Why are there so many mimicry rings? Correlations between habitat, behaviour and mimicry in Heliconius butterflies

Abstract

Abstract In the new world tropics there is an extravagant array of sympatric butterfly mimicry rings. This is puzzling under strictly coevolutionary (Mullerian) mimicry: all unpalatable species should converge as ‘co-mimics’ to the same pattern. If mimicry has usually evolved in unpalatable species by one-sided (Batesian) evolution, however, it is easy to see that mimicry rings centred on different models could remain distinct. If mimicry rings were also segregated by habitat, a diversity of mimicry rings could be stabilized. In this paper we report correlations between behaviour and mimicry of nine unpalatable Heliconius species. It is already known that co-mimics fly in similar habitats, and non-mimics fly in different habitats, although there is much overlap. Contrary to a previous report, we find little difference in flight heights of heliconiine mimicry rings; all species fly from ground level to the canopy. However, co-mimics roost at night in similar habitats and at similar heights above the ground, but in different habitats and at different heights from species in other mimicry rings. Heliconius (especially the erato taxonomic group) are renowned for roosting gregariously; and co-mimics roost gregariously with each other more often than with non-mimics. Gregarious roosting is therefore common between species, as well as within species. There are thus strong links between mimicry and behavioural ecology in Heliconius. The paradoxical correlation between nocturnal roosting and visual mimicry is presumably explained by bird predation at dusk when roosts are forming, or at dawn before they have disbanded. Direct evidence of predation is lacking, but there are high rates of disturbance by birds at these times. These results, together with knowledge of the phylogeny of Heliconius, suggest that species from the melpomene -group of Heliconius have radiated to occupy mimetic niches protected by model species in the Ithomiinae and the erato -group of Heliconius. A variety of sympatric mimicry rings is apparently maintained because key models fail to converge, while more rapidly-evolving unpalatable mimics evolve towards the colour patterns of the models. The maintenance of mimetic diversity would be aided by the habitat and behavioural differences between mimicry rings revealed here, provided that different predators are found in different habitats. This explanation for the maintenance of multiple mimicry rings is more plausible for Heliconius mimicry than alternatives based on visual mating constraints, thermal ecology, or camouflage.