Mimicry and neodarwinism

Reading book on medical genetics I hit on chapter on evoution of gene clusters. As an example is given Papilio Dardanus with which I started the thread. The point is that alleles to be most effective should be by chromosome rearrangements clustered together. And this locus than present itself so to say as unit. This seems to be the case of P.dardanus. Yet according neodarwinist this should be driven by randomness: And Nijhout on P.dardanus: Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior I would add that only crossing-over may break such cluster. But let us look to these "recombination events that move genes with related functions for pattern specification to a common region" with a math. If we had 11 alleles in same locus or common region and yet they were originally settled elsewhere what is the probability, that "recombination events" would put them together? I would say, that if we want randomly put 11 alleles from 1.000 together (humans have 30.000 genes so 1.000 is underestimated number of P.Dardanus) it would be probability 1/11^1000 that they clustered randomly together. It meansprobability 10^(-1041) - so it is impossible. We should take into consideration that such clustering should occurs not only once but at least 11 times - so many morphs of P.dardanus do we observe.
So it would be better instead of blind belief to random recombination at least accept idea, that these recombination events in P.Dardanus were by no way random, but directed.

This all seems to be pretty tenuously based on Clarke and Sheppards hypothesis. Nijhout himself suggests that a polymorphic regulatory gene may be the source of the variation and in his discussion states that whether the origin is a supergene or a regulatory gene is still unclear. The very concept of what constitutes a gene has undergone some drastc re-evaluation since Clarke and Sheppard's paper came out.Taking into account that regulatory regions controlling pattern expression can be located megabases away from the gene they control so recombinatorial events could break up alleles based on differences in such regulatory elements.Not all 11 loci need be located on seperate genes, even if we accept a 'supergene' scenario, so taking 11 as the number of seperate genes is maximising the improbability. It is also not a reliable assumption that a) all of the genes arrived in this fashion and b) that all recombinations are equiprobable.If you look at the paper we mentioned previously about Heliconius ( Joron et al., 2006) they suggest that 'supergene' regions regulating mimetic patterns in heliconius may be the result of either mutations in numerous cis-regulatory elements of a single gene, duplicate versions of a gene which have acquired divergent functions or 'a cluster of nonparalogous but functionally related genes' which seems to be what Clarke and Sheppard were proposing for Papilio.Is there any reason why you feel the papilio locus of 11 alleles needs to be due to 11 distinct paralogous genes clustered together due to function rather than one or a mixture of these other factors? Other than as a basis for a specious probability calculation that is. Does that number even actually make sense as a basis for allelic variation. Surely the 11 genes would need their own variation in order to account for the patterns seen, which would mean that 11 genes would produce more than 11 alleles. What you might be looking for would be at most 6 genes one of which had 3 rather than 2 alleles.TTFN,WK

Its a Nijhout conclusion, that there are 11 alleles that make up morph phenotype. While there are 14 female morphs I suppose that relation or constraint that makes all of them dominant should arise 14 times (and no 11 as I suppose previously). It seems to me now, that it does not matter so much on the fact if they are clusterd or no. What is important is fact, that mating experiment with butterfies from given area give discrete morphs, no intermediate. From this result we can deduce that these 11 alleles create "unit" that is dominant as a whole or no. They must be somehow fast connected - if by positioning on the same locus or by regulatory genes does not decrease probability of creating such compact unit of random 11 alleles from 1000. I would say that there should be other forces as "randomnes" that bind these alleles together.

Eh? 2 of those extra morphs are from different 'races' which resemble the male form and the hybrids suggest that there is no clear dominance pattern in these interracial crosses. Another 2, hipocoon and hipocoonides, represent one allele 'h'.Also note that the planemoides allele 'appears to have a mix of dominance effects on different portions of the pattern', which sounds like the sort of intermediate forms you did not expect, and that the dionysos allele is not even examined for dominance.So where are the 14 neccessary origins of dominance? From 1000 what? 11 alleles do not require 11 discrete genes. Given that you don't know the basis of the dominance relationships between these alleles how can you estimate the likelihood of such relationships occurring? Sure, such as a constraint as to what mutations affect pigment patterning at all, such as natural selection. Assuming only a limited number of genes control the patterning then mutations which would be selected for mimicry would need to occur at sites within or controlling those genes.The constraints of the system bind may these alleles together. Imagine there is only 1 regulatory key gene controlling the distribution of dark pigmentation by its action on a number of downstream targets, polymorphisms in multiple cis regulatory regions could account for different patterns of expression in discrete areas and distant enhancers would still allow for the breakup of the locus by recombination. I'm not suggesting that this is the case but it is as good an explanation as a high number of genes in a clustered supergene.Naturally to affect the key gene all the mutations would need to be in the locus which defines the regulatory elements controlling the genes expression.Until the actual locus is properly sequenced and mapped this is all pretty much idle speculation. You don't have any better basis for your improbability calculations than if you had just made the numbers up off the top of your head.TTFN,WK

Well, that is an interesting question.When I was a teenager and I was sitting in a pew trying to figure out if I believed what I heard in front of me or not from the pulpit I came to doubt a good deal of what my "ears" received but I could not doubt a kind of "tingling" feeling (in my spine area) even while hearing things that I had a hard time 'believeing.'I defined this as "spirit" for myself. Later in reading about the difference of special and general revelation I came to think that no matter what the internal emotion was that I was feeling at those past times, that despite my attempt to physiologize such a thing that would not be such that this spirit could still exist given my best attempt at being intellectually sceptical.I have not been able to extend my thoughts on evolution into a realm of "spirit", but this is not because I or someone else may doubt that it can be so brought, but only because I am curious about some history of chemistry that I think obfuscates the potential reality of the experience I paragraphed above. If transcendental numbers ever recieve a fully sequestered sediment in applied science then I think the conceptual space will be ripe for such a realism. I do not find, at least here for me, that this has occurred.My own thinking about this really depends less in general but more on the particulars of the relation between panbiogeographic patterns and Gladyshev's law. For a while I had thought that the temporal relations would have to be related specifically to what Gladyshev promoted as "macrokinetics" but recently I am coming to the opinion that time delays, momentum and inertia effects(defined by niche constuctors), can reinscribe the applications of macrothermodynamics such that the deep physiology I have referenced in this post may obtain a proper expression. I am still working on that.A visual presentation of the claim can be found
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx
with the more general affects being prosecuted at
http://www.aexion.orgUnfortunately Dr. Gladyshev's site seems to be under some renovation and the old links are not currently on-line. If "spirit" can be brought in here it would be whereat I refer to "cell death."Edited by Brad McFall, : forgot words "niche construction"

Exactly. I had/have a similar experience of the fervor in the spine that you had. This above
point is a good one.Is it all psychological? That is one possibility, but personally, the "personal evidence" suggests otherwise.Ofcourse, if we are a universal expression, then if we mean somethin to ourselves, then objectively we mean something universally;The ant truism: if we're as important as ants, then when I'm trodden on I won't complain much afterwards.

Anyway if you want to play this question out I consider it as central one. The greatest thinkers of our modern time who influenced me most are Fyodor Dostoevsky (the best writer according atheist Nietzsche, better as Stendhal, see the Nietzsches last book Gtzen-Dmmerung. Btw. Nietzsche in this book ridicules also Darwin ) and Carl Gustav Jung. Both of them were strong Christians. In english/american translation as far as I know there is missing one of the most interesting novel from Dostoevsky Raw young (Vrastok) that also according Berdayeff is most russisch of all his work.Nikolai Berdyaev - WikipediaI would add that "RAW YOUNG" is one of the most spiritual and pneumalotigal novel I ever readDostoevsky struggled against materialsm and atheism and he believed that communism never win in Russia (what a mistake).Yet C.G.Young wrote that he could not treat patients but believing that spirit exists. I mentioned this because according Komarek from Charles university Prague (On mimicry and aposematism (2002)) there was never an attempt to consider mimicry as phenomenon of Carl Gustav Jungs concept of "synchronicity". Komarek means that it is due the fact that bilologists do not communicate with psychiatrists.-----Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :Anti-Darwin. - Was den berhmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die —ppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekmpft wird, kmpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so luft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wnscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wnschen drfte: nmlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glcklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder ber die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nthig hat. Wer die Strke hat, entschlgt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehrt ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).Edited by MartinV, : Nietzsche citationEdited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

I am beginning to see why you consider it "central".Here is the quote translated by two on-line services:

quote:

---

Which concerns the famous fight um's lives, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proven. It occurs, but as exception; Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power... One is not to confound Malthus with nature. - set however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he comes forwards -, then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to Ungunsten of the strong ones, which privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman, - which makes, them are the large number, them are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is English!), the weak ones have more spirit... One must have spirit noethig, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not have him any longer noethig. Who has the strength, entschlaegt itself the spirit (- "let drive there! one thinks today in Germany - the realm must remain for us nevertheless "...). I understand the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything that mimicry by spirit, as one see, is (to the latter a large Theil of the so-called virtue belongs).

---

http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr&

quote:

---

What concerns the berhmten fight for the life, he seems to me meanwhile more maintained than proved. He seems, but as an exception; the Gesammt aspect of the life is not the Nothlage, the hunger position, rather the Reichthum, which ppigkeit, even the absurd waste, - where gekmpft one becomes, kmpft around power... One should not mistake Malthus for the nature. - Sedately, however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he seems-, thus he, unfortunately, vice versa from as school Darwin '

​

school Darwin's wnscht, when one maybe with her wnschen drfte: nmlich in unfavours of the strong, the privileged, the glcklichen exceptions. The types do not grow in the perfection: the weak become ber the strong man over and over again, - this does, they are the big number, they are also klger... Darwin has forgotten the mind (-this is English!), the weak have more mind... One must have mind nthig to get mind, - one loses him, if one him nic

---

Free Translation OnlineThe "Malthus" reference seems crucial. Gould for instance appears to me to not USE Wright's distinction from Fisher's "malthusian parameter" (in deme vs. race per population structure) but he still wishes to will the power of Nietzsche for his own version of historical contingency. Perhaps there was no choice. I will have to look a little deeper into it. Your quote gives me a new angle to investigate the TIMING of Gould's use of Nietzsche. The obvious claim is that Gould misapropriated the "weaker" of Nietzsche that are strong in spirit for an economic difference but this is hard for me to supply the coupon for, for "quirky functional shift" just now, if that was the case in this country at least.I take it you would assert or claim that "mimicry by spirit" indicates that core Darwinians may be explaining mimicry where a "persistant" force otherwise would sustain. Gould denies this so he seems to realize the difference in the paragraph you supplied. It may be that he abducted the conclusion in the same way that Darwin seems to have taken the final cause (wrongly in my view) out of Kant's textualization of embryo to habitat(in the Critique of Judgment) (this is sort of where RAZD seems to be, to me, with Bates on THE APPEARENCE of "a medieval" question (at a buttefly spot)) where it was a thing-in-itself distributed(this I know Gould also denied in life)not the appearence itself, instead.

Thank for your response - it inspired me to look at given article "Polymorphic mimicry in Papilio dardanus" more closely.What I found surprised me - should these assumptions full of phantasy really be the modern scientific neodarwinistic theory to explain Papilio d. mimicry?We should be aware that as many as six of the female morphs may occurs together in a given population! So there is strong dominance in these cases - I suppose, even if I overestimate it on beggining as you noticed.Yet there are 14 different morphs but according Nijhout only 11 alleles responsible for it. He claims that these alleles make up patterns. Colors should be created by genetic backrounds. In pictures I see different colors on distal parts of ochracea vs. cenea.But what is most interesting is these issues:1) I would say that color on back wings of niobe is distinctly different from that of plamenoides and trophonius. So from where this color came from?2) Again I would say - studying neodarwinian explanation of Batesian mimicry - that mimics should be protected against any shift of patterns and colors that would anyhow diminish its resemblance to distasteful model. I would also say that no such constrains would exist in nonmimetic patterns, while there I see no protection and subsequntly no selective pressure to look same. Yet the measured values for Papilio d. are exactly opposite to this consideration.3)There is accepted theory that even if males of P.d. look same throughout species its patterns and colors are not ancestral form - probably as I assume it would be complicated for neodarwinists to explain initial mutation from these ancestor to others mimic morphs. Instead according Nijhout archaic patterns look like P.phorcas. There should be than only 6 mutations that changed patterns on forewing - author probably forget on hindwings and colors - but even these 6 mutations occuring simultaneously from 12 measured patterns give probability 1/3.000.000.What is more interesting is that supposed ancestor of P.d. morphs have 2 female morphs that are eatable so question aroses how it comes that these two morphs exists when there is no selective pressure? Neodarwinists do not lack phantasy at all: If you never heard about transvestite evolution than again: So that is the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism - resting partly upon "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude". Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior Batesian mimicry in Papilio dardanus

Before I go into your post could you clarify something.Are you agreeing that your previous argument made no sense?You made an assumption from essentially nothing and used it as the basis for a worthless probability calculation.And now you go on on to criticise the research paper on the basis of 'assumptions full of phantasy'?TTFN,WK

So what? How many 'morphs' of human eye colour might one find in the 'population' of a large school? you yourself give a probability of 1:3,000,000 for such a group of 6 traits arising, a probability almost as dubious in derivation as your previous one but even so a trivially achievable one compared to the 10^-n values you were coming up with previously. Well done, you can see exactly what he says you should. The pattern of black elements, which are thought to be controlled by the H locus, is the same in cenea and ochracea but the background colour is different. There is no claim that all of the mimetic adaptations are linked to 11 alleles of the H locus only that those affecting the pattern of the black portions is. The background colour can easily be different due to differences in the level of papiliochrome deposition due to differences in the genetic background independent of the H locus. The same relationship of similar 'pattern' but distinct background is seen in trophonius and lamborini as Nijhout points out. Assuming you mean the actual coloured portion, rather than the deepness of the melanic deposition, the answer is the same as I just detailed above, different levels of papiliochrome deposition due to differences in the genetic background not linked to the H locus. In fact the colour of niobe's backwings seems a pretty good intermediate form of the colouration of the back wings of trophonius and planemoides again contrary to you assertion of a lack of intermediate morphs, especially significant since this 'intermediate' closely resembles an already extant mimetic morph. Perhaps a more pertinent second element to quote would have been... Don't forget that the non-mimetic forms are male-like so it is quite possible that the selectional constraint on the male-like pattern is stronger due to sexual selection than the predation constraints are on mimetic patterns. Selection doesn't need to be based on the protection from predation. Non-mimetic forms seem principally to be male like in colouration, the sort of 'trasvesite' change you scoff at for no apparent reason.I agree that all things being equal however we might expect less variation if the mimetic pattern was being strongly selected for and non-mimetic forms were not subject to strong selection. We don't have any substantial evidence to suggest that this is the case however, although the male-like pattern may not be selected for in females it may still be subject to strong selection. Why do you assume that rather than follow the actual logic Nijhout presents that although it has previously been suggested that the male form is ancestral, I'm not sure why you think that a theory Nijhout suggest in this paper is being put forwarded as accepted, the fact that the male morph is highly distinct from those of closely related sister species suggests that this may not be the case. If you think that Nijhout fails to make his case then why not say why, but don't try and represent it as some sort of widely held tenet of faith amongst evolutionary biologists in order to avoid a bit of hard work? Apart from the several paragraphs he uses to decribe the differences in background colours? I'm not sure what the technical term is for a fallacy based on the sarcastic use of quotation marks, but it seems that whatever it is called that is all your argument here boils down to.What 'this' is is Nijhout's suggested origin of some of the mimetic patterns based on his theory that the pattern can de derived with comparatively few mutations from one of the patterns of P. phorcas. If you have a counter argument to make you haven't put any of it forward here but it is still Nijhout's hypothesis you would be rebutting not 'the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism'. As far as I know there is no such thing as yet. Unlike creationists and ID proponents people who actually do science to find things out rather than bolster some idee fixe are prepared for uncrtainty and tenuousness. We can bide our time and work away at determining the specific genetic bases of various morphological traits and then reassesing hypotheses like Nijhout's which are based on cruder preliminary data. It isn't a matter of 'phantasy' that the 'male like' patterning can be dominant or recessive depending on the genetic background, which would quite simply account for the female dimorphism, why [i]P. phorcas[/p] has not become purely monomorphic I don't know, but simply because the species is not mimetic it might be rather premature to assume that the non-male form is completely independent of selective pressures.Indeed Cook, et al. (1994) suggest that while male-like forms are more visible and prone to predation they may allow females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males.TTFN,WK
***********************Cook, S.E., Vernon, J.G., Bateson, M. & Guilford, T. 1994. Mate choice in the
polymorphic African swallowtail butterfly, Papllio dardanus: male-like
females may avoid sexual harassment. Anim. Behav., 47, 389-397.

Wounded King, I miss in Nijhout article one important point - (is he avoided it deliberately?) - do some mimetic and no-mimetic females live together in the same area? If yes I am not sure how neodarwinists could explain such an anomaly.according THE GENETICS OF PAPILIO DARDANUS, BROWN. I.
RACE CENEA FROM SOUTH AFRICA C. A. CLARKE AND P. M. SHEPPARD
Departments of Medicine and Zoology, Uniuersity of Liverpool, Liverpool, England Received June 17, 1959 Secondly:
BulbNrose.com is for sale | HugeDomains How is it possible that non-mimetic females thrive so well that they even outnumbered mimetic form protected against selection?According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Because if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible, that female ale polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also males mimic in butterfly realm exist as well.Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyThese question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus. They should be than also prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors.

Is there any reason why you insist on casting aspersions on people all the time? I might as well ask if you have deliberately failed to read and understand great chunks of Nijhout's paper so you could make up your ridiculous theories and fatuous probability calculations. I'm sure you're not sure but then you seem to have only the most tenuous grasp of what neo-darwinism or modern evolutionary biology have to say about anything. There are a number of selective pressures on any population which could easily include both predation and sexual selection of varying forms. It could easily be that strategies to account for differing pressures produce highly distinct morphs. If P .phorcas can have dimorphic females why shouldn't dardanus? Becuase predation is not the sole selective pressure. It would be interesting to see if males from the Abyssinian population showed the same mate preferences as those used in the study suggesting male-like patterns helped avoid unwanted mating attempts.After this I'm afraid you become very hard to understand as your english seems to be breaking down. On important possibility isthat Darwin may be wrong, he is was wrong on some other things, it is no tent of faith amongs evolutionary biologists that Darwin's word is holy writ, science does not work like that.The answer to what I understand your question to be would be that there is very little change required between the male forms of phorcas and dardanus, principally the loss of the green colouration in the male like phorcas pattern and some changes in the marginal patterns. The male like patterns appear dominant in both phorcas and dardanus and seem to support Vane-wright's 'transvestite' hypothesis as well as the idea that dardanus may have had a phorcas like ancestor (Clarke, 1985).As long as the males all changed gradually together and were always prevalently monomorphic it wouldn't be a problem for sexual selection to even drive the changes in pattern between phorcas and dardanus. Yes, and? Not all populations of butterflies are subject to the exact same selective pressures, get over it. Oh, you know what the factors are now do you? They are no longer unknown as of today?No, they are still unknown and quite possibly non-existent.TTFN,WK*************************************Clarke, C., Clarke, F.M.M., Collins, S.C.L. & Turner, J.R.G. 1985. Male-like
females, mimicry and transvestism in butterflies
(Lepidopteraapilionidae). Syst. Entomol., 10, 257-283.

Ill try explain it more comprehensible. First of all I do not doubt Nijhout proffesionality - my knowledges are only negligible fragments of his - yet it seems to me that his neodarwinian conception let him neglect the facts I would consider as interesting.As to the dimorphic females of P. phorcas and polymorphic females of P.dardanus - I couldnot find Punnet article on Mimicry only just some neodarwinian critics of it. Punnet as promiment Mendelian expert noticed that mimetic morphs of the same species segregated according Mendelian rules without intermediates forms in given
race/population.Unconsciously I hinted at this fact using my probability math. If I have express it now more comprehensibly it would be like this: If there are different morphs in given race that separate/segregate very clearly then there should inevitably be a switch-gene, that "decide" which complex of regulatory/normaly genes would express in heterozygous female. You should probably agree that such switch-gene couldnot arise after morphs were established. In other case morphs would intermingled and no mimics would exists. In Punnet opinion (if I deduced it correctly) such mendelian switch-gene should arise simultaneously with genes it regulated - and evolution of mimetic forms in such cases ran by saltus, by one step.Neodarwinists argue that such switch-gene preceded evolution of morphs. It sounds logically if comparing switch-gene of sexes - it is supposed that such switch genes preceded evolution of sexual forms of a species.Yet however I am not conviced it is true. First off all if such gene aroused then at beginning it had nothing to switch - or at least to switch between same possibilities of same patterns/colors of ancient females. There was no selective pressure to switch-gene to exist and consequently it should cease to exist. Or at least there was no selective advantage having it and to spread over Papilio dardanus population - it was neutral. Such switch-gene at the beginning (where only one morph exist)contradicts in my opinion even to purpose of diploidy. Because the swich gene blocks expressing genes from other set of chromosomes. Subsequently such switch-gene would diminish variability of wing color/patterns at the beggining when no mimetic forms exist.So I would say no matter if mimetics forms are due to expression of supergene or due complicated regulatory and cascade connections between genes - on the top is always switch-gene that determine which morphs would be clearly segregated. And evolutionary explanation of arising such gene is one the most important in case of polymorphism I would say.digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/15100/1/59.pdf

Clearly this isn't always the case as the intermediate morphs amongst the dardanus populations show. All this suggests is that Punnet didn't look at enough mimetic species to find the ones which didn't act in that way. I don't know that this is the case for 'morphs', very distinct morphs could easily be the result of differing alleles in completely seperate genes rather than variation at one locus such as we have been discussing. Hmm, I don't think I would necessarily agree with this. There is sufficient scope for transcription factor binding sites to arise de novo that a gene may be captured by a pathway it was not previously associated with. But in general I would probably agree that a master control gene is likely to have arisen before most of the downstream factors it affects. I don't know if this was Punnet's opinion but certainly very small genetic changes can produce drastic morphological differences which could easily encompass the discontinuous variation Punnet observed. I don't see how this necessitates switch-genes and the genes downstream of the switch having to arise simultaneously unless the 'switch' gene has no other function. If the switch gene also has a function largely independent of mimetic pattern then it can easily arise well before the downstream elements which effect the mimetic patterning of the wing.I think that this point also addresses much of the later part of your post.'m not sure if I fully understand what you mean by a 'switch' gene since the very end of your post didn't make much sense to me.TTFN,WK