PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2019 | 119 | 1-26
Article title

Host plant based ecobiological attributes of a mimetic set of Nymphalids from Taki, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal: A comparative documentation

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Nymphalids, the largest lepidopteran family, is represented by altogether 19 species (37% of the total species abundance) from the present study site Taki, West Bengal, India, with multiple habitat profiles exposed to different anthropogenic interventions. Nymphalidae is reported to be with highest occurrence of mimicry, a naturally selected survival tool for lepidopterans. A nymphalid set, including a model [Plain Tiger: Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758)] and a mimic component [Danaid Eggfly ♀: Hypolimnus misippus (Linnaeus, 1764)] is selected for studying the specific ecological and functional correlation among them in their natural habitat. Their comparative seasonal and habitat wise distribution shows co-existence, the unpalatable model species outnumbering the mimic, the vulnerable target, corresponding to the Batesian mimicry. The wing morphology pattern is significantly shared, though the larval and adult host plants are exclusive and species specific. The year long field observation indicates the existence of considerable degree of similarity with respect to the ecobiological details, like flight pattern, mudpuddling, resting, basking and alternative resource utilisation activities. Species specific unique foraging attributes is observed. Being potential pollinators, they play key role to maintain the wild floral diversity at landscape level. The study bears conservation value towards these nature’s artwork, acting as the biotope indicator.
Discipline
Year
Volume
119
Pages
1-26
Physical description
Contributors
  • Post Graduate Department of Zoology, Bethune College, Govt. of West Bengal, 181, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata – 700006, West Bengal, India
author
  • Post Graduate Department of Zoology, Barasat Government College, Barasat, Kolkata - 700124, West Bengal, India
References
  • [1] P.H. Adler and D.L. Pearson. Why do male butterflies visit mud puddles? Canadian Journal of Zoology 60(3) (1982) 322-325.
  • [2] H.W. Bates. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley (Lepidoptera: Heliconidae). Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 23 (1862) 495–566.
  • [3] G.W. Beccaloni. Vertical stratification of ithomiine butterfly (Nymphalidae: Ithomiinae) mimicry complexes: The relationship between adult flight height and larval host-plant height. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62 (1997) 313–341.
  • [4] G.W. Beccaloni.Catalogue of the hostplants of the Neotropical butterflies. Viloria AL, Hall SK, Robinson GS. London: Natural History Museum, (2008), p. 536.
  • [5] L.P. Brower. Chemical defenses in butterflies. Symposium Royal Entomological Society of London 11 (1964) 109–134.
  • [6] K.S. Brown. Adult-obtained pyrrolizidine alkaloids defend ithomiine butterflies against a spider predator. Nature 309 (1984) 707–709.
  • [7] P. Chai and R.B. Srygley. Predation and the flight, morphology, and temperature of neotropical rain-forest butterflies. American Naturalist 135 (1990) 748–765.
  • [8] C.L. Collenette and G. Talbot. Observations on the bionomics of the Lepidoptera of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 76(2) (1928) 391–416.
  • [9] K. Costanzo and A. Monteiro. The use of chemical and visual cues in female choice in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274 (2007) 845–851.
  • [10] P.J. DeVries, R. Lande, and D. Murray. Associations of co-mimetic ithomiine butterflies on small spatial and temporal scales in a neotropical rainforest. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 67 (1999) 73–85.
  • [11] M. Elias, G. Zachariah, C. Jiggins and K. Willmott. Mutualistic Interactions Drive Ecological Niche Convergence in a Diverse Butterfly Community. PLoS Biology 6 (12) (2008) e300.
  • [12] C. Estrada and C.D. Jiggins. Patterns of pollen feeding and habitat preference among Heliconius species. Ecological Entomology 27 (2002) 448–456.
  • [13] S. Ghosh and S. Saha. Mimetic relationships of butterflies, commonly found at Taki, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. World Scientific News 45(2) (2016a) 292-306.
  • [14] S. Ghosh and S. Saha. Seasonal diversity of butterflies with reference to habitat heterogeneity, larval host plants and nectar plants at Taki, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, India. World Scientific News 50 (2016b) 197-238.
  • [15] L.E. Gilbert. Coevolution and mimicry. Coevolution (ed. D. J. Futuyma and M. Slatkin) (1983) pp. 263–281. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  • [16] T. Guilford and M.S. Dawkins. Are warning colors handicaps? Evolution 47 (1993) 400–416.
  • [17] J.D. Hatle, B.A. Salazar and D.W. Whitman. Survival advantage of sluggish individuals in aggregations of aposematic prey, during encounters with ambush predators. Evolutionary Ecology 16 (2002) 415–431.
  • [18] M.T.J. Johnson and J.R. Stinchcombe. An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (2007) 250–257.
  • [19] M. Joron and J.L.B. Mallet. Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 (1998) 461–466.
  • [20] M. Joron. Polymorphic mimicry, microhabitat use, and sex-specific behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18 (2005) 547–556.
  • [21] C.A. Kearns and D.W.Inouye. Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation biology. Biological Sciences 47 (1997) 297-307.
  • [22] I. Kehimkar. The book of Indian butterflies. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, (2008) 1-496 pp.
  • [23] I. Kehimkar. Common Indian wild flowers. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History Society (2000), 22-41 pp.
  • [24] T. Kitamura and M. Imafuku. Behavioural mimicry in flight path of Batesian intraspecific polymorphic butterfly Papilio polytes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282 (2015) 20150483
  • [25] K. Kunte. Butterflies of Peninsular India. Hyderabad Universities Press (India) Limited (2000), pp. 254
  • [26] K. Kunte. Female limited mimetic polymorphism: a review of theories and critique of sexual selection as balancing selection. Animal Behaviour 78 (2009) 1029-1036.
  • [27] J. Mallet and L.E. Gilbert. Why are there so many mimicry rings correlations between habitat, behaviour and mimicry in Heliconius butterflies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 55 (1995) 159–180
  • [28] J. Mallet and M. Joron. Evolution of diversity in warning colour and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting balance and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30 (1999) 201–233.
  • [29] D.A. Moeller. Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85 (2004) 3289–3301.
  • [30] M. Mukherjee. Plant Groups. New Central Book Agency (P) Ltd., (1981), 727-1117 pp.
  • [31] T.R. New. Launching and steering flagship Lepidoptera for conservation benefit. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(6) (2011) 1805-1817.
  • [32] C. Papageorgis. Mimicry in neotropical butterflies. American Scientist 63 (1975) 522– 532.
  • [33] C.M. Penz and H.W. Krenn. Behavioural adaptations to pollen feeding in Heliconius butterflies (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae): an experiment using Lantana flowers. Journal of Insect Behavior 13(6) (2000) 865-880
  • [34] M.A. Peterson. Host plant phenology and butterfly dispersal: causes and consequences of uphill movement. Ecology 78(1) (1997) 167-180.
  • [35] E. Pollard. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12 (1977) 115-134.
  • [36] E. Pollard and T.J. Yates. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Publ. Chapman and Hall (1993), pp. 292.
  • [37] R.W. Poole. Habitat preferences of some species of a Mullerian-mimicry complex in Northern Venezuela, and their effects on evolution of mimic-wing pattern. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 78 (1970) 121–129.
  • [38] H.M. Rowland, E. Ihalainen, L.Lindstrom, J. Mappes and M. Speed. Comimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature 448 (2007) 64–67
  • [39] S. Schulz, G. Beccaloni, K.S. Brown, M. Boppre, A.V.L. Freitas, P. Ockenfels and. J.R. Trigo. Semiochemicals derived from pyrrolizidine alkaloids in male ithomiine butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Ithomiinae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 32 (2004) 699–713.
  • [40] D.S. Seigler. Plant secondary metabolism. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1998), pp. 550-551
  • [41] T. N. Sherratt The coevolution of warning signals. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 269 (2002) 741–746.
  • [42] T. N. Sherratt and C.D. Beatty The evolution of warning signals as reliable indicators of prey defense. American Naturalist 162 (2003) 377–389.
  • [43] R.B. Srygley and P. Chai. Predation and the elevation of thoracic temperature in brightly colored neotropical butterflies. American Naturalist 135 (1990) 766–787.
  • [44] R.B. Srygley. Locomotor mimicry in butterflies? The associations of positions of centres of mass among groups of mimetics, unprofitable prey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 343 (1994) 145–155.
  • [45] R.B. Srygley and C.P. Ellington. Discrimination of flying mimetic, passion-vine butterflies Heliconius. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 266 (1999) 2137–2140
  • [46] R.B. Srygley. Incorporating motion into mimicry. Evolutionary Ecology 13 (1999) 691–708.
  • [47] R.B. Srygley. Locomotor mimicry and energetic costs of aposematic signalling in butterflies. Integrative and comparative Biology. 43(6) (2003) 822-823.
  • [48] R. B. Srygley. The aerodynamic costs of warning signals in palatable mimetic butterflies and their distasteful models. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 271 (2004) 589–594
  • [49] T. Takeuchi. Agonistic display or courtship behaviour? A review of contests over mating opportunity in butterflies. Journal of Ethology 35 (2017) 3-12
  • [50] A. J. L. Van Strien, R. P. B. Van Duuren, Foppen and. L.L. Soldaat. A typology of indicators of biodiversity change as a tool to make better indicators. Ecological Indicators 9 (2009) 1041–1048.
  • [51] R. I. Vane-Wright. Ecological and behavioural origins of diversity in butterflies. Symp. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 9 (1978) 56-70.
  • [52] R. K. Varshney and P. Smetacek (Eds.). A Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India. Butterfly Research Center, Bhimtal and Indinov Publishing, New Delhi: (2015). Pp. 149, 220
  • [53] S.P. Venkataramana, J. B. Atluri and C.S. Reddy. Autecology of the endemic Crimson Rose butterfly Pachliopta hector (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera: Papilionidae). Journal of the Indian Institute of Science 84 (2004) 21-29.
  • [54] M.A. Wynter-Blyth. Butterflies of the Indian region. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History Society Publ. (1957) pp. 523.
  • [55] K.V. Yeargan andS. M.Colvin. Butterfly feeding preferences for four Zinnia cultivars. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 27(1) (2009) 37-41.
  • [56] A. Zahavi. The fallacy of conventional signaling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 340 (1993) 227–230.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-ba81fb73-de59-4907-8df7-6c5f9257c7df
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.