Subject
Fw: Zimmer, Alexander, Striz Minimicry
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: Zimmer, Alexander, Striz
> This message was originally submitted by JohnsonK@COUDERT.COM to the
NABOKV-L
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (93
lines) ------------------
> I got on the phone and telephoned some of my colleagues at the American
> Museum of Natural History, just curious to see, among the moth or bird
> people (funny looking people they are!) anyone had ever suggested any
> protective advantage in hummingbird moths looking/acting like
> hummingbirds. The only one I could think of would be general "search
> image" stuff-- e.g. if it is not a "moth" but a "bird" to the "search
> image" of a predator(s), it might have been accorded some advantage. I
> was also curious because there is a group of LARGE
> skippers(phylogenetically between butterflies and moths) in Africa that
> also act similarly [large, dark, fly fast, "whir" and nectar at large
> flowers etc.], although they don't siphon while hovering. I'll let you
> know what I find out... If there is an "opinion" its more likely to be
> "buzz" among scientists as opposed to something published but I was
> curious. Sometimes the "line" between convergence and some kind of
> selective advantage re: protection might be a fine one; BUT, its
> interesting to speculate that, as suggested by some of Victoria's
> earlier threads, a critter's general "morphology" might be channeled by
> convergence but then, later, BY ACCIDENT, pick up a protective advantage
> by having the "morph" converge into an adaptive zone where mimicry is
> involved (e.g. has arisen in the interaction of some other mimic/model
> group). If hummingbird moths do have any protective advantage by
> looking like birds, not moths, it might be an example of that kind of
> accidentally acquired situation... You see this in some butterfly
> mimicry rings where a mimic from one "ring" happens to stumble across
> the geographic distribution area (simply by dispersion) of another ring
> and happen to have some color or other attribute that thus garners some
> protection from the dynamics of the other ring etc. Also, you also see
> mimics occasionally OUT of geographic distribution with their models,
> surviving, at least for a time (which we can observe) where there is no
> model to "remind" the predators of bad taste etc. In some rings these
> instances of anomalous geographic distribution are also where you get
> introgression or selection back into, or toward, the morph of sister
> species/or subspecies where no mimetic markings occur due to the overall
> lack of a geographically proximate model etc. Its very fluid in nature
> and evidently arises over quite short time periods (e.g. like the
> outbreaks of elegant mimetic rings in South America since the last pulse
> of the Pleistocene (11-13,000 years ago depending on where you are
> etc.)).
>
> Kurt Johnson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:34 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Victoria Alexander: A nice example of non-utilitarian
> mimicry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Striz" <phaed2@yahoo.com>
> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Victoria Alexander: A nice example of non-utilitarian
> mimicry
>
>
> > This message was originally submitted by phaed2@YAHOO.COM to the
> > NABOKV-L
> list
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> lines) ------------------
> >
> > Dieter E. Zimmer wrote, "Independently, evolution was pursuing the
> > same purpose..." Given the fairly detailed and reliable information
> > that he subsequently provides, I'm sure he knows that evolution has no
>
> > purpose, and merely misstated this or was using another connotation
> > for "purpose" other than its teleological meaning. A better way to
> > say it is that the hummingbird and hummingbird moth became similar
> > enough at some point to utilize the same ecological niche, and thus
> > natural selection drove them to a morphological convergence. A very
> > good example of the convergence that he later mentions is the
> > Tazmanian tiger, _Thylacinus cynocephalus_
> > (http://www.austmus.gov.au/thylacine/), which resembles the family
> > Canidae (dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos) but is actually a marsupial.
> > It evolved to fill a similar ecological niche as canines, but since it
>
> > evolved primarily in Tazmania, where no canines exist, one could
> > hardly argue that it mimicked them.
> >
> > Martin Striz
> > Genetics Grad Student
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! - We Remember
> > 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
> > http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
> >
>
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: Zimmer, Alexander, Striz
> This message was originally submitted by JohnsonK@COUDERT.COM to the
NABOKV-L
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (93
lines) ------------------
> I got on the phone and telephoned some of my colleagues at the American
> Museum of Natural History, just curious to see, among the moth or bird
> people (funny looking people they are!) anyone had ever suggested any
> protective advantage in hummingbird moths looking/acting like
> hummingbirds. The only one I could think of would be general "search
> image" stuff-- e.g. if it is not a "moth" but a "bird" to the "search
> image" of a predator(s), it might have been accorded some advantage. I
> was also curious because there is a group of LARGE
> skippers(phylogenetically between butterflies and moths) in Africa that
> also act similarly [large, dark, fly fast, "whir" and nectar at large
> flowers etc.], although they don't siphon while hovering. I'll let you
> know what I find out... If there is an "opinion" its more likely to be
> "buzz" among scientists as opposed to something published but I was
> curious. Sometimes the "line" between convergence and some kind of
> selective advantage re: protection might be a fine one; BUT, its
> interesting to speculate that, as suggested by some of Victoria's
> earlier threads, a critter's general "morphology" might be channeled by
> convergence but then, later, BY ACCIDENT, pick up a protective advantage
> by having the "morph" converge into an adaptive zone where mimicry is
> involved (e.g. has arisen in the interaction of some other mimic/model
> group). If hummingbird moths do have any protective advantage by
> looking like birds, not moths, it might be an example of that kind of
> accidentally acquired situation... You see this in some butterfly
> mimicry rings where a mimic from one "ring" happens to stumble across
> the geographic distribution area (simply by dispersion) of another ring
> and happen to have some color or other attribute that thus garners some
> protection from the dynamics of the other ring etc. Also, you also see
> mimics occasionally OUT of geographic distribution with their models,
> surviving, at least for a time (which we can observe) where there is no
> model to "remind" the predators of bad taste etc. In some rings these
> instances of anomalous geographic distribution are also where you get
> introgression or selection back into, or toward, the morph of sister
> species/or subspecies where no mimetic markings occur due to the overall
> lack of a geographically proximate model etc. Its very fluid in nature
> and evidently arises over quite short time periods (e.g. like the
> outbreaks of elegant mimetic rings in South America since the last pulse
> of the Pleistocene (11-13,000 years ago depending on where you are
> etc.)).
>
> Kurt Johnson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:34 PM
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Victoria Alexander: A nice example of non-utilitarian
> mimicry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Striz" <phaed2@yahoo.com>
> To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Victoria Alexander: A nice example of non-utilitarian
> mimicry
>
>
> > This message was originally submitted by phaed2@YAHOO.COM to the
> > NABOKV-L
> list
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> lines) ------------------
> >
> > Dieter E. Zimmer wrote, "Independently, evolution was pursuing the
> > same purpose..." Given the fairly detailed and reliable information
> > that he subsequently provides, I'm sure he knows that evolution has no
>
> > purpose, and merely misstated this or was using another connotation
> > for "purpose" other than its teleological meaning. A better way to
> > say it is that the hummingbird and hummingbird moth became similar
> > enough at some point to utilize the same ecological niche, and thus
> > natural selection drove them to a morphological convergence. A very
> > good example of the convergence that he later mentions is the
> > Tazmanian tiger, _Thylacinus cynocephalus_
> > (http://www.austmus.gov.au/thylacine/), which resembles the family
> > Canidae (dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos) but is actually a marsupial.
> > It evolved to fill a similar ecological niche as canines, but since it
>
> > evolved primarily in Tazmania, where no canines exist, one could
> > hardly argue that it mimicked them.
> >
> > Martin Striz
> > Genetics Grad Student
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! - We Remember
> > 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
> > http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
> >
>