Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DontWorryImADr t1_itc7g4f wrote

I think the above covers all the good points, so I’ll only add the types:

  • Batesian mimicry is when another organism mimics the warning something else gives without possessing the trait being warned about. Example is a hover fly with black-yellow stripes like stinging insects while possessing no sting.
  • Müllerian mimicry is when multiple species adopt the same warning signal while possessing similar traits. Example is how many stinging insects all utilize black-yellow or similar striping patterns.
  • Mertensian mimicry is similar warnings among deadly and non-deadly threats. Mainly because the warning can’t be learned if every experience is fatal, so the non-deadly are the method of associating the cue with the warning.
46

ObviouslyLOL t1_itd1708 wrote

Thanks for adding that. Regarding the Mertensian mimicry, is the non-fatal threat really needed? Whatever predator is eating this prey would also have genetic variations which dictate which foods they go after. Those with a proclivity for eating the fatal prey would die off; those without would pass on that aversion.

4

DontWorryImADr t1_itd7uhc wrote

Inherently, you are correct about “the dead don’t breed” and thus it would eventually be conveyed generations down the road to absolutely never touch those things. And in either circumstance, being BRIGHT AND OBVIOUS to potential predators right now is a huge disadvantage. That disadvantage is massive if the trait banks on “the next generation is less likely to eat something like this”. Genetic memory isn’t an ideal value compared to the cost, while showing relevance to a non-deadly warning would be adopted faster. And it benefits the non-deadly variety since both warning routes receive selection pressure. Every event is potentially a usage of defense material (venom), injurious, or fatal, so even snakes with deadly venom are benefitted through avoidance rather than needing to expend the venom.

7