Sunday, 22 March 2015

Defensive False Markings




False Markings

One of the four levels of deceptions in animals is the utilisation of false markings or mimicry. This week, the blog will focus on the use of defensive mimicry. Defensive mimicry can be utilised to avoid encounters that would be harmful to the animals by deceiving their predators into treating them as something else. As mentioned in the introductory blog, Batesian mimicry is such a form. Batesian mimicry is often when a harmless animal has mimicked a harmful one. Mullerian mimicry is when two or more poisonous species have come to mimic each other’s warning signals in order to avoid a common predator. Examples of these follows.

Papilio polytes Linnaeus (Common Mormon) is a black bodied swallowtail butterfly that is well distributed throughout India. Its wide distribution has been achieved through mimicking distasteful and poisonous butterflies in the same environment. The Common Mormon is a good example of sexual polymorphism and Batesian mimicry as it has three female forms and one male form (V.S & Mathew, 2014). The Common Mormon has mimicked the markings of two other butterflies: the red colouration and wing patterns of Pachliopta aristolochiae Fabricius (Common Rose) and Pachliopta hector Linnaeus (Crimson Rose). The red body, bright colouration and wing patterns indicate to predators that this butterfly is inedible. By mimicking these markings, the Common Mormon has avoided the predators by appearing distasteful.

Figure 1: Common Rose Pachliopta aristolochiae feeding. Photographer: Anonymous (2005).



Figure 2: Common Mormon Papilio polytes feeding. Photographer: Anonymous (2014).


Much like the case above; Limenitis archippus Cramer (Viceroy) has come to mimic the warning signals, such as bright wing colouration and patterns, of Danaus plexippus Linnaeus (Monarch). However, both the Viceroy and Monarch butterflies are as inedible as each other. That Viceroy butterflies are as unpalatable as Monarch butterflies (Ritland & Brower, 1991).

Figure 3: Comparative wing patterns of Viceroy Limenitis archippus & Monarch Danaus plexippus butterflies. Photographer: Anonymous (2014).


Next week we will explore the use of false markings for aggressive purposes.

References:

Anonymous. (2005). Common Rose Pachliopta aristolochiae feeding. en.wikipedia.org; retrieved 21/03/2015.

Anonymous. (2014). Common Mormon Papilio polytes feeding. www.thehindu.com; retrieved 21/03/2015.

Anonymous. (2014). Comparative wing patterns of Viceroy Limenitis archippus & Monarch Danaus plexippus butterflies. www.naturenorth.com; retrieved 21/03/2015.

Ritland, David B. & Brower, Lincoln P. (1991). The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic. Nature 350, 497-498.

V. S, Revathy., & Mathew, George. (2014). Identity, biology and bionomics of the Common Mormon, Papilio polytes Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology. 8, 119-124.

1 comment:

  1. Fascinating. If viceroys are as toxic as Monarchs, why did they need to evolve mimicry? Surely it would have been as beneficial for the butterfly if it had a very characteristic marking that signaled it was inedible? Do Crimson Rose butterflies and Common Rose butterflies suffer higher predation if Common Mormons increase in frequency in a population? I’m looking forward to your next blog.

    ReplyDelete