Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6110362 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2018.1480846 | DOI Listing |