{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017025089605734768, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.810975609756097, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Polymorphic mimicry, microhabitat use, and sex‐specific behaviour

In order to assess the adaptive importance of microhabitat segregation for the maintenance of mimetic diversity, I explore how flight height varies between the sympatric forms of the polymorphic butterfly Heliconius numata and their respective models in the genus Melinaea. There is no evidence for vertical stratification of mimicry rings in these tiger‐patterned butterflies, but males of H. numata tend to fly significantly higher than females and the Melinaea models. This difference in microhabitat preference likely results from females searching for host plants whereas males are patrolling for mates. I then present an extension of Müller's mimicry model for the case of partial behavioural or spatial segregation of sexes. The analysis suggests that sex‐specific behaviours can make mimicry more beneficial, simply by reducing the effective population size participating in mimicry. The interaction between mimicry and sex‐specific behaviours may therefore facilitate the evolution of polymorphism via enhanced, fine‐scale local adaptation.