The Biology of Heliconius and Related Genera · TRENDS AND RESULTS IN MODERN RESEARCH Descriptive...

Ann. Rev. EntomoL 1981. 26:427-J6Copyright @ 1981 by Annual Reviews Inc, All rights reserved

THE BIOLOGY OF HELICONIUSAND RELATED GENERA

06215

Keith S. Brown, Jr.

Departmento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual deCarnpinas, C. P. 1170 Campinas, S~o Paulo 13.100 Brazil

OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVES

Biological studies of mimetic Neotropical butterflies in the nymphalid tribeHelieoniini have twice come full cycle in the past 100 years. Bates’s classicwritings (6, 7), reflecting observations during his lengthy stay on the Ama-zon, used these insects in a proposal of the phenomenon of mimicry and insupport of Darwinian paradigms of adaptation and evolution. During thefollowing thirty years, field biological studies of heliconians were relegatedto second place behind heated arguments about "mimicry" in museumspecimens; an important exception was the pioneering work of the brothersFritz and Wilhelm Miiller in southern Brazil (100-105). Most papers in thisperiod involved taxonomic description of the seemingly endless phenotypesin the tribe. In the early 1900s, however, a synthesis of heliconiine systemat-ics (119, 121) opened the way for field studies during subsequent years Kaye (87, 88), Michael (95, 96), Collenette (43), Moss (98), Beebe (in and others. Both these biological studies (primarily undertaken by Eu-ropean visitors to the Neotropics) and the systematic work, which by thenwas mostly restricted to naming new individual forms and aberrations, wereinterrupted in the pre-World War II period. Modern biological studiesbegan in the 1950s in Trinidad and since have expanded to many countries,institutions, and areas of investigation. Heliconiini are now laboratory ani-mals; experimental methods and biological theory have derived great benefitfrom the detailed study of field and captive populations of these butterflies.The affirmation of Turner (155) that they are the "best studied terrestrialinvertebrates of no economic importance outside the Drosophilidae" mustbe qualified, however. The pests Agraulis vanillae and Dionejuno are the

4270066-4170/81/0101-0427 $01.00

Annual Reviewswww.annualreviews.org/aronline

Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.annualreviews.org/aronline

428 BROWN

principal enemies of passion fruit crops from California to Argentina (16,72, 74, 91, 92) and are difficult to control without ecological techniques (30,72). In addition, self-regulating forest Heliconius populations have beenproposed for the control of a pest species of passion vine in Hawaii (J.Waage, J. T. Smiley, and L. E. Gilbert, in preparation).

This review covers the ten Neotropical genera in the tribe, but not Paleo-tropical members (Cethosia, possibly also Vindula and other relatives). Itsummarizes the recent phase of biological work on these insects, trends inthe present state of knowledge, and the most promising areas for futureresearch. A comparison of basic biological data for all 65 species is providedto aid in the selection of study organisms for projected research. Turner’sbibliography (155) covers the important literature on the Heliconiinithrough 1976-1977; only half of its 317 entries could be quoted here, butother papers through early 1980 have been included.

FOUNDATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ONTHE HELICONIINI

Turner (143) reviewed pre-Linnaean publications on heliconians [whichinclude an early adult painting by Petiver (111) and life-history sketches Merian (94)] and important biological work before the 20th century. Classi-cal systematic work benefitted from the incisive thinking of Stichel andRiffarth (118, 119, 121) on species-groups, Dixey and Moulton (53, 99) mimicry, Eltringham (60) on male genitalia, and Joicey and Kaye (82, 88) on subspecies intergradations. The tribe was later catalogued by Neus-tetter (107) and Stichel (120). New morphological and morphometric tech-niques were brought to bear on heliconian systematics by Michener (97) andComstock & Brown (22, 44) during and after World War II.

Several life histories were published in the nineteenth century by Jones(84, 85) and the Miillers (100, 103, 105). Nocturnal communal roosting adults, first mentioned by Edwards (56), was later described by Jones (86),Poulton (112), Carpenter (41 ), and Moss (98). Odor production by heliconi-ans was investigated by F. MiJller (101, 102, 104), Eltringham (61), Barth (4, 5). Migratory behavior on a large scale northward was noted Randolph (113) and O’Byrne (109) in central North America for species (Agraulis vanillae) and on a small scale southward by Beebe (9) the Venezuelan coastal cordillera for many species. Long-term studies offield behavior were conducted by Kaye (87, 88), Michael (95, 96), Collenette (43). Other references to early works are included in Turner’sreviews (143, 155).

The still rapidly expanding recent phase of biological investigation ofHeliconiini began in William Beebe’s tropical research station at Simla,


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


BIOLOGY OF HELICONIINI 429

Trinidad in the 1950s. The basic groundwork on juvenile biology andhost-plant relationships was provided by Beebe, Crane, Fleming, and Alex-ander (2, 3, 11, 65) after the domestication of numerous local heliconianspecies in large, open-air, semi-natural insectaries (50, 51, 63). JocelynCrane initiated ecological and ethological studies (48, 49) that soonbranched into a multitude of physiological and biochemical investigations(8, 126-139) and fundamental experiments on the phenomena of aposema-tism and mimicry (20, 21). Philip Sheppard, John Turner, and MichaelEmsley followed Beebe’s lead (10) in an investigation of the genetics MiJllerian mimicry (63, 115, 144, 146, 148-150, 158)which continues occupy an increasing number of scientists. The systematics of the wholetribe were revised by Emsley (62-64) and Turner (141, 142, 145), reduced the 117 species in Neustetter’s (107) and Stichel’s (120) cataloguesto 55. The basic data produced during twenty years of heliconian researchat Simla laid the foundations for almost all the present research on the tribeand provided the initial stimulus and orientation for most modem workersin the area.

TRENDS AND RESULTS IN MODERN RESEARCH

Descriptive morphology and biology of the heliconians have now advancedto the stage where the entire tribe can be analyzed in comparative terms fora large number of features (Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3).

Biosystematics (Figure 1)Studies of juvenile biology (2, 3, 11, 24, 25, 34--36, 38, 39, 65, 76, 93, 106,116, 117, 145, 165), genetics (10, 33, 36, 63, 115, 124, 144, 148, 150,157-159, 162), field ecology (13, 14, 16, 27, 35, 36, 39, 57, 64, 69, 70, 76,93, 96, 116, 147), and biogeography (26, 28, 29, 31, 39, 40, 44, 62, 64, 89,140, 146, 156) have given a broad base for the present biosystematic ar-rangement of species and subspecies in the tribe Heliconiini (1, 31). In largepart, the biological data have served to confirm the (primarily) morphologi-cally-based systematics of Emsley (62, 64), although detailed observationsof local and broad sympatries led to an increase in the number of speciesrecognized in the tribe from 55 to 65 (26, 31, 39). Biological and morpholog-ical characters agree well in indicating the phylogeny and relative antiquityof modem species (Figure 1). The arrangements of difficult groups of sister-species like Eueides (26, 38, 79, 80, .118), the silvaniform Heliconius (27,33), the cydno superspecies (39, 78), and the sapho-group (26, 34, 39) havebeen extensively tested and refined in field and laboratory work over the pastdecade. Remaining problems that need more investigation include the prob-able division of Philaethria dido into a number of sibling species, the rela-


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


430 BROWN

Protdae3icmnla~s | OLD WORLD .................................. ?VINDULA & relativesmoving .... ,, , CE~IOSIA (many specles)

P~sslfioraceae[| NEW WORLD(16) alal

I

l |

PHILAETHRIA pygmalionwepnickei

Ia l al South America = Antarctica -

I Australia break apart

Hindwing cell open; chrysalis vertical

Hindwing cell closed; chrysalis horizontal

3-Hydroxykynurenine not stored: short antennae;five-jointed female foretarei

3-Hydroxykynurenine not stored; short antennae;four-jointed female foretarsi

3-Hydroxykynurenlne stored as plgme~t; longerantennae; five-jointed female foretarsi

dido(complex)

PODOTRICHA teleslphe (3~=)

| euchrola (4*)

~DIONE juno (5)~ moneta (31

~GRAULIS vanillae (8)

DRYADULA phaetusa

DRYAS iulla (12}

l

I~

pavanalineataemsleyi (2)

procula (7*)

~ lampeto (8*)lsabell~ (17")eanes (5*)C aliphera

[-~-~ ao~de (n*)~e3 I~%PARUS doris (8)

xanthocles (13")

~ wallacei (5)|a----- burneyi (7*)

I~ egeria (4*)astraea (2*)

numata (25~)

is~enlus (7~)pardalinus (10~)heeala (28*)ethilla (22*)atthis

cydno (ii*)pachlnusheurippatlmareta (2*)elevatus (8*)luciana (2*)besckel

f melpomene (29~

charitonia (9)hermathena (6)erase (28*)clysonymus (4*)

telesiphe (4*)hecalesia (6*)

demeter (9*)leueadla (2)sara (7*)

antiochus (5*)hewitsonicongener (3*)eleuchia (3*)sapho (4*)

d Pollen not used for nutrients; chrysalis horizontal

dI Pollen used for nutr~ents~ chrysalis vertlcal

N = 31 (haploid chromosome number)

N = 21-34 in same individual

--e l N = 21-23

_.e l N = 19-32 ~n same population

e4 N = 21

f signa present on female bursa copulatrix

fl signa absent on female bursa copulatrix

g N = 21

gl N " 33

g2 N ~ 56-59

( ) = number of geographical subspecies recognized (31);

(*) = subspecies clearly restricted to forest centers

of endemism shoxcn in Figure 4 (31.32).HYPOTHETICALTIME-SCALE(years before pre~ent)

6 x 107 5 x 107 4 x 107 3 x 107 2 x i07 107I I , I I l I

Figure 1 Postulated phylogeny of the Heliconiini (schematic) [Original interpretation basedon that in (24), recent data, and available biosystematic information].


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



tionships between Eueides lineata, E. emsleyi, and E. libitina, the atfinitiesof Heliconius egeria and/t, astraea, the complex speciation and despecia-tion phenomena observed in the silvaniforms (27), and the degrees of inter-fertility of members of the//, cydno group, of H. atthis with//, ethilla, ofH. hortense with H. clysonyrnus, and of H. hewitsoni with H. antiochus.

Captive Cultures

The Simla group solved the major problems in rearing heliconians in thetropics (50, 51, 63); the domestication of the butterflies in temperate-zonegreenhouses was later accomplished with success in Britain (151, Sheppard,Cook) and New York (Turner) and especially Texas (69, 70) in America. The butterflies adapt well to captivity with the help of flowers(including preferred natural pollen sources), supplementary feeders honey water, many passion vines, over 80% humidity and moderate tropi-cal temperatures (20-30° C), protection from wind and predators, and patchy illumination structure combining strong but diffuse brightness anddeep shade. Care and good fortune in the choice of founding stock alsohelps; best are relatively undisturbed populations from open woods withunderstory flowers and considerable daily and yearly variation in environ-ment. Field-captured males and females almost always outperform rearedindividuals in courtship and pollen gathering, if not necessarily in adapta-tion to captivity; inbreeding leads to appreciable loss of viability. Intersub-specific crossing can give increased larval survivorship, but also at timesimpaired adult performance and skewed sex ratios (33).

Various authors have published basic methods for obtaining stock in thefield (33, 57, 63, 116, 147, 150, 151, 162, 167). Adults may be maintainedalive for many weeks during field research if they are kept cool and humidin hanging cages or in envelopes and are fed daily. Eggs and larvae encoun-tered in the field may show a high rate of parasitism (57, 70, 72), so culturesare often established from adult females. Larvae grow well in closed humidplastic dishes with daily food and air renewal and are quite resistant todisease.

Juvenile Biology (Figure 2, Tables 1-2)

The biology and behavior of the early stages of several species was firstthoroughly described from work at Simla (2, 3, 11). Many recent papershave included descriptions of juvenile biology as adjuncts to systematic (24,25, 27, 38, 39, 145), biogeographical (34), evolutionary (14, 16), or ecologi-cal (35, 36, 93, 106, 116, 163-165) investigations. Chaetotaxy of first instarlarvae was first described by Fleming (65) and has been expanded recentlyby M. Johnson and J. Turner (in preparation). Presently, information


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


432 BROWN

juveniles (Table 1) is essentially complete for all species except Nerudagodmani and metharme, Eueides lampeto, and Heliconius hecuba, H.luciana, and//, telesiphe (partial only) and Eueides emsleyi, E. libitina, andE. eanes and the high-Andean Podotricha euchroia and Heliconius hierax(lacking).

Eggs (Figure 2A-G), if exposed on tendrils, are placed out of reach ofpredators. Eggs are often imitated by round yellow plant structures thatdiscourage placement of "more" eggs by ovipositioning females of specieswith cannibalistic larvae, which eat eggs and smaller caterpillars (I 6, 70; K.Williams and L. Gilbert, submitted). Larvae are often cryptic in earlyinstars and brightly colored when mature (Figure 2H-Q). Pupae (Figure2R-W) are usually regarded as cryptic and are well armed with spines(145). Morphological characters of juveniles vary appreciably within species (and sometimes even within a population) (2, 3, 11, 27, 35), oftenin apparent response to biotic factors or light regimes. For example, eggsof a single species vary greatly in size and number of ridges (27); pupae alsovary and may be light or dark (24, 36); caterpillars of/-Z, erato chestertoniihave a dark side stripe unknown in other erato larvae; and different larvalcolors and behaviors in two subspecies of H. demeter (35) have been at-tributed to the presence or absence of other common Heliconiine larvae inthe same regions. Adaptive color-pattern mimicry among larvae (Figure2 O-~ Table 2)has been suggested on several occasions (35, 36, 38, 145).The numbers and traits given in Tables 1-2, therefore, should be regardedas potentially very flexible in individual populations or subspecies.

Genetics, Evolution, and Mimicry (Figure 3)The ability to maintain Heliconius in captivity has permitted a variety ofgenetic experiments to be performed. Work has mostly concentrated on thestrongly polytypic and mutually mimetic species, //. melpomene and//.erato (150, 158; P. Sheppard, J. Turner, K. Brown, W. Benson, and M.Singer, submitted), and led to new theories on the evolution, stabilization,and genetics of Miillerian mimicry (157). Density-dependent factors mimicry, combined with temporal and spatial heterogeneity in the mimeticenvironment, were proposed to explain wide-scale polymorphism in

Figure 2 Early stages of heliconian butterflies. ,4-G, eggs, 8 X life size: A, Eueides tales, nearhatching; B, Neruda aoede; C, Heliconius xanthocles; D, H. timareta; E, 11. telesiphe; F, H.demeter," G, H. eleuchia. H-Q, larvae: H, Heliconius timareta, first instar; 1, Philaethriawernickei first instar; J-~ fifth instars: J,, Philaethria pygmalion; K, Dione glycera; L, Eueidesvibilia; M, Eueides lybia; N, Eueides pavana; O, Eueides tales; P, Heliconius demeter eratosignis;Q, Heliconius heurippa. R-W, pupae: R, Philaethria pygmalion; S, Eueides vibilia; T,Heliconius wallaceL" U, Heliconius heurippa; V, Heliconius hecalesia; W, Heliconius sara. A, l,,M, O, P, T, V, W illustrated in previous publications; others not.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.




Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


434 BROWN

Table 1 Morphological characteristics of heliconian eggs, larvae, pupae and adultsa

Egg Mature (5th Instar)

Special ' Height/ Vert/ ' 'Summary of color - pattern refer- diamt- horiz. ( g r d a o ~ s t r i p or ences

Genus, er (mu> ridges spots, scoli, M, anal cap)

pygmation 36 Ye 1.511.1 2018 WhIBkRe-b ,BkWhRe-sc,Re-hd wemickei 36 Ye 1.511.1 2018 WhIBkRe-b,Bk-sc,YeOr-hd dido complex 11 Ye 1.6 11.2 2 2 / 12 WhIBkRe-b , BkmRe-sc ,Y e-hd

telesiphe LG,KB YeWh 1.010.8 20114 G~/Yest,Blsp,~Y~sc,Yehd euchroia ? ? ? ?

juno Y,106 Re 1.0/0.7 1215 Br/Or-sp,Bl-sc+hd mone tu KB,JM Wh 1.1/0.8 1417 Bk/Ye to GrUh-spist,Bk-sc,Wih-M gZycera KB Ye 1.210.9 16/10 Bk/Ye-st,Or-sp,Bk-sc,BkOr-hd

vani Z Zae 11 Ye 1.1/0.8 16/13 BkIOrYeWh-sp+st,Or or BkOrhd

phaetusa 11 Ye 1.711.1 17/20 Bk/Or-hd

i u t i a 1L165 Ye 1.211.0 20113 BrIReWh-sp,BkYe-sc,BrWh-hd

vibiZia KB ReWh 1.010.8 1616 Ye/Bl-sp+sc+hd pavam KB W h 1.0/0.8 18/10 GrYe/Bk-sp+st ,Bk-sc,Or-hd Zineata JM GrWh 0.910.8 20111 GrYeIBkWh-sp+st+sc,Or-hdtac emsleyi ? ? ? ? Zibitinu ? ? ? ? promk KB Cr 0.810.8 16/10 Bk/Ye-sp+st,Bk-sc,BkWh-hd lrrmpeto KB Cr 1.110.8 1619 ? isabeZZa ll,165 Cr 1.010.9 1618 Bk/OrYe-st,Wl-rb,ElWhc+Mpac canes ? ? ? ? Zybia 165,KB Cr 1.010.7 1218 Br/Ye-st,Bk-sc,Or-hd+ac taZes 38,145 Cr 1.110.8 1619 Wh/Bk-sp,Or-hd+ac a t iphem U,E5 Cr 0.6/0.6 1918 YeIBkOrWh-b+st+sc+hd

species

Philaethria

Podotricha

Dione

AgrauZis

DryaduZa

Dryas

Eueides

Neruda g o h n i KB Wh 0.910.7 1818 ? metharme KB,wB Wh 1.010.7 17/12 ? aoede 25,145,wB Wh 0.910.7 16/10 Ma/Wh-sc,Bk-hd

&Pis 11,145 Y e 1.110.8 24/14 Ye/Bk-b+sc+hd

hierax ? ? ? ? hecuba KB ? ? ? GrYe/Bk-b+scfhd xanthocZes 93,KB Ye 1.110.9 24/14 YeIBk-b+sc+hd

Laparus

Heliconius


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Table 1 (ContinuedJ

Larva

Prothom-acicplate

Pupa Adult (62,64)

Head llHead Segments with: ~ I~ Gs~ital ~ Andro- ~ S~gnascoli/ appen- rRef]ectlve large ~ valve tip cenial shapeheight dages spots flanges & process distrlbutkn (b~rsa)

dk,brdk,brdk,sl

dk,br?

2.3 Short 3T;I,2A 3A ]Very long

2.3 ) V spike

2.0 "Non-Helieonius" (LG) [Short? ? ? ? J bulb

dk,br 0.i Short Absent 3,4A )D and

0.4 2A 3,4A

1.2 Absent 3,5A V tri

1.3 Medium 1,3T;I,2A 3,4A 2 D spi~es

dk, sl

dk,br

dk,4-pt?

d~4-pt?

dk,sldk, sldk,br

0.9 Absent 3T,IA 3A Rounded

2.01.01.0??

2.0

?1.7?

3.04.02.5

Hooks Absent

long~bokSAbsent

?long~bO~Absent

?Hooks

? ? ? ?? ? ? ?

dk,br AbserZ Knobs Absent

Absent ID short,J V tri

D mod +? hook, V? tri

Absent [D median,? J V tri

Absent V,D bluntD mod, V trlD+V longD+V longD rood, V pnt

? )Rounded,? > V tri

Absent

dk,br 0. i Knobs Absent Absent D knob

? ? ? ?dk,br 1.0 ? ?

0.3 Short IA

IAlmost )Broad U,alI FW~ one~rm}{W velns I thicker}~,central ~Narrow L,W veins J arms 4:1IFW,central )Broad c~b,HW veins ~slight.~ (-HW cubital)J S-curve

FW veins Broad J

FW veins Large L

FW+-antHWvn Broad V

HW SC,R Broad LStraightBroad L

HW SC,R+mb Narrow VHWSC, R+mb Broad VHWSC+R4M4Cu Broad V

HW vn+ent mb )Narrow[HW ant area~ sickle

(broad) J curve

HWantm5 Narrow J

? Dmod, curved HWent v~mb Broad J? D sh, V tri ~HW SC,R Broad L

2-7A D sh, Vround ~ + mb Narrow L


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


436 BROWN

Table 1 Morphological characteristics of heliconian eggs, larvae, pupae and adultsa (Continued)

Egg Mature (Sth InStar

Genus,Special I Height/ Ver~/ I

species refer- Color d~m~et- hertz.ences er (ran) ~dges

]Summary of color - patter

(gronrd col~E~nd~ stripes spots, scol~, he~d, a~al cap)

~e l~eoniuswallace~ 11,145 Crburneyi 145, ~B Crefferia KB Cra~traea 25,KB Cr

nattereri 24 Yenumata 27 Yeismenius 27 Yepardal~nu~ 27hecale 27,164ethilla ii,25,27 Yeatthis 27,KB Ye

cydno 163,KBpaeh~nua ~Sheurippa KB,WB Ye

timareta KBluaiana KB Yee Zev~tus KBbesakei KB

melpomene LLKB

charitonia LQKB YeWhhermathena 36 Yecrate ii YeeZysonymus 145,JS Yehortense LG Yete les~phe KB Yehecalesia 34,JS Ye

~cini II,KB Yed~meter 35 Yeleucadia KB YeWhsara 11,36 Ye

c~ntiochu8 KB Yeh6~itsoni JS, JM Yeaon~ener KB YeWheZeuah~a KB YeWh8aphO LG~,KB,JSYeWh

1.1/0.9 18/11 Ma/Ye-sc,Br-hd1.1/0.9 18/11 MaBk/Ye-sc,Bk-hd1.2/0.9 16/13 Or/Bk-sc+hd1.2/0.9 16/13 Or/Bk-sc+hd

1.1/0.8 14/11 Wh/Bk-sp+sc,YeBk-hd1.4/0.9 16/10 W~/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd+ac1.3/0.8 14/12 Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd+ac1.4/0.9 16/11 Wn/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd+ac1.9/0.9 16/13 Wh/Bk-sc,Or-hd1.3/0.9 16/13 Wh/Bk-sc,Or-hd1.3/0.8 17/13 Wh/Bk-sc,Or-hd

1.8/1.0 14/10 " Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd

1.6/1.0 16/10 Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd

1.6/1.0 18/11 W~/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd1.7/1.1 18/14 W-h/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd1.5/1.1 15/14 ?1.4/1.1 15/12 Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd+ac1.2/0.9 14/10 Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd

1.5/1.0 15/12 Ye or Wh/Bk-sp+sc,Or-hd

1.2/0.8 14/11 Wh/Bk-sporb+se,BkYeorl~iWh-I1.3/0.7 16/13 Re/BkWh-sp+b,Bk-sc,Re-hd1.5/0.9 16/11 Wh/BkOr-sp,Bk-sc,Ye-hd1.5/1.0 15/12 Wh/BkOr-sp,Bk-sc,Ye-hd

Wh/BkOr-sp,Bk-sc,Ye-hd1.6/0.8 15/14 ?1.2/0.8 Ye/Bk~p+se*hd

1.2/0.7 17/15 Ye/Bk-sp+sc+hd

1.3/0.7 14/10 Ye/Bk-sp or b+sc+hd1.0/0.8 14/10 Br/Bk-b+sc+hd1.1/0.7 13/7 Ye or Br/Bk-b+sc+hd

1.1/0.8 12/10 Ye/Bk-se+hd1.2/0.8 11/10 YeGr/Ye-sc,Bk-hd1.0/0.7 ii/I0 Ye/Bk-se~hd1.0/0.8 ii/ii

i1.0/0.7 11/10

aAbbreviations: ? -- no information available; Colors, Ye = yellow, Wh = white, Cr = cream, Re = re

Or = orange, Br = brown, Bk = black, Ma = maroon, Gr = green, dk = dark, It = light; b = bands or rin~

sp = spots, st = longitudinal stripes; sc = scoli, hd= head, ac = anal cap; Prothoracic plate, br = broa

sl = slender, pt = partite; Pupal segments, T = thoracic, A = abdominal; Valve shape, D = dorsal, V

ventral, tri = triangular, sh = short, rood = moderate length, pnt = pointed; Androconia, FW = forewin


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



able 1 (ContinuedJ

Larva

Pro~acicplate

Head 1 ~"ead

.scoli/ appen-he,hi dages

Pupa

Segments with:’Ref~ec~ve large

spots flanges

Adult (62,64)

l~Ge~ital ~Andro- ~ Slgna

valve tip conial shape&process d~ai~utkn (b~rs~

dkslit. sl

dk.sl?

it,slit or~

it c~

dk,sl

dk,sl

dk,br

1.01.02.02.0

1.82.02.02.01.81.71.5

1.21.41.92.0?

1.61.7

1.5

1.22.01.31.21.3

?1.0

0.82.00.50.4

1.20.30.3

Short

Short

?Short

LongNed iumLong

Long

3T;I,2A

1,3~,1,2A

91,3T;I,2A

9

3T;I,2A

1,3T;I,2A

Absent

3,4A

3,4A

3,4,6A

?3,4A

3,4,6,7A3,~, sh3,4,6A3,4,6,7A3,4,6,7A?

3-7A

3,4,6A3,4,6A3,4A

Long Dprocess

Very longDShort D

Nod D tip(projectin~

Short D tipShortenedThick D tip

Short D tip

Longer tipLonger tipMod D tip

Short tip

RoundedMod D tipMod D tipRoundedRoundedD knobD mod, V tri

RoundedRoundedSquaredRounded

SquaredSquaredPointed

HWvn+mb ]Narrow L,HW ant mb ~ratlo of

tN~mtarea~ arms 5:1HW ant area

FW l~ HW SC,~Straight L~FW vn, HW | with ver-] SC+R+mb ~ tical armHWvn+antmb{ broader,HW ant mb ~2x horiz-

~ ontal arm

HW vn~ant m~HW vr~Uant mbHW m~t mb

HW SC+R AbsentHW SC, R,M+mb

HWSC,R~b~ ~R~~ ~R,~~ ~,R(~

HWSC, R~bHW~t mbHWSC, R~bHWSC,R~b

HW R~b-SC

HW = hindwing, ant = anterior (costal) region, vn = veins, mb = membrane, SC, R, M, Cu, = subcostal,

radial, median, cubital, and anal veins respectively; Signa, U, J, L, V indicate shapes.General references.. 11, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 62, 64, 93, 145, 163, 165; unpublished

data from L. Gilbert, J. Mallet, J. Smiley, and W. Benson; and personal observations, still unpublished

~KB).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


438 BROWN


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Heliconius numata and other silvaniforms, controlled by supergenes orgene-complexes (33, 144). Like polymorphism and supergenes, sexual di-morphism was not predicted to appear in Miillerian mimicry; where it existsin three species of Heliconius, it is correlated with rarity and habitat dis-sociation between the sexes (24, 34, 35).

Interspecific hybridization is occasional in Heliconius populations bothin the field and in the insectary; it has also been recorded in Eueides, butis most often seen in members of the silvaniform-cydno-melpomene group(Brown, in preparation). It usually produces broods, including both sexes,with reasonable viability and some fecundity (especially in backcrosses) andthus can lead to limited introgression and the possibility of some reticulateevolution in the tribe. Long-term genetic experiments, interspecific hybrid-ization, and the appearance of "throwback mutations" in captive popula-tions (150; L. Gilbert, J. Turner, personal communication) all suggest high degree of shared major color-pattern genes in the members of the genusHeliconius, with appreciable modification and epistasis changing or sup-pressing the expression of genes that are nonetheless present in homologouspositions in the different species. These observations permit the tentativeextrapolation of phenotypic expressions to genes in species not yet studiedin captivity; in one case (Heliconius hermathena), this gave some insightinto the rate of adaptive color-pattern evolution under favorable local selec-tion in the field (36).

The effectiveness of Miillerian mimicry in nature was supported by paint-ing over the red forewing band of Costa Rican/t. erato petiverana (makingthem look like H. e. chestertonii) and noting the appreciably greater attackand mortality rates in the altered, nonmimetic individuals (13). The Miil-lerian-mimetic convergences evident between various members of widelydivergent lines in Heliconiini (Figure 3) demonstrate natural selection forthe evolution of mimicry, as opposed to pattern similarity due only-tocommon heritage (154). Reseoablances effective in protection against preda-tors develop in part by homologous, but more often by analogous mecha-nisms in the different radiating lines. The development of theMiillerian-mimetic patterns has been related to aspects of the physicalenvironment, especially light distribution and structure, by Emsley (63)and Papageorgis (110) and to biotic selection, on populations isolatedin small ecological refuges, by Turner (153, 156, 157); still otherhypotheses, equally attractive, await testing with new and more completedata.

Isozyme divergence and heterozygosity in Heliconius demonstrate littlecorrelation with homozygous color-pattern gene sets in geographical races,suggesting both "classical" and "balanced" modes of evolution within asingle genome (159). A sex-linked enzyme is not dosage compensated


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


440 BROWN

females (the heterogametic sex) of H. rnelpomene, suggesting a possiblebasis for other sex-limited phenomena such as female mimicry (81).

Preliminary karyological examination of Heliconiini is nearly complete(52, 124, 162; K. Brown, T. Emmel, P. Eliazar, and E. Suomalainen, inpreparation), but methods are still lacking for visualization of fine struc-tures of chromosomes. Achiasmatic oSgenesis in females has been reportedin H. melpomene and other species (125, 160; J. Mallet and L. Gilbert,personal communication), but may not be universal in the tribe. The mainpatterns of chromosome numbers are shown in Figure 1. The outcome ofgenetic crosses suggests that chromosome arrangements may differ betweendifferent subspecies of H. erato (A. M. Araujo, K. Brown, and W. Benson,in preparation) and H. melpomene (J. Mallet and L. Gilbert, personalcommunication), with concomitant reduction in viability and fecundity inintraspecific crosses.

Biogeography (Figure 4, Table 2)Following early work by Michael (95), Emsley (63), Turner (140, 146), Sheppard (40), Heliconiini have been used in a broad investigation of geo-graphic patterns of evolution in the Neotropics. The Heliconiini are espe-cially useful for this analysis, since they include widespread polytypicspecies with marked regional differentiation in color-pattern, which is gov-erned by a few genes and easily related to stabilizing selection in mimeticenvironments (40). The clear patterns of regional endemism (26, 28, 29, 32, 89, 153) (Figure 4), based on a sampling network of 3500 stations over the Neotropics, correlated well with areas of high probability for forestcontinuity during the last glacial maximum, 13,000-20,000 years ago (sug-gested by independent paleoclimatological, geomorphological, pedological,and phytosociological criteria), but did not correlate with localities of highspecies diversity (an ecological rather than evolutionary phenomenon) (30-32). Detailed population observations, however, suggest that many of theseendemic patterns could be produced by parapatric differentiation in re-sponse to modern environmental gradients (15, 66, 161). There seems littledoubt that both modern and historical factors are involved in regional

Figure 4 Biogeographical division of forest heliconians into four principal species regions(A-D) and 43 important subspecies centers in the Neotropics. Thesubspecies "centers endemism" 1--43 are bounded by isoline contours representing one third of the maximum valuefor corrected endemism. This value was determined for 1520 quadrants of 30’ X 30’ latitudeand longitude by a summation of local endemic subspecies minus double the number ofhybridized populations (with invading subspecies from other endemic centers) (31, 32). bers in parentheses after the center names are the local endemic subspecies recognized asassociated with that center, among the 46 species of forest heliconians analyzed. Note that 46of the 65 species in the tribe are endemic to one of the four species regions A-D.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



4. Neehf (13)5. thee6 (9)6. Chlmborazo (13)7, Cauca (5)8. Magdalene (5)9. Santa Marts (3)

10. Catatumbo (7)ll. Rancho Grande (9)12. Sucre-Trinidad (6)

a. Tobago (2)13. Apura (7)14. Villavicencio (9)15. Putumayo (8)16. Napo (ll)17. Abitagua (8)

B. Andes (I)18. Suede (8)19. Maranon (5)20. Huallaga (7)

HELICONIAN ENDEMISM AMERICA TROPICAL

SUBSPECIES CENTERS

1. Guatemala (10)2. Chlriquf (ii)

a. Azuero (2)3. Darl~n (3)

21. Ucayali (10)22. Chanchamayo (4)23. Inambari (7)24. Yungas (12)25. Guapor4 (5)

26. Imataca (3)27. Pantepul (6)28. Roraima (3)29. Ventuari (5) 30. Imer~ (12)

’31. Manaus-Gulana (12 + 6)a. Tapar~ (i)

32. Oyapock (ii) 33. Bel~m (5)34. MaraJ6 (4)35. TapaJBs (ii + i)36. RondOnia (5)37. Madeira (i)38. Tef~ (4)39. Loreto (5)

SPECIES REGIONS:

I Transandean~ (1~Centers 1-15.:~-~southward extension

:~’, in a few species

Centers 4-25

~ ~ Amazonian (17 species)j~’~- : Centers 15-39

/~.~;~" ~ : Pautepui subregion ....

.~..~5 ’M~ (i endemic species)~ .-’~ Centers 26-30

Atlantic (~ species),40-43

40. Pernambuco (i)41. Araguala (4) (very

discontinuous)42. Bahia (5)43. Rio de Janeiro (5)


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


442 BROWN

endemism patterns; the attempt to identify the causative factors has led tomuch important parallel research on paleoecology and population ecology,which in some specific cases has uncovered significant new evolutionaryphenomena (14, 15, 30-32).

Dispersal undoubtedly plays an important role in many aspects ofheliconian biogeography (12, 34, 39, 45, 67). Species with migratory tenden-cies or very wide-ranging flight, at least under some environmental condi-tions, include those labelled "Mg" in Table 2; species which are oftensedentary include Neruda aoede and Heliconius ethilla, H. cydno, 1t. erato,and H. hermathena (13, 36, 45, 57, 116, 147).

Population Biology ,(Table 2)Field studies of Heliconius often reveal a pattern of small, rather self-contained local populations, composed of long-lived, continually reproduc-ing individuals who learn resource locations by following during thedaytime individuals with whom they roost at night (12, 13, 24, 36, 45,48-50, 57, 75, 116, 147, 152, 166, 167; K. Saalfeld and A. M. Araujo,submitted). Kin selection is thought to operate strongly in such populations(12, 33, 149). Members of some other heliconiine genera are shorter-lived,more dispersive, and exist in larger and more ill-defined populations. Thetwo species of Podotricha have dramatically skewed sex ratios (e.g. male:female 10 - 50:1) both in collections (62, 161) and in the field (personalobservation), and they may show peculiar biological characteristics. Somesex and age classes, especially younger females, may be highly vagile atsome times of the year, possibly representing density-dependent dispersal(31, 39); individuals in these classes are often found sleeping away from thecommunal roosts (K. Brown and J. Vasconcellos-Neto, unpublished data).

Populations of Heliconius seem to be regulated largely by egg and earlyinstar larvae mortality [which may come from many sources, includingfoodplant deterioration or exhaustion, predators, parasitoids, and storms(70, 116)] as well as availability of adult resources, including nectar, pollen,space, and mate location and suitability (17, 75). While population numbersmay be exceedingly constant in some rain forest areas (57), fluctuations arecommonly observed in more seasonal climate (24, 33, 39), the peak abundance usually occurring from near the end of the wetter season intothe dry season.

REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY The long reproductiveperiod of adult Heliconius is a function of continuous nutrient intake,mainly from pollen, involving a number of physiological, morphological,and ethological adaptations (17, 18, 54, 55, 69-71). Laparus and Heliconiuscollect pollen from certain flowers and incubate it with fluid on their


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



tongues, releasing nitrogenous nutrients which (like labelled amino-acidsministered in parallel experiments) should be rapidly incorporated into eggsand spermatophores (69, 70). Females also obtain nutrients from digestionof male spermatophores to help in egg production (17, 18, 71). The lengthof the reproductive period varies within the genus Heliconius and is appar-ently much shorter in Dryas iulia (17, 54, 55); thus, there exist manydifferent reproductive syndromes within the tribe.

Courtship and mating are complex and variable within the Heliconiini;little has been published recently on comparative ethological characteris-tics, and almost nothing has been written of chemical or visual signals innatural courtship sequences since Crane’s early work (48-50). Certainly thelarge and complicated 1-1eliconius head, including greatly enlarged com-pound eyes and optic and other sensory ganglia, is important in courtship,food-location and gathering, and the evaluation of host-plant quality (70).

Community Ecology

A series of papers by Gilbert and co-workers relates the community ecologyof heliconians to a variety of important concepts, from guild structure andhabitat displacement through the organization and succession of tropicalforest systems to practical aspects of conservation biology (70, 72-76). Thetightly coevolved food webs such as that of the Heliconiini/Passiflora/An-guria-Gurania system may represent key units for research on structure,function, and diversity in tropical systems. They also provide a base forconservation planning (the Brazilian government has already included re-suits of heliconian biogeography in the choice of favorable areas for parksand reserves; 28-32, 72, 74); and since the heliconian/Passifloraceae systemis an easily monitored and reliable indicator of many ecological processesin tropical communities (30), it may be used in the evaluation of preservedsystems and the management of diversity (74). The tight mutualistic rela-tionship between Heliconius and its pollen sources ,4nguria and Gurania(Cucurbitaceae) may be illustrative of the great importance of such systemsin the structure and stability of tropical ecosystems (70, 74); modern ecolog-ical theory has largely ignored such interactions, and important modelshave not taken them into account.

FOODPLANT UTILIZATION (Table 3) Many of the dimensions of a larvalheliconian’s world are determined by the female’s choice of oviposition site(16). Recently, this choice has been shown to have a broad ecologicalcomponent (116, 117), often independent of plant chemistry and larvalacceptability. Thus, studies of juvenile biology should include analysis ofadult ecology and physiology, as well as plant quality, and should includeexamination of potential versus realized niche.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


444 BROWN


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.




Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


446 BROWN


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



++

+

~°°


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


448 BROWN

The massive data on foodplant utilization presented by Benson, Brown& Gilbert (16) is of little use for studies in ecological space and time; theinteractions reported in Table 3 must be resolved into local foodplant-usagedata sets through new field and laboratory studies. Only in La Selva, CostaRica (ll6), and along~the Sumar6 road in Rio de Janeiro (14, 16) long-term patterns of resource partitioning in natural heliconian communi-ties be regarded as very:well known; comparisons between these data setsand less complete ones, or ones collected over a larger area, should be drawnwith due caution. The’ patterns interpreted in relation to macroclimate byBenson (14) include two data sets from heavy forest where interactions arevery difficult to observe; one of these is from an island with a depauperateinsect community. Since these patterns are not the same as those seen intwo additional equatorial sites in Brazil (personal observation), it is possiblethat resource utilization patterns are also determined by factors such asdisturbance, heterogeneity, and site accessability. Like other results of pre-sumed competition, between-plant resource patterning in heliconians needsto be investigated by experimental manipulation in the field; present viewsare still mostly based on negative data.

The physiological and environmental parameters important to the in-teraction between Agraulis and Passiflora have been studied in an impor-tant work by Copp & Davenport (46, 47) which helps to focus the moreanecdotal information widely scattered in other papers (16, 70). Manyaspects of the morphology and biology of Passiflora can best be understoodin terms of interactions with Heliconiini (16, 70; K. Williams and L. Gil-bert, submitted); this strengthens the case for powerful coevolutionary pres-sures between these two groups of organisms (16, 58, 68). Such specificinteractions are very useful in broad studies of community ecology (70,72-76).

Occasional reports exist for the feeding of heliconian larvae on a numberof plant families other than Passifloraceae; the only confirmed one is thaton the closely related Turneraceae in Costa Rica (D. Janzen, personalcommunication).

BiochemistryMany investigators assume that Heliconiini are distasteful due to sequestra-tion of poisonous chemicals derived from their foodplants (16, 19-21, 70),but no evidence for this has yet been published. Preliminary analysis ofHeliconius adults has shown presence of cyanogenic glycosides (R. H.Davis and A. Nahrstedt, in preparation), but the presence of these compoundsin the larval foodplants of the specimens examined was not determined. Eventhe strong "witch-hazel" (isocyanide?) scent of mated females has stilleluded chemical identification, although female odor has been shown to be


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



important as a "chemical chastity belt" (71) and may function in intras-pecific alarm and interspecific defense roles as well. Also unidentified arethe male androconial pheromones and the female pupal odors that attractmales. Wing pigments in the Heliconiini are in part polymeric, but somereds have been shown to include pterins (8), and the light yellows in Neruda,Laparus, and Heliconius are the amino-acid 3-hydroxy-L-kynurenine (23,37). The silver reflective spots of pupae (Figure 2R, T- ~ are physical nature; spots with a gold color are underlaid by yellow tanning pigments(I08).

Sensory and Behavioral Physiology

Many authors have commented on the ability of heliconians to respond tonovelty and to learn complex sequences of resource discovery and utiliza-tion, both in the field (57, 70) and in captivity (48, 49, 70); Skinnerianexperiments of sequencing and color-form discrimination have been re-ported (48, 49, 127). Extensive investigation of heliconian vision has domi-nated physiological studies, but some information is also available onhearing (132) and temperature tolerance (42). The details of heliconianvisual physiology, implicated in complex behavior patterns, are in accordwith daily rhythms of activity (128, 129), the use of red colors in courtshipand flower seeking (39, 48, 49, 126, 127), and image processing alongmultiple channels (77, 90, 114, 122, 123, 128-131, 133-138). Some contro-versy has developed around the fundamental neurological processes in-volved in Heliconius color vision and learning, but little doubt remainsabout the existence of unusual physiological processes in these butterflies.

SYNTHESIS

With an increasingly firm base of systematics, biogeography, and descrip-tive biology, research on Heliconiini has moved on to complex investigationof physiology, behavior, ecology, and evolution. Primary areas of intenseongoing research in the last decade include natural selection, sociobiology,evolution at and above the population level, interactions with other organ-isms and implications for tropical communities, development of ecologicalpreferences and behavior patterns, neurophysiology, reproductive biologyand physiology, and genetics and mimicry. Heliconians now rival Euphy-dryas butterflies (59, 75) in the amount of new information and conceptsthey have contributed to population biology. Long-term research on theHeliconiini, aided by accurate identification of organisms, an eye for theunexpected, and complementary laboratory studies, has generated impor-tant insights into tropical biological processes:


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


450 BROWN

1. Much variation in fundamental morphology is possible in these organ-isms; within single widespread species, the variation is often determinedby only a few genes and sometimes is capable of interpretation in relationto local selective factors.

2. Historical and modem ecological factors interact with intrinsic featuresof heliconian populations to determine a wide variety of local characters,community structures, and regional subspecies distributions in the com-plex and heterogeneous Neotropical forest environment.

3. These long-lived invertebrates with variable and ephemeral resourceshave developed very complex behavioral physiology, including responseto novelty and correlative learning, within a tight social structure.

4. Specific plant-herbivore interactions like those of Heliconius/Passifloramay form biological subsystems very useful in the study of communitystructure and function in the tropics.

5. Miillerian mimicry is a verifiable ecological phenomenon with unex-pected genetic and evolutionary facets and may be important to larvaeas well as adults of host-specific insects feeding on plants presumed tobe poisonous.

6. Classical and balanced modes of evolution, occurring within a singlegenome, can at the same time maintain variety at weakly selected lociand rapidly fix homozygosis at strongly selected loci.

As heliconian butterflies gain wider acceptance as laboratory animals andcontinue to attract investigators interested in field biology, their alreadysubstantial contribution to scientific theory and knowledge should increase.Their complex nervous system, rapid development, accessibility in the field,and high degree of ecological specificity make them well adapted for futureresearch.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review was prepared during a sabbatical year in the laboratories of P.P. Feeny, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, whom I thank for facilities andsupplies. I also wish to thank L. Gilbert, J. Mallet, C. Boggs, J. Smiley, P.Ehrlich, D. Bowers, D. Lincoln, M. Emsley, J. R. G. Turner, P. Ackery,G. Lamas, W. W. Benson, M. Berenbaum, and A. J. Damman for readingand commenting on the manuscript and tables and supplying reprints,manuscripts, and unpublished information.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Literature Cited

1. Ackery, P. R., Smiles, R. L. 1976. Anillustrated list of the type-specimens ofthe Heliconiinae (Lepidoptera: Nym-phalidae) in the British Museum (Natu-ral History). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist.Entomol. 32:171-214 (39 plates)

2. Alexander, A. J. 1961. A study of thebiology and behavior of the caterpillars,pupae and emerging butterflies of thesubfamily Heliconiinae in Trinidad,West Indies. Part I. Some aspects of lar-val behavior. Zoologica NY 46:1-24 (1plate)

3. Alexander, A. J. 1961. A study of thebiology and behavior of the caterpillars,pupae and emerging butterflies of thesubfamily Heliconiinae in Trinidad,West Indies. Part II. Molting, and thebehavior of pupae and emerging adults.Zoologica NY 46:105-23

4. Barth, R. 1952. Os 6rgfios odoriferosmasculinos de alguns Heliconiinae doBrasil. Mere. lnst. Oswaldo Cruz 50:335-442

5. Barth, R. 1960. Org~.os odoriferos dosLepid6pteros. BoL Parq. Nac. Itatiaia,Minist. .4gric. Rio de Janeiro 7:1-159

6. Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to aninsect fauna of the Amazon Valley,Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn.Soc. London 23:495-566

7. Bates, H. W. 1864. The Naturalist onthe River Amazons. London: J. Murray.ix -t- 465 pp. (2 maps), 2nd ed.

8. Baust, J. G. 1967. Preliminary studieson the isolation of pterins from thewings of heliconid butterflies. ZoologicaNY 52:15-20

9. Beebe, W. 1950. Migration of Danai-dae, Ithomiidae, Aeraeidae andHeliconiidae (butterflies) at RanchoGrande, north-central Venezuela.Zoologica NY 35:57-68

10.Beebe, W. 1955. Polymorphism inreared broods of Heliconius butterfliesfrom Suriname and Trinidad. ZoologicaNY 40:139-43

11.Beebe, W., Crane, J., Fleming, H. 1960.A comparison of.eggs, larvae and pupaein fourteen species of Helieoniine but-tertties from Trinidad, W.I. ZoologicaNY 45:111-54

12.Benson, W. W. 1971. Evidence for theevolution of unpalatability through kinselection in the Heliconiinae (Lepidopt-era), Am. Nat. 105:213-26

13.Benson, W. W. 1972. Natural selectionfor Miillerian mimicry in Heliconiuserato in Costa Pica. Science 176:936-39

14. Benson, W. W. 1978. Resource parti-tioning in passion vine butterflies. Evo-lution 32:493-518

15.Benson, W. W. 1980. Alternative mod-els for infrageneric diversification in thehumid tropics. In The Biological Modelfor Diversification in the Tropics, ed. G.T. Prance. New York: Columbia Univ.In press

16.Benson, W. W., Brown, K. S. Jr., Gil-bert, L. E. 1976. Coevolution of plantsand herbivores: passion flower butter-flies. Evolution 29:659-80

17.Boggs, C. L. 1979. Resource allocationand reproductive strategies in severalheliconiine butterfly speciez PhD thesis.Univ. Texas, Austin. 201 pp. See alsoBoggs, C. L. Am. Nat. 115: In press

18. Boggs, C. L., Gilbert, L. E. 1979. Malecontribution to egg production: first evi-dence for transfer of nutrients at matingin butterflies. Science 206:83-84

19. Boyden, T. C. 1976. Butterfly palatabil-ity and mimicry: experiments withAmeiva lizards. Evolution 30:73-81

20. Brower, L. P., Brower, J. V. Z. 1964.Birds, butterflies and plant poisons: astudy in ecological chemistry. ZoologicaNY 49:137-59

21. Brower, L. P., Brower, J. V. Z., Collins,C. T. 1963. Experimental studies ofmimicry. 7. Relative palatability andMiillerian mimicry among neotropi-cal butterflies of the subfamily Heli-coniinae. Zoologica NY 48:65-84 (1plate)

22. Brown, F. M., Comstock, W. P. 1952.Some biometrics of Heliconius char#tonius (Linnaeus). Am. Mus. Novit.1574:1-53

23. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1967. Chemotaxonomyand chemomimicry: the case of 3-hydroxykynurenine. Syst. ZooL 16:213-16

24. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1972. The Heliconiansof Brazil. Part III. Ecology and Biologyof Heliconius nattereri, a key primitivespecies near extinction, and commentson the evolutionary development ofHeliconius and Eueides. Zoologica NY57:41-69

25. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1973. The Heliconiansof Brazil. Part V. Three new subspeciesfrom Mato Grosso and Rond6nia. BullAllyn Mus. 13:1-19

26. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1976. Geographicalpatterns of evolution in NeotropicalLepidoptera. Systematics and deriva-tion of known and new Heliconiini. £EntomoL Set. B Taxon. 44:201-42


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


452 BROWN

27. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1976. An illustratedkey to the silvaniform Heliconius withdescriptions of new subspecies. Trans.Am. Entomol. Soc. Philadelphia 102:373-484

28. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1977. Centros de evo-lu¢~o, reffgios quatermlrios e conserv-a~o de patrimrnios genrticos na regi-~o neotropical: padrOes de diferencia-c~o em Ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nym-phalidae). Acta Amazonica 7:75-137

29. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1977. Geographicalpatterns of evolution in neotropieal for-est Lepidoptera (Nymphalidae: Ithomi-inae and Nymphalinae-Heliconiini). InBiogeographie et Evolution en Am~riqueTropicale, ed. H. Descimon, pp. 118-60. Paris: Lab. Zool. Ecole Norm. Su-per., Publ. 9. 344 pp.

30. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1978. Hetero-geneidade: fator fundamental na teoriae pr~itica de conservaq~o de ambientestropicais. Encontro Nac. Preserva¢~oFauna e Rec. Faunlst., Brasilia 1977,pp. 175-83. Brasilia: IBDF

31. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1979. Ecologia Geo-gr~fica e Evolucdo nas Florestas Neo-tropicais. Vols. 1, 2. Campinas: Univ.Estadual de Campinas. xxxi + 265 pp.,120 pp.

32. Brown, K. S. Jr. 1980. Paleoecologyand regional patterns of evolution inNeotropieal forest butterflies. See Ref.15. In press

33. Brown, K. S. Jr., Benson, W. W. 1974.Adaptive polymorphism associatedwith multiple Miillerian mimicry inHeliconius numata. Biotropica 6:205-28

34. Brown, K. S. Jr., Benson, W. W. 1975.West Colombian biogeography: noteson Heliconius hecalesia and//, sapho. J..Lepid. Soc. 29:199-212

35. Brown, K. S. Jr., Benson, W. W. 1975.The Heliconians of Brazil. Part VI. As-pects of the biology and ecology ofHeliconius demeter, with description offour new subspecies. Bull. Allyn Mus.26:1-19

36. Brown, K. S. Jr., Benson, W. W. 1977.Evolution in modern Amazonian non-forest islands: Heliconius hermathena(The Heliconians of Brazil. Part VII).Biotropica 9:95-117

37. Brown, K. S. Jr., Domingues, C. A. A.1971. A distribuiqS_o do amino-ficido 3-hidroxi-L-quinurenina nos Lepidrp-teros. An. Acad. Bras. Cirnc. 42:211-15(Suppl.)

38. Brown, K. S. Jr., Holzinger, H. 1973.The Heliconians of Brazil. Part IV. Sys-tematies and biology of Eueides tales

Cramer, with description of a newsubspe.c.ies from Venezuela. Z. Arbeits-gem. Osterr. Entomol. 24:44-65

39. Brown, K. S. Jr., Mielke, O. H. H. 1972.The Heliconians of Brazil (Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae). Part II. Introductionand general comments, with a supple-mentary revision of the tribe. ZoologicaNY 57:1-40

40. Brown, K. S. Jr., Sheppard, P. M.,Turner, J. R. G. 1974. Quaternaryrefugia in tropical America: evidencefrom race formation in Heliconius but-terflies. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B187:369-78

41. Carpenter, G. D. H. 1933. Gregariousroosting habits of aposematic butter-flies. Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. London8:110-11

42. Clarke, K. U. 1977. The transient andsteady state responses in oxygen con-sumption by tropical butterflies to tem-perature step transfer tests. J. Zool.183:251-68

43. Collenette, C. L. 1928. Observations onthe bionomics of the Lepidoptera ofMatto Grosso, Brazil. 1. On some mi-metic combinations of butterflies ob-served. 3. On the odour of two speciesof Heliconius. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc.London 76:391-401,409-10

44. Comstock, W. P., Brown, F. M. 1950.Geographical variation and subspecia-tion in tteliconius charitonius Linnaeus.Am. Mus. Nov#. 1467:1-21

45. Cook, L. M., Thomason, E. W., Young,A. M. 1976. Population structure, dy-namics and dispersal of the tropical but-

.,terfly Heliconius charltonius. J.. Anim..... ’Ecol. 45:851-63

46. Copp, N. H., Davenport, D. 1978.Agraulis and Passiflora. I. Control ofspecificity. Biol. Bull. 155:98-112

47. Copp, N. H., Davenport, D. 1978.dgraulis and Passiflora. II. Behaviorand sensory modalities. Biol. Bull.155:113-24

48. Crane, J. 1955. Imaginal behavior of aTrinidad butterfly, Heliconius eratohydara Hewitson, with special refer-ence to the social use of color. ZoologicaNY 40:167-96

49. Crane, J. 1957. Imaginal behavior inbutterflies of the family Heliconiidae:changing social patterns and irrelevantactions. Zoologica NY 42:135-45

50. Crane, J. 1957. Keeping housefor tropi-cal butterflies. Natl. Geogr. 112:193-217 (Aug.)

51. Crane, J., Fleming, H. 1953. Construc-tion and operation of butterfly insectar-


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


BIOLOGY OF H.ELICONIINI 453

ies in the tropics. Zoologica NY38:161-72

52. de Lesse, H. 1967. Les hombres dechromosomes chez les Lrpidopt~resRhopaloc~res n~otropicaux. Ann. Soc.Entomol. Fr. (NS) 3:67-136

53. Dixey, R. A. 1909. On Miillerian mim-icry and diaposematism. Trans. R. En-tornol. Soc. London 1908:559-83

54.Dunlap-Pianka, H., Boggs, C. L., Gil-bert, L. E. 1977. Ovarian dynamics inHelieoniine butterflies: programmedsenescence versus eternal youth. Science197:487-90

55.Dunlap-Pianka, H. L. 1979. Ovariandynamics in Heliconius butterflies: cor-relations among daily oviposition rates,egg weights, and quantitative aspects ofotigenesis. J.. Insect PhysioL 25:741-49

56.Edwards, W. H. 1881. On certain habitsof Heliconia charitonia Linn., a speciesof butterfly found in Florida. Papilio1:209-15

57.Ehrlich, P. R., Gilbert, L. E. 1973. Pop-ulation structure and dynamics of thetropical butterfly Heliconius ethilla.Biotropica 5:69-82

58.Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H. 1965. But-terflies and plants: a study in coevolu-tion. Evolution 18:586-608

59.Ehrlich, P. R., White, R. R., Singer, M.C., McKechnie, S. W., Gilbert, L. E.1975. Checkerspot butterflies: a histori-cal perspective. Science 188:221-28

60. Eltringham, H. 1917. On specific andmimetic relationships in the genusHeliconiu~ Trans. R. Entomol. Soc.London 1916:104-48

61. Eltringham, H. 1925. On the abdominalglands in I-leliconiu~ Tran~ R. En-tomol. Soc. London 1925:269-75

62. Emsley, M. 1963. A morphologicalstudy of imagine Heliconiinae (Lep.:Nymphalidae) with a consideration ofthe evolutionary relationships withinthe group. Zoologica NY 48:85-130 (1plate)

63. Emsley, M. G. 1964. The geographicaldistribution of the color-pattern compo-nents of Heliconius erato andHeliconius melpomene with genetiealevidence for the systematic relationshipbetween the two species. Zoologica NY49:245-86 (2 plates)

64. Emsley, M. G. 1965. Speciation inHeliconius: morphology and geographicdistribution. Zoologica NY 50:191-254

65. Fleming, H. 1960. The first instar larvaeof the Heliconiinae (butterflies) of Trini-dad, W. I. Zoologica NY 45:91-110

66. Gifford, D. R. 1980. Edaphic factors indispersion of heliconian and ithomiine

butterflies in:the~,xaguaia region, cen-tral Brazil. Biotropica, 12: In press

67. Gilbert, L. E. 1969. The biology of nat-ural dispersal: Dione moneta poeyii inTexas. J. Lepid. Soc. 23:177-85

68. Gilbert, L. E. ii971. Butterfly-plant co-evolution: has Passiflora adenopodawon the selectional race with helicon-iine butterflies? Science 172:585-86

69. Gilbert, L. E. 1.972. Pollen feeding andreproductive biology of Heliconius but-terflies. Proc. "Natl. dead. ScL USA69:1403-7

70. Gilbert, L. E. ~19.75. Ecological conse-quences of a coevolved mutualism be-tween butterfliesand plants. In Coevolu-tion of Animals and Plants, ed. L. E.Gilbert, P. H. Ra~ven, pp. 210-40. Aus-tin: Univ. Texas Press. 246 pp.

71. Gilbert, L. E. 1976. Postmating femaleodor in Helicon~us butterflies: a male-contributed anfiaphrodisiae? Science193:419-20

72. Gilbert, L. E. 1977.The role of insect-plant coevolution in ’the organization ofecosystems. In ~Comportement des ln-sectes et Milieu Trophique, ed. V. Laby-fie, pp. 399-413. Paris: C.N.R.S. Col-loq. Int. 265. 493 pp.

73. Gilbert, L. E. 1979. Development oftheory in the analysis of insect-plant in-teractions. In AnaC~’s of Ecological Sys-tems, ed. D. Horn, R.. Mittler, G. Stairs,pp. 117-54. Cobambus: Ohio StateUniv. Press. 312 pp.

74. Gilbert, L. E. 1980. Food web organiza-tion and the conservation of neotropicaldiversity. In Conservation Biology, ed.M. E. Soulr, B. A. Wilcox, pp. 11-33.Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Assoc.

75. Gilbert, L. E., Singer, M. C. 1975. But-terfly ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.6:365-97

76. Gilbert, L. E., Smiley, J. T. 1978. Deter-minants of local diversity in phytopha-gous insects: host specialists in tropicalenvironments. In Diversity of InsectFaunas, ed. L. A. Mound, N. Waloff,pp. 89-104. London: Blackwell. 204 pp.

77. Gordon, W. C., Bashager, S. F. 1978.Retinal pathways in the optic lobe of thebutterfly, Agraulis vanillae. J. Cell Biol.79:102A (Abstr.)

78. Holzinger, H., Holzinger, R. 1968.Heliconius cydno gerstner£ n. ssp. undzwei neue formen yon H. c.ydno cyd-nides Stgr. Z. ,~rbeitsgem. Osterr. En-tomol. 20:17-21

79. Holzinger, H., Holzinger, R. 1969. ZurSynonymic yon Heliconius (Eueides)eanes heliconioides Fldr. trod /-/. (E.)


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


454 BROWN

tales cognatus Weym. Z. .4rbeitsgem.Osterr. Entomol. 21:64-69

80. Holzinger, H., Holzinger, R. 1974. Eu-eides procula browni, eine neue SubslLe-cies aus Venezuela. Z. Arbeitsgera. Os-terr. EntomoL 24:147-52

81. Johnson, M. S., Turner, J. R. G. 1979.A.bsence of dosage compensation for asex-linked enzyme m butterflies(Heliconius). Heredity 43:71-77

82. Joieey, J. J., Kaye, W. J. 1917. On acollection of Heliconiine forms fromFrench Guiana. Trans. R. Entomol.Soc. London 1916:412-31

83. Joicey, J. J., Kaye, W. J. 1919. Notes ona large Heliconine collection made inFrench Guiana in 1917, compared witha similar collection made in 1915.Tranz R. Entomol. Soc. London1918:347-53

84. Jones, E. D. 1882. Metamorphoses ofLepidoptera from Santo Paulo, Brazil,in the Free Public Museum, Liverpool(with nomenclature and description ofnew forms by F. Moore). Proc. Lit.Philos. Soc. Liverpool 36:327-77

85. Jones, E. D. 1884. Metamorphoses ofLepidoptera from San Paulo, Brazil, inthe Free Public Museum, Liverpool(with nomenclature and description ofnew forms by F. Moore). Second series.Mus. Rep. Liverpool 4:1-115

86. Jones, F. M. 1930. The sleeping Heli-conias of Florida. Nat. Hist. 30:635-44

87. Kaye, W. J. 1907. Notes on the domi-nant Miillerian group of butterflies fromthe Potaro district of British Guiana.Trans. R.

Entomol. Soc. London

54:411-3988. Kaye, W. J. 1916. A reply to Dr. E1-

tringham’s paper on the genusHeliconius. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc.London 64:149-53

89. Lamas, G. 1976. Notes on Peruvianbutterflies (Lepidoptera). II. NewHeliconius from Cusco and Madre deDios. Rev. Peru. Ent. 19:1-7

90. Langer, H., Struwe, G. 1972. Spectralabsorbanee by screening pigment gran-ules in the compound eye of butterflies(Heliconius). Z Comp. Physiol. 79:203-12

91. Lordello, L. G. E. 1952. Insetos quevivem sobre o maracuj~zeiro. I. Notasbion6mieas aeerca de Dione vanillae(L., 1758). Rev. Agric. Piracicaba27:177-87

92. Lordello, L. G. E. 1956. Insetos quevivem sobre o maracuj~zeiro. III. Notasacerca de Dione juno (Cramer) e rela-¢~o de alguns outros insetos habitual-

mente coligidos de Passiflora spp. Rev.Agric. Piracicaba 29:23-29

93. Mallet, J. L. B., Jackson, D. A.. 1980.The ecology and social behaviour of theNeotropical butterfly Heliconius xan-thocles Bates in Colombia. Zool. J.Linn. Soc. 69: In press

94. Merian, M. S. 1705. Metamorphosisln-sectorum Surinamensiz Amstelo-damum: (3. Valk. 60 pp. (60 plates)

95. Michael, O. 1912. Ueber die Le-benweise der Heliconiden. Fauna Exot.2:8, 10-19, 21-22

96. Michael, O. 1926. Betraehtungen iiberdie Nymphaliden der Amazonasebeneund der angrenzenden Teile der an-dinen Region. I. Teih Die Heliconidenund Acraeiden. Entornol. Z. 39:185-94

97. Michener, C. D. 1942. A generic revi-sion of the Heliconiinae (Lepidoptera,Nymphalidae). Am. Mus. Novit. 1197:1-8

98. Moss, A. M. 1933. The gregarioussleeping habits of certain Ithomiine andHeliconine butterflies in Brazil. Proc. R.Entomol. Soc. London 7:66-67

99. Moulton, J. 1909. On some of the prin-cipal mimetic (Miillerian) combinationsof tropical American butterflies. Trans.R. Entomol. Soc. London 1908:585-606

100. Miiller, F. 1877. Die Maracuj~ifalter.Stettin. Entomol. Ztg. 38:492-96

101. Miiller, F. 1877. Beobachtungen anbrasilianischen Schmetterlinge. I-2. DieDuftsehuppen der m~innlichenMaracujb.falter. Kosrnos Stuttgart 1:391-95

102. Miiller, F. 1877-78. Beobachtungen anbrasilianischen Sehmetterlinge. II. Dieduftschuppen des m~innchens yon Dionevanillae. Kosmos Stuttgart 2:3842

103. Miiller, F. 1877-78. Acraea und dieMaracujfifalter als Raupen, Puppen undSchmetterlinge. Kosmos Stuttgart2:218-24

104. Miiller, F. 1878. Die Stinkktilbchen derweiblichen Maracuj~ifalter. Z. Wiss.Zool. Abt. A 30:167-70 (1 plate)

105. Miiller, W. 1886. SudamerikanischeNymphalidenraupen. Versueh einesnaturlichen Systems der Nymphalidae.Zool. Jahrb. 1:417-678 (4 plates)

106. Muyshondt, A., Young, A. M., Muy-shondt, A. Jr. 1973. The biology of thebutterfly Dione juno huascama in ElSalvador. J. NY Entomol. Soc.81:137-51

107. Neustetter, H. 1929. Nymphalididae:subfam. Heliconiinae. Lepid. Cat. 36:1-136

108. Neville, A. C. 1977. Metallic gold and


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



silver colours in some insect cuticles. J.Insect Physiol. 23:1267-74

109. O’Byrne, H. 1932. On the migrationand breeding of Dione vanillae in Mis-souri. Entomol. News 43:97-99

110. Papageorgis, C. 1975. Mimicry in Neo-tropical butterflies. Am. Sci. 63:522-32

111. Petiver, J. 1702-11. Gazophylacii Natu-rae et Artis. London: Bateman

112. Poulton, E. B. 1931. The gregarioussleeping habits of Heliconius chari-tonius, L. Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. Lon-don 6:4-10

113. Randolph, V. 1927. On the seasonal mi-grations of Dione vanillae in Kansas.Ann. Entornol. Soc. Am. 20:242-44

114. Schiimpedi, R. A. 1975. Monocularand binocular visual fields of butterflyinterneurons in response to white- andcoloured-light stimulation. ,/.. Comp.Physiol. 103:273-89

115. Sheppard, P. M. 1963. Some geneticstudies on Miillerian mimics in butter-flies of the genus Heliconiuz ZoologicaNY 48:145-54

116. Smiley, J. T. 1978. The host plantecology of Heliconius butterflies innortheastern Costa Rica. PhD thesis.Univ. Texas, Austin

117. Smiley, J. T. 1978. Plant chemistry andthe evolution of host specificity: new ev-idence from Heliconius and Passiflora.Science 201:745--47

118. Stichel, H. 1903. Synonymisches Ver-zeichnis bekannter Eueides-Formenmit erliiuternden Bemerkungen undNeubeschreibungen. Berl. Entomol. Z.48:1-34

119. Stichel, H. 1906. Lepidoptera, ram.Nymphalidae, subfam. Heliconiinae. InGenera lnsectorum, ed. P. Wytsman,37:1-74 (6 plates)

120. Stichel, H. 1938. Nymphalidae: subfam.Dioniinae, Anetiinae, Apaturinae.Lepid. Cat. 86:1-374

121. Stichel, H., Riffarth, H. 1905. Heliconii-dae. Das Tierreich, 22:1-290. Berlin: R.Friedlander

122. Strnwe, G. 1972. Spectral sensitivity ofthe compound eye in butterflies(Heliconius). J. Comp. Physiol. 79:191-96

123. Struwe, G. 1972. Spectral sensitivity ofsingle photoreceptors in the compoundeye of a tropical butterfly (Heliconiusnumata). J. Comp. Physiol. 79:197-201

124. Suomalainen, E., Cook, L. M., Turner,J. R. G. 1971. Chromosome numbers ofheliconiine butterflies from Trinidad,West Indies (Lepidoptera, Nym-phalidae). Zoologica NY 56:121-24

125. Suomalainen, E., Cook, L. M., Turner,J. R. G. 1973. Achiasmatie oogenesis inthe heliconiine butterflies. Hereditas74:302-4

126. Swihart, C. A. 1971. Colour discrimina-tion by the butterfly Heliconiuscharitonius Linn. Anim. Behav. 19:156-64

127. Swihart, C. A., Swihart, S. L. 1970. Co-lour selection and learned feedin~ pref-erences in the butterfly, Heliconiuscharitonius Linn. Anita. Behav. 18:

128. Swihart, S. L. 1963. The electroretino-gram of H¢liconius erato and its possi-ble relation to established behavior pat-terns. Zoologica NY 48:155-65

129. Swihart, S. L. 1964. The nature of theeleetroretinogram of a tropical but-terfly. J. lnsect Physiol. 10:547-62

130. Swihart, S. L. 1965. Evoked potentialsin the visual pathway of Heliconiuserato. Zoologica NY 50:55-62

131. Swihart, S. L. 1967. Neural adaptationsin the visual pathway of certain Heli-coniine butterflies, and related forms, tovariations in wing coloration. ZoologicaNY 52:1-14

132. Swihart, S. L. 1967. Hearing in butter-flies (Heliconius, Ageronia). J. lnsectPhysiol. 13:469-76

133. Swihart, S. L. 1967. Maturation of thevisual mechanisms in the Neotropicalbutterfly, Heliconius sarae. J. lnsectPhysiol. 13:1679-88

134. Swihart, S. L. 1968. Single unit activityin the visual pathway of the butterflytteliconius erato. J. lnsect Physiol.14:1589-1601

135. Swihart, S. L. 1972. The neural basis ofcolor vision in the butterfly, 1-1eliconiuserato. J. lnsect Physiol. 18:1015-25

136. Swihart, S. L. 1972. Variability and thenature of the insect electroretinogram.J. lnsect Physiol. 18:1221-40

137. Swihart, S. L. 1973. Retinal duality inthe butterfly Heliconius charitonius. J.lnsect Physiol. 19:2035-51

138. Swihart, S. L. 1974. Acceptance anglesof butterfly ommatidia. J.. lnsectPhysiol. 20:1027-36

139. Swihart, S. L., Baust, J. G. 1965. Atechnique for the recording of bioelec-tric impulses from free-flying insects( Heliconius erato ). Zoologica 50:255-58

140. Turner, J. R. 13. 1965. Evolution ofcomplex polymorphism and mimicry indistasteful South American butterflies.Proc. 12th lnt. Congr. Entomol, Lon-don, 1964, p. 267


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


456 BROWN

141. Turner, J. R. G. 1966. A rare mimeticHeliconiu~ Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. Lon-don Ser. B 35:128-32

142. Turner, J. R. 13. 1967. A little-recog-nized species of Heliconius butterfly. J.Res. Lepid. 5:97-112

143. Turner, J. R. G. 1967. Some earlyworks on heliconiine butterflies andtheir biology (Lepidoptera, Nym-phalidae). J. Linn. Soc. London Zool.46:255-66

144. Turner, J. R. G. 1968. Natural selectionfor and against a polymorphism whichinteracts with sex. Evolution 22:481-95

145. Turner, J. R. 13. 1968. Some newHeliconius pupae: their taxonomic andevolutionary significance in relation tomimicry. J. Zool. 155:311-25

146. Turner, J. R. 13. 1970. Mimicry: a studyin behaviour, genetics, ecology and bio-chemistry. Sci. Progr. Oxford 58:219-35

147. Turner, J. R. 13. 1971. Experiments onthe demography of tropical butterflies.II. Longevity and home-range behav-iour in Heliconius erato. Biotropica3:21-31

148. Turner, J. R. 13. 1971. Two thousandgenerations of hybridization in aHeliconius butterfly. Evolution 25:471-82

149. Turner, J. R. G. 1971. Studies of Miil-lerian mimicry and its evolution in Bur-net moths and Heliconid butterflies. InEcological Genetics and Evolution, ed.E. R. Creed, pp. 224-60. Oxford: Black-well

150.Turner, J. R. 13. 1972. The genetics ofsome polymorphic forms of the butter-flies Heliconius melpomene (Linnaeus)and H. erato (Linnaeus). II. The hy-bridization of subspecies of H. melpo-mene from Suriname and Trinidad.Zoologica NY 56:125-57

151. Turner, J. R. 13. 1974. BreedingHeliconius in a temperate climate. J..Lepid. Soc. 28:26-33

152. Turner, J. R. G. 1975. Communalroosting in relation to warning colour intwo heliconiine butterflies (Nym-phalidae). J. Lepid. Soc. 29:221-26

153. Turner, J. R. 13. 1976. Muellerian mim-icry: classical "beanbag" evolution andthe role of ecological islands in adaptiverace formation. In Population Geneticsand Ecology, ed. S. Karlin, E. Nevo, pp.185-218. New York: Academic

154. Turner, J. R. G. 1976. Adaptive radia-tion and convergence in subdivisions ofthe butterfly genus Heliconius. ZooL J.Linn. Soc. 58:297-308

155. Turner, J. R. G. 1977..4 bibliography ofHeliconius and the related genera.Stony Brook, NY: SUNY-StonyBrook, Progr. Ecol. Evol., Contrib. 151.21 pp.

156. Turner, J. R. 13. 1977. Forest refugesand ecological islands: disorderly ex-tinction and the adaptive radiation ofmuellerian mimics. See Ref. 30, pp. 98-117

157. Turner, J. R. G. 1978. Butterfly mim-icry: the genetieal evolution of an adap-tation. In Evolutionary Biology, ed. M.K. Hecht, W. C. Steere, B. Wallace,10:163-206. New York: Plenum

158. Turner, J. R. G., Crane, J. 1962. Thegenetics of some polymorphie forms ofthe butterflies Heliconius melpomeneLinnaeus and H. erato Linnaeus. I. Ma-jor genes. Zoologica NY 47:141-52

159. Turner, J. R. G., Johnson, M. S., Eanes,W. F. 1979. Contrasted modes of evolu-tion in the same genome: allozymes andadaptive change in Heliconiu~ Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76:1924-28

160. Turner, J. R. G., Sheppard, P. M. 1975.Absence of crossing over in female but-terflies ( Heliconius ). Heredity 34:265-69

161. Vane-Wright, R. I., Aekery, P. R.,Smiles, R. L. 1975. The distribution,polymorphism and mimicry ofHeliconius telesiphe (Doubleday) andthe species of Podotricha Michener.Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. London 126:611-36 (1 plate)

162. Wesley, D. J., Emmel, T. C. 1975. Thechromosomes of Neotropical butterfliesfrom Trinidad and Tobago. Biotropica7:24-31

163. Young, A. M. 1973. Notes on thebiology of the butterfly Heliconiuscydno in Costa Rica. Wasmann J. Biol.31:337-50

164. Young, A. M. 1975. Observations onthe hfe cycle of Heliconius hecalezuleika (Hewitson) in Costa Rica. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 51:76-85

165. Young, A. M. 1978. Spatial propertiesof niche separation among Eueides andDryas butterflies in Costa Rica. J NYEntomol. Soc. 86:2-19

166. Young, A. M., Carolan, M. E. 1976.Daily instability of communal roostingin the neotropical butterfly Heliconiuscharitonius. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc.49:346-59

167. Young, A. M., Thomason, J. H. 1975.Notes on communal roosting ofHeliconius charitonius in Costa Rica. J.Lepid. Soc. 29:243-55


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

ntom

ol. 1

981.

26:4

27-4

57. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

Col

lege

Lon

don

on 0

6/29

/06.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Date post:	24-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The Biology of Heliconius and Related Genera · TRENDS AND RESULTS IN MODERN RESEARCH Descriptive...

Documents