Mimicry and protective coloring. Color detection mechanism.

It is not the color that is inherited, but the genes that determine the physiological program triggered by the perceived color of the environment. Moreover, the result of this program strongly depends on the available proteins (pigments) determined by genes.
Selection by color, of course, is performed by predators, not only now, but all millions of years of evolution. So now a rigid connection with predators can no longer be traced, because the situation has changed, and the reaction is already firmly established.
Chitinous cover limits the ability to dynamically change color, so insects can not change color as quickly as octopuses and chameleons, although I am sure if you dig around you can find among the insects.

This post was edited by Seneka - 18.03.2013 15: 55

In mantises, the background coloration should be hypodermal, in theory (i.e., I assume by analogy with straight-winged ones). So chitin is not a hindrance. About inheritance mechanisms-are these your guesses or facts?

In mantises, the background coloration should be hypodermal, in theory (i.e., I assume by analogy with straight-winged ones). So chitin is not a hindrance. About inheritance mechanisms-are these your guesses or facts?

"Chitin is not a hindrance." Well, it's very cool, so you don't need to rummage around. Although I would not generalize so, not at all, not a hindrance.

Of course, a guess, or rather an "evolutionary scenario", and the scenario cannot be a fact. The scenario is, at best, only a hypothesis.

About predators, I made a mistake. Of course, it is advantageous for the praying mantis to be invisible, not so much for predators as for the victim.

And so, well, yes. There is a theory of gene networks, according to which all physiological and behavioral mechanisms are tied to genes, and these genes form a more or less hierarchical structure - a pyramid, at the top of which, allegedly, there are genes that influence behavior. If you change behavior, for example through stress,the entire pyramid will collapse, regulatory and stabilizing mechanisms will collapse, and previously hidden (stabilized) mutations will come out. Each element of such a network is a physiological function, an enzyme, a pigment, etc.
This is not directly related to the topic. I just explained the essence of the theory, in which the heritability of a physiological function has already been proved on a set of partial facts.

The facts that phenotypic traits and the rate of reaction depend on genotypic ones, and those, in turn, are inherited, I think, have long been received. Mechanisms and variants of inheritance have been studied en masse.

Also, such fuzzy inheritance and evolution scenarios are implemented in models and have long been used in technical areas far from biology (software "genetic algorithms", physical "gates"). In such models, the mechanisms for achieving some adaptive goal may not make sense at all, in the ordinary sense. The entire system as a whole is evaluated by its adaptability to the environment, and all its internal mechanisms are considered as a "black box".

This post was edited by Seneka - 03/19/2013 10: 35

If you want to theorize about the evolution of functions, don't miss L. A. Orbeli's teaching about "superstructure" (rather than simple substitution) of new functions over old ones. This is also a general consideration

As for whether it is more important for a praying mantis to hide from its enemies or its prey, I think both factors are very important. Although the fact that the praying mantis is a predator makes functional analysis of cryptic coloration difficult. Here, in a good way, it would be necessary to start studying not even with grasshoppers (they are also predatory, at least many), but with locusts - here crypticism is clearly aimed at protecting against enemies.

In general, with mimicry, not everything is smooth. I think it's impossible to explain everything in a primitive way, well, that such a color makes it possible to hide better and such a similarity scares off predators.
As for the protective coloration
,the fact is that in theory then most, for example, straight-winged, should have the same color-green, since it lives in the grass. And yet, yes, there are a lot of green right-winged birds, many of them have a predominant green color, but there are others, and they also survive and live well.
For example, we have two-colored acrids. They have green individuals and individuals with a contrasting pattern, they are clearly more noticeable, and I collect them more often. But nevertheless, they live very well in this state.
So, in theory, a very long time has already passed for the use of a color other than green for grass straight-wings to be minimal. But no.

True mimicry - if mimicry was effective, then in theory we would see a bunch of copycat species, because there is someone to imitate, there are a lot of poisonous insects. Nevertheless, mimicry is not a frequent phenomenon.

Also about mimicry to inanimate objects-stick insects, leafhoppers, moth caterpillars.. elongated shape of many erect-winged birds..

In general, it is interesting to understand how successful species using mimicry are. Success can be assessed by criteria, for example, the distribution of the species, relative abundance,and large size.

Well, just for a quick glance-we have acrids-a rather marginal species in terms of number, although they are large in size, but still verrucivorus bypasses them by mass, although they have a very "catchy" appearance.
Moths are a common group of butterflies that do not stand out from others.
Glasshouses, bumblebees? About them in general praktichki not heard in the animal world So, one or two flashes and that's it)
The daytime peacock eye has creepy "eyes" for scaring off enemies and Jae is very aggressive, hissing and throwing when angered? So what, other nymphalids without any problems predominate in number and size.

At the same time, the real owners of the poison are thriving. The same wasps, bees..

So at least you can draw this conclusion-adaptability without real help will not help-skolkyo do not dress up as a wasp, do not get huge eyes on the wings, do not hide imitating the grass-the one who does not have a sting-ate, eat and will eat )))))

>For example, we have two-colored acrids. They have green individuals and individuals with
a >contrasting pattern, they are clearly more noticeable, and I collect them more often. But nevertheless, they
live very well in this state.

And who said that they are not enough precisely because of the press of predators?

>For example, we have two-colored acrids. They have green individuals and individuals with
a >contrasting pattern, they are clearly more noticeable, and I collect them more often. But nevertheless, they
live very well in this state.

If I manage to get out to a place where there are acrid trees in the summer, I'll try to do some quantitative accounting.

>True mimicry - if mimicry was effective, then in theory we would see a bunch
of > copycat species

By definition, Batesian mimicry is effective only when it is at least not much more difficult (or better yet, easier) for a predator to run into a model than a copycat. Otherwise, the predator will no longer take the threatening appearance seriously.

PVOzerski, so I didn't give quantitative estimates, I just noticed that I personally collect more variegated acridae(when I catch them for food) than pure green ones. I mean, I probably notice them more often. But nevertheless, mottled locusts live, were not eliminated, why? In theory, the predator should also eat them faster.

That is, you hoitit skazazt that" imitators " ka kby and tried to multiply to "successful" pokazatel, but then mimicry stopped working and they were thoroughly eaten, well, of course, they are the most noticeable now, But something is murky and doubtful. That's just what some figures and records would be here..
Very dubious benefits of mimicry and boilerplate phrases about the reason for its occurrence.
Not the fact that, for example, without horizontal transfer could not do.

Here with the caterpillars of the moth is easier, there seem to be obvious traces of some useful adaptation, but you also need to think

I have planned a quantitative accounting of the color forms of erect-winged birds, regardless of our conversation - in the framework of studying the metaphenotypic components of life forms.

I don't know about akrid specifically. It is logical, however, to assume that by the end of the season, when the grass dies off, the brown color begins to give a selective advantage - but this is absolutely speculative.

It is necessary to count everything - both the relationships between models and imitators, and the correspondence of cryptic color carriers to the background - I completely agree

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 19.03.2013 21: 04