Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic


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

Buy this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others


  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


Rights and permissions

Reprints 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).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing