What is Animal Behaviour?

[@Renoroc]

Such a great series I love it!

[@DocBrownsZoologyVids]

thanks so much for your support! there are more episodes to come

[@antonyrobinson46]

totaly cool ive caught up with you again

[@Denneth_D.]

I see this a reupload of the Animal Behaviour series on your other channel
Nice to unify all of your content in one place.

[@b43xoit]

Link to the other channel?

[@Denneth_D.]

@@b43xoit youtube.com/@DocBrownsAnimalBehaviour

[@b43xoit]

@@Denneth_D. Thanks.

[@Denneth_D.]

@@b43xoit no problem kind stranger

[@antimatterhorn]

5:12 how though does toxicity become fixed in the population if the first toxic mutant dies? since toxicity most likely has some metabolic cost, it needs to confer an advantage from the start to become fixed in the population, but if the first mutation creates a slightly toxic butterfly that is just eaten, it didn't provide an advantage for him, and even if he reproduced beforehand, there's really only a cost for his offspring since the phenotypic behaviors of "toxic avoidance" in its predators hasn't coevolved yet. it sounds like you're suggesting warning signals and toxicity must evolve together, which seems like a hard coincidence to come about.

[@morgan0]

i’d guess that the reason is changes are slow and small usually, and siblings usually have similar genes, especially with r selection. so one might die, saving their siblings who are similar, who then pass on the similar genes. in this case it’s a mutation in parents that is tested for fitness in their offspring rather than in the original individual.

[@toddberkely6791]

the mutation keeps arising until predators adapt. toxicity isnt useful until predator behaviour changes.

[@antimatterhorn]

@@toddberkely6791 that sounds right. the mutation could have a high chance of arising multiple times due to other factors of the prey's biology (like eating toxic foods), and only becomes fixed in the population once the predator has evolved the avoidance behavior. then at that point, mutations that amplify toxicity can start to evolve quite rapidly.

[@tdpay9015]

@@antimatterhorn Monarchs feed from the milkweed plant, which is poisonous to most other creatures. So you've got it backwards -- the butterfly didn't try to be poisonous, it IS poisonous to predators.

[@antimatterhorn]

@@tdpay9015 eating toxic food (and becoming toxic yourself) requires a gene mutation to metabolize that toxin in a way that doesn't kill you. my question isn't altered by the fact that their diet provides the toxin that makes them toxic. it still requires a novel mutation that must then be fixed within the population. and since that's the case, it is still mysterious how that could happen if the first milkweed feeding butterfly just gets eaten, or if feeding on milkweed provides no discernible benefit (and only metabolic cost) before the predators learn to avoid eating those particular butterflies.
but toddberkely's response seems to hit on the right factor which is that the barrier to that mutation is low, and so it occurs repeatedly until the predator evolves an avoidance behavior.

[@Bc232klm]

First!

[@Tuna_the_shark]

21:36 or vent songs

[@chimponkoman]

First Love your vids

[@doppelpunkt]

Thirst

[@donatehilltop]

First

[@A3Kr0n]

No way. Not again!