User:Sbugden/sandbox

Article evaluation Within the article entitled “Karl Lashley”, everything appeared to be relevant to the main topic, and there was no out of date information. However, there may be a claim that is biased towards the reliability of Lashley's research, or it could simply be poor wording. In the 'Career' section of the article, in relation to his work on learning and discrimination, it states that he lesioned specific regions of the cortex which led to the confirmation of his hypothesis. Based on my research of this topic, it is known that he was not specific with his lesioning, and would lesion large regions. Then it states that his results were unreliable and incorrect due to his flawed lesioning methods. Therefore, his flawed technique should probably be mentioned earlier to avoid confusion. It also describes his initial hypothesis was "erroneous" which implies the individual's opinion on the topic. Also, when mentioning newer research that negates Lashley's study, it merely says that our current understanding no longer reflects his views, but does not explain why, what study, and who completed the study. There is only one citation linked with this even though there is much more evidence on our current understanding of the subject. Overall, this section of the article is not well articulated and does not appear to be as coherent as it should.

Locomotor Mimicry Article
Currently, there is no article on this topic and therefore I intend to create one. First I will discuss what locomotor mimicry is and give an operational definition.

I will also discuss potential reasons as to why animals perform this behavior and give examples that have been observed and studied.

Review- Locomotor mimicry
You appear to be very knowledgeable on your chosen topic and have obviously sorted through the information provided by your resources very well. Your resources also appear relevant, varied, and credible. There are just a few suggestions I have after reading through your article draft. First, you mention that locomotor mimicry is the mimicking of movements of a less desirable species to avoid predation. You then mention that the mimicking of predator movements also occurs. Is this predator mimicry another type of mimicry or simply another form of locomotor mimicry? I’m assuming locomotor mimicry is simply the mimicking of another animal’s movements to avoid predation and that it can be in the form of mimicking either a less desirable species or a predator. You may want to rephrase your introduction of this topic so the definition can be clarified. As well, you haven’t yet provided a more detailed outline on how you plan to present your information. I believe making such an outline with section headings and subheadings would be beneficial in helping you to stay organized when you start drafting your full article. Sboychuk (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sbugden (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Draft
Locomotor mimicry is a subtype of Batesian mimicry in which animals avoid predation by mimicking the movements of another species. This can be in the form of mimicking a less desirable species or by mimicking the predator itself Animals can show similarity in swimming, walking, or flying of their model animals. Predator locomotor mimicry can be so effective that the predator will complete behaviors such as courtship toward the prey, indicating the misidentification of the prey as a conspecific. .

outline
- Introduction

History
Ex: Past research

Types of locomotor mimicry
Ex: Predatory, less desirable species

Benefits of locomotor mimicry
Why does it occur Ex: avoid predation

Info with citations

 * definition
 * original research
 * escape mimicry - via frustration learning - predator learns that prey is not profitable
 * flies mimic foraging behaviour of bees to avoid predation
 * neotropical butterflies - escape mimicry tactics


 * definition
 * the jumping spider mimics an ant in a form of protective locomotor mimicry
 * the spider uses all eight legs when walking to mimic an ant, but uses legs to mimic ant antennae when not moving
 * how to complete gait analyses - film subjects walking across glass using high speed cameras
 * trade-offs - this species of spider attacks prey at a close range, whereas other jumping spider species jump on prey from larger distances


 * salticids are spiders and are predators to other spiders and insects - but are prey to ants
 * myrmecomorphic spiders resemble the locomotory pattern of ants


 * moths that imitate spider characteristics had decreased predation rates
 * predators can treat prey as a conspecific - indicates the misidentification
 * moths were presented to spiders on feeding day before food was provided
 * measurements: time until moth’s death, time until first attack, and spider leg raising behaviour
 * spiders showed courting behaviour and territorial behaviour towards the mimicking moths
 * spider-like displays could prevent predation against other predators as well


 * mimicry in flight path of butterfly species
 * avoid predation

Locomotor Mimicry Intro
Locomotor mimicry is a subtype of Batesian mimicry in which animals avoid predation by mimicking the movements of another species phylogenetically separated. This can be in the form of mimicking a less desirable species or by mimicking the predator itself [1] Animals can show similarity in swimming, walking, or flying of their model animals. The complex interaction between mimics, models, and predators (sometimes called observers) can help explain similarities amongst species beyond ideas that emerge from evolutionary comparative approaches. In terms of overall movement, the continuous locomotor mimicry of a species that differs anatomically from the mimic may increase metabolic cost. However, the benefit of avoiding predation appears to outweigh the increased energy cost. In a research study done on salticid-mimicing moths, the mimics had much higher rates of survival than non-mimicking controls.

Terrestrial Locomotor Mimicry
The most common form of locomotor terrestrial mimicry is found in ant-mimicking spiders. These mimics are capable of antennal illusions and similar gait patterns as an ant, which is shown in the jumping spider family (Araneae, Salticidae). Ants appear to be beneficial models because they possess effective protective traits such as, chemical defences, and aggressiveness. Spiders, however, lack some of these specialized traits and therefore by acting as an ant, it may avoid predation because the predator has decreased desirability for the ant.

Mimetic jumping spiders will imitate the zig-zag trajectories of ants, which appears to be beneficial for avoiding predators that are from an elevated vantage point. However, this may be an example of imperfect mimicry because the spiders will display this behaviour in settings where ants do not.

It was once thought that these ant-mimicking spiders walk on 6 legs instead of 8 so that they could use a set of legs to mimic ant antennae. However, further analysis revealed that the spiders only do this whilst stationary, which leads to the assumption that there may be a limit to the neural circuitry underlying limb movement that does not allow them to move on 6 legs. This antennal mimicry appears to be most beneficial from a close interaction with a predator.

Another example of terrestrial locomotor mimicry is seen in salticid-mimicing moths. The moths fan out their hind wings and their forewings are raised above their bodies. In this position, the moth’s wings look like salticid legs. Moths that resemble the appearance and locomotion of predatory spiders are preyed upon less by the spiders. The spiders will even display courtship or territorial behaviour towards the mimics, indicating that the spiders misidentify the moths as conspecifics. Even if the spiders eventually eat the moths, the time it takes for the first attack to occur is longer than with the non-mimetic moths.

Aerial Locomotor Mimicry
In butterflies, it is thought that palatability to predators is related to flight components. Typically, fast-flying prey are more palatable, whereas unpalatable species tend to fly more slowly. These flight characteristics could help predators recognize prey as being palatable or unpalatable. Researchers compared the flight patterns of palatable non-mimetic, palatable mimetic, and unpalatable butterflies by looking at directional changes of each species. It was determined that the palatable mimetic butterfly species had significantly different flight pattern compared to the palatable non-mimetic. However the palatable mimetic species had a flight pattern that resembled that of their unpalatable models.

Another example of aerial locomotor mimicry is found in the drone fly and its model, the honeybee. In analyses of flight sequences, flight velocities, flight trajectories, and time spent hovering, it was found that the flight patterns of drone flies were more similar to honeybees than to that of other flies. The drone flies and their models both exhibit loops in their flight paths, which is surprising for the drone flies because they are very adept fliers. Therefore, a likely explanation for this flight behaviour is that, while foraging, the drone flies are at increased risk of predation by birds and therefore they alter their flying to resemble the noxious honeybee and avoid predation.

Inanimate Object Locomotor Mimicry
The ghost pipefish is able to blend into its surroundings due to its similarity in colour and motion to sea plants. In order to avoid predators, the organism will sway in the water to resemble underwater vegetation as much as possible.