Joined: May 2006
|VMartin may be right after all. :p|
no, not at all. martin was assuming that coloration was associated with signalling, and if no role for signalling is found in fungi, then the entire darwinian narrative breaks down. It doesn't, since the signalling has been supported in the very paper he chose to cite, just not with visual cues.
but then, I don't give a shit what Martin "thinks", and would prefer the issue being addressed in this thread be the science, and not Vmartin.
it's quite possible that coloration in fungi is fitness neutral, or linked to other fitness related traits. hence the interest in the genetics.
|If many edible mushrooms have various flashy colors (which can be the case), having such a color would not be a clear advantage for a poisonous species. |
Indeed, the other issue not taken into account here, is how potential fungivores view the colorations themselves.
Just because they look aposematically colored to US, doesn't mean they appear so to a potential fungivore.
John Endler has done some great work of late teasing out the perception bias in this issue. (not with fungi, but with fish)
it's a great example of how new technologies allow us to answer questions, as it's only been fairly recently that the ability to directly measure how fish and other animals process visual stimuli has been available.
so now, we actually CAN look at how a potential predator views various colors and patterns, and thus make far more relevant conclusions about the role of specific visual cues in signalling.
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."