View more articles about

Model butterflies used in the study. (Credit: Cydney Scott/Boston U.)

butterflies

To test tricky butterflies, fool birds with 3,600 fakes

New research on butterflies aims to answer one of the biggest, most basic questions in biology: How do new species form?

In the mid-1800s, an English naturalist and avid amateur entomologist named Henry Walter Bates traveled to the Amazon rain forest. He noted that distantly related species of butterfly often looked quite similar to one another, and that sometimes “palatable” butterflies—those that birds like to eat—bore the bright-colored spots of their bad-tasting cousins. The palatable butterflies had apparently evolved a disguise, intended to trick predators into thinking that they were toxic.

This concept—animals imitating one another for an evolutionary advantage—became known as Batesian mimicry. Today scientists know that it exists in many animals, from frogs and snakes to birds and bees, and, of course, butterflies.

In the journal Evolution, study leaders Sean Mullen, professor of biology at Boston University, and PhD candidate Evan Kristiansen, along with postdoctoral fellow Susan Finkbeiner, study mimicry in a pair of butterflies—one toxic, one tasty—that look alike but are only distantly related.

The toxic butterfly, or “model,” is Adelpha californica, commonly known as the California sister. The mimic, which tastes fine and is harmless to birds but sports bright red-orange spots that make it look like the toxic model, is Limenitis lorquini, or Lorquin’s admiral.

The scientists’ ultimate goal is to learn how Batesian mimicry works on a genetic level. They suspect that the mimic’s appearance protects it so well that it outcompetes its (nonmimetic) sister species everywhere that the toxic model occurs, resulting in distinct geographic ranges and ultimately speciation. The scientists think that selection for a particular trait—in this case, the red-orange spots—might limit the flow of genes between Lorquin’s admiral and its sister species, therefore driving evolution.

two butterfly species
Adelpha californica, at left, is toxic to birds, but Limenitis lorquini, at right, is not. (Credit: Carsten Siems, Eric Sonstroem)

Predictions to test

The first step in this research was to test Batesian mimicry in the field, to make sure that evolutionary mechanism was at play among these butterflies. “Batesian mimicry makes a couple of predictions that we can test directly,” says Mullen. The predictions are fairly logical:

  • the model should be unpalatable or “defended”—basically, avoided by predators—wherever it occurs;
  • the mimic should be protected from attack where the model occurs because the predators mistake it for the model;
  • protection should break down outside of the geographic range of the model, because the birds don’t know what the toxic model looks like, and therefore aren’t averse to the mimic;
  • and the more common the model (defended) species is, the stronger the protection for the mimic.
When a bird attacks a fake butterfly, it leaves a distinctive triangular beak mark in the plasticine body. (Credit: Evan Kristiansen)

Tricking birds

To test these predictions, Kristiansen needed to place facsimiles of model, mimic, and control butterflies in the field—a wilderness area near Lake Tahoe called Yuba Pass—and record bird attacks. So he built 3,600 fake ones out of paper, plasticine, and twist ties. “Model studies are a tried-and-true method in animal attack research,” he says. “The problem is, we’re trying to trick birds; we’re not just trying to trick us. We look at something that comes off of a laser printer, and to our eyes it looks really real, but to birds’ eyes, with all of their UV-sensitive cones, it looks totally different.”

To build butterflies that could fool birds, and also serve his scientific purposes, Kristiansen printed wings on a special paper that reflects UV light in a way that mimics actual butterfly wings—a method that co-first author Finkbeiner pioneered—using a spectrometer to make sure he got it right. Depending on the butterfly, he colored some of the wings’ white patches with Crayola crayons, which don’t reflect UV light. Then he mounted the wings on card stock, dipped them in wax to hold them together, and attached them to a “body” made of black plasticine. The plasticine was the same type used for the animated Wallace and Gromit figures, which was designed to withstand the heat of studio lights and so wouldn’t melt in the California sun.

He made 900 California sisters and 900 Lorquin’s admirals, as well as 900 Weidemeyer’s admirals and 900 common buckeyes to use as controls. Eventually he was able to make a butterfly, start to finish, in five minutes. “At one point he was using a drill to add holes to hundreds of them in a single night,” says Mullen. “He was just up in the garage, drilling all these poor models and putting them all together.”

“What constantly surprises me about scientific research,” says Kristiansen, “is how many esoteric skills you can combine into one project.”

3D-printed flowers test moth ‘food tubes’

Kristiansen and his colleagues took their fake butterflies to the California sister’s home turf, and set them out in groups of 20, attaching them to bushes and branches with twist ties. The team checked them at regular intervals for evidence of bird attack—a triangular, beak-shaped bite in the body. Then they repeated the experiment at a site in Idaho, where the California sister doesn’t live.

In the California study area, where the model butterfly is very common, the scientists found that Batesian mimicry worked as predicted: birds attacked the model and the mimic less often than they attacked either control. And in the Idaho site, where the model is usually absent, birds attacked the mimics and controls at about the same rate, as expected. “Surprisingly, we found that the model was actually still attacked less often than we would have expected by chance,” says Mullen. He suspects that birds were deterred by the model butterfly’s markings, or migrating birds recognized it from elsewhere.

How do we get new species?

Having confirmed that Batesian mimicry is indeed at work with these butterflies, the scientists are now moving on to the genetic portion of work. Kristiansen is creating a genetic linkage map to identify the region of the genome that’s responsible for the presence or absence, and the extent, of the distinctive red spot. He’s also sequencing the entire genome of 10 of each species, as well as 20 individuals from a hybrid zone between the two species.

Just 2 genes give butterfly wings their stripes and color

“Once we know where in the genome to look, we’ll be able to look for the exact genetic variation that controls the presence or absence of the trait,” says Mullen. “And then the last step will be to demonstrate that in fact natural selection can reduce gene flow between populations, and promote speciation, by acting on this trait in the genome.”

Understanding the gene flow of these small traits in butterflies may deepen our understanding of the evolutionary diversity at large, and help answer some questions about how we came to be.

“As humans, we’re interested in how we got here,” says Kristiansen. “When you think about the speciation process with us and Neanderthals, or with us and Australopithecus, what was that process? What led to those events, I think, is a very interesting question. And answering these incremental questions about how evolution works at the small scale might give us the opportunity to answer some of these larger questions.”

The NSF funded the work.

Source: Boston University

Related Articles