Elias, M., Gompert, Z., Jiggins, C. & Willmott, K. Mutualistic interactions drive ecological niche convergence in a diverse butterfly community. PLoS Biol. 6, e300 (2008).
Newman, E., Manning, J. & Anderson, B. Local adaptation: Mechanical fit between floral ecotypes of Nerine humilis (Amaryllidaceae) and pollinator communities. Evolution 69, 2262–2275 (2015).
Anderson, B., Ros, P., Wiese, T. J. & Ellis, A. G. Intraspecific divergence and convergence of floral tube length in specialized pollination interactions. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141420 (2014).
Jordano, P. Angiosperm fleshy fruits and seed dispersers: A comparative analysis of adaptation and constraints in plant-animal interactions. Am. Nat. 145, 163–191 (1995).
Müller, F. Ituna and Thyridia: a remarkable case of mimicry in butterflies. Trans. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 1879, 20–29 (1879).
Guimarães, P. R. Jr., Jordano, P. & Thompson, J. N. Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic networks. Ecol. Lett. 14, 877–885 (2011).
Pinheiro, C. E. G, Freitas, A. V. L., Campos, V. C., DeVries, P. J. & Penz, C. M. Both palatable and unpalatable butterflies use bright colors to signal difficulty of capture to predators. Neotrop. Entomol. 45, 107–113 (2016).
Kapan, D. D. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of müllerian mimicry. Nature 409, 338–340 (2001).
Meyer, A. Repeating patterns of mimicry. PLoS Biol. 4, e341 (2006).
Rowland, H. M., Ihalainen, E., Lindström, L., Mappes, J. & Speed, M. P. Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature 448, 64–67 (2007).
Joron, M. & Mallet, J. L. B. Diversity in mimicry: Paradox or paradigm?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 461–466 (1998).
Mallet, J. Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13, 777–806 (1999).
Kozak, K. M. et al. Multilocus species trees show the recent adaptive radiation of the mimetic Heliconius butterflies. Syst. Biol. 64, 505–524 (2015).
Joshi, J., Prakash, A. & Kunte, K. Evolutionary assembly of communities in butterfly mimicry rings. Am. Nat. 189, E58–E76 (2017).
Dumbacher, J. P. & Fleischer, R. C. Phylogenetic evidence for colour pattern convergence in toxic pitohuis: Müllerian mimicry in birds?. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 1971–1976 (2001).
Plowright, R. C. & Owen, R. E. The evolutionary significance of bumble bee color patterns: A mimetic interpretation. Evolution 34, 622–637 (1980).
Williams, P. The distribution of bumblebee colour patterns worldwide: possible significance for thermoregulation, crypsis, and warning mimicry. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 92, 97–118 (2007).
Langham, G. M. Specialized avian predators repeatedly attack novel color morphs of Heliconius butterflies. Evolution 58, 2783–2787 (2004).
Randall, J. E. A review of mimicry in marine fishes. Zool. Stud. 44, 299–328 (2005).
Symula, R., Schulte, R. & Summers, K. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Müllerian mimicry hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 2415–2421 (2001).
Stuckert, A. M. M., Venegas, P. J. & Summers, K. Experimental evidence for predator learning and Müllerian mimicry in Peruvian poison frogs (Ranitomeya, Dendrobatidae). Evol. Ecol. 28, 413–426 (2014).
Lev-Yadun, S. Müllerian mimicry in aposematic spiny plants. Plandt Signal Behav. 4, 482–483 (2009).
Benson, W. W. Natural selection for Miillerian Mimicry in Heliconius erato in Costa Rica. Science 176, 936–939 (1972).
Pinheiro, C. E. G. Does Müllerian mimicry work in nature? Experiments with Butterflies and Birds (Tyrannidae). Biotropica 35, 356–364 (2003).
Beccaloni, G. W. Vertical stratification of ithomiine butterfly (Nymphalidae: Ithomiinae) mimicry complexes: The relationship between adult flight height and larval host-plant height. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62, 313–341 (1997).
Marek, P. E. & Bond, J. E. A Müllerian mimicry ring in Appalachian millipedes. PNAS 106, 9755–9760 (2009).
Mallet, J. & Gilbert, L. E. Why are there so many mimicry rings? Correlations between habitat, behaviour and mimicry in Heliconius butterflies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 55, 159–180 (1995).
Joron, M. & Iwasa, Y. The evolution of a Müllerian mimic in a spatially distributed community. J. Theor. Biol. 237, 87–103 (2005).
Gompert, Z., Willmott, K. & Elias, M. Heterogeneity in predator micro-habitat use and the maintenance of Müllerian mimetic diversity. J. Theor. Biol. 281, 39–46 (2011).
Aubier, T. G. & Elias, M. Positive and negative interactions jointly determine the structure of Müllerian mimetic communities. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06789 (2020).
Endler, J. A. A Predator’s View of Animal Color Patterns. In Evolutionary Biology (eds Hecht, M. K. et al.) 319–364 (Springer, Boston, 1978).
Gamberale-Stille, G. Benefit by contrast: an experiment with live aposematic prey. Behav. Ecol. 12, 768–772 (2001).
Cazetta, E., Schaefer, H. M. & Galetti, M. Why are fruits colorful? The relative importance of achromatic and chromatic contrasts for detection by birds. Evol. Ecol. 12, 233–244 (2009).
Brakefield, P. M. Polymorphic Müllerian mimicry and interactions with thermal melanism in ladybirds and a soldier beetle: a hypothesis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 26, 243–267 (1985).
Lindstedt, C., Lindström, L. & Mappes, J. Thermoregulation constrains effective warning signal expression. Evolution 63, 469–478 (2009).
Dalrymple, R. L. et al. Abiotic and biotic predictors of macroecological patterns in bird and butterfly coloration. Ecol. Monogr. 88, 204–224 (2018).
Papageorgis, C. Mimicry in neotropical butterflies. Am. Sci. 63, 522–532 (1975).
DeVries, P. J., Lande, R. & Murray, D. Associations of co-mimetic ithomiine butterflies on small spatial and temporal scales in a neotropical rainforest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67, 73–85 (1999).
Willmott, K. R. & Mallet, J. Correlations between adult mimicry and larval host plants in ithomiine butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, S266–S269 (2004).
Andreazzi, C. S., Thompson, J. N. & Guimarães, P. R. Network structure and selection asymmetry drive coevolution in species-rich antagonistic interactions. Am. Nat. 190, 99–115 (2017).
Medeiros, L. P., Garcia, G., Thompson, J. N. & Guimarães, P. R. The geographic mosaic of coevolution in mutualistic networks. PNAS 115, 12017–12022 (2018).
Lewis, J. J., Belleghem, S. M. V., Papa, R., Danko, C. G. & Reed, R. D. Many functionally connected loci foster adaptive diversification along a neotropical hybrid zone. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb8617 (2020).
Willmott, K. R., Robinson Willmott, J. C., Elias, M. & Jiggins, C. D. Maintaining mimicry diversity: optimal warning colour patterns differ among microhabitats in Amazonian clearwing butterflies. Proc. Royal Soc. B 284, 20170744 (2017).
Chouteau, M. & Angers, B. The role of predators in maintaining the geographic organization of aposematic signals. Am. Nat. 178, 810–817 (2011).
Abrams, P. A. The evolution of predator-prey interactions: Theory and evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 31, 79–105 (2000).
Pinheiro, C. E. G. & Cintra, R. Butterfly predators in the neotropics: Which birds are involved?. J. Lepid. Soc. 71, 109–114 (2017).
Beatty, C. D., Beirinckx, K. & Sherratt, T. N. The evolution of müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities. Nature 431, 63–66 (2004).
Ramos, R. R. & Freitas, A. V. L. Population biology and wing color variation in Heliconius erato phyllis (Nymphalidae). J. Lepid. Soc. 53, 11–21 (1999).
Seixas, R. R., Santos, S. E., Okada, Y. & Freitas, A. V. L. Population Biology of the Sand Forest Specialist Butterfly Heliconius hermathena hermathena (Hewitson) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae) in Central Amazonia). J. Lepid. Soc. 71, 133–140 (2017).
Turner, J. R. G. The evolutionary dynamics of batesian and muellerian mimicry: Similarities and differences. Ecol. Entomol. 12, 81–95 (1987).
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2016 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2016).
Sheppard, P. M. et al. Genetics and the evolution of muellerian mimicry in heliconius butterflies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 308, 433–610 (1985).
Beccaloni, G. W. Ecology, natural history and behaviour of Ithomiine butterflies and their mimics in Ecuador (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Ithomiinae). Trop. Lepid. Res. 8, 103–124 (1997).
Uehara-Prado, M. & Freitas, A. V. L. The effect of rainforest fragmentation on species diversity and mimicry ring composition of ithomiine butterflies. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2, 23–28 (2009).
Brown, K. S. & Benson, W. W. Adaptive polymorphism associated with multiple müllerian mimicry in Heliconius numata (Lepid. Nymph.). Biotropica 6, 205–228 (1974).
Jay, P. et al. Supergene evolution triggered by the introgression of a chromosomal inversion. Curr. Biol. 28, 1839-1845.e3 (2018).
Holmes, I. A., Grundler, M. R. & Davis Rabosky, A. R. Predator perspective drives geographic variation in frequency-dependent polymorphism. Am. Nat. 190, E78–E93 (2017).
Thompson, J. N. The Coevolutionary Process (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
Bronstein, J. L. Mutualism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015).
Brown, K. S. Mimicry, aposematism and crypsis in enotropical Lepidoptera: the importance of dual signals. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr. 113, 83–101 (1988).
Chazot, N. et al. Mutualistic mimicry and filtering by altitude shape the structure of Andean butterfly communities. Am. Nat. 183, 26–39 (2014).
Rossato, D. O., Kaminski, L. A., Iserhard, C. A. & Duarte, L. Chapter two-more than colours: An eco-evolutionary framework for wing shape diversity in butterflies. In Advances in Insect Physiology (ed. Ffrench-Constant, R. H.) (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2018).
Kingsolver, J. G. Thermoregulation, flight, and the evolution of wing pattern in pierid butterflies: The topography of adaptive landscapes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 28, 899–912 (1988).
Finkbeiner, S. D., Briscoe, A. D. & Reed, R. D. Warning signals are seductive: Relative contributions of color and pattern to predator avoidance and mate attraction in Heliconius butterflies. Evolution 68, 3410–3420 (2014).
Bergstrom, C. T. & Lachmann, M. The Red King effect: When the slowest runner wins the coevolutionary race. PNAS 100, 593–598 (2003).
Adler, L. S. & Bronstein, J. L. Attracting antagonists: Does floral nectar increase leaf herbivory?. Ecology 85, 1519–1526 (2004).
Siepielski, A. M. & Benkman, C. W. Conflicting selection from an antagonist and a mutualist enhances phenotypic variation in a plant. Evolution 64, 1120–1128 (2010).
Guimarães, P. R., Pires, M. M., Jordano, P., Bascompte, J. & Thompson, J. N. Indirect effects drive coevolution in mutualistic networks. Nature 550, 511–514 (2017).
Raimundo, R. L. G., Gibert, J. P., Hembry, D. H. & Guimarães, P. R. Conflicting selection in the course of adaptive diversification: The interplay between mutualism and intraspecific competition. Am. Nat. 183, 363–375 (2014).
Benkman, C. W. Biotic interaction strength and the intensity of selection. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1054–1060 (2013).
Guimarães, P. R. The Structure of Ecological Networks Across Levels of Organization. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51(1), 433–460 (2020).
Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998).
Gibert, J. P., Pires, M. M., Thompson, J. N. & Guimarães, P. R. The spatial structure of antagonistic species affects coevolution in predictable ways. Am. Nat. 182, 578–591 (2013).
Brown, K. S. The biology of Heliconius and related genera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 26, 427–457 (1981).
Bonebrake, T. C., Ponisio, L. C., Boggs, C. L. & Ehrlich, P. R. More than just indicators: A review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1831–1841 (2010).
Twomey, E., Vestergaard, J. S., Venegas, P. J. & Summers, K. Mimetic divergence and the speciation continuum in the mimic poison frog ranitomeya imitator. Am. Nat. 187, 205–224 (2016).
Greene, H. W. & McDiarmid, R. W. Coral snake mimicry: Does it occur?. Science 213, 1207–1212 (1981).
Wilson, J. S., Williams, K. A., Forister, M. L., von Dohlen, C. D. & Pitts, J. P. Repeated evolution in overlapping mimicry rings among North American velvet ants. Nat. Commun. 3, 1272 (2012).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
