A species of British moth uses cyanide-based toxins and bright red spots to warn off predators, new research suggests.
Burnet moths, which are found in many parts of the UK including Cornwall, have a natural variation in their wing markings and scientists wanted to see whether that gave an indication of how toxic an individual moth might be.
While smaller and paler red forewing markings were associated with more cyanide in females, size and brightness of wing colour were no guide to cyanide levels in males.
Scientists at the University of Exeter examined the wings of six-spot burnet moths using a model that can detect ultraviolet light, which is invisible to human eyes but visible to many of the birds that prey on moths.
“Many animals use aposematism (warning colouration) to tell predators it would be better to find lunch elsewhere,” said study author Emmanuelle Briolat, of the University of Exeter.
“Such warning signals are generally ‘honest’ overall – meaning the markings genuinely indicate poison.
“However, it’s less clear whether individuals within species vary in their markings according to how much poison they have.
“In the case of burnet moths, the weak correlations we found suggests the evolutionary pressures are more complex than simply driving colours to match toxicity levels.”
One reason burnet moths may not advertise how poisonous they are individually is that potential predators need no extra warning to leave them alone.
“These moths are highly avoided,” Ms Briolat said.
“There have been reports of burnet moths being eaten by several species of birds, but these instances are rare, and most of the volunteers and researchers we worked with have never seen anything eat one.
“If the moths’ defences are very potent, and predators have a strong incentive to avoid them, there may be little evolutionary pressure for the moths to provide more detailed information on the exact levels of toxins.”
– The study, Sex differences but no evidence of quantitative honesty in the warning signals of six-spot burnet moths, is published in the journal Evolution.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here