Viceroy: top, Monarch: bottom. They look alike, but in fact they both taste awful to a red-wing blackbird. For almost a century, the "mimicry" explanation was so convincing that nobody tested it. Viceroy copyright Paul A. Opler, Courtesy USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Monarch copyright 1996-1997, courtesy Bill & Marty Welch. |
![]() |
||
Monarch
among the misconceptions The fable was considered a classic example of evolution at work -- of how organisms change to suit their environment. This so-called "Batesian" mimicry involves a model, the monarch, and a mimic, the viceroy. It stands to reason that a vulnerable butterfly would evolve to look like something that was immune to a major predator. In all, the birds totally ate only 41 percent of viceroys, compared with about 45 percent of monarchs and 98 percent of controls. But the mimicry hypothesis was not totally misplaced. In the "what's-in-it-for-me?" calculus that is ecology, the situation may actually represent Mullerian, not Batesian, mimicry. Both viceroys and monarchs benefit from the similarity in appearance -- it's a more efficient way to "teach" predators that both species taste gross (see "The Viceroy Butterfly..." in the bibliography). While we're on the subject of bogus biology, you do know Charles Darwin devised his theory of evolution while studying finches at the Galapagos Islands... Wrong again! You can count on science textbooks for accuracy.
|
|||
![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
There
are 1 2 3
4 5 6 pages in this feature.
Bibliography | Credits | Feedback | Search |