Lev-Yadun Simcha
a Department of Biology & Environment, Faculty of Natural Sciences , University of Haifa - Oranim , Tivon , Israel.
b Iyar - The Israeli Institute for Advanced Studies , Lod , Israel.
Plant Signal Behav. 2018;13(6):e1480846. doi: 10.1080/15592324.2018.1480846. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
Müllerian and Batesian mimicry were originally defined in defensive (anti-predetory) animal systems. Later these terms were adopted by botanists studying pollination that defined rewarding flowers as Müllerian mimics and rewardless flowers as Batesian mimics. The use of these terms concerning pollination predated our recent understanding of how common plant aposematism is and the related defensive Müllerian and Batesian mimicry types. Being non-defensive, using the terms Müllerian and Batesian mimicry for rewarding/rewardless flowers is, however, confusing if not misleading, and is also logically inappropriate. I suggest to first stop using the terms Batesian and Müllerian mimicry concerning rewarding/rewardless flowers and pollination, and second, to define the guild of flowers that reward pollinatiors as Darwinian mimics and those that do not reward pollinators as Wallacian mimics.
缪勒拟态和贝氏拟态最初是在防御性（反捕食）动物系统中定义的。后来，研究授粉的植物学家采用了这些术语，将有回报的花定义为缪勒拟态，无回报的花定义为贝氏拟态。这些关于授粉的术语的使用早于我们最近对常见植物警戒色以及相关防御性缪勒拟态和贝氏拟态类型的理解。然而，由于无回报的花不具有防御性，将缪勒拟态和贝氏拟态这两个术语用于有回报/无回报的花，即便不会产生误导，也容易造成混淆，而且在逻辑上也不合适。我建议，首先停止将贝氏拟态和缪勒拟态这两个术语用于有回报/无回报的花及授粉，其次，将回报传粉者的花群定义为达尔文拟态，不回报传粉者的花群定义为华莱士拟态。
