Talk:Batesian mimicry/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Spinningspark in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 00:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking... SpinningSpark 00:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. I'll not be around much for a couple of days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Lead
- "Batesian mimicry is a form of mimicry typified by a situation where a harmless species has evolved to imitate the warning signals of a harmful species directed at a common predator." Sorry to find a problem on the very first sentence, but I am finding it quite confusing. Firstly, the words typified by a situation don't seem to be adding anything to the meaning. Also common predator is ambiguous. It could mean a predator that commonly preys on the harmless species, but I think the intended meaning is supposed to be that both the harmless and harmful species have a predator in common.
- typified... removed.
- Common = of them both. Thanks for spotting this.
- The image caption seems to be saying columns when rows are meant. At least if the description on Commons is correct, and it doesn't make sense otherwise.
- Done.
- Can we have an explanation for the white butterfly in the centre? According to the primary source, it is there to show the normal (non-Batesian) form of the family. It is Leptalis nehemia. Is Pseudopieris nehemia the same as Leptalis nehemia? The genus seems to have been renamed judging by the number of redirects we have from Leptalis species, but we don't have this one.
- Done, and thanks for checking.
- Removed.
- "The receiver mediating indirect interactions between these two parties..." The receiver is an undefined term and appears to mean the predator (but it is far from clear). The "two parties" are hard to identify. The two parties mentioned in the previous sentence are the mimic and the model, but what interaction is there between these two and how does the predator mediate it? Not sure I have got this sentence at all.
- Yeah, it was a bit gnarly. Rewritten.
- "This affords them greater protection, a concept in evolutionary biology known as frequency dependent selection." Isn't this referring to two sentences back "For this reason, mimics are usually less numerous than models" but another sentence has been inserted in between? ie, should the last two sentences be swapped?
- Fixed.
- The lead does not mention imperfect mimicry
- Added.
- Historical background
- "stimulated long lasting discussion and controversy..." What controversy? There is no subsequent discussion in the article.
- Removed. The row was about Müllerian mimicry, not really relevant here.
- "The term mimicry had only been used for people until about 1850". If Bates first proposed mimicry in 1861, what was this mimicry being bandied about in 1850? Is it relevant to this article?
- Agree, it's only tangentially relevant, so removed. It means being a good mimic of your friends' voices and mannerisms.
- Aposematism
- I shouldn't need to follow the link to find out what aposematic means.
- Glossed.
- Classification and comparisons
- "Once again, this is the result of the signal receiver's action, not a cunning ploy of the mimic. In weed or Vavilovian mimicry, the weed does not profit from encounters with man or his winnowing machinery; at best the weed is left, at worst it is destroyed." Some of the language here is unnecessarily flowery, making it hard to understand. It would be better to just state the issue in plain language.
- Simplified.
- Winnowing should be wikilinked.
- Done.
- "...derive their protection from..." I had to read this sentence several times before I understood it. Suggest "...get protection from..." would be clearer
- Removed.
- In the Monarch caterpillars example, what exactly is being mimicked? Are they not just being themselves?
- The more edible ones effectively mimic the more toxic caterpillars of the same species.
- "the model is same species as its mimic..." > "the model is the same species..."
- Done.
- "Batesian mimicry is a form of protective mimicry". This is a repetition of the first paragraph. It might be better off moved up to the second para making it less necessary to repeat.
- Removed.
- Occurrence
- Not sure that that is an informative heading. Might be better to get rid of it and move up the sub-headings one notch
- Done.
- Imperfect Batesian mimicry
- "...advantage from resembling multiple mimics..." Surely multiple models is meant?
- Fixed.
- "sympatry/allopatry" undefined and unlinked
- Glossed and linked.
SpinningSpark 19:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Just want to come back on the Monarch caterpillars, I'm still not getting it. Surely the two groups of caterpillars look and behave the same because they are the same. What changes has the mimic actually undergone? If non-toxic caterpillars were moved to the toxic food source, wouldn't they then become toxic themselves, and vice versa? I don't see how this can be called mimicry. But that's just my opinion, if sources say this is Batesian mimicry then it belongs in the article. However, I would make two points. Firstly, the article should highlight this difference in definition. Secondly, if this has come from just one scientist or team, then it should be phrased in terms such as "biologist John Smith says..." Are there two or more independent sources using this definition? Perhaps I am completely wrong and there are two distinct races of caterpillar involved here, but if so, that still means something needs clarifying in the article. SpinningSpark 23:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does sound a bit strange. However it is well attested by multiple authors. Ring and Cardé write: "[Consider the case where one monarch caterpillar is feeding on cardenolide-containing milkweed, the other not], with one being completely potent with regard to cardiac glycoside toxicity, the second not. The first will fit all of the characteristics for warning coloration, the second not. In fact, the second butterfly is a harmless Batesian mimic of the first, even though both belong to the same species. L. Brower, J. Brower, and Corvino (1967) have termed this phenomenon automimicry, though others have suggested that Browerian mimicry would be a better term (Pasteur, 1972; Bees, 1977; Rothschild, 1979). Note that all of the antagonisms raised by Batesian mimicry will arise, but now the model and the mimic are conspecific." (Bell, William J.; Cardé, Ring T. (2013). Chemical Ecology of Insects. Springer. pp. 270–271. ISBN 978-1-4899-3368-3.) Biologists are thus quite comfortable with the idea of what is essentially a form of Batesian mimicry confined to one species. It may be easier to see what they are getting at if we suppose that one race is genetically predisposed to eat non-toxic plants, but the argument does not depend on this. What Ring and Cardé are arguing is that all the conditions are in place for Batesian mimicry to occur, and that Browerian mimicry might as well have simply been called Batesian, so at the very least the comparison is of interest. They also cite evidence that monarchs (and the African monarch) do indeed vary widely on a spectrum of palatability as tested on predatory birds. So there we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.