|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 23, 2015 13:57:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Feb 23, 2015 15:50:19 GMT
Indeed nature is incredible. We may think that all the colours , patterns and shapes are for beauty and for us to enjoy but it is life saver design .
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 23, 2015 15:53:21 GMT
Natural selection at work that favors "life saver" patterns.
|
|
jensb
Junior Aurelian
Posts: 50
Country: Netherlands
|
Post by jensb on Feb 23, 2015 19:47:29 GMT
I thought this wasn't new I had heared about it bevore.
But yes really amazing how nature does this kind of things.
I always think about it how does nature make these species.
When it is evolution how did it work cause at the start when
these species had tails it didn't have any effect cause they where
to short to invluance the sound waves of a bat.
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Feb 23, 2015 20:37:09 GMT
I remain a bit skeptical about this research topic. I can fathom the ribbon-like tails of moon moths perhaps " somewhat" breaking up and or "scattering" some of a bats sonar. We know that these tails have evolved to draw a predators attention away from the moths body. Birds in the (daylight) and bats at (twilight) will bite or snap at these attention getting ribbons when they are close-in proximity to their target prey. However, I don't feel that the potential scattering effects do any real measurable results in deflecting attention away from the target OR make that target more difficult to locate. Perhaps the tails VERY BRIEFLY confuse the bats interpretation of it's intended prey. Thus the moth quickly lights (lands) and in the fray another target close by is re-focused upon. Much like a heat seeking missile finds an alternative target if the intended target can make something else "hotter" than itself. I've seen plenty of Luna moths with tails damaged (bat bites) clearly visible as well as missing. And I have also seen a fair number with very apparent (bites) in other places on their wings OTHER THAN their tails.
I feel the conclusions that are being drawn from this research still leave me un-convinced that bats have any more difficulty securing their prey with or without tails. Moon moths in particular are generally large moths which fly relatively slow and pondering. Not all that difficult for a speedy bat to re-acquire as a target.I like new discoveries in science as long as the results are definitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 23, 2015 20:50:10 GMT
Well 35% of dead vs 81% seems rather significant.
And as written in the article, bats doesn't seem to attack in the same place when there are tails and where there aren't.
Of course other studies in the future will tell us more.
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Feb 24, 2015 2:14:53 GMT
Well, percentages are not enough to sway my opinion as they are subjective to the researchers (authors) whims. It is they who determine whether or not data collected falls into this category or that category or is an anomaly. Certainly down the road a 2nd set of tests performed by different people will certainly more substantiate or qualify the original researchers conclusions. They might also CONFLICT with those original conclusions and percentages thereby making the topic null.
Good thorough research is not ALWAYS something achieved within the parameters of time doing a doctoral dissertation. Some subject matter is just too complicated and won't be met with success within that 2-3 year doctorate time frame. Which is why loftier questions in science tend to be tackled by seasoned researchers with more un-bridled time. With no comparative research to compare the above article (paper) to I still feel it's "light" on any tangible fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Feb 24, 2015 12:37:27 GMT
As on the video I see that the bat is targeting in the middle of the object where body should be . The long tails are moving that point well below the body and the bat effectively miss the target. In my opinion confirming and continue the research is just waist of time and money.
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Feb 24, 2015 21:41:45 GMT
trephor < I am not a specialist of Saturniidae and sonar so I won't comment if that study is serious or isn't.
I would just add that if those huge Saturniidae tails were made to escape birds (instead of bats), natural selection would have created such long tails also on rhopalocera that are even more killed by birds.
All tailed rhopalocera that I know have fine and rather short tails that mimic antennae. Very different from the Saturniidae tails.
|
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 24, 2015 22:59:15 GMT
do you have the original paper ?
- strange to compare pyrale to actias as blank (not exactly the same prey as one is quite bigger than the other, and pyralidae have tympanal organs missing in Saturniidae)
- one have to see one time an Eudaemonia flying. It is an extremely fast flier possessing a kind of helicoidal flight (not the same as Argema, more erratic)
- must be verified in the paper but the logic is to use a pairs of predator / prey existing in nature.
I completely agree that tails are a response to predation. It increases "the volume" occupied by the lepido flying with a big part inoccupied (espacially in species such as eudaemonia and his helicoidal flight). Sure that the attack of the bird / bat is more inefficient. No needs of a computer to understand this.
A complementary method may be to count injures made on natural specimens (with an estimation grid of kinds of attacks making these injures)
|
|
