> Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten.
This is an attractive statement but is not trivial: I would question it. (with the caveat that evolution is a passive process)
Species may gain evolutionary benefit from being eaten: the weakest of the species are pruned, leaving the strongest candidates.
Using toxins to avoid being eaten might have a short-term benefit but a longer-term penalty as less robust creatures get a temporary escape pass: plus, maintaining adequate toxicity creates an arms race that has significant evolutionary cost.
As part of participating in a healthy ecosystem, it is likely better for many species to allow some of their members to be eaten.
The fact that mammals generally do not maintain toxicity suggests there are more downsides than upsides.
I would like to know how your comment would fare at the Natural History Museum. This type of thought goes around the building for a long time...
I cannot think of an example where 'free food for predators' is part of the deal. I can see why lots of eggs are produced in the hope that some get to survive, but that is not the same as deliberately producing 'free food for predators' that also happens to be 'designed to be eaten'.
This is an attractive statement but is not trivial: I would question it. (with the caveat that evolution is a passive process)
Species may gain evolutionary benefit from being eaten: the weakest of the species are pruned, leaving the strongest candidates.
Using toxins to avoid being eaten might have a short-term benefit but a longer-term penalty as less robust creatures get a temporary escape pass: plus, maintaining adequate toxicity creates an arms race that has significant evolutionary cost.
As part of participating in a healthy ecosystem, it is likely better for many species to allow some of their members to be eaten.
The fact that mammals generally do not maintain toxicity suggests there are more downsides than upsides.