Talk:Aposematism

Aposematism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 23, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animals Mid‑importance

Aposematism is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aposematism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to review this article. I can see that the prose is of a high standard and I will read the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

Aposematism is a term that will be unfamiliar to many. There is some information on its meaning and origins in the lead, but there should be information on this in the body of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph and wikilinked it to the article on Poulton's book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by your use of the word "luminescence", but it's probably my ignorance.

Avoided.

"Sharply contrasting black-and-white skunks and zorillas are examples within mammals." - The preceding sentence is about insects acquiring toxic chemicals from host plants, but this is not the case in skunks and polecats.

Reworded.

"Nudibranch molluscs ... the evidence for this has been contested ... and has no known mimics." - I'm puzzled by this too. I though aposematism was warning predators of the unprofitability of preying on the animal rather than anything to do with mimicry as such.

It is. Added "Mimicry is to be expected as Batesian mimics with weak defences can gain a measure of protection from their resemblance to aposematic species."

"Further, fish predators may adapt to visual cues more rapidly than do birds, making aposematism less effective." - I'm puzzled by this statement too.

The source presents evidence that predators (blueheads) "continually assess and adapt to prey palatability using visual cues.".

"Batesian mimicry is frequency dependent: it is most effective when the ratio of mimic to model is low; otherwise, predators learn to recognise the impostors." - Is this a correct deduction to make from this source?

Yes, though it's a specialised paper. Added a ref to Edmunds.

- That's it for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

The points I raised above have been addressed. The structure and layout is satisfactory, the prose is of high quality, the article is well-cited to reliable sources, it is neutral and stable. The images all have appropriate licenses and captions. I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aposematism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222070509/http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69 to http://sea.sheddaquarium.org/sea/fact_sheets.asp?id=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Theory: Wallace, 1867[edit]

In the quote here there are strange notations, e.g. an "at" crossed out and the word "seizure" underlined. The frequency of them means this looks deliberate rather than a mistake. Is this a verbatim transcript of a letter meaning it needs a sic? Or do these marks require deletion? Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the letter shown by The Natural History Museum, footnoted as our source, shows the underlined words and the struck out word "at". That source includes this information: "This transcript is based on that produced by The Darwin Correspondence Project". The Darwin Project web page shows the words as italicized, rather than underlined, and does not show the struck out word "at" at all. (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-5416.xml). I could not find an actual image of the letter. Almost certainly, the letter was handwritten, so italicizing would be unlikely or impossible, but underlining would be quite possible. It's an open question whether the word "at" actually appears in the letter and may have been crossed out by the writer. So, we're kind of back where we started: underline seems more plausible than italicizing in the original, and without more documentation, or an image of the correspondence, we can't be sure if "at" appears as crossed out, or perhaps does not appear at all. But the NHM source shows what we might consider more plausible in both matters: underlining and cross-out by the letter writer. DonFB (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]