The outer-wing coverings (tegmina) of the Snub-nosed Katydid (Mastigaphoides sp.) are remarkably leaf-like, even to the extent of the centrally prominent vein and subordinate branches. They blend splendidly within rainforest foliage and are found most easily at night, after summer rains, when singing.
Such a marvellous design, but to what extent do we over-interpret the convergence of design with the character of that which provides the design-benefit, as an expression of either evolutionary adaptation or just as readily by the gracious glory of God?
I must confess that neither explanation deepens my understanding of the process that leads to mimicry and both are ever-increasingly incredible, when it is implicit that the outcome is pre-ordained.
Or is it? Perhaps the mimicry only seems to be pre-ordained; an inadvertent piece of genetic good fortune that resonates with competitiveness.
Of course there is coincidence, when two or more separate evolutionary trails randomly converge, to which we often over-attribute an awesome unlikelihood. But perhaps there is less freedom than we might imagine.
For instance, to what extent do genetic variations and mutations remain constrained by internal chemical mechanisms? Do these constraints dramatically reduce the possibility of outcomes to those that have previously overcome similar competitive hardships? And what of the prescriptive inducements of external chemical overtures; pheromones, for example, wafting across the sensitivities of a menagerie of adaptable interests?
Other examples of mimicry have been previously considered at The evolutionary power of persuasion, Unidentified (Spider) and Lichen Spiders.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The mimicry in the animal world is fascinating.
Some harmless animals , for example snakes and insects , mimick dangerous and poisonous species to scare away enemies.
In my garden I have a harmless species of flies??? that mimick wasps and bumble bees.
Internal chemistry AND PHYSICAL constraints and determinants too. There are reoccurring structural design patterns in nature. There’s also sexual choice as an influence. Darwin said this was important but it was never as in vogue as ‘red in tooth and claw’ competition. Sexual selection can oppose forces of ‘natural’ selection (direct & indirect competition)
I was watching Jeff Corwin handling a Scarlett King Snake in one hand, and a Coral snake in the other. The one is harmless the other deadly poisonous. They both “use” gaudy coloration to ward off attack from other predators.
Here is the problem to me. The very fact that the Scarlett uses distictive color implies that a predatory critter would have the intellect to associate the yellow red and black pattern with poisonous. But the Coral is so poisonous that a critter is highly unlikely to survive a first encounter. So how is this intelligence discovered by a bird of prey or weasle, and then how is it passed on to his mates?