Member-only story
When things seem obvious, watch out for the intuitive plausibility trap
Some things just don’t need any proof — or at least, that is how it may seem. But even the blindingly obvious can be wrong
As summer advances in the northern hemisphere, butterflies return to gardens, parks and woodlands, delighting us with their often spectacularly decorated wings. Many species exhibit patterns that seem like large eyes, often cited as prime examples of mimicry, an evolved resemblance between one organism and another. Clearly, these patterns are likely to make bird predators think again if they were considering a butterfly basking in the sunshine on a leaf to be part of their next meal. Yet recent research has challenged that long-held assumption. Isn’t that odd?
(Not so) obvious science
Two recent meta-analyses (by Ayumi Mizumo and colleagues, and by Sofia Schirmer and Arleu Viana-Junior) — statistical analyses of multiple independent studies — have concluded that there is no clear difference in predator avoidance efficacy between eyespots and other conspicuous patterns. Any difference in effectiveness regarding preventing being eaten by birds related to size and number of patterns (bigger and fewer was better), and eye-like paired concentric motifs had a smaller deterrent effect than single ones. This illustrates what we might call the…
