CORRELATIONS OF THE POSITION OF CENTER OF BODY MASS WITH BUTTERFLY ESCAPE TACTICS

Using the evolution of neotropical butterflies as a natural experiment, we examine Ellington9s biomechanical hypothesis that the position of center of body mass affects insect maneuverability. We find that the position of center of body mass is correlated with the butterflies9 palatability, natural flight speeds and their ability to evade predators in a small cage. Relative to distasteful species, palatable butterflies fly faster and maneuver more successfully to evade attacks from aerial predators. The large thorax and short abdomen of palatable species position the center of body mass near to the wing base, whereas the mass allocation and body shape of distasteful butterflies position center of body mass further posteriorly. The position of center of body mass is an important indicator of flight performance, including both aerial maneuverability and flight speed, that warrants incorporation into future studies of invertebrate and vertebrate flight.

[1]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[2]  W. Kenchington.  Animal mechanics , 1950, Nature.

[3]  Robert E. Kenward,et al.  HAWKS AND DOVES: FACTORS AFFECTING SUCCESS AND SELECTION IN GOSHAWK ATTACKS ON WOODPIGEONS. , 1978 .

[4]  E. Kreighbaum,et al.  Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement , 1981 .

[5]  C. Ellington.  The Aerodynamics of Hovering Insect Flight. III. Kinematics , 1984 .

[6]  K. Schmidt-Nielsen,et al.  Scaling, why is animal size so important? , 1984 .

[7]  C. Ellington.  The Aerodynamics of Hovering Insect Flight. II. Morphological Parameters , 1984 .

[8]  C. Ellington.  The Aerodynamics of Hovering Insect Flight. VI. Lift and Power Requirements , 1984 .

[9]  F. Hainsworth.  Scaling: why is animal size so important? , 1985 .

[10]  U. Norberg,et al.  Evolutionary convergence in foraging niche and flight morphology in insectivorous aerial-hawking birds and bats , 1986 .

[11]  D. Roff.  THE EVOLUTION OF WING DIMORPHISM IN INSECTS , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[12]  J. Marden.  Maximum Lift Production During Takeoff in Flying Animals , 1987 .

[13]  J. Rayner,et al.  Ecological Morphology and Flight in Bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): Wing Adaptations, Flight Performance, Foraging Strategy and Echolocation , 1987 .

[14]  R. Wootton,et al.  WING SHAPE AND FLIGHT BEHAVIOUR IN BUTTERFLIES (LEPIDOPTERA: PAPILIONOIDEA AND HESPERIOIDEA): A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS , 1988 .

[15]  Colin J Pennycuick,et al.  Bird flight performance , 1989 .

[16]  J. Marden.  Bodybuilding Dragonflies: Costs and Benefits of Maximizing Flight Muscle , 1989, Physiological Zoology.

[17]  Robert Dudley,et al.  Biomechanics of Flight in Neotropical Butterflies: Morphometrics and Kinematics , 1990 .

[18]  R. Dudley,et al.  Morphometrics, Airspeed, Thermoregulation, and Lipid Reserves of Migrating Urania fulgens (Uraniidae) Moths in Natural Free Flight , 1990, Physiological Zoology.

[19]  R. B. Srygley,et al.  Predation and the Flight, Morphology, and Temperature of Neotropical Rain-Forest Butterflies , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[20]  R. B. Srygley,et al.  Predation and the Elevation of Thoracic Temperature in Brightly Colored Neotropical Butterflies , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[21]  C. Ellington.  Limitations on Animal Flight Performance , 1991 .

[22]  M. Pagel,et al.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1991 .

[23]  James H. Marden,et al.  Aerial Predation and Butterfly Design: How Palatability, Mimicry, and the Need for Evasive Flight Constrain Mass Allocation , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[24]  R. Dudley.  Biomechanics of Flight in Neotropical Butterflies: Aerodynamics and Mechanical Power Requirements , 1991 .