Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Feb 22;269(1489):411–416. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1885

The relationship between mimetic imperfection and phenotypic variation in insect colour patterns.

Graham Holloway 1, Francis Gilbert 1, Amoret Brandt 1
PMCID: PMC1690905  PMID: 11886630

Abstract

Many hoverflies (Syrphidae) mimic wasps or bees through colour or behavioural adaptations. The relationship between phenotypic variation in colour pattern and mimetic perfection (as determined by pigeons) was investigated in three species of Müllerian mimics (Vespula spp.) and 10 Batesian hoverfly mimics, plus two non-mimetic species of flies. Four predictions were tested: (i) Batesian mimics might be imperfect because they are in the process of evolving towards perfection, hence there should be a positive relationship between variation and imperfection; (ii) some Batesian mimics are imperfect because they do not have the appropriate genetic variation to improve and have evolved to be as good as possible, hence there should be no differences between species, all displaying a low level of variation; (iii) very common hoverflies should show the highest levels of variation because they outnumber their models, resulting in high predation and a breakdown in the mimetic relationship; and (iv) social wasps (Vespula) have such a powerful defence that anything resembling a wasp, both Müllerian and perfect Batesian mimics, would be avoided, resulting in relaxed selection and high variance. Poor mimics may still evolve to resemble wasps as well as possible and display lower levels of variation. The data only provided support for the fourth prediction. The Müllerian mimics, one of the most perfect Batesian mimics, and the non-mimetic flies displayed much higher levels of variation than the other species of Batesian mimics.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (114.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Azmeh S., Owen J., Sørensen K., Grewcock D., Gilbert F. Mimicry profiles are affected by human-induced habitat changes. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Dec 7;265(1412):2285–2290. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Duncan C. J., Sheppard P. M. Sensory discrimination and its role in the evolution of Batesian mimicry. Behaviour. 1965;24(3):270–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Golding Y. C., Edmunds M. Behavioural mimicry of honeybees (Apis mellifera) by droneflies (Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalis spp.). Proc Biol Sci. 2000 May 7;267(1446):903–909. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  5. SHEPPARD P. M. The evolution of mimicry: a problem in ecology and genetics. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1959;24:131–140. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1959.024.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES