Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'll take this one. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the wait, suddenly had little time. Now back. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some hanging single sentences, one in the intro and one in the following section, could they be merged with the adjacent paragraphs?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Marine molluscs such as sea hares, cuttlefish, squid and octopuses give themselves a last chance to escape" followed by: "In response to a predator, these animals release ink" Do all the groups listed do this?

Yes, they all do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "a third living organism" Isn't living redundant here?

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are two classical types of defensive mimicry: Batesian and Mullerian. Both involve aposematic coloring, or warning signals, to avoid being attacked by a predator." Needs citation.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "This effect explains why animals seek central positions in a group." Needs citation.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are inconsistent in your use of the umlaut in Müllerian.

Well spotted, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps mention that porcupine/hedgehog spines are modified hairs?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "An example of this may perhaps be seen in the zebra." The uncertainty about stripe function could maybe be better conveyed by saying "may be seen in the zebra according to one theory" or some such.

Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope " mechanisms developed through evolution that assist prey organisms in their constant struggle against predators" seems rather broad, so I have thought of some things that seem to be absent but fall within the scope.

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd expect venom to be within the scope of this article?

Added more on poisonous chemicals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gliding also seems to have evolved several times to avoid predators, isn't it within the scope as well? Perhaps could be covered under a section about escape by locomotion in general, which isn't really covered either.

Good catch, all the books focus on the interesting special cases, but of course flight (running away) is a basic mechanism. Added a section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about warning sounds? Mentioned a few places in the articles, but it could maybe warrant its own section?

Added Alarm calls section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some features get multiparagraph explanations, while others only get a single. I'd expect it to be more balanced, as more could surely be written about these? Some features are explained by several examples, while others get few, which seems a bit arbitrary.

The goal is one paragraph per topic; occasionally a little more has seemed necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some species of octopus can mimic a selection of other animals by changing their skin color, skin pattern and body motion. When a damselfish attacks an octopus, the octopus mimics a banded sea-snake.[42] The model chosen varies with the octopus's predator and habitat.[43] Most of these octopuses use Batesian mimicry, selecting an organism repulsive to predators as a model.[44][45]" Doesn't this make more sense under camouflage?

It's mimicry, generally of dangerous animals (like snakes); it is indeed a disguise (all mimicry is), but it's not cryptic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what I meant is that it now seems a bit misplaced under chemical defence, though chemicals are somehow involved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Ah, I see, done. In fact, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, so passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]