, Volume 1, Issue 3–4, pp 124–130

Responses of three mouse species to deterrent chemicals in the monarch butterfly. II. Taste tests using intact monarchs

  • John I. Glendinning
Research papers


Peromyscus melanotis is the only one of three mouse species that eats monarch butterflies at their overwintering sites in Mexico. I tested two hypotheses: 1)P. aztecus avoids monarchs because of a bitter taste aversion to cardiac glycosides (CGs) and an inability to reject CG-rich body parts; 2)Reithrodontomys sumichrasti avoids monarchs principally because of a bitter taste aversion to the CGs. None of the species are sensitive to the toxic effects of ingested CGs. Feeding responses of laboratory-reared mice of each species to monarchs with low, medium and high CG concentrations were compared. BothP. aztecus andR. sumichrasti ate significantly fewer of all three types of monarchs thanP. melanotis. ForP. aztecus andR. sumichrasti, the number of monarchs eaten decreased with increasing CG concentration, whereas forP. melanotis, the number remained constant.Peromyscus melanotis andR. sumichrasti developed a feeding technique for rejecting the CG-laden cuticular material, which reduced the bitterness of ingested monarch material. However,R. sumichrasti displayed the technique significantly less often thanP. melanotis; andP. aztecus never developed it. I conclude that high taste sensitivity to CGs and less versatile food handling preventP. aztecus andR. sumichrasti from overcoming the monarch's chemical defenses.

Key words

taste aversion chemical defense predatory attack patterns insectivory cardiac glycosides cardenolides Mammalia Muridae Peromyscus Reithrodontomys Lepidoptera Danainae Danaus plexippus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alonso-M A, Glendinning JI, Brower LP (1991) The influence of temperature on crawling, shivering and flying in overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico. In pressin Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (eds) Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Natural History MuseumGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson SB, Borell AE (1931) Notes on the life history of the red tree mouse,Phenacomys longicaudus. J Mamm 12:226–233Google Scholar
  3. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1987) The evolution of deterrent responses in plant-feeding insects. Pp 159–173in RF Chapman, Bernays EA & Stoffolano JG Jr (eds) The Evolution of Deterrent Responses in Plant-feeding Insects. New York: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyden TC (1976) Butterfly palatability and mimicry experiments withAmeiva lizards. Evolution 30:73–81Google Scholar
  5. Brower LP, Horner BE, Marty MM, Moffit CM, Villa-RB (1985) Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus, P. spicilegus, andMicrotus mexicanus) as predators of overwintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) in Mexico. Biotropica 17:89–99Google Scholar
  6. Brower LP, Fink LS (1985) A natural toxic defense system: cardenolides in butterfliesversus birds. Ann NY Acas Sci 443:171–186Google Scholar
  7. Brower LP, Nelson CJ, Fink LS, Seiber JN, Bond C (1988) Exaptation as an alternative to coevolution in the cardenolide-based chemical defense of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) against avian predators. Pp 447–476in Spencer KC (ed) Chemical Mediation of Coevolution. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown KS Jr (1984) Adult-obtained pyrrolizidine alkaloids defend ithomiine butterflies against a predator. Nature 309:707–709Google Scholar
  9. Calvert WH, Brower LP (1986) The location of monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus L.) overwintering colonies in Mexico in relation to topography and climate. J Lepid Soc 40:164–187Google Scholar
  10. Chapman RF, Bernays EA (1989) Insect behavior at the leaf surface and learning as aspects of hostplant selection. Experientia 45:215–222Google Scholar
  11. Daly M, Rauschenberger J, Behrends P (1982) Food aversion learning in kangaroo rats: a specialist-generalist comparison. Anim Learn & Behav 10:314–320Google Scholar
  12. Eisner T (1970) Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. Pp 157–217in Soundheimer E Simeone JB (eds) Chemical Ecology. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Fink LS, Brower LP (1981) Predation of unpalatable butterflies. Nature 291:7–13Google Scholar
  14. Franzl S, Naumann CM, Nahrstedt A (1988) Cyanoglucoside storing cuticle ofZygaena larvae (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Zoomorphology 108:183–190Google Scholar
  15. Garcia J, Hankins WG, Rusiniak KW (1974) Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat. Science 185:824–831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner RJ (1978) Lipophilicity and bitter taste. J Pharm Pharmac 30:531–532Google Scholar
  17. Gardner RJ (1979) Lipophilicity and the perception of bitterness. Chem Senses and Flav 4:275–286Google Scholar
  18. Glendinning JI (1989) Comparative responses of five sympatric species of mice to overwintering colonies of monarch butterflies in Mexico. PhD Dissertation. University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  19. Glendinning JI (1991) Comparative feeding responses of the micePeromyscus melanotis, P. aztecus, Reithrodontomys sumichrasti, andMicrotus mexicanus to overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico. In pressin Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (eds) Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Natural History MuseumGoogle Scholar
  20. Glendinning JI, Brower LP (1990) Feeding and breeding responses of five mice species to overwintering aggregations of the monarch butterfly. J Anim Ecol 59:1091–1112Google Scholar
  21. Glendinning JI, Brower LP, Montgomery CA (1990) Responses of three mouse species to deterrent chemicals in the monarch butterfly. I. Taste and toxicity tests using artificial diets laced with digitoxin or monocrotaline. Chemoecology 1:114–123Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton WJ (1962) Reproductive adaptations of the red tree mouse. J Mamm 43:486–504Google Scholar
  23. Järvi T, Sillén B, Wiklund C (1981) The cost of being aposematic: an experimental study of predation on larvae ofPapilio machaon by the great titParus major. Oikos 36:267–272Google Scholar
  24. Kelley RB, Seiber JN, Jones HJ, Segall HJ, Brower LP (1987) Pyrrolizidine alkaloids in overwintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) from Mexico. Experientia 43:943–946Google Scholar
  25. Kenagy GJ (1972) Saltbush leaves: excision of hypersaline tissue by a kangaroo rat. Science 178:1094–1096Google Scholar
  26. Landry SO, Jr (1970) The Rodentia as omnivores. Quart Rev Biol 45:351–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Langley WM (1987) Specializations in the predatory behavior of grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster andO. torridus): a comparison with the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus). J Comp Psychol 101:322–327Google Scholar
  28. Malcolm SB, Brower LP (1989) Evolutionary and ecological implications of cardenolide sequestration in the monarch butterfly. Experientia 45:284–294Google Scholar
  29. Malcolm SB, Cockrell BJ, Brower LP (1989) Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch butterflies reared on the common milkweed,Asclepias syriaca L. J Chem Ecol 15:819–853Google Scholar
  30. Malcolm SB (1990a) Mimicry: status of a classical evolutionary paradigm. Trends Ecol Evol 5:57–62Google Scholar
  31. Malcolm SB (1990b) Chemical defense in chewing and sucking insect herbivores: plant-derived cardenolides in the monarch butterfly and oleander aphid. Chemoecology 1:12–21Google Scholar
  32. Marty MM (1983) Disposition and metabolism of milkweed (Asclepiadaceae) cardenolides in monarch butterfly larvae,Danaus plexippus, and in a predator,Peromyscus maniculatus. PhD Dissertation. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicolaus LK (1987) Conditioned aversions in a guild of egg predators: implications for aposematism and prey defense mimicry. Amer Midl Natur 117:405–419Google Scholar
  34. Redford KH (1984) Mammalian predation on termites: tests with the burrowing mouse (Oxymycterus roberti) and its prey. Oecologia 65:145–152Google Scholar
  35. Roeske CN, Seiber JN, Brower LP, Moffit CM (1976) Milkweed cardenolides and their comparative processing by monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.). Recent Adv Phytochem 10:93–167Google Scholar
  36. Rothschild M, Kellet DN (1972) Reactions of various predators to insects storing heart poisons (cardiac glycosides) in their tissues. J Entomol 46:103–110Google Scholar
  37. Seiber JN, Brower LP, Lee SM, McChesney MM, Cheung HTA, Nelson CJ, Watson TR (1986) Cardenolide connection between overwintering monarch butterflies from Mexico and their larval food plant,Asclepias syriaca. J Chem Ecol 12:1157–1170Google Scholar
  38. Sillén-Tullberg B, Wiklund C, Järvi T (1982) Aposematic coloration in adults and larvae ofLygaeus equestris and its bearing on Müllerian mimicry: an experimental study on predation on living bugs by the great titParus major. Oikos 39:131–136Google Scholar
  39. Sorensen AE (1983) Taste aversion and frugivore preference. Oecologia 56:117–130Google Scholar
  40. Timberlake W, Washburne DL (1989) Feeding ecology and laboratory predatory behavior toward live and artificial moving prey in seven rodent species. Anim Learn & Behav 17:2–11Google Scholar
  41. Tyler VE, Brady LR, Robbers JE (1988) Pharmacognosy, 9th edition. Philadelphia: Lea & FebigerGoogle Scholar
  42. Wcislo WT (1989) Behavioral environments and evolutionary change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:137–169Google Scholar
  43. West-Eberhard MJ (1989) Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of deversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:249–278Google Scholar
  44. Wiklund C, Järvi T (1982) Survival of distasteful insects after being attakked by naive birds: a reappraisal of the theory of aposematic coloration evolving through individual selection. Evolution 36:998–1002Google Scholar
  45. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, IncGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • John I. Glendinning
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations