INTERSEXUAL COMPARISON OF MIMETIC PROTECTION IN THE BLACK SWALLOWTAIL BUTTERFLY,PAPILIO POLYXENES: EXPERIMENTS WITH CAPTIVE BLUE JAY PREDATORS

The black swallowtail butterfly (Papilio polyxenes asterius Stoll), is commonly assumed to exhibit female-limited Batesian mimicry of the aposematic pipevine swallowtail (Battus philenor [L.]), since the dorsal wing surfaces of P. polyxenes females, but not males, resemble those of the model. However, the ventral wing surface is monomorphic and closely resembles that of the model in both sexes. Thus both sexes of P. polyxenes should benefit from mimicry during periods of ventral surface exposure, such as during overnight roosting and other times of high predatory risk. Eight blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata L.) were offered ventrally and dorsally exposed butterfly prey items in an outdoor aviary. Model-conditioned birds refused male and female P. polyxenes equally when the butterflies were presented ventrally. However, significantly more males than females were attacked when the dimorphic dorsum was visible. Both sexes are thus similarly protected when the ventral wing surface is displayed during roosting. The high degree of bird-to-bird variability in response to P. polyxenes mimics suggests that there is a spectrum in ability or willingness of predators to discriminate among mimics of varying similarity to the model. Sexual dimorphism of the dorsal surface of P. polyxenes wings may reflect sexual selection favoring males that are recognizable as satisfactory mates or intrasexual competitors.     

Independent evolution of sexual dimorphism and female‐limited mimicry in swallowtail butterflies (Papilio dardanus and Papilio phorcas)

Several species of swallowtail butterflies (genus Papilio) are Batesian mimics that express multiple mimetic female forms, while the males are monomorphic and nonmimetic. The evolution of such sex‐limited mimicry may involve sexual dimorphism arising first and mimicry subsequently. Such a stepwise scenario through a nonmimetic, sexually dimorphic stage has been proposed for two closely related sexually dimorphic species: Papilio phorcas, a nonmimetic species with two female forms, and Papilio dardanus, a female‐limited polymorphic mimetic species. Their close relationship indicates that female‐limited polymorphism could be a shared derived character of the two species. Here, we present a phylogenomic analysis of the dardanus group using 3964 nuclear loci and whole mitochondrial genomes, showing that they are not sister species and thus that the sexually dimorphic state has arisen independently in the two species. Nonhomology of the female polymorphism in both species is supported by population genetic analysis of engrailed, the presumed mimicry switch locus in P. dardanus. McDonald–Kreitman tests performed on SNPs in engrailed showed the signature of balancing selection in a polymorphic population of P. dardanus, but not in monomorphic populations, nor in the nonmimetic P. phorcas. Hence, the wing polymorphism does not balance polymorphisms in engrailed in P. phorcas. Equally, unlike in P. dardanus, none of the SNPs in P. phorcas engrailed were associated with either female morph. We conclude that sexual dimorphism due to female polymorphism evolved independently in both species from monomorphic, nonmimetic states. While sexual selection may drive male–female dimorphism in nonmimetic species, in mimetic Papilios, natural selection for protection from predators in females is an alternative route to sexual dimorphism.     

UV photoreceptors and UV-yellow wing pigments in Heliconius butterflies allow a color signal to serve both mimicry and intraspecific communication

Mimetic wing coloration evolves in butterflies in the context of predator confusion. Unless butterfly eyes have adaptations for discriminating mimetic color variation, mimicry also carries a risk of confusion for the butterflies themselves. Heliconius butterfly eyes, which express recently duplicated ultraviolet (UV) opsins, have such an adaptation. To examine bird and butterfly color vision as sources of selection on butterfly coloration, we studied yellow wing pigmentation in the tribe Heliconiini. We confirmed, using reflectance and mass spectrometry, that only Heliconius use 3-hydroxy-DL-kynurenine (3-OHK), which looks yellow to humans but reflects both UV- and long-wavelength light, whereas butterflies in related genera have chemically unknown yellow pigments mostly lacking UV reflectance. Modeling of these color signals reveals that the two UV photoreceptors of Heliconius are better suited to separating 3-OHK from non-3-OHK spectra compared with the photoreceptors of related genera or birds. The co-occurrence of potentially enhanced UV vision and a UV-reflecting yellow wing pigment could allow unpalatable Heliconius private intraspecific communication in the presence of mimics. Our results are the best available evidence for the correlated evolution of a color signal and color vision. They also suggest that predator visual systems are error prone in the context of mimicry.     

Cryptic differences in colour among Müllerian mimics: how can the visual capacities of predators and prey shape the evolution of wing colours?

Antagonistic interactions between predators and prey often lead to co‐evolution. In the case of toxic prey, aposematic colours act as warning signals for predators and play a protective role. Evolutionary convergence in colour patterns among toxic prey evolves due to positive density‐dependent selection and the benefits of mutual resemblance in spreading the mortality cost of educating predators over a larger prey assemblage. Comimetic species evolve highly similar colour patterns, but such convergence may interfere with intraspecific signalling and recognition in the prey community, especially for species involved in polymorphic mimicry. Using spectrophotometry measures, we investigated the variation in wing coloration among comimetic butterflies from distantly related lineages. We focused on seven morphs of the polymorphic species Heliconius numata and the seven corresponding comimetic species from the genus Melinaea. Significant differences in the yellow, orange and black patches of the wing were detected between genera. Perceptions of these cryptic differences by bird and butterfly observers were then estimated using models of animal vision based on physiological data. Our results showed that the most strikingly perceived differences were obtained for the contrast of yellow against a black background. The capacity to discriminate between comimetic genera based on this colour contrast was also evaluated to be higher for butterflies than for birds, suggesting that this variation in colour, likely undetectable to birds, might be used by butterflies for distinguishing mating partners without losing the benefits of mimicry. The evolution of wing colour in mimetic butterflies might thus be shaped by the opposite selective pressures exerted by predation and species recognition.     

Behaviour before beauty: Signal weighting during mate selection in the butterfly Papilio polytes

Mating displays often contain multiple signals. Different combinations of these signals may be equally successful at attracting a mate, as environment and signal combination may influence relative signal weighting by choosy individuals. This variation in signal weighting among choosy individuals may facilitate the maintenance of polymorphic displays and signalling behaviour. One group of animals known for their polymorphic patterning are Batesian mimetic butterflies, where the interaction of sexual selection and predation pressures is hypothesized to influence the maintenance of polymorphic wing patterning and behaviour. Males in the female‐limited polymorphic Batesian mimetic butterfly Papilio polytes use female wing pattern and female activity levels when determining whom to court. They court stationary females with mimetic wing patterns more often than stationary females with non‐mimetic, male‐like wing patterns and active females more often than inactive females. It is unclear whether females modify their behaviour to increase (or decrease) their likelihood of receiving male courtship, or whether non‐mimetic females spend more time in cryptic environments than mimetic females, to compensate for their lack of mimicry‐driven predation protection (at the cost of decreased visibility to males). In addition, relative signal weighting of female wing pattern and activity to male mate selection is unknown. To address these questions, we conducted a series of observational studies of a polymorphic P. polytes population in a large butterfly enclosure. We found that males exclusively courted active females, irrespective of female wing pattern. However, males did court active non‐mimetic females significantly more often than expected given their relative abundance in the population. Females exhibited similar activity levels, and selected similar resting environments, irrespective of wing pattern. Our results suggest that male preference for non‐mimetic females may play an active role in the maintenance of the non‐mimetic female form in natural populations, where males are likely to be in the presence of active, as well as inactive, mimetic and non‐mimetic females.     

Natural selection in mimicry

Biological mimicry has served as a salient example of natural selection for over a century, providing us with a dazzling array of very different examples across many unrelated taxa. We provide a conceptual framework that brings together apparently disparate examples of mimicry in a single model for the purpose of comparing how natural selection affects models, mimics and signal receivers across different interactions. We first analyse how model–mimic resemblance likely affects the fitness of models, mimics and receivers across diverse examples. These include classic Batesian and Müllerian butterfly systems, nectarless orchids that mimic Hymenoptera or nectar‐producing plants, caterpillars that mimic inert objects unlikely to be perceived as food, plants that mimic abiotic objects like carrion or dung and aggressive mimicry where predators mimic food items of their own prey. From this, we construct a conceptual framework of the selective forces that form the basis of all mimetic interactions. These interactions between models, mimics and receivers may follow four possible evolutionary pathways in terms of the direction of selection resulting from model–mimic resemblance. Two of these pathways correspond to the selective pressures associated with what is widely regarded as Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. The other two pathways suggest mimetic interactions underpinned by distinct selective pressures that have largely remained unrecognized. Each pathway is characterized by theoretical differences in how model–mimic resemblance influences the direction of selection acting on mimics, models and signal receivers, and the potential for consequent (co)evolutionary relationships between these three protagonists. The final part of this review describes how selective forces generated through model–mimic resemblance can be opposed by the basic ecology of interacting organisms and how those forces may affect the symmetry, strength and likelihood of (co)evolution between the three protagonists within the confines of the four broad evolutionary possibilities. We provide a clear and pragmatic visualization of selection pressures that portrays how different mimicry types may evolve. This conceptual framework provides clarity on how different selective forces acting on mimics, models and receivers are likely to interact and ultimately shape the evolutionary pathways taken by mimetic interactions, as well as the constraints inherent within these interactions.     

Does Müllerian Mimicry Work in Nature? Experiments with Butterflies and Birds (Tyrannidae)1

The selective advantage of Müllerian mimicry in nature was investigated by releasing live mimetic and nonmimetic butterflies close to wild, aerial‐hunting tropical kingbirds (Tyrannus melancholicus) and cliff‐flycatchers (Hirundinea ferruginea) in three Amazon habitats (rain forest, a city, and “canga” vegetation). Only mimetic butterflies elicited sight‐rejections by birds, but protection conferred by mimicry was restricted to sites in which both predators and mimics co‐occurred, as in the case of six mimicry rings at a forest site and two at a city site. Most other Müllerian mimics released at city and canga vegetation were heavily attacked and consumed by birds. These results appear to reflect the birds’previous experiences with resident butterfly faunas and illustrate how birds’discriminatory behavior varied among habitats that differed in butterfly species and mimicry ring composition.     

Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils

Sexual and natural selection pressures are thought to shape the characteristic wing patterns of butterfly species. Here we test whether sexual selection by female choice plays a role in the maintenance of the male wing pattern in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. We perform one of the most extensive series of wing pattern manipulations in butterflies, dissecting every component of the 'bulls-eye' eyespot patterns in both ventral and dorsal wing surfaces of males to test the trait's appeal to females. We conclude that females select males on the basis of the size and brightness of the dorsal eyespot's ultraviolet reflecting pupils. Pupil absence is strongly selected against, as are artificially enlarged pupils. Small to intermediate (normal sized) pupils seem to function equally well. This work contradicts earlier experiments that suggest that the size of dorsal eyespots plays a role in female choice and explains why male dorsal eyespots are very variable in size and often have indistinct rings of coloration, as the only feature under selection by females seems to be the central white pupil. We propose that sexual selection by female choice, rather than predator avoidance, may have been an important selective factor in the early stages of eyespot evolution in ancestral Lepidopteran lineages.     

Balanced polymorphisms and their divergence in a Heliconius butterfly

The evolution of mimicry in similarly defended prey is well described by the Müllerian mimicry theory, which predicts the convergence of warning patterns in order to gain the most protection from predators. However, despite this prediction, we can find great diversity of color patterns among Müllerian mimics such as Heliconius butterflies in the neotropics. Furthermore, some species have evolved the ability to maintain multiple distinct warning patterns in single populations, a phenomenon known as polymorphic mimicry. The adaptive benefit of these polymorphisms is questionable since variation from the most common warning patterns is expected to be disadvantageous as novel signals are punished by predators naive to them. In this study, we use artificial butterfly models throughout Central and South America to characterize the selective pressures maintaining polymorphic mimicry in Heliconius doris. Our results highlight the complexity of positive frequency‐dependent selection, the principal selective pressure driving convergence among Müllerian mimics, and its impacts on interspecific variation of mimetic warning coloration. We further show how this selection regime can both limit and facilitate the diversification of mimetic traits.     

Experimental field tests of Batesian mimicry in the swallowtail butterfly Papilio polytes

The swallowtail butterfly Papilio polytes is known for its striking resemblance in wing pattern to the toxic butterfly Pachliopta aristolochiae and is a focal system for the study of mimicry evolution. Papilio polytes females are polymorphic in wing pattern, with mimetic and nonmimetic forms, while males are monomorphic and nonmimetic. Past work invokes selection for mimicry as the driving force behind wing pattern evolution in P. polytes. However, the mimetic relationship between P. polytes and P. aristolochiae is not well understood. In order to test the mimicry hypothesis, we constructed paper replicas of mimetic and nonmimetic P. polytes and P. aristolochiae, placed them in their natural habitat, and measured bird predation on replicas. In initial trials with stationary replicas and plasticine bodies, overall predation was low and we found no differences in predation between replica types. In later trials with replicas mounted on springs and with live mealworms standing in for the butterfly's body, we found less predation on mimetic P. polytes replicas compared to nonmimetic P. polytes replicas, consistent with the predator avoidance benefits of mimicry. While our results are mixed, they generally lend support to the mimicry hypothesis as well as the idea that behavioral differences between the sexes contributed to the evolution of sexually dimorphic mimicry.     

Why male butterflies are non-mimetic: natural selection,sexual selection,group selection,modification and sieving*

Thomas Belt suggested that the frequent limitation of mimicry in butterflies to the female resulted from sexual selection. Because female butterflies store sperm they can be fully fertile after only one mating; the reproductive success of a male is proportional to the number of times he mates. Sexual selection is therefore much stronger in males than females, with selection coefficients being greater by a small multiple of the number of times a female is courted during her life (long-lived species) or of the reciprocal of the female mortality rate between courtships (short-lived species). As butterflies of both sexes respond to colour when courting, sexual selection resists colour changes especially strongly in males. As a result, genes conferring new mimetic colour patterns can often become established in a butterfly population much more readily if their expression is initially limited to females; when the population size of a Batesian mimic, its model, and its predator fluctuates, such sex-limited genes have an enhanced probability of ultimate fixation in the population, and a reduced chance of loss; this effect is accentuated by the selection of modifiers which improve the mimicry. When the establishment of unimodal mimicry (expressed in both sexes) is favoured in a Batesian mimic, the gene tends to rise to an equilibrium frequency at which modifiers suppressing the expression of the mimicry only in males and'modifiers enhancing the mimicry only in females are favoured. The outcome is female-limited mimicry, or unimodal mimicry with better mimicry in the females, the males either retaining some of their sexual colour or the selective behaviour of the females becoming altered. In a Muellerian mimic there is no such equilibrium and selection ultimately favours expression of mimicry in both sexes and an appropriate alteration in the courtship responses. Hence Muellerian mimicry is seldom female-limited. Exceptional cases appear to result from the sexes flying in separate habitats. The genetical evidence in Papilio and Heliconius favours initial limitation of expression over subsequent modification as the usual basis for female-limited mimicry. Other explanations of female-limited mimicry can be found wanting in various ways; a higher predation rate on females could produce sex-limitation, but is probably not a strong factor. But the greater variability of the female in Lepidoptera may indicate lesser developmental stability, which could result in greater penetrance of mutants in the female, and hence account for the initial female-limitation. At very high densities of a mimetic species which has no non-mimetic form, mimicry tends to deteriorate more rapidly in a unimodal than in an otherwise identical sex-limited species. Although by itself this would equally favour male-limitation, and hence cannot explain the predominance of female-limitation, this effect may over evolutionary time be causing a slight increase in the proportion of sex-limited species among mimics. The stability of some mimetic polymorphisms is investigated by linear approximation: in some instances a stable equilibrium can be changed into an oscillating equilibrium by changes in the population size.     

Subtle variation in size and shape of the whole forewing and the red band among co‐mimics revealed by geometric morphometric analysis in Heliconius butterflies

Heliconius are unpalatable butterflies that exhibit remarkable intra‐ and interspecific variation in wing color pattern, specifically warning coloration. Species that have converged on the same pattern are often clustered in Müllerian mimicry rings. Overall, wing color patterns are nearly identical among co‐mimics. However, fine‐scale differences exist, indicating that factors in addition to natural selection may underlie wing phenotype. Here, we investigate differences in shape and size of the forewing and the red band in the Heliconius postman mimicry ring (H. erato phyllis and the co‐mimics H. besckei, H. melpomene burchelli, and H. melpomene nanna) using a landmark‐based approach. If phenotypic evolution is driven entirely by predation pressure, we expect nonsignificant differences among co‐mimics in terms of wing shape. Also, a reinforcement of wing pattern (i.e., greater similarity) could occur when co‐mimics are in sympatry. We also examined variation in the red forewing band because this trait is critical for both mimicry and sexual communication. Morphometric results revealed significant but small differences among species, particularly in the shape of the forewing of co‐mimics. Although we did not observe greater similarity when co‐mimics were in sympatry, nearly identical patterns provided evidence of convergence for mimicry. In contrast, mimetic pairs could be distinguished based on the shape (but not the size) of the red band, suggesting an “advergence” process. In addition, sexual dimorphism in the red band shape (but not size) was found for all lineages. Thus, we infer that natural selection due to predation by birds might not be the only mechanism responsible for variation in color patterns, and sexual selection could be an important driver of wing phenotypic evolution in this mimicry ring.     

No Evidence that Male Choice Contributes to the Maintenance of a Shared, Sex-Limited Trait in Mimetic and Non-mimetic Female Tiger Swallowtail Butterflies, Papilio glaucus

In animal species that have morphological polymorphisms maintained by unique or divergent selection pressures, understanding the preservation of shared traits is important for identifying the factors that are influencing overall evolutionary processes. In the Eastern tiger swallowtail butterfly, Papilio glaucus, females are dimorphic. One morph (‘dark-morph’) is mostly black and mimics the toxic pipevine swallowtail, Battus philenor. These females have large amounts of blue coloration on the dorsal hind wings that enhances their mimetic resemblance. Conversely, the alternate female type (‘yellow-morph’) is similar to males in coloration with the exception of extensive dorsal blue coloration, comparable to dark-morph females. Such coloration is almost completely absent in males. We examined dorsal blue coloration in P. glaucus to determine if mimetic resemblance in dark morphs is predominantly responsible for the maintenance of dorsal blue color in both female types, or whether mate recognition and/or sexual selection by males has a stronger influence on this trait. We measured the relative amount and variance of dorsal and ventral blue coloration in females of both color morphs, as well as males. We also compared these measurements to similar ones taken in the sister species, P. canadensis (which does not exhibit female dimorphism). Lastly, we investigated mate recognition and preferences of wild males. Our results suggest that mimetic resemblance may be more important than sexual selection for sustaining dorsal blue coloration in dark-morph females and that yellow-morphs could have elevated levels of blue due to currently unknown genetic associations. Although trait correlation between sexes is common, intrasexual trait correlation in a sex-limited, polymorphic species has not been frequently observed.     

Sexual Size Dimorphism in the Color Pattern Elements of Two Mimetic Heliconius Butterflies

Sexual dichromatism and sexual dimorphism of body size are reasonably well studied in butterflies. Sexual size dimorphism of color pattern elements, however, is much less explored. The object of this study is Heliconius, a genus of butterflies well known for the coevolution between mate color preferences and mimicry. Given the sexual role of wing coloration, we investigated the existence of sexual size dimorphism in the wing color elements of a mimetic pair—Heliconius erato phyllis Fabricius and Heliconius besckei Ménétriés—and analyzed the allometric patterns of these traits. Correlation between size of elements in the dorsal and ventral wing surfaces were also estimated. In both species, three out of four elements were larger in males, but the non-dimorphic element was not the same. With regard to the allometric patterns, our most important finding was that smaller males of one species have proportionally larger yellow bars. This is the first study specifically concerning quantitative sexual dimorphism in the coloration of this well-known genus of butterflies and it opens new prospects to investigate sex-related natural selection and sexual selection of color pattern elements.     

Predator mimicry,not conspicuousness,explains the efficacy of butterfly eyespots

Large conspicuous eyespots on butterfly wings have been shown to deter predators. This has been traditionally explained by mimicry of vertebrate eyes, but recently the classic eye-mimicry hypothesis has been challenged. It is proposed that the conspicuousness of the eyespot, not mimicry, is what causes aversion due to sensory biases, neophobia or sensory overloads. We conducted an experiment to directly test whether the eye-mimicry or the conspicuousness hypothesis better explain eyespot efficacy. We used great tits (Parus major) as model predator, and tested their reaction towards animated images on a computer display. Birds were tested against images of butterflies without eyespots, with natural-looking eyespots, and manipulated spots with the same contrast but reduced resemblance to an eye, as well as images of predators (owls) with and without eyes. We found that mimetic eyespots were as effective as true eyes of owls and more efficient in eliciting an aversive response than modified, less mimetic but equally contrasting eyespots. We conclude that the eye-mimicry hypothesis explains our results better than the conspicuousness hypothesis and is thus likely to be an important mechanism behind the evolution of butterfly eyespots.     

Evolution of the wave: aerodynamic and aposematic functions of butterfly wing motion

Many unpalatable butterfly species use coloration to signal their distastefulness to birds, but motion cues may also be crucial to ward off predatory attacks. In previous research, captive passion-vine butterflies Heliconius mimetic in colour pattern were also mimetic in motion. Here, I investigate whether wing motion changes with the flight demands of different behaviours. If birds select for wing motion as a warning signal, aposematic butterflies should maintain wing motion independently of behavioural context. Members of one mimicry group (Heliconius cydno and Heliconius sapho) beat their wings more slowly and their wing strokes were more asymmetric than their sister-species (Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius erato, respectively), which were members of another mimicry group having a quick and steady wing motion. Within mimicry groups, wing beat frequency declined as its role in generating lift also declined in different behavioural contexts. In contrast, asymmetry of the stroke was not associated with wing beat frequency or behavioural context-strong indication that birds process and store the Fourier motion energy of butterfly wings. Although direct evidence that birds respond to subtle differences in butterfly wing motion is lacking, birds appear to generalize a motion pattern as much as they encounter members of a mimicry group in different behavioural contexts.     

Müllerian mimetic radiation of Delias butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in Bali and Timor

Mimicry rings are present among Delias butterflies, and those butterflies are also considered to be mimetic models of other lepidopteran insects; however, experimental evidence for their unpalatability to predators is limited. In Bali and Timor, a total of three mimicry rings of Delias species are present; particularly, male and female D. lemoulti join different rings in Timor. The present study examined the unpalatability of Delias in Bali and Timor to the caged avian predator Pycnonotus aurigaster. The birds ate eight Delias species in similar numbers, and ate the palatable butterfly Mycalesis horsfieldii much more frequently than Delias butterflies. The result suggests that the three mimicry rings of Delias species in Bali and Timor are Müllerian rather than Batesian. Based on previous findings on their phylogenetic relationships, the Müllerian mimicry rings of Delias in Bali and Timor are suggested to have emerged through the convergent evolution and phylogenetic constraints of wing color patterns. In the D. hyparete species group, mimetic radiation may have occurred between Bali and Timor.     

Is the evolution of inaccurate mimicry a result of selection by a suite of predators? A case study using myrmecomorphic spiders

Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the evolution of inaccurate mimicry. Here we investigated the novel hypothesis that inaccurate mimicry (in color and shape) is maintained by opposing selective pressures from a suite of different predators: model-aversive visually oriented predators and model- and mimic-specialized predators indifferent to mimetic cues. We hypothesize that spiders resembling ants in color and shape escape predators that typically avoid ants but fall prey to ant-eating predators. We tested whether inaccurate myrmecomorphic spiders are perceived as their models by two types of predators and whether they can escape from these predators. We found that model-specialized (ant-eating) predators captured mimics significantly less frequently than their ant models, because mimics changed their behavior by fleeing predatory attacks. The fastest escape was found in less accurate mimics, indicating a negative association between visual resemblance and effectiveness of defenses. In trials with spider-eating predators, mimics were not captured more frequently than their models. The quality of defensive mechanisms appears to result from opposing selection forces exerted by the predator complex: mimics are more accurate (in color and shape) in microhabitats dominated by model-aversive predators and less accurate in microhabitats with model- and mimic-specialized predators.     

REVISING A CLASSIC BUTTERFLY MIMICRY SCENARIO: DEMONSTRATION OF MÜLLERIAN MIMICRY BETWEEN FLORIDA VICEROYS (LIMENITIS ARCHIPPUS FLORIDENSIS) AND QUEENS (DANAUS GILIPPUS BERENICE)

Batesian and Müllerian mimicry relationships differ greatly in terms of selective pressures affecting the participants; hence, accurately characterizing a mimetic interaction is a crucial prerequisite to understanding the selective milieux of model, mimic, and predator. Florida viceroy butterflies (Limenitis archippus floridensis) are conventionally characterized as palatable Batesian mimics of distasteful Florida queens (Danaus gilippus berenice). However, recent experiments indicate that both butterflies are moderately distasteful, suggesting they may be Müllerian comimics. To directly test whether the butterflies exemplify Müllerian mimicry, I performed two reciprocal experiments using red-winged blackbird predators. In Experiment 1, each of eight birds was exposed to a series of eight queens as “models,” then offered four choice trials involving a viceroy (the putative “mimic”) versus a novel alternative butterfly. If mimicry was effective, viceroys should be attacked less than alternatives. I also compared the birds' reactions to solo viceroy “mimics” offered before and after queen models, hypothesizing that attack rate on the viceroy would decrease after birds had been exposed to queen models. In Experiment 2, 12 birds were tested with viceroys as models and queens as putative mimics. The experiments revealed that (1) viceroys and queens offered as models were both moderately unpalatable (only 16% entirely eaten), (2) some birds apparently developed conditioned aversions to viceroy or queen models after only eight exposures, (3) in the subsequent choice trials, viceroy and queen “mimics” were attacked significantly less than alternatives, and (4) solo postmodel mimics were attacked significantly less than solo premodel mimics. Therefore, under these experimental conditions, sampled Florida viceroys and queens are comimics and exemplify Müllerian, not Batesian, mimicry. This compels a reassessment of selective forces affecting the butterflies and their predators, and sets the stage for a broader empirical investigation of the ecological and evolutionary dynamics of mimicry.     

The aerodynamic costs of warning signals in palatable mimetic butterflies and their distasteful models

Bates hypothesized that some butterfly species that are palatable gain protection from predation by appearing similar to distasteful butterflies. When undisturbed, distasteful butterflies fly slowly and in a straight line, and palatable Batesian mimics also adopt this nonchalant behaviour. When seized by predators, distasteful butterflies are defended by toxic or nauseous chemicals. Lacking chemical defences, Batesian mimics depend on flight to escape attacks. Here, I demonstrate that flight in warning-coloured mimetic butterflies and their distasteful models is more costly than in closely related non-mimetic butterflies. The increased cost is the result of differences in both wing shape and kinematics. Batesian mimics and their models slow the angular velocity of their wings to enhance the colour signal but at an aerodynamic cost. Moreover, the design for flight in Batesian mimics has an additional energetic cost over that of its models. The added cost may cause Batesian mimics to be rare, explaining a general pattern that Bates first observed.