EVERY single species on earth (according to your strange logic) should populate the world.
It is not my strange logic. Isn't it a darwinian logic that if a species have small survival advantage to other species (0,0001%) they will in eons surpress the less fit species? But we see that there are wasps, bees, gnats, flies, butterflies, grasshoppres etc. in the countryside. Maybe every year has each species different fitness, but they thive all very well. Consequently I do not see any "survival advantage" having poisonous sacks and stings comparing wasp's fitness with the fitness of non-poisonous conspicuous butterflies.
You seem to have a weird understanding of biology to think survival advantages should continue increasing population size ad infinitum. Survival/reproductive advantages can increase maximum population size..
So it cannot increase maximum population size ad infinitum but it can increase maximum population size neverthenless. Where do you see a point it stops? Sooner or later there will pop up some predator's species that would take advantage of eating noxious aposematics, do you agree? Maybe we are now in such a period, there are so many imperfecr mimics of wasps. Obviously the simplest explanation would be there is no selective advantage to look more waspish, because wasps have so many predators. Consequently there is no selective advantage of looking like wasps. Myabe the imperfect mimics of wasps prove the uneffectiviness of "warning coloration" of wasps better than anything else. Maybe I have weird underestanding of it. But your underestanding of it seems to me also weird.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Yet they have less predators than things that look less waspish so the simplest explanation is also the wrong one.
If I put a neodarwinian hat on my head my reasoning would be like this (if I am not wrong) -: each individual of imperfect wasp mimic species that looks more waspish should obtain a small survival advantage (let say 0,0001%). After thousands years and generations we should observe only "perfect mimics" of wasps. Obviously it is not the case. There must be a force that prevents to spread of "more waspish phenotype alleles" to take an advatntage to "not so much waspish looking phenotype alleles". Do you have an idea what is the force that prevents imperfect mimics to become more perfect mimics of wasps? Edited by MartinV, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
AdminNosy,
I have no problem if somebody is abusing me. Austrian entomologist Franz Heikertinegr spent more than 40 years refuting neodarwinian concept of mimicry (His work "Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung - Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Wiederlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen Jena 1954" is a summary of his opinions and researches and also a valuable source of argumets refuting so called aposematism and mimicry in insect realm) was also a great systematic of a past time. He came to the conclusion that honey-bees - comparing it's relative species - looks like flies. So in this case poisonous honey-bees having stings look more like flies, the phenomenon very strange indeed. There is supposedly a general rule( I am not a systematic) that tropic wasps are no way aposematics (they are supposedly mainly brown or black there) and this must be explained by neodarwinian "natural selection" rule as well. I do not read and I do not answer Dr.Adequate posts. Anyway thank you. His posts with great pictures of honey-bees is something I cannot just skip without noticing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
It's called natural selection. Let's say that in order to look more like a wasp, the insect has to compromise flight skill. There will be a balance between looking waspish and being skilled and the optimum solution will eventually be found - no doubt some kind of compromise between the two.
Are you sure? Because according the following observation it is only due wasps ability (or skills) that protects wasps from being eaten. Do you think that their mimics must be more skillfull than wasps? If yes I do not see a reason why so many species are mimicking wasps:
quote: Page not found - BirdWatching Jeanne who is a terraine biologist who studied wasps in Costa Rica almost 25 years ( he is no way an armchair neodarwinian scientist I dare say) came to this conclusion (2002) :
quote: NCBI Do you see any "selective pressure" for looking like wasps here? Edited by MartinV, : link added. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
No - its a paper on defensive behaviour, why would I expect to find a discussion on selection pressures on morphology?
Obviously "warning coloration" is not enough to protect wasps. They need also "defensive behaviour" in order to survive "struggle for life". Because their "warning coloration" is not enough it obviously would be not enough for their mimics as well. And wasps' mimic behaviur is very different from those of wasps. You can check it if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Discussing warning coloration of wasps we should take into consideration the wood wasps as well. There is a very dangerous looking species Sirex gigas which is no way harmfull. I am afraid the whole Siricidae family is no way dangerous. According Wikipedia:
quote: So I do not see the force mantaining "warning coloration" of the unarmed, defenceless wood wasps for such a long period. Can you give some explanation of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Because my stance is that coloration of insects play no role in their protection. I am presenting some arguments that wasps do not possess warning coloration. We have work it out first. Mimicry of wasps is the second step. If it shows up that natural selection play no role in maintaining of aposematism of models there is no need to believe it plays any role as driving force in mimicry of wasps.
So the question I am interested about your opinion is this: If aposematism has some warning meaning why we observe harmless wasps to be aposematics? And vice versa - Why we observe stinging poisonous wasps having black or brown color which are considered cryptic (black wasps, you know)? I do not see the forces behind the curious phenomenon. Last time you answered that there is some kind of trade off looking more waspish and being fast in imperfect wasps' mimics. I don't think you have any evidence for it but I appreciate that it accords with your theory very well. In the mentioned case of wood wasps I am lost again what could be the darwinian explanation of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
RAZD at Egg burier animals question:
http://EvC Forum: Egg burier animals question -->EvC Forum: Egg burier animals question
A better intro to MartinV is Thread Mimicry and neodarwinism (which he started and is now closed) and Thread Mimicry: Please help me understand how. Watch for head spinning circular arguments. That repeat.
I have used arguments of McAtee from US Agriculture Survey department who summarized the greatest research about stomachs of birds ever done - 80.000. Wasps were eaten surprisingly often according McAtee to have any warning meaning. I have used arguments of Heikertinger who after 40 years of denying neodarwinian explanationon of mimicry summarized his arguments in his book ""Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung - Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Wiederlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen Jena 1954" Heikertinger arguments about warning coloration of wooden wasps that are harmless and cryptic coloration (brown, black) of poiosonous wasps has not been adressed from your part. See my previous post 196. I suppose I have brought a lot of arguments. Your only answer is almost the same - whatever the facts are, there must be always some "small survival advantage" of looking waspish. You don't have other afguments than "small survival advantage". I don't abuse you that you know little about the problem and systematics of Hymenoptera and their supposedly mimics. I am only disapointed that you you have the audacity to call me "troll" and my arguments "circular". That's really unbelievable. Obviously "small survival advantage" is no way "repetitive arguments" even if you repeat it ad nausea in every thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Still no answer to my question about harmless wooden wasps? What is the reason of warning conspicuos coloration of them if they cannot hurt? What kind of force is maintaining their coloration? Any mysterious neodarwinian "small survival advantage"?
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
It doesn't matter what the explanation of it is for this topic unless it is proposed to deter predators - in which case it might be mimicry which would make it on topic.
I know well that it's you who determine what is the topic or not. I have been warned already not to continue using my evidence here. But you didn't answer why there are so many wasp species which are black and brown. Either they don't need to signal their poisonous qualities or predators better remember black or brown than aposematic black-yellow stripes. Edited by MartinV, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
The problem of bright coloration of catterpilars was a puzzle for Darwin. As far as I know he insisted on natural selection even if in this case it doesn't work. He said somethig like " I will believe in Natural selection even if in this case (bright coloration of caterpillars) it is not valid explanation of the phenomena". (According antidarwinian evolutionist Heikertiner.)
I cannot find out his letters about the topic which he discussed with Wallace and Bates. Why this one is unavailable? | Darwin Correspondence Project
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
They are irrelevant to this topic unless you want to discuss mimicry of these insects...for instance we could talk about ants that mimic other species of ant and invade their nests. That is mimicry and there is no warning colouration there.
I am ready. Do you know that there are beetles living in cavers that look like ants? They have no way the same predators as ants but they look like them. Obviously predators play no role in their ant-like morphology. Aphaenops vandeli or pluto Free Pages Personnelles: Erreur 404 - Document non trouvé Free Pages Personnelles: Erreur 500 - Erreur interne du serveur You know some systematics already discussed these supposedly "ant mimics" in the beginning of the 20 century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
I've found it finally. Darwin solving the problem of aposematism 1867 wrote:
quote: The last sentence is significant. Can you imagine a physicist or a mathematician pronouncing such a credo? http://infomotions.com/...nberg/dirs/1/5/9/9/15997/15997.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5857 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
I know the whole story of conspicuous catterpilars as Heikertinger had written about it. First Darwin visited Bates and he didn't know the answer (1867). Bates reccomended Darwin to ask Wallace. Wallace responded Darwin that he (Darwin) was the man who always know the right answer. But he (Wallace) had thought that conspicuous coloration had some "warning" meaning. So those three famous men came to the conclusion that the problem could be explained by "unpalatability" of catterpillars. Actually Bates himself proposed such theory many years ago (Bates 1861) in his mimicry concept of the conspicuous coloration of butterfly Leptais .
So those great three men reinvented in 1867 again the theory of warning coloration proposed by one of them in 1861. --- Franz Heikertinger: Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung, Jena 1954, page 16-17. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given. Edited by MartinV, : source
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024