Talk:Mimicry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Startle defense

I'm not sure the "startle defense" discussion belongs here - mimicry is significant because it makes the survival of one species contingent on the success of another. If the organism being mimicked should vanish, the mimic will be forced to undergo further adaptation. Or, for example, if the current honeybee plague in the northeast United States continues and they are all wiped out, there would no longer be any significant advantage to bumblebees (should they prove to be the only surviving species) maintaining a particular coat color or pattern and it might change to something more suitable. In the case of "startle defense" this is not true; the moth shown, for example, will ALWAYS be able to use the startle defense. It is not contingent on another organism. Graft 17:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we say that with any certainty? If a moth has markings on its back that closely mimic an owl's eyes, a bird will certainly be less likely to eat it. If the owl was to disappear, the birds would probably be more successful hunters if they were less shocked by the big eyes looking at them. They may still resemble other eyes a little - e.g. eyes of their own species, for example, but this should hardly be something they need to be very cautious of. On the other hand, if owls are present, they will be in great danger if they are not afraid when they look straight into the eyes of a deadly predator. Richard001 09:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Mimics

We need examples of Bakerian And Vavilov mimicry to enhance this article which seems incomplete without it. AshLin 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Self mimicry?

what about self mimicry such as the Owl butterfly (Caligo idomeneus)? --RobH 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rob,

Many of us have no clue about this form of mimicry, why don't you put up a quick and dirty paragraph on it? If it needs editing someone will come along and do it. AshLin 04:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I only know about it because mimicry was a prompt for one of my essays, I dont know that much about it, I dont want to put anything incorrect or misleading up about it. RobH 05:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wassitcalled mimicry

There is a type of mimicry where a very dangerous animal looks like a less dangerous animal (mostly found in poisonous snakes). It's an inverse Batesian mimics or a special case of Müllerian mimics. The reason for it is that a very dangerous snake may no reap the benefits since it kills all animals it attacks so it mimics a less dangerous snake stat other animals have learnt to avoid. // Liftarn

Mertensian mimicry. Dysmorodrepanis 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"...resembles its own species..."?

Bakerian mimics ..., where the mimic resembles members of its own species in order to lure pollinators or reap other benefits...

Ehm... I don't get it. "Resembling its own species"? -- Syzygy 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this means that members of the species look more similar to each other than normal? I dunno, I'm stumped too. It sounds odd. -- Milo

Complicated phenomenon. Some plants, for example, produce flowers that have little or no nectar, while others in the same or other species (possibly unrelated, but having similar-looking flowers) do so. An insect in search of nectar which cannot tell one type or species from the other will have to visit (and pollinate) both but only gets nectar from one of them. Dysmorodrepanis 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is definition of mimicry correct?

I'm not a biologist or scientist, but the definition here says that the creature consciously imitates another creature in order to gain an advantage (ie live longer...). I guess the chameleon and the octopus do, but I thought that in the main the similarity was a coincidence that has enabled the creature to last longer on this earth than it might have otherwise (without the coincidental similarity). It's been a very very long time since biology class though, so maybe I've misunderstood or misremembered how natural selection works? If not, it would be good if someone more qualified were to edit the definition to remove the impression that creatures are busy re-arranging their DNA. If I've misunderstood I would welcome a clarificaton. Cheers, --KimberlyClarke 04:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The mimic octopus and the "wonderpus" are at present the only known animals that intentionally and voluntarily mimic others. Dysmorodrepanis 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's false?

Does the current entry for Mertensian mimics imply that the False Coral Snake is a misnomer, and it was in fact the Coral Snake which mimicked the False Coral Snake? -- Milo

No, the name comes from the fact it's the "true" coral snakes one has to be wary of; the "false" ones are rarely deadly or even very dangerous to humans. False coral snakes were nothing special to the average farmer, but the "true" ones would make one back up out of their range. The vernacular names are a passing nod to their mimicry, but they became established before the concept of mimicry was researched and so they stuck.

Initially it was indeed believed (possibly misled by the vernacular names) that the "true" coral snakes were the "model" and that this was a case of Batesian mimicry. But a bite of a "true" coral snake is very likely to kill the predator. Dysmorodrepanis 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"In this case harmless and deadly mimics resemble a dangerous but not usually deadly species (if the predator dies, it cannot learn to recognize a trait, e.g. a warning coloration)."

What is learning?

While learning-from-experience among individual predators (and groups able to communicate) is one of the components to protection provided by a characteristic among prey, learning-through-selection among predators (a result of the death of predators) is another component. Which snake is the mimic and which snake is the model? In my opinion, this is not easily answered.

Michael H 34 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Minor edits

Please forgive the minor edits, but (a) I'd prefer not to think too much about what those poor little snakes are trying to do, (b) the sentence had a "snakes is", and (c) I think you can get away with calling the coral snake "highly" venomous. Revbob 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Peafowl and allies mimic snakes

If you look at User:Amoun-Pinudjem it says that he is researching this. Amoun-Pinudjem is part of the Egyptian "title" of Green Peafowl researcher Kermit Blackwood. He has two other accounts but has made little contribution. His data, including how the bird is actually several species, has not been formally published, but has revealed in photo galleries [1]. In literature in 2000, he described that the Yunnan form of Peafowl is apparently different, and that even though Pavo muticus spicifer is found in Burma, that just because the bird is found in Burma does not automatically mean it is a spicifer.

Kermit has suggested that the Peafowl, Argus "Peafowl" (they are not pheasants as Peafowl and them are only distantly related to pheasants), and the far more distant Polyplectrons (called Peacock-Pheasant but is not related to either) have behaviours that mimic reptiles. Look at my picture for an example.

This is a Siamese Green Peafowl from Taipei Zoo. Note the facial pattern. This resembles that of a tree viper.

Frankyboy5 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to mimicry

I feel this should be moved to mimicry, as mimics are only one side to the story - there is also the model they mimic. Compare with predation etc. If nobody objects I'll move it after a while. Richard001 09:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry already exists as an article, and it is a disambiguation page; how do you propose to redefine that article and links to it? Dyanega 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems like a good idea to have an article that covers the phenomenon and includes the terms mimic and model in the same article. Should not be a problem moving the content to mimicry and having a template:otheruses4 template at the top to the other article. Shyamal 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links are for the ecological version. An 'other uses' template should cover it, and this article can redirect to the new name. Richard001 07:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no links on Mimicry that don't appear in Mimic (disambiguation). Shall we ask an admin to move the page over the existing one? Richard001 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. Should Mimic (disambiguation) be moved to Mimicry (disambiguation)? --DanielCD 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Mimic (dab) is mainly for the word 'mimic' (except for mimicry in entertainment, which works well for both), so we'll leave the dab page there. Richard001 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Batesian and Mullerian mimicry

The article seems to cover these two ideas as separate and opposing phenomena, however after briefly looking at an article on Monarchs and Viceroy butterflies, I realize it's a continuum between these two extremes. Some species may be slightly poisonous, while others may be much more so. This can't be classified as either situation really, it fits somewhere between the two. Richard001 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is very problematic

This is a fairly difficult subject to define and describe, but I have a lot of problems with the lead:

Mimicry describes a situation where is one species(1), the mimic, has evolved to appear(2) similar to another successful(3) species(4) or to the environment(5) (the model) in order to dupe(6) predators into avoiding the mimic, or dupe prey into approaching the mimic(7). (8) A mimic generally resembles its target in one or more of the following: appearance, behavior, and habitat. The capacity to mimic is sometimes called "mimetism." Mimetism differs from camouflage in that the mimic does not try to blend with the surroundings, but to appear as some other creature.

• 1 Firstly, the mimic need not be a whole species, it may just be some members of a species (see Bakerian mimicry).
• 2 Next, the word 'appear' is synonymous with the visual system, but other senses are also involved in mimicry, e.g. olfaction.
• 3 The word 'successful' is inappropriate - it is unclear and meaningless.
• 4 They can also mimic their own species (see above) or themselves.
• 5 This conflicts with the last line, which insists mimicry is only mimicking other organisms, not inanimate objects. We need to define whether mimicry includes camouflage as a subset or not.
• 6 Deception, or more broadly, inaccurate information is not always involved. Mullerian mimicry involves two species who are both harmful to their prey - their is no 'duping' just a form of unintentional 'cooperation'. Actually there is still deception, as each species is resembling the other, which it is not.
• 7 Does mimicry always involve predators and prey, and in this relationship? What about say a flower mimicking a female wasp such that a male will try to mate with it and thus aid in pollination.
• 8 Does our definition still agree with that given in the text? (I'll get a hold of it soon and work on it)

Other situations that appear similar to mimicry include copying other animal's behavior (observational learning) and code-breaking (mimicking another organism's sign stimulus resulting in exploitation of that organism). I'll try to work on these issues soon, though thoughts or clarification on any of these issues is appreciated. Richard001 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've addressed most of the issues in the lead. I'll try to work on the article over the next few weeks and get it up to B class. Any comments on my edits are appreciated. Richard001 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some minor pedantry ! "Mimics may use multiple models" suggests conscious choice, it would perhaps be better to have it along the lines of "...may be based on...". Otherwise looks a lot better than before. Cheers. Shyamal 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article reads much better now. Great work. However it does need detailed references, more illustrative examples and picture galleries in due course of time. BTW, I've deleted your duplicated text from the last log on this page.AshLin 11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll correct that wording now. I've tried to remove any suggestion that the mimic has any choice (or is even aware of what's happening), it was quite bad not so long ago. It's important to make it clear that it is the signal-receiver that is the agent of selection, not the mimic itself. I'll try to elaborate on this in the article. I made a gallery on Wikimedia Commons for all mimicry related images yesterday, though it's only the insect subcategory that is very well populated, since it has existed for longer. Richard001 22:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple of good online sources

Two encyclopedia articles on this subject that may be of use: http://www.semioticon.com/seo/M/mimicry.html and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108732/mimicry. Richard001 08:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image not so good

The Lobelia cardinalis image is a bit misleading with that prominent spider. It took me two readings to realize the caption was about the flower. Debivort 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought the same thing. I've replaced that photo, accordingly. I'm puzzled as to why the caption says "Batesian" rather than "Bakerian", given the definition of the latter in the text. Dyanega 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake. Regarding the spider, I never looked at the image very closely, so I must have missed that. I was also a bit hasty as classifying it as Batesian. Bakerian is similar, but not the same. I've moved it down, which takes care of one section in need of an image. We still need one for automimicry and weed mimicry though. Richard001 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polyphemus moth (debivort).jpg could work for automimicry, though the background isn't ideal. Debivort 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow, how is that automimicry? Unless you're confusing eye spots with automimicry, I don't see what part of the moth's body is being 'mimicked'? Richard001 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - eye spots satisfy the definition as given in the article. Debivort 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, going by the definition here, automimicry can be mimicry of the opposite sex or deception in the arrangement of the body. These two are quite different things, and here we seem to be discussing the latter. I can imagine how eye spots might be involved in automimicry, but they would have to make the posterior end look like the head, or something like that. The image you've suggested looks more like the 'startle' mimicry where the eyes look a little like the eyes of an owl, or something similar. I'm not sure what sort of mimicry you'd call that - it's similar to Batesian, though I don't have a strong grasp of the classification. How do the eyespots on this moth resemble any part of its own body though? I'm not sure what exactly they would resemble in this case, but it certainly doesn't look to me like they resemble anything about the moth itself. I've had a look through some of the Theclinae images and some seem to fit the bill, though there are no really good ones that I've seen. We want something ideally that the viewer will look at and then realize that what certainly seems to be the head is actually the posterior. I've seen images like that in Wickler (1968) but nothing that looks quite so convincing here. Something like Image:Probably Atlides halesus Great Purple Hairstreak New Mexico PP.JPG would be okay for now I guess. Richard001 08:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off and examples used

You may have noticed aggressive mimicry has recently been split off. I hope to see more articles split off like this; ideally we will have a whole complex of mimicry articles in the future. I'm not sure whether to use original examples in the daughter articles or simply use the same ones and go into more depth. I'd like some input on the examples used, however. At this point we need to reduce the length of the aggressive section and only keep the most pertinent examples. But should they then be repeated in aggressive mimicry, going into greater detail? Or should we use a select few examples here in sufficient detail, then use new ones in the daughter article? Of course, we could also repeat some examples if they are particularly rare or useful for illustrating the point, so a mixed approach may also be appropriate. Richard001 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Once an article has been split off, it is always preferrable to reduce the text in the primary article to a bare minimum, and point the reader to the daughter article. Look at the Honey bee page for an example - there are a LARGE number of daughter pages, and a substantial part of the main article basically exists to organize the links TO those pages. Dyanega 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'bare minimum' was the best way of describing splitting. Summary style is a better word. We keep a short summary, varying depending on the situation from something very succinct to something maybe more than half the length of the target article. It's important to give a basic explanation of the subject and some examples, but they should also be significantly shorter than the daughter articles, otherwise they of course become redundant. Richard001 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

First thoughts, just to show I've actually read the article, detailed analysis to follow later

1. aposematic needs a gloss - not explained or linked afaics - if synonymous with warning, dump it.
2. Is it worth giving the Greek lettering as well in etymology?
3. Several words other than article title bolded in lead, How does this fit with MOS
4. Cuckoo maybe needs a bit of clarification - not all are brood parasites
5. layout of listed examples looks a bit clunky, but I haven't thought of a better way yet.

Jimfbleak (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1. inconsistency of spelling - eg mostly "color", but not always
2. The text is a bit clunky in places, and the "see Smith and Jones" notes seem to me to me distract from the flow - can some of the notes (eg #15) be incorporated in the text?
3. subheading are often repeated in bold below the heading, or another word is bolded (under protective egg decoys, Gilbertian mimicry is bolded. Is this MoS?
4. Would the example lists look better with less indenting, eg

Lepidoptera

• Ash Borer

-just a thought really

Jimfbleak (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed issue 3 with bold only for inbound links and italics for other emphasis. Shyamal (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for a couple of months, and I'm surprised to see a GA nom. I had actually left it as a 'start' article intentionally before; I didn't feel it was quite up to B standard yet. I appreciate the nom, and I know you've also done some work on this one Shyamal, though I still feel it might be a bit hasty giving it GA status. I still need a lot more time to catch up with things around here so I'll come back to this issue later, though I suspect I'll still favour lowering it to B class.

Thanks for the comments Jim. Richard001 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically I think the article is still in a state of flux. We still need to work out what all the daughter articles should be (some still need to be created, others need to be moved/merged). Some sections here need better summaries, and several concepts remain unexplored thus far. The article is also fairly large considering its lack of completeness, and would benefit from further trimming down, but again that will be easier when all the daughter articles are created and finalized. Personally I prefer to get the daughter articles into shape first, then work on this at the end (a bottom up approach). Since I'm a major contributor I'm not supposed to delist it according to the GA guidelines, though I think it does need to be delisted (I wouldn't argue with a B class). Richard001 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexual mimicry

I've made an article about Paracerceis sculpta which has an unusual sexual mimicry - some males mimic females and manage to then get away with mating some females without other males noticing. I'm not sure where it should be added. Smartse (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting, and if you wanted to put in a short para +ref, I don't suppose anyone would object. Needs a name, such as inter-sexual mimicry... Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for suggesting the title. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

rename article

This article only deals with biological mimicry, so it should be renamed to biological mimicry. As hinted in this article, the word means simply "imitation" and everybody knows what a mime is. The scope of mimicry is far larger than biological mimicry. --193.166.137.75 (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Biological mimicry is by itself the most extensive, complex and well reseearched kind of mimicry. Other less frequent usages can have qualified titles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Simpler first sentence?

The intro has a really complex first sentence/paragraph. A better method, preferred in many science articles, is to have a straightforward first few sentences, which are subsequently amplified. That makes life easier for non-specialist readers. The content of the present first para could follow as a second para. Definitions from reliable secondary sources offer some models:

"Mimicry: the similarity in appearance of one species to another that affords one or both protection". King R.C. Stansfield W.D. & Mulligan P.K. 2006. A dictionary of genetics, 7th ed. Oxford. p278

"Similarity between organisms that confers a survival advantage on one". Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th ed.

"Mimicry is... the resemblance of one animal (the mimic) to another (the model) such that a third animal is deceived by the similarity into confusing the two". Edmunds M. 1974. Defence in animals. Longman, London. p81

"Mimicry is the resemblance of one organism to another (or to an inanimate object), a resemblance that confers an adaptive advantage on at least one of the organisms". J.R.G. Turner

Wickler Mimicry in plants & animals (Chapter 5 Definitions and objections), and Poulton Colours of animals (Chapter XII Protective mimicry) do not help much in this quest, unfortunately. Mayr has a fine account of the origin of the concept in evolutionary biology (The growth of biological thought. p522).

Your opinions, please. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead needs work. However, I'm finding it difficult to suggest some wording because of all the exceptions to a simple definition. Here are some preliminary thoughts on what that I think should be mentioned early in the lead.

• Mimicry is a similarity between different groups of organisms, so that individuals from one group resemble individuals from a different group. A common form of mimicry occurs when one group has a defense against predation, such as unpalatability, and the defense is advertised by a warning color. Later, a second group of organisms evolves a similar appearance, without the same defense.
• Camouflage involves invisibility (camouflage is successful if an organism is not detected).
• A mimic is detected as something else.

Interesting problem! Even the caption to the first image is somewhat opaque. Isn't the second image a case of camouflage? I'll try to return to this in the next day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the simple dictionary ref first, with the complex definition second, as lead to second para. 1. Simple defn has a reliable ref; 2. Word 'biological' not needed, and here note pre-intro disambig link; 3. Some sources I consulted simply don't have a definition, which suggests others have run into the same difficulties. Anyway, the article as a whole does reasonably reflect the topics biologists include under the heading 'mimicry'. That may have to do for the moment, though the second half of the second para might be pruned. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple defintion is simple and has a reference (perhaps not a terribly good one?) but it's also false in more than one way. It's only defining visual protective interspecific mimicry, which is a specific subset of all mimicries that discards all non-visual, non-protective, intraspecific mimicry. I think I would prefer a more accurate definition, preferably referenced but I think even the unreferenced version is better given the obvious problems with this one. If we can find a reference that provides an accurate definition it would be good. I'm doubtful that an accurate, concise and easy to understand definition is possible, because improvement in any one of these attributes tends to degrade the other two (I think). Richard001 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The frequency with which mimics use other sense-modalities make this an important issue. Sound, smell and behaviour are all used by mimics as well as appearance. Maybe I'll just say this, and others can judge. I'm less impressed with intra-specific mimicry as something which needs to be put high up. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the animal you're talking about. If you include insects chemical mimicry (newish article I'm working on) is probably more commmon, but who knows, since there are biases in research (e.g. chemical and auditory mimicry is harder for us to detect). Also, remember that 'behavioural' is not in the same category as the others because it's not a sensory modality. Behaviour is often referring to visual mimicry based on behaviour rather than appearance, though it has caught my attention that it's often used in this incorrect way (as if it's a different sensory mode). Richard001 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusing lead

I've read the second paragraph several times. It is not easy to understand. In particular, I don't get what "selective action" refers to, and the role of the "dupe" does not seem to be well explained. From the name, I assume it is a creature that is fooled by the mimicry? If so, can we not just say so in ordinary English? 86.133.247.170 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Well, I appreciate some aspects of this article may be difficult. It could hardly be different in a research field that has been going for 150 years! The introduction is tied to definitions in the references, and those definitions have themselves evolved to cover the many variations discovered in the field in many kinds of species. I didn't invent terms like 'signal-receiver' or 'dupe', of course. We have a duty to stick to reliable sources. At the same time, we do have to try and make it all comprehensible.

Personally, I think much of the second para was clarified later in the intro. But I have done two things: split the second para into two, and added an example to illustrate the use of words to the new second para. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In your example, are the birds the dupes? Presumably they are. So, I think it would be better to say "An example would be birds (dupes), ..." However, the example does not IMO have the expected emphasis. It seems to be focusing on the birds' abilities to distinguish between the mimic and the model (that is, to detect and foil the mimicry) rather than being an example of successful mimicry in operation. Second point: Although "selective action" links to the article on evolutionary selection, it is far from obvious (to me) on first, second or even third reading that it is referring to natural selection driving the evolution of the mimic (which is what I now think it must mean). Instead, it reads as if the dupes are themselves performing a selective action (carrying out one behaviour rather than another), the nature of which is not explained. 86.150.100.173 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

File:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 14, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mirror neurons

Neuroscience proposes an explanation for mimicry based on mirror neurons. The article should perhaps mention this. pgr94 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about morphological / evolutionary-scale mimicry, not behavioral mimicry, so I don't think it fits in. de Bivort 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be named to reflect this. At the very least, the scope of the article should be clarified in the lead. pgr94 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Imitation

I was a bit surprised when I stumbled across this page. It seems to me like it would be more sensible as a redirect to Imitation, with this page being moved to Biological mimicry or similar. This sense doesn't seem like the common usage of the word to me. What do you think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? A dictionary might take that approach, but as an encyclopedia it is best to use the common name. The hatnote to Mimic (disambiguation) is fine, although that dab page might benefit from a link to Imitation. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly my point: the common name in this case would seem to be a synonym with imitation. The common name policy doesn't refer to the most common name in the academic literature, it refers to the most common name used by the general public. I think dictionaries trump academic journals here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think readers should expect to use Wikipedia to look up words as in a dictionary, so the hatnote is fine for a reader who wants some more general term. I suppose there is some noticeboard where people with experience in this might have thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this. If there's reasonable agreement I'll list the page at requested moves and we can have a proper debate then. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see from Google that the use of 'Mimicry' as in this article far outweighs any other usage. I have alerted Richard001 to this discussion, he being by far the lead contributor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Talk:Mimicry#Redirect to Imitation. Dispute as to whether the article be moved and Mimicry made a redirect to Imitation.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Mimicry and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Mimicry is the commonly used term for imitation that occurs in nature as an adaptive mechanism. There should be a short section on imitation with Template:Main pointing to Mimicry. Merging conflates an adaptive biological mechanism which is usually not a deliberate act by the organism with an act that usually is when done by a human, or sometimes even an animal—User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I shall bow out of this dispute with good grace. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory information on Morpho butterfly

There's a section in this article which refers to the Morpho butterfly being a very strong flier and difficult to catch, but then if the link is followed to the Morpho article, there's a sentence there which contradicts this, stating that the Morpho flies with a wobbling flight and is easy to catch. I believe that the truth should be discerned, and both articles made consistent. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right to raise this, and as it happens I can answer it! (How often does that happen?!) Some key research was done on Morpho species by: A.M. Young 1971. Wing colouration and reflectance in Morpho butterflies as related to reproductive behaviour and escape from avian predators. Oecologia 7, 209–222. The results were discussed in Edmunds M. 1974. Defence in Animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Harlow, Essex and NY: Longman. ISBN 0-582-44132-3, which is a key work. On p255–256 there is a discussion of 'pursuit aposematism':

"Young suggested that the brilliant blue colours and bobbing flight of Morpho butterflies may induce pursuit... Morpho amathonte is a very fast flier... It is possible that birds that have chased several unsuccessfully may learn not to pursue butterflies of that [type]... In one area, Young found that 80% of less brilliant species of Morpho had beak marks on their wings... but none out of 31 M. amathonte.

"If brilliant colour was a factor in courtship, then the conflicting selection pressures of sexual selection and predator selection might lead to different results in quite closely related species".

And now, looking at the Morpho article, you see the species referred to was M. melenaus. I can't vouch for the 'easy to catch', since they don't give a reference, but it is quite possible. So both articles may be correct. I will add the species and reference to this article.

Q.E.D. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Chemical mimicry

I added a little on how the Phengaris rebeli uses chemical mimicry to parasitize an ant species. NK2015 (talk) 2:45, 31 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a paragraph on Camouflage in the lead?

Why is there a paragraph on Camouflage in the lead, when the article (rightly, I think) does not cover the topic? It asserts (probably POV and arguably wrongly) that cam is always mimicry - well, is motion camouflage mimicry? Or motion dazzle? I don't think so. So the 'broader' is basically POV if not OR, really. Either the paragraph should go, or it should (if there is reason) be rewritten in the body of the article. The truth is that the phenomena have some degree of overlap but are not the same, and neither subsumes the other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it covered in the cited source Pasteur, G. (1982). "A classificatory review of mimicry systems". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 169–199. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.001125. ? Shyamal (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not on JSTOR, but it covers Mimesis (the second sentence of the paragraph) which is not problematic; it's certainly a form of camouflage. What is wrong is the (dismissive, OR-ish) attempt to subsume camouflage here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Broadly, I go along with Chiswick Chap about para 2. The definition {#1 ref) clearly states the case for mimicry being a difference concept from camouflage. There is, of course, some relation between the two. That relation may be that both are types of crypsis, assuming we use that term broadly. Therefore I think the last sentence of the second para is basically OK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the paragraph "...is related to camouflage..." leaving the last sentence unchanged. See what you think. I wonder if it should move to the body? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro copy edit

Well, I did a copy edit on the first part of the very long intro, and it threw up some points:

1. The first para (and the intro as a whole) was far too long & complex, IMO. In all forms of technical and scientific writing the intro needs to be synoptic rather than complete. Consider Sci Am as a very good example, and the use of simple introductory articles by Nature. It is not advisable for the intro to try and cover every twist & turn of the very complex pattern of life. I separated out the first few statements into its own paragraph. I did not touch the overall length because I wanted to give time for others to consider. But I think much of the intro belongs in the body of the article.
2. I don't know what is meant by "mimicry complex", over & above what has already been said in the text. I consulted Wickler's 1968 book, and he doesn't use the term at all there. Ruxton et al don't use it in "Avoiding attack". Remembering that we have the term "mimicry ring" for the really complex multi-species set-ups, what does mimicry system achieve as a term? If there is no clear explanation forthcoming, the phrase should come out, IMO.
3. Thirdly, I offered a better way to add page #s using the sup facility. The previous method was clumsy and obtrusive. Rather than talk about it, I changed the style so others could compare it. It's just a matter of typography, really.

It won't worry me at all if others take a different view. But in support of the intelligent non-specialist readers, I hope you will agree with the general thrust of my argument. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Phylogenetics of mimicry be merged into Mimicry, leaving a redirect. The article, which seems to be a student essay-piece as part of a class visit to Wikipedia, says little that isn't already here, beyond the suggestion that the phylogenetics should be interesting but little is yet known (the Batesian mimicry of Papilio polytes is controlled by the doublesex gene). The small amount of new material can readily be merged here without making the article too long. There is quite large overlap on the basics of (Batesian and Müllerian) mimicry, which can essentially be discarded without loss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I support the suggestion that these two articles should be merged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)