Reverse-painted Chafer

I have scoured the natural history texts and everything I could to find this story documented: I cannot believe that it has not been told.

Look at this beetle, Quick!! Where is the head? Look again: are you sure?

Yes, it is apparent! The black markings are back-to-front. This beetle has painted itself backwards.

Why?: simply grab it to eat it (note the yellow and black colour stupid: this is not a good idea). Oh but you are not stupid, you will quickly grab the head and dispose of it! That's when you will discover that the apparent head end is the anus, filled with foul-smelling, disgusting tasting shit! And you will never do it again! Neat trick huh!

But a big question remains. Evolution is a perfectionist, so why is the deception so obvious once one looks closely. In fact, the deception is pathetic: this is "half a job" (like a drag queen who keeps his moustache). Why would the beetle go to all the trouble of painting itself backwards and then not doing it perfectly?

My theory is that it is because beetles are not particularly bright. If the deception was very good, then the males would mount the females backwards, and cunnilingus is not procreation (besides the females may take a nip). And thus for procreation purposes the deception must not be too good.
But then why are the predators (birds are bright, relatively speaking) fooled? I suspect that most birds only try once: when they are young and naive. They never try again and thus there is no need for a perfect deception.

Of course, it does not work perfectly. In Bellville in the 1990s we had Pied Barbets nesting in our garden and every day she (never saw him doing it (I am assuming the bigger partner was the female)) would eat at least one Garden Fruit Chafer. She grabbed him (from "behind"), took him to her favourite perch and beat all the shit (literally) out of it, by which stage wings, legs and wingcases had all been knocked off, and then swallowed it. She would then fly to the ground and eat most of the legs and wings, and occasionally the wing casings (elytra). Another Barbet at my mothers house about 1km away also ate them occasionally. This was clearly not a quick meal: beating the beetle took up to 10 minutes, and swallowing it looked extremely uncomfortable.

I guess, once a bird has learned the deception, and how to clear the foul gut, then there is no need for more "deception" (although perhaps a more potent gut contents may help) and thus a perfect 'painting' would be pointless.

As I said, I cannot understand why this is not in every kiddies story book (not the drag and sex parts of course), and why every single South African does not know this. I am sure the ancient Greeks or Romans would have had an entire fable weaved around this, on par with Narcissus and Arachne.

Identifications

• Garden Fruit Chafer (Pachnoda sinuata) by tony rebelo

  

  at 10:50 am 01/10/11

  Confidence: I'm as sure as I can be.
• likely ID 
  Garden Fruit Chafer (common version) (Pachnoda sinuata subsp. flaviventris) by Riaan Stals

  

  at 10:02 pm 29/05/12

  Confidence: I'm as sure as I can be.

  Notes: Three subspecies in southern Africa. The one presently expanding into the WCape is subspecies flaviventris, the most widespread and generalist subspecies.
  ID agreements (): 4 people agree with this identification.

  • tony rebelo
    
    
  • rjpretor
    
    
  • Andrew Deacon
    
    
  • Wynand Uys
    
    
  Search Wikipedia for Pachnoda sinuata subsp. flaviventris
  Search Encyclopedia of Life for Pachnoda sinuata subsp. flaviventris

Species interactions

No interactions present.

Other observations of Garden Fruit Chafer (common version) (Pachnoda sinuata subsp. flaviventris)