Talk:Aposematism/Archive 1

Merge from Warning colouration
...which is the same thing as aposematism. There is already a redirect from Warning coloration. Pan Dan 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the alternate spelling Warning coloration is a redirect, I would say it's a pretty clear case for a redirect for Warning colouration too. --BillC 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I turned warning colouration into a redirect to here. There was no information in that article missing from this article, so there was no need for a merge. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found another very short article advertising colouration which I've merged as well. It really pays to create as many redirects as you can think of for an article so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Speaking of such, I'll create one for the other spelling of the same article so an American speller doesn't do the same thing. Richard001 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of aposematism
Does aposematism include all forms of signalling that predation is unprofitable, or is it limited in some way, e.g. static signals, visual signals etc? For example is stotting a form of aposematism? We need a citation for the definition to clear this up. I currently use it as a subsection of 'advertising unprofitability' in the antipredator adaptation section of predation, but if there is no distinction I may as well create a redirect for the term and rename the section 'aposematism'. Richard001 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the definition is now adequate and has adequate citations so I have removed the citation needed tag. Clearly aposematism is more than just warning coloration as it can include sounds and smells, but whether it extends as far as stotting is an interesting question. It seems to me stotting is more a "you can't catch me so don't bother trying" kind of message where as most aposematic signals say "Warning - you don't want to catch me because I am either dangerous or inedible" which is not quite the same thing... Rusty Cashman 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, going by the definition given here, which I can only assume is generally agreed upon, any signal of unprofitablity is aposematism, so stotting (and similar behaviors, e.g. lizards doing 'pushups') would be included. Chasing a prey item that is highly unlikely to be captured is certainly a dangerous proposition, and has only evolved because those predators that didn't learn to take notice of the signal were more likely to die or leave fewer offspring. There is a slight difference here though - in one case it is profitable to eat the prey but unprofitable to capture it, while in other cases it is unprofitable to eat the prey even if it's presented on a silver platter (unless perhaps it has its sting taken out or is cooked, perhaps). This issue needs to be explained in the article. Richard001 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Poisonous or venomous cuttlefish?
There bizarrely turns out to be one, while all others are not. I do think however this should be removed as an example for 2 reasons: - it's not representative: all other cuttlefish from all seas camouflage themselves, and change colour rapidly in mating displays etc. Thus bright colouration is mostly display colouration, not aposematism. - it's probably not aposematism: this poisonous species camouflages itself too, most of the time. Maybe it displays for defense sometimes (and not for mating), but in generally it's not wearing warning colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.249.202 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ‎

Strange sentence
Hi, I don't think this sentence makes sense. ``It is one form of "advertising" signal, with none existing such as the bright colours of flowers which lure pollinators.'' I'm not sure what it's trying to say, so I can't suggest an alternative (I came to this article to learn about aposematism; I am not an expert on the subject). "with none existing such as" doesn't seem to make any sense here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.171.121 (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions
I have added an example of a butterfly larvae displaying aposematic coloration. Thanks!

Ichooxu (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I've had to remove it as the whole section (if not the article) was becoming muddled. What we need to do is to provide citations and more general examples to bring out the principles of warning coloration, for instance showing that many insects take in plant toxins and warn of their resulting toxicity. I've marked some places where citations are needed, feel free to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Three possible improvements for this page: 1. In the sentence “A second possibility is dietary conservatism, in which predators avoid new prey because it is an unknown quantity,[18] a longer-lasting effect than neophobia.” quantity should be changed to “an unknown quality” or “novel color morph” because in the article cited as the source for this sentence there is no information suggesting that the quantity is what deters predators, it instead discusses how predators’ avoidance of a new color morph could allow those individuals to increase in frequency because of their novel coloration. 2. The entire Prevalence section contains only one citation, leaving every piece of information uncited except one. Additionally once sources are found, more specific numbers should be provided in order to be clearer, like how many species exhibit aposematic coloration in each group listed or a percentage estimate of how many species in each group exhibit this coloration, for example the amount or percentage of aposematic prevalence in vertebrates vs. invertebrates. 3. The sentence “Batesian mimics are known to adapt their mimicry to match the prevalence of aposematic organisms in their environment.” is unclear and needs more explanation of how this is possible and any examples. An individual cannot change its own coloration, so the mechanics of the matching process are not well explained. However, this sentence is not linked to a citation so the source of this sentence is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabol.39 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, and good luck with your course work. I'm glad to see that you are taking care to consider sources, as the encyclopedia rests entirely on the quality of its sourcing - how reliable the sources are, and how well they are used in articles. You will find that many older articles are not sourced to recent standards, so there is plenty of scope for careful improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to know I am on the right track, hopefully future Wikipedia editors will also take proper citation into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabol.39 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

blue ringed octopus
How do the changes I made to the blue ringed octopus section look? DrChrissy (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Very much better! Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)