Abstract
Some taxa have adopted the strategy of mimicry to protect themselves from predation. Butterflies are some of the best representatives used to study mimicry, with the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) a well-known model. We are the first to empirically investigate a proposed mimic of the monarch butterfly: Neophasia terlooii, the Mexican pine white butterfly (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). We used captive birds to assess the palatability of N. terlooii and its sister species, N. menapia, to determine the mimicry category that would best fit this system. The birds readily consumed both species of Neophasia and a palatable control species but refused to eat unpalatable butterflies such as D. plexippus and Heliconius charithonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Given some evidence for mild unpalatability of Neophasia, we discuss the results considering modifications to classic mimicry theory, i.e., a palatability-based continuum between Batesian and Müllerian mimicry, with a quasi-Batesian intermediate. Understanding the ecology of Neophasia in light of contemporary and historical sympatry with D. plexippus could shed light on the biogeography of, evolution of, and predation pressure on the monarch butterfly, whose migration event has become a conservation priority.
Highlights
Mimicry within animals is evident when one species to some degree matches another in visual appearance, chemical profile, and/or behavior
Overall butterfly consumption rates did not differ between birds, nor was there sufficient evidence to say some birds consumed more of one species of butterfly over another
Of the birds that consumed either N. menapia or E. daira, consuming N. menapia led to a stronger reaction (Figure 2b)
Summary
Mimicry within animals is evident when one species to some degree matches another in visual appearance, chemical profile, and/or behavior. Mimics can evade predation because they emulate a toxic, distasteful, or dangerous model that predators learn to identify and avoid. In Batesian mimicry, a mimic emulates another toxic or distasteful species, but the mimic is not toxic or distasteful. The Batesian mimic is considered deleterious to its model, especially if the Insects 2018, 9, 150; doi:10.3390/insects9040150 www.mdpi.com/journal/insects. Insects 2018, 9, 150 deleterious to its model, especially if the mimic is comparably abundant [16,17,18,19]. In Müllerian mimicry, a toxic or distasteful visually mimicsmimicry, another toxic oror distasteful species
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
