English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  The processes governing the origin and maintenance of mimetic phenotypes can only be understood in a phylogenetic framework. Phylogenetic estimates of evolutionary relationships can provide a context for analyses of character evolution; however, when phylogenetic estimates conflict, rigorous analyses of alternative evolutionary histories are necessary to determine the likelihood of a specific history giving rise to the observed pattern of diversity. The polyphenic butterfly  Limenitis arthemis  provides a case in point. This species is comprised of three lineages, two of which are mimetic and one of which is non-mimetic. Conflicting estimates of the relationships among these three lineages requires direct evaluation of the alternative hypotheses of mimicry evolution.    Results  Using a coalescent framework, we found support for a sister-taxon relationship between the non-mimetic  L. a. arthemis  and the mimetic  L. a. astyanax , congruent with the previous hypothesis that the non-mimetic form of  L. a. arthemis  was derived from a mimetic ancestor. We found no support for a mimetic clade ( L. a. astyanax  +  L. a. arizonensis ) despite analyzing numerous models of population structure.    Conclusions  These results provide the foundation for future studies of mimicry, which should integrate phylogenetic and developmental analyses of wing pattern formation. We propose future analyses of character evolution accommodate conflicting phylogenetic estimates by explicitly testing alternative evolutionary hypotheses.

Are mimics monophyletic? The necessity of phylogenetic hypothesis tests in character evolution