how is mimicry not a "just-so" explanation for similarities b/w species? ok obviously its not but this is what it seems like to me..cant wrap my head around this for some reason, please explain: Im drawing a distinction between behavioral and appearance mimicry.. So how is mimicry (in appearance) not a "just-so" explanation of similarity between species? What i mean is, couldnt we just as easily argue say that cats are mimicing monkeys by having a tail that enables them to climb tall trees to escape predators? or that ravens are mimicing crows by having wings to escape cats? Lots of great examples of behavioral mimicry in nature, but how can a phenotype actually evolve with respect to mimicry? If organism do change appearance, then shouldnt we therefore see many similarities within extant species and more diversity in the fossil record? Im not talking about instant change like that octopus that can change color to camoflauge its appearance but rather permanent morphological (??) changes? The famous butterfly example has since been updated to reflect mullerian mimicry but still, --where/how do we draw the line between 2 species that simply look similar, and 2 species actually adapting model/mimic roles? thanks for any help/clarification!