VMartin
Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006
|
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,16:47) | Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 24 2008,14:51) | Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 24 2008,13:25) | Martin has got a point here. Defining mimicry is not straightforward. Probably, wikipedia has a definition. Care to look at it, Martin?
Also, the authors of the Nature paper did some measures of predation on snakes, which supported their hypothesis. What say you? |
I have offered my definition of mimicry as Heikertinger had defined it. I've done it several times. It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts. There are several points which have to be fulfilled to enable a resemblance to be called as "mimicry". |
Thanks Martin. Now what about my second point? |
Of course there might have been such a result. But I don't see why natural selection should have been involved in the origin of the resemblance.
You know marsupial wolfs look like placental wolfs but it doesn't mean they look similar because of natural selection via their predators. Even if scientists prove that plasteline models of marsupial wolfs are less attacked in the areas where placental wolfs live as compared with the areas where placental wolfs do not live.
-------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin
|