Neotropical Entomology

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 39–47

Evidence for the Deflective Function of Eyespots in Wild Junonia evarete Cramer (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae)

Ecology, Behavior and Bionomics


Junonia evarete Cramer is a fast-flying butterfly that perches on the ground with wings opened exhibiting four eyespots close to wing borders. These eyespots presumably function either to intimidate predators, like insectivorous birds, or to deflect bird attacks to less vital parts of the body. We assessed the form, frequency, and location of beak marks on the wings of wild butterflies in central Brazil during two not consecutive years. We found that almost 50% of males and 80% of females bore signals of predator attacks (wing tears), most of them consisting of partially or totally V-shaped forms apparently produced by birds. Males were significantly less attacked and showed a lower proportion of attacks on eyespots than females, suggesting they are better to escape bird attacks. In contrast, females were heavily attacked on eyespots. Eyespot tears in females were higher (and significant different) than expected by chance, indicating that birds do attempt to reach the eyespots when striking on these butterflies. Other comparisons involving the proportion of tears directed or not directed to eyespots in males and females are presented and discussed.


Beak marks Cerrado escaping intimidation protective coloration 


  1. Berwaerts K, VanDick H, Aerts P (2002) Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Func Ecol 16:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blest AD (1957) The function of eyespot patterns in the Lepidoptera. Behaviour 11:209–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown KS Jr (1988) Mimicry, aposematism and crypsis in Neotropical Lepidoptera: the importance of dual signals. Bull Soc Zool France 113:83–101Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter GDH (1941) The relative frequency of beak marks on butterflies of different edibility to birds. Proc Zool Soc Lond (A) 111:223–231Google Scholar
  5. Chai P (1986) Field observation and feeding experiments on the responses of rufous-tailed jacamars (Galbula ruficauda) to free-flying butterflies in a tropical rainforest. Biol J Linn Soc 29:161–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels EV (2012) Seasonal wing colour plasticity varies dramatically between buckeye butterfly populations in different climatic zones. Ecol Entom 37:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeVries PJ (1987) The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton, XXII + 327p.Google Scholar
  8. DeVries PJ (2002) Differential wing toughness in distasteful and palatable butterflies: direct evidence supports unpalatable theory. Biotropica 34:176–181Google Scholar
  9. DeVries PJ (2003) Tough African models and weak mimics: new horizons in the evolution of bad taste. J Lepid Soc 57:235–238Google Scholar
  10. Edmunds M (1974) Defence in animals: a survey of anti-predator defences. Longmans, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrlich PR, Gilbert LE (1973) Population structure and dynamics of the tropical butterfly Heliconius ethilla. Biotropica 5:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Endler JA (1991) Interactions between predator and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies RB (eds) Behavioral ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 169–196Google Scholar
  13. Endler JA, Mappes J (2004) Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Am Nat 163:532–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill RI, Vaca JF (2004) Differential wing strength in Pierella butterflies (Nymphalidae, Satyrinae) supports the deflection hypothesis. Biotropica 36:362–370Google Scholar
  15. Ide J (2006) Sexual and seasonal differences in the frequency of beak marks on the wings of two Lethe butterflies. Ecol Res 21:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kodandaramaiah U, Vallin A, Wiklund C (2009) Fixed eyespot display in a butterfly thwarts attacking birds. Anim Behav 77:1415–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyytinen A, Brakefield PM, Mappes J (2003) Significance of butterfly eyespots as an anti-predator device in ground-based and aerial attacks. Oikos 100:372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lyytinen A, Brakefield PM, Lindström L, Mappes J (2004) Does predation maintain eyespot plasticity in Bicyclus anynana? Proc R Soc B 272:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marden JH, Chai P (1991) Aerial predation and butterfly design: how palatability, mimicry and the need for evasive flight constrain mass allocation. Am Nat 138:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merilaita S, Vallin A, Kodandaramaiah U, Dimitrova M, Ruuskanen S, Laaksonen T (2011) Number of eyespots and their intimidating effect on naive predators in the peacock butterfly. Behav Ecol 22:1326–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ohsaki N (1995) Preferential predation of female butterflies and the evolution of Batesian mimicry. Nature 378:173–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olofsson M, Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C (2010) Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings deflect bird attacks under low light intensities with UV wavelengths. PloS ONE 5:e10798PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olofsson M, Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Wiklund C (2011) Winter predation on two species of hibernating butterlies: monitoring rodent attacks with infrared cameras. Anim Behav 81:529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinheiro CEG (1996) Palatability and escaping ability in Neotropical butterflies: tests with wild Kingbirds (Tyrannus melancholicus, Tyrannidae). Biol J Linn Soc 59:351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinheiro CEG (2003) Does Müllerian mimicry work in nature? Experiments with butterflies and birds (Tyrannidae). Biotropica 35:356–364Google Scholar
  26. Pinheiro CEG (2007) Asynchrony in daily activity patterns of butterfly models and mimics. J Trop Ecol 23:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinheiro CEG (2011) On the evolution of warning coloration, Batesian and Müllerian mimicry in Neotropical butterflies: the role of jacamars (Galbulidae) and tyrant-flycatchers (Tyrannidae). J Avian Biol 42:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poulton EB (1890) The colour of animals, their meaning and use. Especially considered in the case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robbins RK (1980) The lycaenid false head hypothesis: historical review and quantitative analysis. J Lepid Soc 34:194–208Google Scholar
  30. Robbins RK (1981) The “false head” hypothesis: predation and wing pattern variation of lycaenid butterflies. Am Nat 118:770–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sargent TD (1976) Legion of night: the underwing moths. University of Massachussets Press, Amherst, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Srygley RB, Chai P (1990) Flight morphology of neotropical butterflies: palatability and distribution of mass to the thorax and abdomen. Oecologia 84:491–499Google Scholar
  33. Srygley RB, Dudley R (1993) Correlations of the position of center of body mass with butterfly escape tactics. J Exp Biol 174:155–166Google Scholar
  34. Stevens M (2005) The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biol Rev 80:573–588Google Scholar
  35. Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connoly Y, Troscianko T, Cuthill LC (2007) Field experiments on the effectiveness of eyespots as predator deterrents. Anim Behav 74:1215–1227Google Scholar
  36. Stevens M, Hardman CJ, Stubbins CL (2008) Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes “eyespots” effective antipredator signals. Behav Ecol 19:525–531Google Scholar
  37. Swynnerton CFM (1926) An investigation into the defences of butterflies of the genus Charaxes, p. 478–506. In: 3rd International Congress of Entomology (1925), ZürichGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas CD, Hill JK, Lewis OT (1998) Evolutionary consequences of habitat fragmentation in a localized butterfly. J Anim Ecol 67:485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tonner M, Novotny V, Leps J, Komarec S (1993) False head wing pattern of the Burmese junglequeen butterfly and the deception of avian predators. Biotropica 25:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C (2005) Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proc R Soc B 272:1203–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vlieger L, Brakefield PM (2007) The deflection hypothesis: eyespots on the margins of butterfly wings do not influence predation by lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 92:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wourms MK, Wasserman FE (1985) Butterfly wing markings are more advantageous during handling than during the initial strike of an avian predator. Evolution 39:845–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Depto de Zoologia, Instituto de BiologiaUniv de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrasil

Personalised recommendations