Coevolution: Müllerian Mimicry between a Plant Bug (Miridae) and a Seed Bug (Lygaeidae) and the Relationship between Host Plant Choice and Unpalatability

Oikos ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denson Kelly McLain
Keyword(s):  
Host Plant ◽  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry ◽  
Plant Choice ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between Batesian and Müllerian mimicry

2004 ◽  
pp. 164-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme D. Ruxton ◽  
Thomas N. Sherratt ◽  
Michael P. Speed
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry ◽  
The Relationship

Olfactory responses and feeding preferences of Copitarsia uncilata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to four aromatic herb specie

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 179
Author(s):  
Miguel Mendieta ◽  
Andreas Gaigl ◽  
Juan Carlos Getiva de la Hoz ◽  
Anibal Orlando Herrera
Keyword(s):  
Host Plant ◽  
Feeding Preferences ◽  
Larval Weight ◽  
Olfactory Responses ◽  
Host Selection Behavior ◽  
Selection Behavior ◽  
Larva Feeding ◽  
Plant Choice ◽  
Lepidoptera Noctuidae ◽  
Aromatic Herbs

Colombian aromatic herbs have great potential as an export commodity. The genus Copitarsia is considered as an economic and a quarantine pest attacking them. In herbivore insects, host plant choice is made by adults and influenced by host plant quality. There were performed olfactory and feeding tests by using four-arm olfactometer and offering four different aromatic herbs (basil, mint, rosemary, or thyme) to determine the host selection behavior of Copitarsia uncilata Burgos and Leiva. Parameters, such as adult choice, larval weight, and time spent by larva on particular herb were measured. The preferences of adults and immature of C. uncilata varied significantly among the herbs in olfactory and larva feeding tests. The adults showed significantly higher responses to essential oils of basil and rosemary. Higher weight of larva was recorded on mint and basil. Further studies on larval development and longevity of adults on different herbs are necessary.

The relationship among host plant species, egg clutch size, and level of parasitism for the sharpshooter Tapajosa rubromarginata

2020 ◽  
Vol 168 (12) ◽  
pp. 900-910
Author(s):  
Eduardo G. Virla ◽  
María B. Aguirre ◽  
Guido A. Van Nieuwenhove ◽  
Erica B. Luft Albarracin ◽  
Guillermo A. Logarzo
Keyword(s):  
Host Plant ◽  
Clutch Size ◽  
Plant Species ◽  
Host Plant Species ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals THE EXISTENCE OF MÜLLERIAN MIMICRY

Evolution ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-453
Author(s):  
P. M. Sheppard ◽  
J. R. G. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry

Preference-Performance Relationships and Effects of Host Plant Choice in an Herbivorous Marine Amphipod

1999 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair G. B. Poore ◽  
Peter D. Steinberg
Keyword(s):  
Host Plant ◽  
Marine Amphipod ◽  
Plant Choice

scholarly journals Signals, cues and the nature of mimicry

2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1849) ◽  
pp. 20162080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Jamie
Keyword(s):  
Fitness Cost ◽  
Aggressive Mimicry ◽  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Ecological Literature ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry ◽  
Logical Extension

‘Mimicry’ is used in the evolutionary and ecological literature to describe diverse phenomena. Many are textbook examples of natural selection's power to produce stunning adaptations. However, there remains a lack of clarity over how mimetic resemblances are conceptually related to each other. The result is that categories denoting the traditional subdivisions of mimicry are applied inconsistently across studies, hindering attempts at conceptual unification. This review critically examines the logic by which mimicry can be conceptually organized and analysed. It highlights the following three evolutionarily relevant distinctions. (i) Are the model's traits being mimicked signals or cues? (ii) Does the mimic signal a fitness benefit or fitness cost in order to manipulate the receiver's behaviour? (iii) Is the mimic's signal deceptive? The first distinction divides mimicry into two broad categories: ‘signal mimicry’ and ‘cue mimicry’. ‘Signal mimicry’ occurs when mimic and model share the same receiver, and ‘cue mimicry’ when mimic and model have different receivers or when there is no receiver for the model's trait. ‘Masquerade’ fits conceptually within cue mimicry. The second and third distinctions divide both signal and cue mimicry into four types each. These are the three traditional mimicry categories (aggressive, Batesian and Müllerian) and a fourth, often overlooked category for which the term ‘rewarding mimicry’ is suggested. Rewarding mimicry occurs when the mimic's signal is non-deceptive (as in Müllerian mimicry) but where the mimic signals a fitness benefit to the receiver (as in aggressive mimicry). The existence of rewarding mimicry is a logical extension of the criteria used to differentiate the three well-recognized forms of mimicry. These four forms of mimicry are not discrete, immutable types, but rather help to define important axes along which mimicry can vary.

scholarly journals The evolution of Müllerian mimicry

2008 ◽  
Vol 95 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas N. Sherratt
Keyword(s):  
Müllerian Mimicry ◽  
Mullerian Mimicry
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document