|
|
Post by wollastoni on Oct 17, 2017 16:17:41 GMT
We all know Batesian and Mullerian mimicry rings in Lepidoptera. Natural selection making unpalatable and palatable species looking more and more the same generation after generation (to make it simple). It is often hard to visualize in a classic collection organization. My friend Franzizka Bauer has made these nice compositions that speak a lot (on top of being splendid). Here a South American mimicry complex of toxic Ithomiinae and Heliconinae with Pyralidae, Arctiinae and Zygaenidae. Unpalatable species are those with the "+"   The drawing on the second picture is from Charles Darwin. Images of specimens taken from BOLD, CC BY-NC-SA license holders: Axel Hausmann, Daniel H. Janzen, Michel Laguerre, Benoit Vincent. Figure conception and realization: Franziska Bauer. |
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Oct 17, 2017 16:22:01 GMT
I would add that to judge mimicry ring, you need to see specimens live on the field.
In collection, some specimens may look different, while at flight they look nearly exactly the same (at least for the insect collector... so maybe also for the birds).
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 17, 2017 17:11:45 GMT
There is also a specimen of Papilio zagreus in both photos, nearest to the top right corner in the top photo and just left of the Franziska Bauer logo in the lower photo.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Oct 17, 2017 17:33:29 GMT
That specimen of P. zagreus brings one's attention to the fact that the actual sizes of each specimen have been altered to make them appear to be uniform. There is actually a large variation of sizes in the species shown. I've read studies before, stating that size isn't a factor in the effectiveness of mimicry, just as an interesting aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 17, 2017 18:05:16 GMT
Love that first display; so much diversity utilizing the warning colors of orange/black. I'm sure an equally impressive display could be cobbled togather utilizing the red/black and yellow/black warning color themes as well. Nice work by your friend !
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Oct 17, 2017 18:34:02 GMT
That specimen of P. zagreus brings one's attention to the fact that the actual sizes of each specimen have been altered to make them appear to be uniform. There is actually a large variation of sizes in the species shown. I've read studies before, stating that size isn't a factor in the effectiveness of mimicry, just as an interesting aside.
But the size range here is huge - those riodinids are about 1cm total wingspan - how big is the Papilio?
There are at least two separate rings here - one based on the large heliconiids and ithomiids that are so common lazily flying through neotropical forests. Papilionids, pierids castinea, nymphalids and others play this game
The other based on smaller arctiiids that "sit and display" during daylight hours. In the butterfly world - it's really only the metalmarks that behave similarly enough that this works for them.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Oct 17, 2017 18:41:07 GMT
Yes, a large variation of sizes as I said - I don't have a specimen of the Papilio in hand at this moment, but offhand I suppose its wingspan is around 14-15 cm or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 17, 2017 20:42:33 GMT
offhand I suppose its wingspan is around 14-15 cm or so Not quite that big, about 10cm. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Oct 17, 2017 22:22:17 GMT
I thought 10 cm seemed rather small; curiosity got the best of me and I had to measure them.  My smallest male zagreus chrysoxanthus is 5.75 cm from wingtip to centre of thorax, i.e. 11.5 cm; the largest is 6.5 cm, = 13 cm. I have just one z. nigroapicalis; it's very large, but I don't know whether this is usually the case: 7 cm, = 14 cm wingspan. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 18, 2017 9:06:21 GMT
Yours seem larger than mine, most of the ones I measured yesterday were about 9.5-10cm across. Of course it also depends to a certain extent on how high you lift the forewings when spreading them, a slightly lower position would add maybe 1-2 cm on the wingspan I guess.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 18, 2017 12:34:32 GMT
Spectacular display!
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Oct 18, 2017 13:10:59 GMT
Yours seem larger than mine, most of the ones I measured yesterday were about 9.5-10cm across. Of course it also depends to a certain extent on how high you lift the forewings when spreading them, a slightly lower position would add maybe 1-2 cm on the wingspan I guess. Adam. Yes, if one is simply measuring across the wings from tip to tip, but I measure from tip to thorax, then double it so that it's independent from wing position. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 18, 2017 19:07:51 GMT
Using your method my specimens are the same size as yours, most measure between 6 and 6.5 cm from forewing tip to centre of the thorax.
I should add though that in scientific papers it is normal to measure forewing length, from the tip to the base where it joins the thorax rather than the inaccurate 'wingspan' straight across or your measurement including the thorax. I do agree that your method is much more accurate than the 'wingspan' which really does depend on how the specimen is spread.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmg on Oct 25, 2017 8:18:47 GMT
My last spread Zagreus has a wingspan of 10.5 cm. Actually, it's Pterourus ascolius ascolius (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1864) For the mimicry to be real, the size of the butterfly is not enough, it is also necessary that the two protagonists (the imitator and the "model") frequent the same biotope and fly at the same hours. Otherwise, it is only a convergence of appearance and one can not speak of true mimicry.  |
|
