http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/science/solving-the-puzzles-of-mimicry-in-nature.html?ref=science
“Solving
the puzzles of Mimicry in Nature” by Sean Carroll was a very interesting
article about the nuances of mimicry and recent discoveries that relate to
it. The article begins by walking
the reader through the discovery of mimicry by Charles Darwin, Henry Walter
Bates, and Fritz Muller. Darwin is
credited with the theory of evolution with natural selection; however, its
acceptance was aided tremendously by the fieldwork by Bates and Muller and
Brazil. Both noticed Brazil to
contain a myriad of colorful butterflies, but what interested them most was the
way that palatable butterflies would have wing patterns and colors that were
nearly perfect matches of other unpalatable butterflies. They theorized that this was a
mechanism of self-defense, as predators would stay away from those they had
learned are unpalatable. Muller
went even further as he made the crucial discovery one day that unpalatable
butterflies were also mimicking other unpalatable butterflies, which seems
quite pointless at first.
Muller saw more deeply, and realized that unpalatable butterflies would
be stronger if they were in greater abundance as their unpalatability had to be
learned by predators before it would protect them. Natural selection explains why the different wing patterns
would converge, but until recently scientists did not understand how such
complex wing patterns could be imitated by different species. An international team of researchers
recently did an experiment to figure out whether the mimicry was evolved from
mutations or whether patterning genes were exchanged between species. By analyzing the DNA sequences in two
mimicking species they were able to determine that each species had
independently evolved up to 20 different patterns that were strikingly similar
in each species, but that in species that are more closely related,
color-controlling genes had been exchanged.
This
article has a great deal of connections with the current unit we are doing on
evolution and natural selection.
Much of what we have learned in this unit relates greatly to the article
that was written today. I’m sure
many of my classmates were as interested in mimicry as I was, but felt the
explanation for the striking similarities in species like butterflies to be
insufficient without a better explanation. Therefore, this article was an interesting read and also
helps me in understanding evolution a little better.
I
thought the article was, for the most part, quite well-written. I enjoyed the way the author set the
stage for the reader by introducing all the major historical scientific figures
that were involved in the discovery and study of mimicry; however, at times, I
felt that the author took away from the science in the article by including
rather pointless facts such as Muller having six daughters. Other than that, I appreciated the flow
and conciseness of the article, the only other complaint I have is that the
experiment that yielded the results about how mimicry comes about was not fully
explained in the article and left me with a few questions.
I read Cyrus’s review of the article “Solving the Puzzles of Mimicry in Nature,” in which he describes the attempt of an international team of scientists who were trying to discover how, evolutionary, mimicking started. They were wondering if this was a result of independent, random mutations that developed into mimicking, or interchange of genes; in the end, the scientists discovered that a striking number developed so independently while only very closely-related species interchanged color controlling genes. I appreciated that Cyrus reviewed an article on a topic that we have begun discussing in class; not only is it interesting material, but also it fosters a more sophisticated understanding of evolution. Cyrus was also good at pointing out the strengths and the flaws within the original article, as is evident when he comments on unnecessary information provided in the original article.
ReplyDeleteCyrus’s review was written in a very confusing manner. Part of this is, of course, simply because the topic he is trying to describe is very advanced and complex, for which he cannot be blamed. The review could have been more concise and to the point. Also, it would have benefited much from how the closely related species interchange color genes, how the ones that develop independently manage to bear such a striking resemblance, and any potential future studies that scientists are considering undertaking.
The topic of evolution is very complex, as we have noticed in our class. I am genuinely impressed, thus, that scientists are able to make such advanced genetic conclusions about how unique evolutionary developments that granted some species a distinct survival advantage (such as mimicking) developed. I will definitely want to learn more about the future of this study.
Firstly, I thought that Cyrus’s choice of article, “Solving the Puzzles of Mimicry in Nature” by Sean Carroll was not only an interesting one, but also quite appropriate given our current studies. In the first paragraph of his review, Cyrus successfully summarized many of the key points of the article, including the one that stood out to me the most (two different types of unpalatable butterflies may resemble each other due to the advantages of “safety in numbers.”) Additionally, I thought that it was important that Cyrus included the methods scientists used to determine why and how these different species of butterflies came to resemble each other over time. Finally, I felt it was important that Cyrus left out most of the biographical information. While it was interesting to read and made the article relatable, I feel it was important that he focused on the science of the article, as that was the main point.
ReplyDeleteCyrus could have expanded the butterfly mimicking research (as the article did) by including the fact that there is evidence of past interbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens as I thought this was an interesting piece of information. Like Cyrus, I was left with a few questions after reading about the described experiment as the article did not elaborate enough in my opinion (this is, therefore, not the reviewer’s fault). However, I do think that Cyrus could have explained the findings a little better based on our own knowledge of biology as his analysis might be confusing to someone who had not read the article.
Although the mimicking of butterfly wing patterns is logical and makes sense for the palatable vs. unpalatable butterflies, I had never thought about why two species of unpalatable butterflies might resemble each other until the article explained that this provided a greater chance of survival. This makes sense, so I was glad that I learned something new!
Cyrus’ review was centered upon an interesting and relevant topic, clear in some of its most complex points, and insightful in its critique. He chose to review an article on mimicry in butterflies and how it is both a cause and an effect of natural selection. This completely ties in with our recent unit on Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection and supplements what we have learned in class – the information from the article could even be used as detail in a free response question on our upcoming test or even the AP exam. The review itself was helpful in explaining some of the major points of the article. It was only when I read Cyrus’ interpretation that I fully understood the reason why unpalatable butterflies began mimicking other unpalatable butterflies. Finally, his critique brought up some interesting points, such as that the author of the article, Sean B. Carroll, went off on minor but distracting tangents and that the recent experiment should have been more fully explained.
ReplyDeleteTwo things that Cyrus could have done better were to write more concisely and to provide the full MLA citation for the article. His summary, though helpful, contained a few too many details and could be improved through more concise analysis of the article, rather than just a repetition of what was in it. Though the rest of his review was superb, Cyrus forgot to include the complete citation for the article, which didn’t detract from the review itself, but simply from its professionalism.
I was impressed by amount of history that the study of Brazilian butterflies has. It dates back to the nineteenth century to Darwin, Muller, and Bates, but has only recently been connected to genetics and been more fully explained. It is a great example of the lasting impacts of natural selection and how, though we know a lot, there is still so much to learn.