The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic (original) (raw)

Nature volume 350, pages 497–498 (1991) Cite this article

Abstract

DEFENSIVE mimicry has long been a paradigm of adaptive evolution by natural selection1–3. Mimics, models and predators in a batesian mimicry system (unpalatable model, palatable mimic) exist in a very different selective milieu from those in a müllerian system (involving ≳2 unpalatable 'co-models')1,4–6. Consequently, the incorrect characterization of a mimicry relationship obscures the natural histories of populations involved and undermines attempts to test general mimicry theory by means of empirical studies of specific systems. Here, we reassess the classic case of mimicry involving viceroy butterflies, Limenitis archippus (Cramer) (Nymphalidae), and two species they purportedly mimic: the monarch, Danaus plexippus (L.), and the queen, Danaus gilippus (Cramer) (Nymphalidae: Danainae). Viceroys are historically considered palatable (batesian) mimics7,8 of the chemically defended9 danaines. Our experiment refutes this interpretation by revealing that viceroys are as unpalatable as monarchs, and significantly more unpalatable than queens from representative Florida populations. This implies that viceroys are müllerian co-mimics of the danaines and prompts a comprehensive reassessment of this widely cited exemplar of mimicry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Turner, J. R. G. Ecol. Ent. 12, 81–95 (1987).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Vane-Wright, R. I. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 16, 33–40 (1981).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Brower, L. P. Am. Nat. 131 (suppl.), 1–3 (1988).
    Article Google Scholar
  4. Ford, E. B. Ecological Genetics (Methuen, London, 1971).
    Google Scholar
  5. Rothschild, M. Symb. Bot. Uppsal. 22, 82–99 (1979).
    Google Scholar
  6. Huheey, J. E. Am. Nat. 131, S22–S41 (1988).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Walsh, B. D. & Riley, C. V. Am. Ent. 1, 189–193 (1869).
    Google Scholar
  8. Scudder, S. H. Nature 3, 147 (1970).
    Article ADS Google Scholar
  9. Brower, L. P. in The Biology of Butterflies (eds Vane-Wright, R. I. & Ackery, P. R.) 109–135 (Symp. Roy. Ent. Soc. No. 11).
  10. Cohen, J. A. J. chem. Ecol. 11, 85–103 (1985).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Malcolm, S. B., Cockrell, B. J. & Brower, L. P. J. chem. Ecol. 15, 819–854 (1989).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Glendinning, J. I. thesis, Univ. of Florida (1989).
  13. Kelley, R. B., Seiber, J. N., Jones, A. D., Segall, H. J. & Brower, L. P. Experientia 43, 943–946 (1987).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  14. Brower, J. V. Z. Evolution 12, 32–47 (1958).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Brower, J. V. Z. Evolution 12, 273–285 (1958).
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Platt, A. P., Coppinger, R. P. & Brower, L. P. Evolution 25, 692–701 (1971).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Pliske, T. E. Environ. Ent. 4, 455–473 (1975).
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Bent, A. C. Life Histories of North American Blackbirds, Orioles, Tanagers, and Allies (Dover New York, 1965).
    Google Scholar
  19. Brower, L. P. & Brower, J. V. Z. Nat. Hist. 71, 8–19 (1962).
    Google Scholar
  20. Rothschild, M., Mummery, R. & Farrell, C. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 28, 359–372 (1986).
    Article Google Scholar
  21. Ackery, P. R. & Vane-Wright, R. I. Milkweed Butterflies: Their Cladistics and Biology (Cornell Univ. Press, New York, 1984).
    Google Scholar
  22. Wunderlin, R. P. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida (University Presses of Florida Tampa, 1982).
    Google Scholar
  23. Turner, J. R. G., Kearney, E. P. & Exton, L. S. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23, 247–268 (1984).
    Article Google Scholar
  24. Huheey, J. E. Evolution 30, 86–93 (1976).
    PubMed Google Scholar
  25. Turner, J. R. G. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 58, 297–308 (1976).
    Article Google Scholar
  26. Sbordoni, V., Bullini, L., Scarpelli, G., Forestiero, S. & Rampini, M. Ecol. Ent. 4, 83–93 (1979).
    Article Google Scholar
  27. Day, R. W. & Quinn, G. P. Ecol. Monogr. 59, 433–463 (1989).
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA
    David B. Ritland & Lincoln P. Brower

Authors

  1. David B. Ritland
  2. Lincoln P. Brower

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ritland, D., Brower, L. The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic.Nature 350, 497–498 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1038/350497a0

Download citation

This article is cited by