Diurnal birds see these nocturnal creatures (including bats) something like "bastards".
I think you are in the ballpark, although maybe not with the bats, but rather than a split between diurnal and nocturnal it is between predator and prey species. Bear in mind that not all owls are strictly nocturnal so a prey species may well react to a nocturnal species which resembles a diurnal one. It may even be that they are reacting to characteristics of birds of prey in general, although this may be less likely since owls are quite distinct from the other raptors.
If you see this explanation funny give me your neodarwinistic one.
Without a lot more in depth behavioural study, ideally a generational one allowing something along the lines of a qtl analysis, there is no way to give anything close to a 'neodarwinistic explanation', only best guesses just a little better than just so stories. This isn't like mimicry where there is a whole lot of genetics available for us to explore, this is a complex behaviour requiring a sizable population of birds which about which we know little in the way of behavioural genetics and small potential in terms of manipulability of those genetics.
And the better chance that male progeny will attract attention of some predator. It's interesting that female choice goes so often against fitness of the species, isn't it?
That's rather the point, the fact that the animals survive despite the handicap means that they are in fact fit so the size or distinctiveness of colouration act as an honest signal of fitness to the female of the species.
There is no need for there to be any one size fits all explanation for all variations of colouration.
Why on earth would you just pick some random example and then require it be shoehorned into a description of something that happened with another very different mushroom.
Amanita muscaria is generally not lethal and the mushroom has very distinctive colouration. The lethal webcap is much more toxic, indeed frequently lethal, and has no sort of bright colouration (I'm sure we could debate the different perceptions among fungivores here but I don't know that it would help).
A mushroom whose poison kills those that ingest it is clearly not going to be showing similar survival strategies to one which induces unpleasant illness and has associated psychotropic effects. Look at the related Amanita phalloides which is highly toxic and again you will see a pretty plain colouration. If your poision is strong enough to kill something that eats you (or even just part of you), it really doesn't matter if they remember what you look like.
to Lethal webcaps where the first symptoms often occurs after 3 weeks!
Martin why say something and then put up a link which shows how radically you are spinning it. The Wiki article says 'symptoms usually don't appear until 2-3 days after ingestion' but can 'in some cases' take as long as 3 weeks. Can you see how simply saying 'often occurs after 3 weeks' is a complete twisting of this?
What I am trying to explain here is that mushrooms coloration (and now even their toxicity) has nothing to do with darwinistic "survival strategies".
No, that is what you are claiming, you haven't actually explained anything.
Yet they confirmed what I stated from the beginning:
Do they consider the distinction between non-lethal and lethal toxins? If not then the article doesn't address the point I made. Instead it relates to the side poin I made that visual perception in fungivores might be a question and the idea that aposematic signalling is done by olfaction instead is no problem for neodarwinism, but there is no reason it can't be done by both in distinct situations.
If you like scientific link supporting my claim more precisely
The previous link didn't support your claim imprecisely, it didn't support it at all and neither does your new one. 9 days still isn't after 3 weeks, and neither is 17 days which is the later time for the onset of symptoms that your new paper gives.
Can't you just admit that your 'after 3 weeks' claim was wrong?
Again - I do not see any darwinistic "survival strategy" of poison that take effect after so many days that animal cannot remember what could be the source of its nuisance.
Once again, if the form that 'nuisance' takes is 'possible fatal kidney damage', as your site suggests, then it hardly matters if the animal remembers what it ate or not.
Care to address the point, or do you have some more links which have nothing to do with it to bring up?