Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

Or...what if Viceroys also are unpalatable ? What if Monarchs are heading toward Viceroy, or maybe both are approaching a common point , and Monarchs are moving faster toward it than Viceroy ?

... and in fact that is one of the competing theories ... that is, if Viceroys and Monarchs are equally unpalatable, then it may be evolutionarily valuable for them to mimic each other such that "once biting, twice shy" applies both ways (if a predator makes the mistake of eating a Viceroy, no Monarchs get eaten and vice versa) ...

[Aedes]

But viceroys are not unpalatable, that's the whole thing. Monarchs are unpalatable in part from their pre-pupation diet, which is exclusively milkweed. Viceroys do not feed on milkweed and they are not unpalatable.

Their respective appearances are an example of convergent evolution, and since looking like a monarch is advantageous it clearly stands to reason that the viceroy is doing most of the convergence.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But viceroys are not unpalatable, that's the whole thing. Monarchs are unpalatable in part from their pre-pupation diet, which is exclusively milkweed. Viceroys do not feed on milkweed and they are not unpalatable.

Their respective appearances are an example of convergent evolution, and since looking like a monarch is advantageous it clearly stands to reason that the viceroy is doing most of the convergence.

depends on who's doing the tasting, eh, Paul ?
What's your level of expertize in this area ?

Stand to reason that it COULD be the case, Paul. Not IS the case without information backing it.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 09:23 PM ----------

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... and in fact that is one of the competing theories ... that is, if Viceroys and Monarchs are equally unpalatable, then it may be evolutionarily valuable for them to mimic each other such that "once biting, twice shy" applies both ways (if a predator makes the mistake of eating a Viceroy, no Monarchs get eaten and vice versa) ...

and what if Viceroys are NOT moving toward Monarch ?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

depends on who's doing the tasting, eh, Paul ?
What's your expertize in this area ?

When I was in high school I did a lot of volunteering at a local chapter of the Audubon Society, and there was an entomologist there who taught me a great deal about monarch and viceroy butterflies. I used to find monarch eggs on milkweed plants and grow them all the way through the larval and pupal stage, then release them when they emerged from the chrysalis. (This, by the way, is a GREAT project to do with kids). To this day I can still easily tell a male from a female monarch (there is a dot mid-stripe on the males' wings), and I can tell a viceroy from a monarch (viceroys have an orthogonal stripe).

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

When I was in high school I did a lot of volunteering at a local chapter of the Audubon Society, and there was an entomologist there who taught me a great deal about monarch and viceroy butterflies. I used to find monarch eggs on milkweed plants and grow them all the way through the larval and pupal stage, then release them when they emerged from the chrysalis. (This, by the way, is a GREAT project to do with kids). To this day I can still easily tell a male from a female monarch (there is a dot mid-stripe on the males' wings), and I can tell a viceroy from a monarch (viceroys have an orthogonal stripe).

but what did they TASTE like ?
and what do viceroys taste like ?

some testing showed that Redwing Blackbirds liked Viceroy even LESS than Monarch.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I don't think creatures are capable of slef-interest in the same way, even though in some ways the same principle, namely deception, is involved.

... yes, this is a hard line to draw ... on the one hand, to draw such a line at all seems to segregate humankind from the creatures - we're in danger of losing sight of our continuity with nature ... on the other hand, we cannot deny the qualitative step changes in human thought and society that have been witnessed within just the few thousand years of human history (as instigated by the written word, the printing press, computers, the internet, twittering, etc. - superficially incremental technological advances that snowballed out of all proportion ) - indeed, (cultural) evolution seems to be undeniably punctuated ... so when was the ethical knowledge line crossed and how quickly? ... that lower male chimps will clandestinely signal to females even with the dominant male in sight (but perhaps not paying attention or situated so as not able to see the clandestine signals) appears to indicate some level of knowing willful deceit ... that my dog will continue to signal for attention even after I have put her to bed under covers where she can't be seen and can't see me appears to indicate that as far as she is aware I always know exactly what she knows, leaving no room for willful deceit ... somewhere in between, the line of ethical knowledge seems to have been crossed ... when and how quickly? - was it due to some superficially insignificant adaptation that snowballed into a qualitative punctuation? - I couldn't say ... but the implication seems to be that more creatures than just humankind have been sampling from the tree of knowledge ...

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... and in fact that is one of the competing theories ... that is, if Viceroys and Monarchs are equally unpalatable, then it may be evolutionarily valuable for them to mimic each other such that "once biting, twice shy" applies both ways (if a predator makes the mistake of eating a Viceroy, no Monarchs get eaten and vice versa) ...

Then it's not a deceptive at all; it's clear warning from either species involved. If anything, it's Queens, perhaps being less distasteful, that have the supposed direction to go in, toward Viceroy.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

but what did they TASTE like ?
and what do viceroys taste like ?

some testing showed that Redwing Blackbirds liked Viceroy even LESS than Monarch.

Hmm, I guess you're right if Wikipedia is any judge.

This is their mimicry relationship:

Müllerian mimicry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could probably find references about taste in the scientific literature, but it's not really worth the effort (finding the right search engine and search terms, then critically evaluating the references...)

Here's a start -- I could pull stuff from these authors or their references if anyone is interested.

The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Nonetheless, the take home message for evolutionary biology is that selection acts on function and not on sequence, i.e. whether it's the structure of a gene product or if it's simply the amount of the same gene product, it's this end effect that matters in the end however it's achieved.

Biased Gene Conversion shows this is inaccurate

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

and what if Viceroys are NOT moving toward Monarch ?

... if that turns out to be the case, then neither of the mimicry theories would be applicable to the case of Viceroys and Monarchs ... and in fact, there is evidence that in some localized regions the Viceroy is moving toward the Queen ... and that's an interesting thing to ponder ... in some regions, the Viceroy appears to be mimicking the Monarch; in other regions it appears to be mimicking the Queen ... could the Viceroy have evolved a high degree of genetic coloration plasticity relative to other butterflies? - that is, could the Viceroy have evolved a genetic "talent" for mimicry? (now we're really speculating! ) ...