# Talk:Mimicry in plants

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vitalityegg.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The photo of Lobelia cardinalis is confusing. What is it mimicking? Moreover, the statement that this species attracts hummingbirds without producing nectar is simply wrong. See: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2425970# 98.192.193.83 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It was reliably verifiable in 1981 ... the paper you cite does seem to disprove this, though almost in passing as it doesn't mention the 'attracts without nectar' hypothesis. What would it be mimicking? A juicy nectar-producer, i.e. itself (a form of automimicry, a known thing). Guess we'll have to replace the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Leaf mimicry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7 § Leaf mimicry until a consensus is reached.  Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The following content is incorrectly placed under "Gilbertian mimicry" and improperly claims "Gilbertian mimicry" 

Some plants mimic the presence of insect eggs on their leaves, dissuading insect species from laying their eggs there. Because female butterflies are less likely to lay their eggs on plants that already have butterfly eggs, some species of neotropical vines of the genus Passiflora (passion flowers) make use of Gilbertian mimicry: they possess physical structures resembling the yellow eggs of Heliconius butterflies on their leaves, which discourage oviposition by butterflies.
Source is

Williams, Kathy S.; Lawrence E. Gilbert (April 1981). "Insects as selective agents on plant vegetative morphology: egg mimicry reduces egg-laying by butterflies". Science. 212 (4493): 467–469. Bibcode:1981Sci...212..467W. doi:10.1126/science.212.4493.467. PMID 17802547. S2CID 35244996.
The source uses the term "egg mimicry". It never says Gilbertian. Of course the work is by Gilbert, but a secondary source should attest to the "Gilbertian". 
The structural issue is that by attempting to organize every single mimic to a Type we lose clarity for readers. It's not necessary or helpful to enforce this. The egg-mimic content would nicely fit with the other cryptic contents. @Chiswick Chap Johnjbarton (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We can move it to Batesian, which it certainly is, a far wider class than Gilbertian. I am not going to remove all the article's sub-headings or we'll simply have chaos. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Source does not call it Batesian either. It is called egg mimicry in the source. That is the section it belongs in according to the only source we have.
I am not advocating removing any subheadings, I agree that's crazy. The Types are fine. But all of the content on mimicry does not need to live at the bottom of the tree of types. A characterization, a key example: short focused subsections will make the point for readers better than a forest of examples. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm very busy and missed the obvious point, which is that this is actually the classic case of Gilbertian mimicry, and I already cited it to 2 independent RS (as well as to Gilbert, who of course didn't name it as such), so I've put it back where it belongs and repeated the two citations. Thanks for agreeing not to remove subheadings. Personally when I have subheadings I use them for the material; in this case, the Gilbertian material very clearly belongs down there. No doubt there are other styles of writing and organizing articles but this one is good and serviceable and I'm not going to change it on stylistic grounds, and not just because I'm extremely busy just now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree that Gilbert's own work belongs there when identified as part of the types as you did. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)