Sending mixed signals: convergent iridescence and divergent chemical signals in sympatric sister-species of Amazonian butterflies

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Ledamoisel et al. examined the evolution of visual and chemical signals in closely related Morpho butterfly species to understand their role in species coexistence. Using an integrative, state-of-the-art approach combining spectrophotometry, visual modeling, and behavioral mate choice experiments, they quantified differences in wing iridescence and assessed its influence on mate preference in allopatry and sympatry. They also performed chemical analyses to determine whether sympatric species exhibit divergent chemical cues that may facilitate species recognition and mate discrimination. The authors found iridescent coloration to be similar in sympatric Morpho species. Furthermore, male mate choice experiments revealed that in sympatry, males fail to discriminate conspecific females based on coloration, reinforcing the idea that visual signal convergence is primarily driven by predation pressure. In contrast, the divergence of chemical signals among sympatric species suggests their potential role in facilitating species recognition and mate discrimination. The authors conclude that interactions between ecological pressures and signal evolution may shape species coexistence.

Strengths:

The study is well-designed and integrates multiple methodological approaches to provide a thorough assessment of signal evolution in the studied species. I appreciate the authors' careful consideration of multiple selective pressures and their combined influence on signal divergence and convergence. Additionally, the inclusion of both visual and chemical signals adds an interesting and valuable dimension to the study, enhancing its importance. Beyond butterflies, this research broadens our understanding of multimodal communication and signal evolution in the context of species coexistence.

Weaknesses:

(1) The broader significance of the findings needs to be better articulated. While the authors emphasize that comparing adaptive traits in sympatry and allopatry provides insights into selective processes shaping reproductive isolation and coexistence, it is unclear what key conceptual or theoretical questions are being addressed. Are these patterns expected under certain evolutionary scenarios? Have they been empirically demonstrated in other systems? The authors should explicitly state the overarching research question, incorporate some predictions, and better contextualize their findings within the existing literature. If the results challenge or support previous work, that should be highlighted to strengthen the study's importance in a broader context.

(2) The motivation for studying visual signals and mate choice in allopatric populations (i.e., at the intraspecific level) is not well articulated, leaving their role in the broader narrative unclear. In particular, the rationale behind experiments 1, 2, and 3 is not well defined, as the authors have not made a strong case for the need for these intraspecific comparisons in the introduction. This issue is further compounded by the authors' primary focus on signal evolution in sympatry throughout both the results and the discussion. For instance, the divergence of iridescence in allopatry is a potentially interesting result. But the authors have not discussed its implications.

Overall, given that the primary conclusions are based on results and analyses in sympatry, the role of allopatric populations in shaping these conclusions needs to be better integrated and justified. Without a stronger link between the comparative framework and the study's key takeaways, the use of allopatric populations feels somewhat peripheral rather than central to the study's aim. Since the primary conclusions remain valid even without the allopatric comparisons, their inclusion requires a clearer rationale.

(3) While the authors demonstrate that iridescence is indistinguishable to predators in sympatry, they overstate the role of predation in driving convergence. The present study does not experimentally demonstrate that iridescence in this species has a confusion effect or contributes to evasive mimicry. Alternatively, convergence could result from other selective forces, such as signal efficacy due to environmental conditions, rather than being solely driven by predation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study presents an investigation of the visual and chemical properties and mating behaviour in Morpho butterflies, aimed at addressing the nature of divergence between closely related species in sympatry. The study species consists of three subspecies of Morpho helenor (bristowi, theodorus, and helenor), and the conspecific Morpho achilles achilles. The authors postulate that whereas the iridescent blue signals of all (sub)species should function as a predator reduction signal (similar to aposematism) and therefore exhibit convergence, the same signals should indicate divergence if used as a mating signal, particularly in sympatric populations. They also assess chemical profiles among the species to assess the potential utility of scent in mediating species/sex discrimination.

The authors first used reflectance spectrometry to calculate hue, brightness, and chroma, plus two measures of "iridescence" (perhaps better phrased as angular dependence) in each (sub)species. This indicated the ubiquitous presence of sexual dimorphism in brightness (males brighter), which also appears to be the case for iridescence (Figure 3A-B). Analysis of these data also indicated that whereas there is evidence for divergence among subspecies in allopatry, the same evidence is lacking for species in sympatry (P = 0.084). This was supported further by visual modelling, which showed that both conspecifics and birds should be (theoretically) capable of perceiving the colour difference among allopatric populations of M. helenor, whereas the same is not true for the sympatric species.

The authors then conducted mate choice trials, first using live individuals and second using female dummies. The live experiments indicated the presence of assortative mating among the two subspecies of M. helenor (bristowi and theodorus). The dummy presentations indicated (a) bristowi males prefer conspecific wings, whereas theodorus have no preference, (b) bristowi males prefer the con(sub)specific colour pattern, (c) theodorus prefer the con(sub)specific iridescence when the pattern is manipulated to be similar among female dummies. A fourth experiment, using sympatric M. achilles and M. helenor, indicated no preference for conspecific female dummies. Finally, chemical analysis indicated substantial differences between these two species in putative pheromone compounds, and especially so in the males.

The authors conclude that the similarity of iridescence among species in sympatry is suggestive of convergence upon a common anti-predation signal. Despite some behavioural evidence in favour of colour (iridescence)-based mate discrimination, chemical differences between Achilles and Helenor are posed as more likely to function for species isolation than visual differences.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this manuscript, which presents a valiant attempt at studying visual, chemical and behavioural divergence in this iconic group of butterflies.

Major comments

My only major comment concerns the authors' favoured explanation for aposematism (or evasive mimicry) for convergence among species, which is based upon the you-can't-catch-me hypothesis first presented by Young 1971. Although there is supporting work showing that iridescent-like stimuli are more difficult to precisely localize by a range of viewers, most of the evidence as applied to the Morpho system is circumstantial, and I'm not certain that there is widespread acceptance of this hypothesis. Given that the present study deals with closely-related (sub)species, one alternative explanation - a "null" hypothesis of sorts - is for a lack of divergence (from a common starting point) as opposed to evolutionary convergence per se. in other words, two subspecies are likely to retain ancestral character states unless there is selection that causes them to diverge. I feel that the manuscript would benefit from a discussion of this alternative, if not others. Signalling to predators could very well be involved in constraining the extent of convergence, but this seems a little premature to state as an up-front conclusion of this work. There is also the result of a *dorsal* wing manipulation by Vieira-Silva et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13517), which seems difficult to reconcile in light of this explanation. Whereas this paper is cited by the authors, a more nuanced discussion of their experimental results would seem appropriate here.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors investigated differences in iridescence wing colouration of allopatric (geographically separated) and sympatric (coexisting) Morpho butterfly (sub)species. Their aim was to assess if iridescence wing colouration of Morpho (sub)species converged or diverged depending on coexistence and if iridescence wing colouration was involved in mating behaviour and reproductive isolation. The authors hypothesize that iridescence wing colouration of different (sub)species should converge in sympatry and diverge in allopatry. In sympatry, iridescence wing colouration can act as an effective antipredator defence with shared benefits if multiple (sub)species share the same colouration. However, shared wing colouration can have potential costs in terms of reproductive interference since wing colouration is often involved in mate recognition. If the benefits of a shared antipredator defence outweigh the costs of reproductive interference, iridescence wing colouration will show convergence and alternative mate recognition strategies might evolve, such as chemical mate recognition. In allopatry, iridescence wing colouration is expected to diverge due to adaptation to different local conditions and no alternative mate recognition is expected.

Strengths:

(1) Using allopatric and sympatric (sub)species that are closely related is a powerful way to test evolutionary hypotheses.

(2) By clearly defining iridescence and measuring colour spectra from a variety of angles, applying different methods, a very comprehensive dataset of iridescence wing colouration is achieved.

(3) By experimentally manipulating wing coloration patterns, the authors show visual mate recognition for M. h. bristowi and could, in theory, separate different visual aspects of colouration (patterns VS iridescence strength).

(4) Measurements of chemical profiles to investigate alternative mate recognition strategies in case of convergence of visual signals.

Weaknesses:

In my opinion, studies should be judged on the methods and data included, and not on additional measurements that could have been taken or additional treatments/species that should be included, since in most ecological and evolutionary studies, more measurements or treatments/species can always be included. However, studies do need to ensure appropriate replication and appropriate measurements to test their hypothesis AND support their conclusions. The current study failed to ensure appropriate replication, and in various cases, the results do not support the conclusions.

First, when using allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs to test evolutionary hypotheses, replication is important. Ideally, multiple allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs are compared to avoid outlier (sub)species or pairs that lead to biased conclusions. Unfortunately, the current study compares 1 allopatric and 1 sympatric (sub)species pair, hence having poor (no) replication on the level of allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs.

Second, chemical profiles were only measured for sympatric species and not for allopatric (sub)species, which limits the interpretation of this data. The allopatric (sub)species could have been measured as non-coexistence "control". If coexistence and convergence in wing colouration drives the evolution of alternative mate recognition signals, such alternative signals should not evolve/diverge for allopatric (sub)species where wing colouration is still a reliable mate recognition cue. More importantly, no details are provided on the quantification of butterfly chemical profiles, which is essential to understand such data. It is unclear how the chemical profiles were quantified and what data (concentrations, ratios, proportions) were used to perform NDMS and generate Figure 5 and the associated statistical tests.

Third, throughout the discussion, the authors mention that their results support natural selection by predators on iridescent wing colouration, without measuring natural selection by predators or any other measure related to predation. It is unclear by what predators any of the butterfly species are predated on at this point.

To continue on the interpretation of the data related to selection on specific traits by specific selection agents: This study did not measure any form of selection or any selection agent. Hence, it is not known if iridescent wing colouration is actually under selection by predators and/or mates, if maybe other selection agents are involved or if these traits converge due to genetic correlations with other traits under selection. For example, Iridescent colouration in ground beetles has functions as antipredator defence but also thermo- and water regulation. None of these issues are recognized or discussed.

Finally, some of the results are weakly supported by statistics or questionable methodology.

Most notably, the perception of the iridescence coloration of allopatric subspecies by bird visual systems. Although for females, means and errors (not indicated what exactly, SD, SE or CI) are clearly above the 1 JND line, for males, means are only slightly above this line and errors or CIs clearly overlap with the 1 JND line. Since there is no additional statistical support, higher means but overlap of SD, SE or CI with the baseline provides weak statistical support for differences.

Regarding the assortative mating experiment, the results are clearly driven by M. bristowi. For M. theodorus, females mate equally often with conspecifics (6 times) as with M. bristowi (5 times). For males, the ratio is slightly better (6 vs 3), but with such low numbers, I doubt this is statistically testable. Overall low mating for M. bristowi could indicate suboptimal experimental conditions, and hence results should be interpreted with care.

Regarding the wing manipulation experiment, M. theodorus does not show a preference when dummies with non-modified wings are presented and prefers non-modified dummies over modified dummies. This is acknowledged by the authors but not further discussed. Certainly, some control treatment for wing modification could have been added.

Overall, the fact that certain measurements only provide evidence for 1 of the 2 (sub)species (assortative mating, wing manipulation) or one sex of one of the species (bird visual systems) means overall interpretation and overgeneralization of the results to both allopatric or sympatric species should be done with care, and such nuances should ideally be discussed.

The aim of the authors, "to investigate the antagonistic effects of selective pressures generated by mate recognition and shared predation" has not been achieved, and the conclusions regarding this aim are not supported by the results. Nevertheless, the iridescence colour measurements are solid, and some of the behavioural experiments and chemical profile measurements seem to yield interesting results. The study would benefit from less overinterpretation of the results in the framework of predation and more careful consideration of methodological difficulties, statistical insecurities, and nuances in the results.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) The broader significance of the findings needs to be better articulated. While the authors emphasize that comparing adaptive traits in sympatry and allopatry provides insights into selective processes shaping reproductive isolation and coexistence, it is unclear what key conceptual or theoretical questions are being addressed. Are these patterns expected under certain evolutionary scenarios? Have they been empirically demonstrated in other systems? The authors should explicitly state the overarching research question, incorporate some predictions, and better contextualize their findings within the existing literature. If the results challenge or support previous work, that should be highlighted to strengthen the study's importance in a broader context.

We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We understand that the framing of the results and the discussion did not allow to highlight the broader significance of our findings. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will explicitly mention the theoretical questions asked and our hypotheses in the introduction, and better compare our results to pre-existing examples from the literature.

(2) The motivation for studying visual signals and mate choice in allopatric populations (i.e., at the intraspecific level) is not well articulated, leaving their role in the broader narrative unclear. In particular, the rationale behind experiments 1, 2, and 3 is not well defined, as the authors have not made a strong case for the need for these intraspecific comparisons in the introduction. This issue is further compounded by the authors' primary focus on signal evolution in sympatry throughout both the results and the discussion. For instance, the divergence of iridescence in allopatry is a potentially interesting result. But the authors have not discussed its implications.

Overall, given that the primary conclusions are based on results and analyses in sympatry, the role of allopatric populations in shaping these conclusions needs to be better integrated and justified.

Without a stronger link between the comparative framework and the study's key takeaways, the use of allopatric populations feels somewhat peripheral rather than central to the study's aim.

Since the primary conclusions remain valid even without the allopatric comparisons, their inclusion requires a clearer rationale.

We recognize that the current manuscript places more emphasis on the sympatric Morpho population, and that the analysis and the discussion of the results regarding the allopatric Morpho population were underdeveloped. In the revised version, we plan to address this by (1) developing the rationale behind the male choice experiments performed on the allopatric population. We will argue that intraspecific comparison helps identify the traits involved in mate preference within species (iridescent color and/or wing pattern) and that those results can be compared to the interspecific mate choice results to identify the traits involved in species recognition. To explain the relevance of the comparison with the allopatric population, we will also (2) strengthen expectations on the effect of species interactions on the evolution of traits and mate recognition in sympatric populations vs. allopatric populations.

(3) While the authors demonstrate that iridescence is indistinguishable to predators in sympatry, they overstate the role of predation in driving convergence. The present study does not experimentally demonstrate that iridescence in this species has a confusion effect or contributes to evasive mimicry. Alternatively, convergence could result from other selective forces, such as signal efficacy due to environmental conditions, rather than being solely driven by predation.

We acknowledge that this study neither demonstrates that iridescence contributes to evasive mimicry nor that predation is the driver of the convergence in iridescence. We will tone down the interpretation of the results in the discussion and state that predation is not the only selective pressure that could have promoted a convergent evolution of iridescence in sympatric species, although this observation is consistent with the evasive mimicry hypothesis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

My only major comment concerns the authors' favoured explanation for aposematism (or evasive mimicry) for convergence among species, which is based upon the you-can't-catch-me hypothesis first presented by Young 1971. Although there is supporting work showing that iridescent-like stimuli are more difficult to precisely localize by a range of viewers, most of the evidence as applied to the Morpho system is circumstantial, and I'm not certain that there is widespread acceptance of this hypothesis. Given that the present study deals with closely-related (sub)species, one alternative explanation - a "null" hypothesis of sorts - is for a lack of divergence (from a common starting point) as opposed to evolutionary convergence per se. in other words, two subspecies are likely to retain ancestral character states unless there is selection that causes them to diverge. I feel that the manuscript would benefit from a discussion of this alternative, if not others. Signalling to predators could very well be involved in constraining the extent of convergence, but this seems a little premature to state as an up-front conclusion of this work. There is also the result of a *dorsal* wing manipulation by Vieira-Silva et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13517), which seems difficult to reconcile in light of this explanation. Whereas this paper is cited by the authors, a more nuanced discussion of their experimental results would seem appropriate here.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the way iridescence convergence between sympatric species is discussed in our manuscript, which aligns with similar concerns raised by Reviewer 1. We will improve the discussion on the different evolutionary forces that could have favored this convergent iridescent signal in sympatry to bring more nuance to the discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

First, when using allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs to test evolutionary hypotheses, replication is important. Ideally, multiple allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs are compared to avoid outlier (sub)species or pairs that lead to biased conclusions. Unfortunately, the current study compares 1 allopatric and 1 sympatric (sub)species pair, hence having poor (no) replication on the level of allopatric and sympatric (sub)species pairs.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their constructive feedbacks. We agree that replication is important to test evolutionary hypotheses and that our study lacks replication for allopatric and sympatric Morpho populations. Ideally, one would require several allopatric and sympatric replicates pointing respectively toward divergence and convergence of Morpho iridescence to conclude on the effect of species interaction in trait evolution. Our study is a first attempt at answering this question, covering few Morpho populations but proposing a broad assessment of iridescence and mate preference for those populations. We will make sure to mention this limitation more clearly in the revised version of our manuscript.

Second, chemical profiles were only measured for sympatric species and not for allopatric (sub)species, which limits the interpretation of this data. The allopatric (sub)species could have been measured as non-coexistence "control". If coexistence and convergence in wing colouration drives the evolution of alternative mate recognition signals, such alternative signals should not evolve/diverge for allopatric (sub)species where wing colouration is still a reliable mate recognition cue. More importantly, no details are provided on the quantification of butterfly chemical profiles, which is essential to understand such data. It is unclear how the chemical profiles were quantified and what data (concentrations, ratios, proportions) were used to perform NDMS and generate Figure 5 and the associated statistical tests.

We recognize that having the chemical profiles of the genitalia of the Morpho from the allopatric population would have made a stronger case arguing in favor of reinforcement acting on the divergence of the chemical compounds found on the genitalia of the sympatric Morpho species. Due to limited access to the biological material needed by the time of the chromatography, we could not test for lower divergence in the chemical profiles of allopatric Morpho butterflies. We will mention this limitation in the results, and clarify the protocol used to extract the chemical profiles, by mentioning the use of concentration data to generate Figure 5 and the associated statistical tests.

Third, throughout the discussion, the authors mention that their results support natural selection by predators on iridescent wing colouration, without measuring natural selection by predators or any other measure related to predation. It is unclear by what predators any of the butterfly species are predated on at this point.

We will mention in the next version of the manuscript previous predation experiments performed on Morpho and other butterflies showing evidence that birds can be predators for those species. Those observations lead us to test for the putative effect of predation on the evolution of their color pattern, without directly testing predatory rates. We will make sure this information is transparent in the revised manuscript.

To continue on the interpretation of the data related to selection on specific traits by specific selection agents: This study did not measure any form of selection or any selection agent. Hence, it is not known if iridescent wing colouration is actually under selection by predators and/or mates, if maybe other selection agents are involved or if these traits converge due to genetic correlations with other traits under selection. For example, Iridescent colouration in ground beetles has functions as antipredator defence but also thermo- and water regulation. None of these issues are recognized or discussed.

We acknowledge that the lack of discussion on alternative evolutionary forces involved in the evolution of iridescence has been highlighted by all reviewers. We will discuss how environmental factors, genetic factors or the correlation with others traits as explanatory variables might explain the convergent signal of iridescence found in sympatric Morpho species, and not only focus on the putative effect of predation.

Finally, some of the results are weakly supported by statistics or questionable methodology. Most notably, the perception of the iridescence coloration of allopatric subspecies by bird visual systems. Although for females, means and errors (not indicated what exactly, SD, SE or CI) are clearly above the 1 JND line, for males, means are only slightly above this line and errors or CIs clearly overlap with the 1 JND line. Since there is no additional statistical support, higher means but overlap of SD, SE or CI with the baseline provides weak statistical support for differences.

We thank the reviewer for bringing interpretation issues concerning the chromatic distances of allopatric Morpho species measured with a bird vision model. We will make sure to bring nuance to the interpretation of this graph, and clearly mention in the figure’s legend that the error bars represent the confidence intervals obtained after performing a bootstrap analysis.

Regarding the assortative mating experiment, the results are clearly driven by M. bristowi. For M. theodorus, females mate equally often with conspecifics (6 times) as with M. bristowi (5 times). For males, the ratio is slightly better (6 vs 3), but with such low numbers, I doubt this is statistically testable. Overall low mating for M. bristowi could indicate suboptimal experimental conditions, and hence results should be interpreted with care.

Regarding the wing manipulation experiment, M. theodorus does not show a preference when dummies with non-modified wings are presented and prefers non-modified dummies over modified dummies. This is acknowledged by the authors but not further discussed. Certainly, some control treatment for wing modification could have been added.

We recognize that the tetrad experiment results are mainly driven by M. bristowi’s behavior. This experiment would have benefited from more replicates. We will mention that the conclusions we draw for this experiment are mainly driven by male M. bristowi behavior, and that it is more difficult to test for assortative or disassortative mating in M. theodorus, adding more nuance to our interpretation. We will also make sure to discuss further the effect of wing modification in the discussion.

Overall, the fact that certain measurements only provide evidence for 1 of the 2 (sub)species (assortative mating, wing manipulation) or one sex of one of the species (bird visual systems) means overall interpretation and overgeneralization of the results to both allopatric or sympatric species should be done with care, and such nuances should ideally be discussed.

The aim of the authors, "to investigate the antagonistic effects of selective pressures generated by mate recognition and shared predation" has not been achieved, and the conclusions regarding this aim are not supported by the results. Nevertheless, the iridescence colour measurements are solid, and some of the behavioural experiments and chemical profile measurements seem to yield interesting results. The study would benefit from less overinterpretation of the results in the framework of predation and more careful consideration of methodological difficulties, statistical insecurities, and nuances in the results.

Overall, we would like to thank all reviewers for their thorough assessment of our work. We understand that the imbalance between mate choice data, visual model data and chemical data only give us a partial assessment of species recognition in Morpho butterflies, thus requiring more precision in the interpretation and the discussion of our results. We will implement all the comments made by the reviewers in the next version of our manuscript.