Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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:

Preferential predation of female butterflies and the evolution of batesian mimicry

Abstract

BATESIAN mimicry, in which a palatable mimic resembles an unpalatable model, functions to protect insect mimics from birds. In butterflies that show batesian mimicry, female-limited mimicry is common1–3. The orthodox theory to explain this is sexual selection against males4–6. In these theoretical arguments, no difference in predation pressure between the sexes was assumed, but the existence of female-biased predation would enhance the evolution of sex-limited mimicry. To test for differences in attack rate between the sexes, I examined the rates of beak marks on wings of palatable butterflies of Papilionidae and Pieridae, and unpalatable Danaidae. Here I report that females were attacked more frequently than males, though danaids were generally attacked less. The papilionid and pierid males had low attack rates similar to those of danaid females. Analysis of a mathematical model highlighted these tendencies. Comparing a batesian mimetic species and its 'model' species, non-mimetic females were selectively attacked and the males, mimetic females and 'models' were attacked less. Therefore females benefit greatly when they become mimetic, whereas males will benefit much less should they become mimetic. Thus female-limited mimicry will be favoured even if the costs of mimicry to both sexes are the same.

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

References

  1. Ford, E. B. Ecological Genetics (Methuen, London, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Edmunds, M. Defenses in Animals: A Survey of Anti-predator Defenses (Longmans, London, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wickler, W. Mimicry in Plants and Animals (Translated from the German, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Turner, J. R. G. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 11, 385–432 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Silberglied, R. E. The Biology of Butterflies (eds Vane-Wright, R. I. & Ackery, P. R.) 207–223 (Academic, London, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hespenheide, A. Evolution 29, 780–783 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Srygley, R. B. & Chai, P. Oecologia 84, 491–499 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ito, Y. Animal Ecology (Kokinshoin, Tokyo, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edmunds, M. Oikos 25, 117–118 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ohsaki, N. Res. Pop. Ecol. 22, 163–183 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shapiro, A. M. Am. Nat. 104, 367–372 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Joki, Y. Tyô to Ga 35, 202–207 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ohsaki, N. Preferential predation of female butterflies and the evolution of batesian mimicry. Nature 378, 173–175 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/378173a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/378173a0

This article is cited by

Comments

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.

Search

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