Figure legends
Figure 1. Heliconius doris distribution, polymorphic
forms and co-mimics. A. Distribution of blue and divergent red
morphs compared to widespread blue morph distribution. B.Heliconius doris morphs (top row) with respective co-mimics
(below).
Figure 2. No significant attack differences between H.
doris coexisting morphs. A. Average amount of attacks on local morphs
of H. doris in Panama and French Guiana. B. Average
amount of attacks with standard error on individual models representing
local H. doris morphs throughout all sites (n=6). Dashed line
separates red morphs corresponding to south and Central America,
respectively. Statistical tests were performed with raw attack numbers.
Figure 3 . Differences in attacks on native and foreign red
morphs. A. Divergent red morphs of H. doris at study sites
(Panama and French Guiana). B. Percentage of attacks on native and
exotic red phenotypes shows a significantly higher predation on exotic
phenotypes in the coastal region of French Guiana and significantly
lower predation on native phenotypes in the interior zone, where red
co-mimics are abundant (*1 p < 0.0365,
*2 p< 0.023, Freeman–Tukey [FT] test).
Statistical analyses used raw attack numbers, percentages shown here for
clarity. Barplots represent two separate FT tests.
Figure 4 . Red morphs attacked less at sites with red
mimicry-ring present. A. Locations of study sites and co-mimic
distributions in French Guiana. B. Attacks of differentH. doris morphs and controls at inland and coastal sites that
differ in local mimicry rings show significant protection of red morphs
at inland sites where red co-mimics are present (* p <
0.027, Freeman-Tukey test). Statistical analyses used raw attack
numbers, percentages shown here for clarity. Barplots represent two
separate FT tests.