Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 151 of 188 (367159)
11-30-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Wounded King
11-27-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
Thanks for answer WoundedKing. Discussion helps me to clarify some basic concepts of genetics and force me to read great deal more on "evolutionary explanation" of wing patterns.
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.
Anyway I found article on Heliconius in nature.com from 2006 and it seems to be accepted fact that phenotypic morphs are regulted by "switch gene" as proposed by antiselectionist Punnett.
From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.
It seems to be accepted fact that switch gene exist and you seems to propose that such switch-gene aroused before all cascade and genetic pathways of new phenotyp morphs aroused. It neccesitates but the possibility that such phenotyp aroused without exposing itself to natural selection somewhere hidden in genome as mutation? Mutation that happens somehow hit into wing patterns and colors of another distatesful species? And was then exposed tu natural selection as phenotyp when switch-gene started to do its job?
Because if existence of switch gene preceded cascades it "switch on" question stands like this: when this switch gene started to regulate/switch cascades of new phenotypic (mimetic) morph?
Whats more interesting authors of the article somehow accept Punnett hypothesis of macromutation to explain existence of morphs in a given butterly species:
Thus, evolution of the H. numata supergene could have involved elements of both the 'macromutationist'and the 'gradualist' positions in this historical debate.
---------------
Sorry I forget link:
Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity | Heredity
btw. according P. Graham, J. K. M. Penn, and P. Schedl. Masters change, slaves remain. BioEssays 25:1-4 2002:
"The result of this paper support the idea that genetic hierarchies evolve from "bottom up" as proposed by Wilkins".
Edited by MartinV, : links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 10:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2006 4:48 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 152 of 188 (367298)
12-01-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Brad McFall
11-18-2006 7:50 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad.
I tried to improve babelfish translation of Fridriech Nietzsches thoughts on darwinism from German. There is also word "mimicry" so I put it here. It may probably be interesting:
Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2006 7:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM MartinV has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 153 of 188 (367331)
12-01-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by MartinV
11-30-2006 5:09 PM


Re: Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
It seems to be accepted fact that switch gene exist and you seems to propose that such switch-gene aroused before all cascade and genetic pathways of new phenotyp morphs aroused.
Actually I didn't. I said that I thought that pre-existing genes could be capture by new pathways, but I was prepared to accept your view of the upstream elements arising first.
It neccesitates but the possibility that such phenotyp aroused without exposing itself to natural selection somewhere hidden in genome as mutation?
Not if, as I suggested, the genes also have other functions or similar roles in other pathways, such as the Notch/Distal-less pathway mentioned in the Joron paper Notch is involved in the development of eyes antennae and legs as well as the patterning of the wing. Distal-less similarly has a role in limb development in genral and not only wing patterning.
Whats more interesting authors of the article somehow accept Punnett hypothesis of macromutation to explain existence of morphs in a given butterly species
As I pointed out before phenotypically 'macro' effects need not be linked to 'macro' mutations, a single base pair substitution, the most gradualistic mutation imaginable, can easily cause radical changes in morphology and a 'macro' gentic event (such as a locus swapping chromosomes) may have a minimal affect on the phenotype. As the paper suggests we won't really know until the loci are sequenced and we can reconstruct the evolutionary history of the regions involved more accurately.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MartinV, posted 11-30-2006 5:09 PM MartinV has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 154 of 188 (367333)
12-01-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by MartinV
12-01-2006 2:58 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Yes, indeed this is helpful for me at least.
Gould gives up the goat or goal on page 262 (SETH) where he wrote,
"The search to infer God's attributes from general features of natural objects led Paley to open his book with one of the most famous images in all English literature - a strong competitor with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (a line also found in Paley, 1803, p.344) and Darwin's tangled bank or tree of life. The good Reverend, crossing a heath on shank's mare, bumps his foot against a stone, feels the pain, but learns nothing about the origin of rocks because the object is too simple and too disordered to reveal a source of production. But if he should then kick a watch, he would surely know that the timepiece had been fashioned by a purposeful agent:"
quote:
Subjects and Series | Harvard University Press
We have a thread on Smith and this "image" here on EvC
EvC Forum: Thank You Adam Smith.
The criticism of Malthus via Darwin&Wallace (so as to distinguish what Fridriech Nietzsches meant by nature and what Darwin's school would be going in reverse THROUGH etc (where one might interpret the LARGER NUMBERS (NOT in humans even if in other creatures)) was expressed by David Stove page 75 with
"It may nevertheless still be true (as I have already said in earlier essays) that Malthus's principle does hold good for all non-human species, or nearly enough hold good, to make that principle a vital clue to the understanding of their evolution. I believe, indeed, that this is the case. If it is, Darwin and Wallace may heave been prompted by a sound instinct, when they took from Malthus's book an unqualified principle of population: one which did not make an exception of man. All the same, it is ironic that they took this principle from one of the editions of Malthus's book in which the author himself had, very publicly, given it up. He had come round to admitting that our species is very different from all the rest, even if Darwin and Wallace had not."
quote:
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_...
What we need to do is to read the "persistent" force that might be better attributed to Fridriechs' (if you and I are correct about the interpretations of his passages so far) and to do this one would have to expand on Gould's notion of "bookkeeping" with gene selectionism in such a way that room is made for Williams' Sep-a-rations"" but not Dawkins'(Gould discussion copied below). That is where the "force" would be(to me). I do suspect that such a force may exist but I am really only am a lonely a voice on this as much say as the flying snake has red spots in it's "wings."
I would suspect that there are FRACTAL hierarchies that ATOMS not genes account. But to do this re-write for evolutionary theory is to overturn an incredibly large amount of current superfluidity necessarily. I am not up to the task by myself as of yet even though I will it weakly.
To get the proper quantity one would need to relate the Mendelian use of fluctuating numbers FROM the size of a deme. I do not know if this has been done in the literature (larely it seemed to me becaue of the difference of sympatry and allopatry notions) but based on Provine's attempts to deny drift at Harvard earlier this year I doubt that such has been writ up.
In order to convince evolutionists however, would require that the human "instinct" is reduced to these atom groups and not the sociobiological genes that may be FUTHER inferable in the dead meme of some vehicle Dawkins continues on about. We seem to have this sequence reversed at the end points rather than the proper series within, I hazard to say. This assumes that I am correct and Gould mistaken that hierarchies are NOT allometric but fractal in some significant regard and frequency. That is my own guess however.
quote:
see Gould reference linked above

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by MartinV, posted 12-01-2006 2:58 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by MartinV, posted 12-04-2006 1:50 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 158 by MartinV, posted 12-15-2006 8:42 PM Brad McFall has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 155 of 188 (367666)
12-04-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Brad McFall
12-01-2006 4:53 PM


Nabokov on mimicry
Kantinian antidarwinistic view on mimicry from the pen of Nabokov - may be of some interest also for you:
Nabokov writes:
The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction for me. Its phenomena showed an artistic perfection usually associated with man-wrought things. Consider the imitation of oozing poison by bubblelike macules on a wing (complete with pseudo-refraction) or by glossy yellow knobs on a chrysalis ("Don't eat me - I have already been squashed, sampled and rejected"). Consider the tricks of an acrobatic caterpillar (of the Lobster Moth) which in infancy looks like bird's dung, but after moulting develops scrabbly hymenopteroid appendages and baroque characteristics, allowing the extraordinary fellow to play two parts at once . that of a writhing larva and that of a big ant seemingly harrowing it. When a certain moth resembles a certain wasp in shape and color, it also walks and moves its antennae in a waspish, unmothlike manner. When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. "Natural selection," in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of "the struggle for life" when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception. (Nabokov's Butterflies 85-86)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2006 3:15 PM MartinV has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 156 of 188 (367685)
12-04-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by MartinV
12-04-2006 1:50 PM


Re: Nabokov on mimicry
quote:
Nabokov writes:
"Natural selection," in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of "the struggle for life" when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. (Nabokov's Butterflies 85-86
"Natural Selection" and "the struggle for life" certainly do explain the phenomenon, and quite well at that. Seems Mr. Nabokov and others cannot fathom the power of these forces and reject them based upon their own personal emotional discomfort. This "argument from incredulity" is fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by MartinV, posted 12-04-2006 1:50 PM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Brad McFall, posted 12-04-2006 8:02 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 157 of 188 (367738)
12-04-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by AZPaul3
12-04-2006 3:15 PM


Re:Nabokov on mimicry=defensor fidei
Well, it is certainly more nuanced than that!
Gould for one, does not "blame" (in "I Have Landed"("No Science Without Fancy, No Art Without Facts" p17 below) Nabokov but rather chalks it up "when Nabokov wrote his technical papers in the 1940s, the modern Darwinian orthodoxy had not yet congealed, and a Nabokovian style of doubt remained quite common among evolutionary biologists, particularly among taxonomist immersed in the sudy of anatomical detal and geographic variation).
If you are going to disparage the potential incidence geometry of 'Nabokov doubting style' then you ought to decline based on the rare case rather than standard interpretation if you are trying to make a comment about today rather than yesterday.
I for one still retain this "doubt" but it was passed on to me from this time frame.
Take just Gould's position. Gould THEN went on to explain, that this perspective was "LINKED" ("more to earlier consensuses about non-Darwinian evolution than to legitimate modern challenges").
One has to accept his and Will Provine's notion of the history of biology to understand just what this kind of retro-explanation entails. This would take us far off the topic of this thread.
Suffice this to say, that I for one hold a modern challenge, only you might simply disagree that it is legit. I know some here think my ideas are not legitimate. Ok, but then you would have been inclined to debate against the rare instance than the major collateral lingo.
Now, it may be that Gould is also very wrong in trying to define a core Darwinism between the genic selectionism of Dawkins and Williams and still retain a hierarchal inclination should Williams be correct that organisms no matter the mimic become PRIMARY mechanical engineering OF the genic level but are not vehicles. It would be hard for me to write simply what that would be. I will post over in another thread what my most controversial idea would then be, is. Gould's entire long argument to punctuated equilibrium relies on using Darwin's idea of mimicry for the selection of an eye that Martin V queries and questions to support his acceptance of Provine's historicism of biology but this seems to differ depending on the tone of Dawkins vs. Williams to me. I think non-Anglo-Saxon readers would be hard pressed to notice this difference.
quote:

Basis of Brad's contention that Gould's stair step solution is a tired tire.
=======================================================
The future of Gould's view will not accept this move
IN HERE
divided sexually @
This will be explained in another thread. I could be wrong but I think I have all the pieces to write A DEFENSE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2006 3:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 158 of 188 (370047)
12-15-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Brad McFall
12-01-2006 4:53 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad you like Kantian views. I put it on ISCID forum. Anyway professor of Prague Charles Univeristy Zdenek Neubauer as the greatest living Czech scientist oppose darwinism:
Purpose & comp. belong to the category of inner relationships to the whole (innere Beziehungen zur Ganzheit in German, vnitní vztahy k celkovosti in Czech): primarily, they refer to the subject-being of such relations”an organism, an individual life, an evolving species, a language. The subject-matter of its purpose, meaning, and intention is a particular expression of a being, or rather of its being”being one, good, true”that is: of 'being itself' an actualization of its 'self'.
Having related 'fitness' to 'purpose' by referring to its original, ecological meaning, we might restore the meaning of another Darwinian term”'natural selection'”and make it more meaningful. A living being is not only the result of natural selection, but at the same time, the selecting agent itself.
More on:
Homepage Centra pro teoretick studia - Centrum pro teoretick studia
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Brad McFall, posted 12-15-2006 8:54 PM MartinV has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 159 of 188 (370050)
12-15-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by MartinV
12-15-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
It gets a little cumbersome for me when/if I think I have finally understood how to relate purpose and biology. This is a large avenue of biophilosophy and I would like to make a general survey as well.
One issue I still have is the possible difference of natural vs artifical purpose Kantian wise vs what needs to be changed in evolutionary theory to accomadate a seperation of teleology and final cause via a FALSE topography of relations of current thought back to Roman vs Greek speculations but because this bears on the ideas of life off Earth it is hard for me to discount in that bearing Gould's notion of promixate and ultimate cause IN USING to explain Darwin's idea of an eye via a Darwinian notion of mimicry.
There is no doubt that field is larger but whether the explanation remands a adaptive fitness approach or simply a better understood analysis depends on cashing out the vechile of this approach and THAT I have not completed.
I will give your link a little better reading, please hold on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by MartinV, posted 12-15-2006 8:42 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by MartinV, posted 12-21-2006 4:14 PM Brad McFall has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 160 of 188 (371433)
12-21-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Brad McFall
12-15-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad,
you inspired me and I am now in the half of Kants "Prolegomena" - it will take at least one month to it read at all. As far as I can judge now the notion of "likeness" is an apriori judgment of the reason. So I am not sure if mimic predators have also notion of "likeness" and if predators can make synthetic judgment of it.
(especially if the mimic does not looks exactly as the model during initial small gradual steps of darwinistic "process" of explanation of advantage of "likeness" of mimicry).
Especially using Kants thoughts on judgment I am not so sure birds can be mislead by mimic (Franfurkter structuralism school too?) . Btw we should be aware of the fact that perception of colors are no way function of light spectrum entering the eye but of complicated process of the brain that can see color even if the color frequency is not present in the light entering into the eye (the fact observed first by Goethe and Schopenhauer - and neglected by science - was really observed only some 15 - 25 years ago).
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Brad McFall, posted 12-15-2006 8:54 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2006 5:51 PM MartinV has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 161 of 188 (371467)
12-21-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by MartinV
12-21-2006 4:14 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Thanks so much for the compliment. THAT is the best thing I can recieve and IS the reason I am on EvC and the web. Thanks.
I think can get an idea of what you are thinking about. I will need to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some more (I have not read more in to it at all this fall).
I had not ever really tried to think about a synthetic apriori "likeness" in a predator before. It is obvious that it can be thought about in "terms" of architectural metaphors etc and given that Gould was taken with them as to his narrative junctures with Creationism I see NOW, now that you mentioned it, that indeed the "growth" of biological thought can be thought retrodictively to the issue of "mimic" predators of such likeness(es).
That is less obvious but extremely interesting to my intuition. I will try to find mental space for the thought.
I have a page from Woodger's "Biology and Language" copied at
http://axiompanbiog.com/releases.aspx
subtitled, "Phenotypes and Environmental Sets" which is an obvious or clear junction for me as I try to see just what a synthetic mimic predator likeness may or may not be, is. This is where Woodger defines the word "FUNCTOR" and it depends on the "parental environment" and may likely bear on Kant's use of "parent" being different than a filial generation in that "the environment" is common across the generation where in Mendel there is a difference between "in the country" and "in the garden" divided by the difference of dominant and recessive. Needless to say, whether Woodger's semantics will work or if a deviation from a return to Russell's ideas on a line in the history of logic, one of the two, the "likness" as it is synthetic and a priori should exist seems to me to be constructable and thus at Kant's difference of math and philosophy. For instance Henderson in panbiogeography restricts issues of "common environment" to only spatial parameters, thus disregarding strictly thermodynamic contributions say. I am not certain if this would be a variation or a variable at this time.
Gould simply tried to make much MORE adoo about Bauplane"" than the form no matter the reduction, seems to make a (silver) likeness, to.
Edited by Brad McFall, : some spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by MartinV, posted 12-21-2006 4:14 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by MartinV, posted 01-05-2007 7:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 162 of 188 (374072)
01-03-2007 4:07 PM


Bird predation of butterflies
One of the most crucial point dawinistic explanation of mimicry rest upon is bird predation. If birds are not main butterfly predators or they do not react on aposematics warning colors or are not mislead by mimetic cryptic colors that neodarwinistic explanation will be wrong. Because if there is not selective pressure to look "aposematic" or to look like "mimic" some other forces had to be present that drove evolution of these forms.
One of the distinguished American ornitologist who disputed with Poulton about this issue was McAtee from Biological Survey Division from United States Department of Agriculture. He made great researches on this field and he came to the conclusion that birds eat same proportion of aposematics and mimetics species as are they proportions among insects. McAtee therefore thought that such aposematic/mimic colororation are inefficient.
I have no access to his research but one of his other small research can be found on internet:
Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." However, the results show that, so far as his investigation goes, the bird is beneficial and has no bad food habits to offset the good it does.
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food." Beetles make up 7.06 percent, of which only one-tenth of 1 percent are useful species; the cotton-boll weevil was found in four stomachs. Ants are eaten occasionally, and other hymenopterous food, bees, wasps, and sawfly larvae, amounted to 12.5 percent. Other items include stink bugs, treehoppers, scales, only one fly, eggs of katydids, egg cases of cockroaches, spiders (found in 40 stomachs examined in May, 12.67 percent, only a trace in June, and in 3 stomachs in July, 16.33 percent, evidently a makeshift food), and a few snails. Caterpillars are the largest item, 38.31 percent of the whole food for the year. No grasshoppers or crickets were found.
http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html
It is not only interesting that butterflies are not mentioned explicitly but I find a most surprising fact that bees and wasps were detected.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2007 12:20 AM MartinV has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 163 of 188 (374292)
01-04-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by MartinV
01-03-2007 4:07 PM


Re: Bird predation of butterflies
Perhaps tufted titmice (same size as chickadees) don't eat anything as big as grasshoppers, crickets and butterflies.
I would look at all the various flycatchers up to kingbirds and shrikes for more rigorous information.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by MartinV, posted 01-03-2007 4:07 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by MartinV, posted 01-05-2007 5:07 PM RAZD has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 164 of 188 (374771)
01-05-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
01-04-2007 12:20 AM


Re: Bird predation of butterflies
Yet they eat bees and wasps. If they eat wasps I do not see meaning of aposematic colors. Its consequently also doubtful if coloration of alleged mimic hornet moths have any selective advantage and what selective pressure led to such coloration of moths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2007 12:20 AM RAZD has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 165 of 188 (374789)
01-05-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Brad McFall
12-21-2006 5:51 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad,
I noticed you often cited Gould. Had his opinions any relevance to evolution that you cited him so often?
Btw. I finished Kants Prolegomena. One of the most interesting thoughts- and I suspect Carl Gustav Jung was inspired by them -is that some idea can influnce us so much that we can realise it. Interesting is that the idea have never been realised yet. So we cannot deduce its influence from material reality. It means that past is not influencing us but future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2006 5:51 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2007 9:44 PM MartinV has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024