Batesian Mimic Butterflies Taken in by Their Models and the Mimetic Status of Argyreus Hyperbius L. (Nymphalidae)

2005·1.3 MB·

by  Peter Smetacek

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
14. BATESIAN MIMIC BUTTERFLIES TAKEN IN BY THEIR MODELS AND
THE MIMETIC STATUS OF ARGYREUS HYPERBIUS L. (NYMPHALIDAE)
Two types of inter-butterfly mimicry are known: realisedhismistake,madenomovetoharasstheD. chrysippus
Batesian mimicry, where palatable butterflies mimic further.
unpalatable species in orderto escape predation; Mullerian Duringthenexthour,themaleA.hyperbiusalsochecked
mimicry,whereunpalatablespecies,oftenunrelated,develop some passing individuals of Neptis sappho Pallas (Pallas’
very similar wing patterns and behaviour in order to Sailer), Papilio polytes L. (Common Mormon) and a fresh
reduce the cost of advertising their unpalatability to naive maleA.hyperbiuswhodidnotchallengethewornA.hyperbius
predators. for the beat and moved on without stopping.
The phenomenon ofBatesian mimicry involves three Evans (1932a) and Wynter-Blyth (1957) treat female
participants:amodel,amimicandanaudiencewhoisintended A. hyperbiusasaBatesianmimicofD. chrysippus,whilePeile
to be deceived by the mimic. The audience is believed to (1937)foundfemaleA.hyperbiusinthecompanyofS.genutia
consist of insectivorous birds, lizards and perhaps some andevenmistookfemaleA. hyperbiusforS. genutia.Larsen
amphibians. In many cases, mimicry is restricted to the (1987) statedthatA. hyperbiusfemales are veryrespectable
females, while males of the mimic look and behave very mimicsofS. genutia.ThewornA. hyperbiusmalementioned
differentlyfromthemodels. above mistook aD. chrysippus for his mate. Although it is
Itsometimeshappensthatthereareunintendedvictims difficult for an experienced human eye to confuse
ofdeception. Peile(1937)mentionedtwosuchinstances.He D. chrysippus and S. genutia on the wing, from the above
stated“Ihaveon several occasions seenamaleHypolimnas references,itappearsthatA. hyperbiusfemalescanevidently
misippusL.(DanaidEggfly)chasingaDanauschrysippusL. pass themselves offas either ofthese species.
(Plain Tiger)....” And “The female (ofArgyreus hyperhius Perusal of the literature revealed that the putative
Johannsen,theIndianFritillary)somewhatresemblesDanaus Batesian relationship betweenS. genutia and D. chrysippus
(nowSalatura)genutiaCramer(CommonTiger),and1have ontheonehandandfemaleA. hyperbiusontheother(Evans
takenitincompanywiththatspeciesatflowers.Themale(of 1932a;Wynter-Blyth 1957)hadnotbeenempiricallyproven,
A. hyperbius) is afast flier, whereas the female, I observed, in that although the unpalatability of S. genutia and
got up in a leisurely way and sailed, Danaid-like, over the D. chrysippus are well known (Emmel 1976; Watson and
bushes, and1havenettedfemale.A. hyperbius, mistakingit Whalley 1983;Larsen 1987),themonotypicge.vmsArgyreus
foraD. genutia." Scopoli was notdefinitely knowntobepalatable. There is a
In the morning, on October 8, 2001, 1 witnessed an brief account of attacks on A. hyperbius males (but not
interesting interaction. A worn male A. hyperbius had females)byRed-whiskeredBulbuls(Pycnonotusjocosus)at
established a beat on our front lawn which, after the rainy LongwoodSholanearKotagiriintheNilgiris(Larsen 1987).
season, was covered with a rank profusion of grasses and In order to confirm the palatability ofA. hyperbius, I
lowgrowingplants, interspersedwithstandsofCosmea 1 to offeredthreefemaleandeightmaleA. hyperbiustowild,free
m
3 high. At 1015 hrs, what appeared to be a female ranging, foraging parties ofgeneralised insectivorous birds
A. hyperbius came by from the east and was immediately (mainly Garrula.x albogularis and Garrulax leucolophus).
pounced upon by the maleA. hyperbius, who forced her to The freshly collected, dead butterflies were presented with
the ground six oreight times in a typical preliminary act of the wings closed, so that the mimetic pattern on the recto
courtship. Thefemalearoseeachtime andmadeafewyards surfaceofthefemale’swingswasnotvisible,thusprecluding
progress before being forced down again. I thought nothing possible preconditioned visual aversion to the female
ofthematteruntilthepaircamenearerandIfeltthattheflight butterfliesonthepartofthebirds.Thebutterflieswereoffered
of the female was too perfectly like a D. chrysippus for a sporadically over a period ofthree years as part ofa larger
femaleA. hyperbiustomaintainunderthecircumstances. experiment involving other butterfly species. Nine of the
ThefemalesettledbrieflyonaCosmeaplant,enabling A. hyperbius specimens were eaten, of which eight were
me to see that it was, in fact, a D. chrysippus, not an entirelyeaten,includingallthreefemales.Thebirdsshowed
A. hyperbius. Meanwhile, theA. hyperbiusmale settledona no aversion to the butterflies and no distress behaviour was
low growing shrub behind the Cosmea stand. When the notedwhilethebutterflieswerebeingtastedandmanipulated
D. chrysippustookwingalittleoveraminuteaftersettling,it prior to being swallowed or immediately after they were
made offfast and low behind the Cosmea, out ofthe line of swallowed.
vision ofthe male A. hyperbius. The latter, perhaps having A. hyperbius is known fromAbyssinia and along the
352 J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 102 (3), Sep-Dec 2005
MISCELU\NEOUS NOTES
HimalayatoMountAbu,theNilgiris,Palnis,HighWavysand 1931),Mussoorie(MackinnonanddeNiceville 1897-98),Nepal
Sri Lanka north to Japan and Korea and south to eastern (Bailey 195DKumaon(pers.obs.),thePalniHills(Evans 1910)
Australia. Both the models also occur throughout this range andtheNagaHills(Tytler 1911-12).
exceptinAbyssiniaandPapuaNewGuinea,whereS. geuutia In view of the above facts, namely that A. hyperbiiis
doesnotoccur(Shirozu 1960;Lewis 1974;Larsen 1987, 1988). and the danaines are sympatric; are on the wing at the same
However,theverysimilarSalaturaphilensCrameroccursin time; are found in each other's company; in the case of
Papua New Guinea. In Japan, the status of the mimetic A. hyperbiiis, females have a wing pattern similar to the
relationship is unclear, since both the models are migrants danainesandoftenaffectaflightandotherbehaviourpatterns
whileA. hyperbiiisisacommonresident,withuptofiveannual verysimilartothedanaines;andthatthedanainesareknown
generations(Kudma 1974). to be unpalatable whileA. hyperbiiisis palatable to birds, at
OftheeightsubspeciesofA. hyperbiiisknown(Shirozu least in some parts ofits range, e.g. The Kumaon Himalaya
1960;Samson 1976),sevenaresexuallydimorphicwithmimetic and the Nilgiri Hills, it is possible to state with reasonable
females,whilefemalesoftheracecastetsiOberthiir,fromthe certainty that A. hyperbiiis females are Batesian mimics of
Western Ghats south of Palghat and the Palni Hills are D. chiysippiis and S. geniitia in India and possible of some
apparentlynon-mimetic.A. hyperbiiisiscommoninsuitable additional, similarlooking modelsinotherpartsofitsrange,
localitiesinthePalniHills(Evans 1910;pers.obs.)alltheyear e.g. PapuaNewGuinea.
round, soitsabstinencefrommimicrydoesnotseemtohave Therefore, the observation ofthe interaction between
greatly affected its capacity to survive orthrive. themaleA. hyperbiiisandtheD. chrysippusdescribedabove
In terms ofaltitude,A. hyperbiiis is found from nearly isacaseofaBatesian mimictakeninby itsmodel.
3000minPapuaNewGuinea(Samson 1976)to400monthe
plains ofnorthern India (Larsen 1988), but it is commonest ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
between 1200mand2200minIndia(iiiihi)andfrom2000mto
3000minPapuaNewGuinea(Samson 1976). InIndia,both I am grateful to the anonymous referee for valuable
models are common at low elevation, rarely ascending over suggestions.
2000m.ThezoneintheHimalaya,whereallthreespeciesare
common,isbetween 1200mand 1600m. November20,2003 PETER SMETACEK
Theflyingtimeofall three speciescoincides in all the JonesEstate,Bhimtal,
areasforwhichinformationisavailable,i.e.Baluchistan(Evans Nainital263 136,Uttaranchal,India.
1932b),Chitral(LeslieandEvans 1903),Shimla(deRhePhilipe Email [email protected]
:
REFERENCES
Bailey,F.M.(1951):NotesonbutteifliesfromNepal.Part I,./.Bombay Leslie, G.A. & W.H. Evans (1903): The butterflies ofChitral and the
Nat. Hist. Soc. 50: 64-87. Shandur Pass. J. BombayNat. Hist. Soc. 14: 666-678.
DE Rhe Philipe, G.W.V. (1931): The butterflies of the Simla Hills. Lewis, H.L. (1974): Butterflies of the World. Harrap, London 16 -i-
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 35: 172-183; 415-429. 104 pp., 208 pi.
Emmel, T.C. (1976): Butterflies: their world, their life cycle, their Mackinnon, PW, & L. de Niceville (1897-98): Butterflies from
behaviour. Thames & Hudson, London. 260 pp., 118 pi. Mussoorie and the Dun valley. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 11:
Evans,W.H. (1910): Thebutterfliesofthe PalniHills. J. BombayNat. 205-221; 368-389; 585-623.
Hist. Soc. 20: 380-391. Peile, H.D. (1937); Aguide tocollecting butterflies ofIndia. Staples,
Evans, W.H. (1932a): The Identification ofIndian Butterllies. 2"'*edn. London. 14 -i- 361 pp., 25 pi.
Bombay Natural History Society, x -i-454 pp., 32 pi. Samson, C. (1976); A new subspecies of Argyreus hyperbius
Evans, W.H. (1932b): The butterflies ofBaluchistan. J. Bombay Nat. (Nymphalidae) fromNew Guinea. J. Lep. Soc. 30: 12-15.
Hist. Soc. 36: 196-209. Shirozu,T. (1960): ButterfliesofFormosaincolour. Hoikusha,Osaka.
Kudrna,O. (1974):AnannotatedlistofJapanesebutterflies.Atakmta 481 pp., 76 pi.
B 5: 92-120. Tytler, H.C. (1911-12): List of butterflies from the Naga Hills.
Larsen,T.B.(1987):ThebutterfliesoftheNilgirimountainsofsouthern J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 21: 48-65; 588-605.
India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 84: 291-316; 560-584. Watson, A. & P.E.S. Whalley (1983); Dictionary of Moths and
Larsen,T.B. (1988):TheIndian Fritillary (Argyreushyperbius) in the Butterflies in colour. Peerage Books, London pp. 296 -i- pi.
ChambalareaofMadhyaPradeshandRajasthan(Lep.:Nymph.). Wynter-Blyth.M.A.(1957):ButterfliesoftheIndianRegion.Bombay
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 85: 221-222. Natural History Society, Bombay. 20 -t- 523 pp., 72 pi.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc, 102 (3), Sep-Dec 2005 353