THE HOPE REPORTS VOL, Ut 1897—1900 » EDITED BY EDWARD B° POULTON, M.A.. D.Sc., F.RS. Hon. LL.D. PrincEron FELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD HOPE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD Orford PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION RY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 1gor et ang in YSU Ory by “0 vr i ee ta) F - : ‘ Nal i" : 7 om Pat Peat ae enfant e eee geet oo “y ie iri ar RETR ae ‘NDER, Bee N LOGINS i> eas THE MAKERS OF THE HOPE DEPARTMENT OXFORD UNIVERSITY MUSEUM ee Aol 14° 1-0 gis — THE HOPE REPORTS VOT 1897—1900 EDITED BY EDWARD B. POULTON, MA. DSc, F.RS. ; Hon. LL.D. Princeton FELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD HOPE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD Orford PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY IQOI PRE A Cly TureE and a half years have elapsed since the first volume of the Hope Reports was issued, in June 1897. During this period the materials for the second volume have been gradually accumulating, representing certain important sides of the work done in the Department, or upon portions of its collections which have been removed for study and comparison with those of other museums. I had hoped that this second volume would have been ready in a somewhat shorter time, but other sides of our work have prevented an earlier appearance. The Reports of the Department for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899 (Nos. 21, 22, and 23) sufficiently indicate the nature of this work, and prove that much labour has been expended upon the manipulation, naming, and systematic arrangement of this vast collection, together with the numerous accessions due to the kindness of naturalists in many parts of the world, A large amount of cataloguing and the printing of many thousands of labels have also been rendered necessary by the new material. Furthermore, a considerable pro- portion of the papers in this volume are abstracts of much longer and more detailed memoirs, many of which are far advanced towards completion. This is the case with the papers of which Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are abstracts: these, when published, will contribute an important share to the third volume of the Hope Reports. 4 ~ PREFACE The contents of this volume have been arranged accord- ing to their subjects, the first ten papers (omitting 3c) being almost exclusively concerned with Mimicry, Warning Colours, and the Struggle for Existence in Insects, Nos. 10 to 13 with seasonal dimorphism, and the colour of pupae, &c., as influenced by the surroundings of the larvae, No. 14 with Hybridisation, No. 14 4 with the ‘Organic Selection’ of Baldwin, Lloyd-Morgan and Osborn, Nos. 15 to 19 with systematic work upon parts of the existing Hope Collection or new material which has recently been added. It should be noted that Mr. Champion’s paper on the Zzxgztidae, No. 15, is founded on the study of material from many collections: it is included here because a large proportion of the types of the new species described are in the Hope Museum. Nos. 3 c and 20 deal with the manipulation and labelling of insects for collections, while Nos. 21 to 23 are the Reports of the Hope Professor for the years during which the materials for this volume have been accumulating. I venture to hope that the contents of the volume indicate some activity and energy in the Department. Great encouragement has been received from the manner in which naturalists in many countries have looked to the Hope Museum as a centre for the study of insect bionomics, and have sent material bearing on these difficult and deeply interesting problems to Oxford. When the specimens now rapidly accumulating have been arranged, the student will have unique opportunities for the study of Mimicry, Warning Colours, Protective Resemblance, and allied questions. Nor will the arrangement be long delayed, for the chief part of the printing, labelling, cataloguing, and preliminary group- ing has already been done. One chief duty of our ancient University is to contribute its share, and may it be a very large one, towards winning PREFACE 5 fresh territories from the unknown. This Department would not be doing its duty to the University, to the memory of its Founder, and to that of the first Hope Professor, if some advance were not made in that part of the boundaries of knowledge which stands opposite to it. I would that every College, and every University depart- ment, felt this responsibility as keenly as it is felt in a happily increasing number of Oxford laboratories and scientific departments. I do not wish to be misunderstood in making these high claims for the exponents of the natural and physical sciences. Our scientific men are fighting side by side with the Oxford students of other branches of learning. The interests of the ancient studies in Oxford are sometimes supposed to conflict with the more modern. But the real contest is between those who would and those who would not devote their energies to widening the boundaries of knowledge, and there can be nothing but comradeship and the warmest sympathy among the men whose keenest efforts are put forth in order that Oxford may be known far and wide as a centre of research and learning. EDWIN eB: POULTON: Hore DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, University Museum, Oxrorp, January 4, got. CONTENTS OB) Orn t. Preface. 2. Mimetic Attraction, by Frederick A. Dixey, M.A., M.D., F-E.S., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. (From ‘ Transactions of the Entomo- logical Society of London,’ 1897, p. 317.) 3. Abstract of the above Paper, and discussion which followed it. (From ‘Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London,’ 1897, pp. XX-Xxxii, xxxiv—xlvii.) 3 4. Mimicry in Butterflies of the Genus Hypolimnas, and its bearing on older and more recent Theories of Mimicry, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton, M.A., F.R.S., Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Hope’ Professor of Zoology in the University. (From ‘ Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1897, vol, xlvi, p. 242.) 3.8. Mimicry as evidence for the ancestral home of a wide-ranging species, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton. (From ‘Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,’ 1897, vol. xlvi, p. 244.) 3c. A method of labelling type specimens in Collections of Insects, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton. (From ‘Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,’ 1897, vol. xlvi, p. 244.) 4. Theories of Mimicry, as illustrated by African Butterflies, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton. (From Report of the Meeting of the British Association at Toronto, Section D, 1897, p. 688.) 5. Protective Mimicry as evidence for the validity of the Theory of Natural Selection, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton. (From Report of the Meeting of the British Association at Toronto, Section D, 1897, p- 692.) CONTENTS: OF VOL IL 7 10, II. FS: 14. _ Natural Selection the Cause of Mimetic Resemblance and Common Warning Colours, by Edward B. Poulton. (From the ‘ Linnean Society’s Journal—Zoology,’ vol. xxvi, 1898, p. 558.) . An Experimental Enquiry into the Struggle for Existence in certain Common Insects, Abstract, by Edward B, Poulton and Cora B. Sanders. (From Report of the Meeting of the British Association at Bristol, Section D, 1898, p. 906.) . Observations on Mimicry in South African Insects, by Guy A. K. Marshall, Abstract, arranged by Edward B. Poulton. (From Report of the British Association at Bradford, 1900, Section D.) . Observations on Mimicry in Bornean Insects, by R. Shelford, B.A., Curator of the Sarawak Museum, Abstract, arranged by Edward B. Poulton. (From Report of the British Association at Bradford, 1900, Section D.) Guy A. K. Marshall’s proof that Prec?’s ocfavia is the summer form of P. sesamus, Abstract, by Edward B. Poulton. (From ‘ Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London,’ 1898, p. xxiv.) Abstract of F. Merrifield’s paper on ‘The Colouring of Pupae of P. machaon,’ &c. (see below, No. 12, for the complete memoir), and discussion thereon, (From ‘Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 1898, p. xxx.) . The Colour-relation between the pupae of Papzlio machaon, Pieris napt and many other species, and the surroundings of the larvae ‘preparing to pupate, &c., by F. Merrifield, F.E.S., and Edward B. Poulton. (From ‘ Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,’ 1899, p- 369.) Seasonal dimorphism in tropical American Pierine butterflies, Abstract, by Frederick A. Dixey. (From ‘Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London,’ 1898, p. xxxix.) Recent Experiments in Hybridisation, by Frederick A. Dixey. (From ‘Science Progress,’ vol. vii: vol. ii of New Series: No. 7, April, 1898.) 144. Modification and variation and the limits of Organic Selection, Abstract ree of paper by Professor Henry F. Osborn, of Columbia University, New York, and of a criticism thereon, by Edward B. Poulton. (From ‘Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,’ 1897, vol. xlvi, p. 239.) Notes on American and other Tingitidae, with descriptions of two new genera and four species, by George Charles Champion, F.Z.S. (From ‘Transactions of the Entomological Society of London,’ 1898, p. 55:) 16. 17. 18. IQ. 20. 21. 22. 23. CONTENTS “OF: VOL. Ti Descriptions of some new species of Syntomidae, chiefly in the Oxford Museum, by Herbert Druce, F.L.S., &c. (From the ‘ Annals and Magazine of Natural History,’ Ser. 7, vol. i, May 1898, p. 401.) On a Collection of Insects and Arachnids, made by Mr. E. N. Bennett in Socotra, with descriptions of new species, by F. A. Dixey, M.A., M.D., Malcolm Burr, F.Z.S., and the Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge, M.A., F.R.S., C.M.Z.S. (From the ‘ Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,’ 1898, p. 372.) On a Collection of Insects and Arachnids made in 1895 and 1897 by Mr. C. V. A. Peel, F.Z.S., in Somaliland, with descriptions of new species by C. V. A. Peel, F.Z.S., E.E. Austen, P. Aj Dixeys Was M.D., Herbert Druce, -F.L.S., F-Z.S., C. J. Gahan, M-A., Gilbert J. Arrow, R. McLachlan, F.R.S., Malcolm Burr, F.Z.S., and R. I. Pocock. (From ‘ Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,’ 1900, p. 2.) On the British Orthoptera in the Hope Museum, Oxford, by Malcolm Burr. (From the ‘Entomologist’s Record,’ &c., vol. xii, April 1900, P. 97.) The methods of setting and labelling Lepidoptera for Museums, by Edward B. Poulton. (From the Report of the Proceedings of the Museums Association, Oxford, 1897, p. 30.) Report of the Hope Professor of Zoology for 1897. (From the ‘Oxford University Gazette.’) Report of the Hope Professor of Zoology for 1898. (From the ‘Oxford University Gazette.’) Report of the Hope Professor of Zoology for 1899. (From the ‘Oxford University Gazette.’) @ size) XIII. Mimetic Attraction. By Frepericx A. Dixey, M.A., M.D., F.E.S., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. [Read May 5th, 1897.] Pirate VII. In a former contribution* to the Transactions of this Society, I endeavoured to trace, by means of actual examples, the successive steps through which a complicated and practically perfect mimetic pattern could be evolved in simple and easy stages from a form presenting merely the ordinary aspect of its own genus. In the present paper I propose to enter somewhat further into the subject of mimetic change, and in the first place to show how the process of gradual assimilation, starting from one given point, may take not one direction only, but several divergent paths at the same time; in other words, how the members of a single group may assume several different mimetic developments, each one corres- ponding to a distinct model, but all derived by easy stages from the same original form. In the paper just referred to it was shown that a very complete transition could be demonstrated, by means of closely-allied and still existing species, between an ordinary Pieris such as P. phaloe, presenting only the usual features of its genus, and a form of such widely different aspect as Mylothris pyrrha @ ; the latter being a nearly exact copy of Heliconius nuwmata. But although these facts are sufliciently striking, it is perhaps stall more remarkable that from the same or closely allied and very similar forms of typical Pierine aspect, at least four other lines can be traced, each showing almost as perfect a transition as that from P. phaloe to M. pyrrha, and each leading up to a presumably distasteful model ; these models being in appearance entirely different from H. numata and from each other. * “On the Relation of Mimetic Patterns to the Original Form,” Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1896, pp. 65-79, pls. ITI.—V. TRANS, ENT. SOC. LOND. 1897.—PparT I. (SEP'.) 318 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on A full illustration of this position would require a larger series of diagrams than could well be given in this place; it is hoped, however, that the series of figures on Plate VII. may suffice to show the more important links in each chain, or at any rate to make the drift of my statements intelligible. It should be borne in mind that all the forms here spoken of are neotropical. 1. The “agna” line. The first of these lines of development may be called the agna line, inasmuch as it leads towards a well-marked group of distasteful forms of which Aeria agna, Godm. and Salv., (Pl. VIL., fig. 6) is a good example. Starting from a white Pieris of ordinary aspect like P. phaloe, we find that the first step in the growth of this mimetic pattern is furnished by the pro- longation of the diagonal dark bar, which in P. phaloe ? * extends from the costa to the distal end of the cell in the forewing, to meet the dark hind margin as in P. caly- donia § (fig. 1, kh). All stages in the development: of this first feature can indeed be traced by comparing specimens of both sexes of P. calydonia itself. The next step is the extension of tne dark hind border of the forewing, already more pronounced in P. calydonia 2 than in P. phaloe 2, along the inner margin, as in P. demophile 2 (fig. 3, l). Simultaneously with this change the dark border of the hindwing is much broadened (ib., 2), and in some specimens of P. demophile 2, as in the one figured, the white ground colour is replaced by yellow. ‘These changes are sufficient strongly to suggest the general aspect of the protected group referred to, and it seems difficult to believe that the appearance of the yellow female of P. demophile has not a significance derived from this fact. 2. The “ atthis”’ line. But the last-named form, viz., the yellow P. demophile 2 , though the final Pierine term in one transitional series, is but an intermediate term in another. This second line of development, starting afresh from P. demophile ° , passes into an unmistakable mimetic relation with the protected group that centres round such forms as Heliconius atthis (fig. 8) and Tithorea pavonit. Comparing P. viardi 2 with P. demophile &, we find that in the former insect a further stage of divergence * See Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1896, pl. TIT.; fig. 2, z. Mimetic Attraction. 319 from the original Pierine form has been reached (1) by a slight modification in shape and proportions of that area of the pale ground colour included between the diagonal bar and the dark inner margin of the forewing, and (2) by the appearance of a submarginal series of pale spots on both fore and hindwing (fig. 5,7). Both of these changes mark an approximation towards the characteristic aspect of the protected Heliconius atthis group ; but the final link in the Pierine chain, viz., the form represented in fig. 7, which appears to be the female of P. locusta or of a closely allied species, brings us nearer still. Here the pale area on the apical side of the diagonal bar (nv) shows a tendency to be broken up into separate spots ; and the pale ground colour, which in P, viardi 2 is uniformly yellow, in P. locusta 2 only retains the yellow tint proximally, the subapical area (7) and the submarginal spots (7) having resumed their original white. These submarginal spots have also diminished in size and become more compact in outline. In all these respects a further approach is made towards H. atthis, and the whole series from P. phaloe or P. caly- donia to P. locusta 2 and H. atthis affords as striking a succession of transitional forms as that before traced from the same ordinary Pierine types up to Mylothris pyrrha ? and Heliconius nwmata.* 3. The “inachia” line. In this line an early step in advance of the usual Pierine pattern is taken by Pieris pandosia.t On the hindwing underside of this species appears a narrow chestnut-coloured streak in the midst of the dark hind-marginal band, running paraliel with the hind border of the wing. In P. leptalina, Bates (= P. pisonis, Hew.), both surfaces of the forewing show a diagonal dark bar as in P. calydonia ¢ and other species ; there is also a transverse dark bar crossing the under- surface of the hindwing nearly parallel with the costa (fig. 2). In P. pandosia, where the distal end only of this * Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1896, pp. 65-70. It should be added to the foregoing that P. viardi 9 itself is probably attracted by H., charitonia, which may perhaps be considered an outlier of the H. atthis combination. This is analogous to the attraction of another intermediate term in the atthds line, viz., P. demophile 9, by the agna group. + Figured by Hewitson, Exot. Butt., “ Pieris,” pl. IL., fig. 14, and ibid., pl. V1., fig. 39. 320 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on latter bar is indicated, the chestnut-coloured streak takes no part in its formation; in P. leptalina, however, the same chestnut-coloured streak is better pronounced along the hind margin than in P. pandosia, and is prolonged for a short distance along the transverse bar (fig. 2, 0). In this way a considerable resemblance is brought about between P. leptalina and some of the well-known trans- parent neotropical Danainz, which are presumably protected, such as Napeogenes inachia (fig. 4). It is worth noting that the bar o, which belongs to the hind- wing in P. pandosia and P. leptalina, appears to represent the dark inner margin of the forewing in the model; and the presence upon its distal portion in P. leptalina of a shght prolongation of the chestnut marginal streak may perhaps stand for the turning inwards of the corresponding chestnut marginal band in N. inachia along the costal border (figs. 2 and 4). 4. The “numata” line. This series needs here no more than a mention, as it has been already discussed and illustrated in the paper above referred to.* 5. The “tarracina”’ line. This is an offshoot of the last, or nuwmata line, diverging in the neighbourhood of Mylothris malenka § , or perhaps somewhat further back towards the original Pieris. ‘The remarkable form M. alethina 2 shows a near approach to the pattern of Tithorea tarracina and other associated species; its own aspect being probably derived from a type like M. lovena ? or M.malenka 2, im which the yellow of P. demophile & has persisted, and the base of the forewings has become overspread with black.t General Considerations. There is, therefore, in each one of these cases, a continuous line to be traced; starting in every instance from the same ordinary Pierine form, and passing through a graduated series of closely-allied “ Vide supra, p. 319, note. + Three at least of the above five lines of development, viz., the agna, the numata, and the inachia lines, can be paralleled from the genus Dismorphia and its allies, and it is interesting to see in the latter case how the same ultimate result is brought about by somewhat different means. But I have not attempted to include species of Dismorphia within the above series, because the affinity of this genns with Piers and Mylothris is not close, and its own course of mimetic development, so far as phylogeny is concerned, must be regarded as completely independent. Mimetic Attraction. 5 7Al. species untilit terminates in a Pieris or Mylothris bearing an intimate mimetic relation with some insect of entirely different affinities. It is further to be observed that, in every instance, the species here considered as the model towards which these diverging series tend, does not present an isolated and independent scheme of coloration, but is itself a member of a larger or smaller group of forms, in addition to the Pierine mimic, all of which are endowed with an aspect similar to itself—in other words, that the mimetic associations do not run simply in pairs, but in groups. This latter fact has long been recognised ; and the existence of such mimetic groups has been shown by F. Miiller, Meldola, and Poulton to possess a further significance than that originally detected by Bates. The elaborate work of Haase* contains an attempt to give a systematic account of the chief cases of mimetic grouping. But in spite of what has already been written by these and other authors, it may be doubted whether the importance of the principle of mimicry among the factors that have determined the facies of the insect fauna in such a region as the neo- * “Untersuchungen tiber die Mimicry,” Stuttgart, 1893. It may here be mentioned that several of the above-named insects have been noticed by Haase ; who, however, has not attempted to trace in any detail the lines of mimetic assimilation that diverge from the common Pierine stock. He speaks, for instance, of MWylothris lorena Qand M. malenka 9 , which undoubtedly belong to the nwmata group, as having arisen from such forms as P. demophile 2 , and considers that the transition took place through forms resembling P. viardi Q. Buta careful examination will I believe show that, as stated above, neither P, demophile 9 nor P. viardi ? is in the direct line passing from the unaltered Pieris towards M. pyrrha and Heliconius numata. Both are, in fact, intermediate terms in the series leading up to an entirely distinct assemblage, that typified by Tithorea pavonii and Heliconius atthis (Haase’s “ Bonplandi Tracht”); while P. demophile shows evidence of attraction by the protected agna group, and P. viardi by the dominant form Heli- conius charitonia. Again, the red streak on the underside of the hindwing in the males of M. lorena, etc., is attributed by Haase to “inheritance from the female,” but its origin is not traced by him to the primitive basal red common to many Pierine genera. (See Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1894, pp.283-289 ; zbid., 1896, pp. 72, 73.) Pieris leptalina, Bates (P. pisonis, Hew.) is spoken of by Haase as representing the first partial assimilation to certain Ithomias ; rightly, so far as the main fact is concerned ; but it may also be noticed that earlicr stages of the same assimilation exist in P. kiguha, and, as shown above, in P. pandosia. d22 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on tropical has ever been fully recognised. The mimetic groups here referred to are no doubt mainly of the “ Miillerian ” kind; that is to say, they are associations between inedible species of various affinities ; each asso- ciation possessing a conspicuous and distinctive pattern of its own, more or less perfectly reproduced by all its members. In the paper already cited and elsewhere* I have given reasons for considering the principle of Miil- lerian mimicry to be far more widely operative than has generally been supposed ; and I have also endeavoured to supply a test by which, even in the absence of information as to the edibility and relative abundance of the members of a mimetic group, a conclusion may some- times be arrived at as to whether the assemblage is Batesian or Miillerian. As there are grounds for suppos- ing that the arguments just referred to have sometimes been misunderstood, it will be attempted in the following section to re-state, in as simple language as possible, what appears to be the best interpretation of the facts at present known. Mimetic Attraction. When a species of butterfly has become established in such a region as the neotropical, where life of all kinds is very abundant and competition extremely keen, it may be taken for granted that the species possesses some efficient means of defence, failing which it would be unable to maintain its position. In very many instances, as is well known, the required protection is essentially afforded by the possession of a nauseous flavour, which causes the butterfly in question to be avoided, when recognised, by some at least of its insect-eating enemies. ‘The possibility of easy recogni- tion in such a case constitutes, of course, an important factor in the safety of the species ; since there would be no advantage in being inedible, if the fact only became known in each individual case as the result of an experiment fatal to its subject. It is in consequence of this necessity for ‘advertisement ” that, as is also well known, inedible species tend to assume gaudy and conspicuous colours, and to adopt habits calculated to display their warning signals with the utmost publicity. In this manner the members of a distasteful and conspicuous species are enabled to profit by the experience gained at * Trans, Ent. Soc. Lond. 1894, pp. 297, 298 ; ibid., 1896, p. 75. Mimetic Attraction ‘ 323 the expense of other individuals of the same species, some of which must necessarily fall victims to their insectivorous enemies during the “ education ” of the latter as to the kinds of prey to be sought or avoided. Hach form that thus succeeds in establishing itself becomes, in propor- tion to its nauseous character and the ease with which it can be recognised, a centre of attraction for other species, which, by assimilating their own aspect to that of their model, are enabled to share in the immunity from attack enjoyed by the latter. It is now considered probable by many that this power of attraction is exercised by dominant inedible species over edible and inedible forms alike; there is, however, one important difference be- tween the two cases, which I have before endeavoured to point out, but which seems to need a more explicit state- ment than has yet been given to it. Let us first take the case of a species which is edible, and therefore liable to extermination by insectivorous animals. The chances of the survival of such a species depend on the excellence of its means of defence ; such as superior swiftness, or the power of concealment, whether by resemblance to inanimate objects, or to some other species protected by a disagreeable flavour. The force which impels an edible species to seek protection by the last-named method, viz., by sheltering itself under the reputation of a conspicuous anedible form, is the well- known ‘“ Batesian mimicry.” With reference to this, which is the most complete kind of mimicry, it is to be observed that the advantage of association is all on the side of the mimic, and is not shared in the least degree by the model. Indeed, the existence of the edible mimicking species is a source of danger to the form mimicked, inasmuch as any experience gained by tasting the former would be used to the detriment of the latter. From these considerations two consequences follow; the first being that such an association can subsist only when the numbers of the mimic are insignificant compared with those of the model, for otherwise the latter’s reputation for inedibility would be interfered with, and eventually destroyed. The second consequence is that the attrac- tive force leading to assimilation between the two forms can act only in one direction ; 7.¢., the model attracts the mimic, but the mimic can exert no reciprocal influence upon the model. The latter stands secure upon its own 324 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on footing, any departure from which might be attended with danger to itself; while the only part played by the former is to shelter itself under as close an approximation to the aspect of the model as circumstances permit. We may now take the case of a species possessing a nauseous flavour, and requiring some means of adver- tisement in order to make its inedibility available for purposes of protection. ‘'T'wo courses may be said to lie open for such a species. First, it may seek advertise- ment by acquiring a conspicuous and easily recognised aspect of its own, distinct from that of any others; or, secondly, it may obtain a share in the notoriety already attaching to some dominant inedible form by assimilating its aspect to that of the latter, instead of striking out a new line for itself. An examination of the lepidopterous fauna of such a region as the neotropical makes it certain that the latter of these methods, viz., the method of ‘ Miillerian mimicry,” has been very extensively fol- lowed. Its advantages, as compared with the former method, are obvious. In the first place it assists the memory of predaceous foes by keeping at a low figure the number of distinct inedible types to be learned and so avoided, and in the second place it benefits at least two species at the same time instead of one, and both have therefore an interest in keeping it up; for inasmuch as in this case, as distinct from that of Batesian mimicry, the mimic is inedible as well as the model, the results of experimental tasting will be uniformly the same, and will be favourable to the immunity of both species. It follows that (1) there is no such limit as exists in Batesian mimicry to the number either of individuals or species forming a Miillerian group. An assemblage of this latter kind is only strengthened, not weakened, by fresh accessions; all being alike inedible, and so all contributing to the common safety. (2) The benefit of Miillerian association being mutual, there is a distinct reason, which we saw does not exist in the case of Batesian mimicry, for the model to help on the process of assimilation by itself advancing to meet the mimic. To summarise the foregoing. Every conspicuous and distasteful form is a centre of attraction for other forms, whether edible or inedible; but in the former case (Batesian mimicry) the mimetic attraction is limited in operation, and acts only in one direction, influencing Mimetic Attraction. 325 nothing but the mimic; while in the latter case (Miillerian mimicry) the mimetic attraction is unlimited and mutual, acting reciprocally in both directions and influencing each member of the group. This doctrine of the mutual attraction between inedible forms, leading not merely to the copying of one by another, but to the departure of each from its original aspect by the adoption of features belonging to the other, is not simply a speculation, nor does it rest only on a@ priort reasoning. There is much evidence that it represents a fact which does actually take place in nature ; and in the two papers above referred to* I have brought forward cases which seem imexplicable by any other principle. I may be allowed to add in this place a further instance, which appears to me for several reasons remarkable. The instance of P. locusta §. In Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1896, p. 72, note, I spoke, though somewhat doubtfully, of P. locusta § as a mimic. My suspicion that this was the case at that time fell short of actual conviction. Now, however, after a further careful examination of P. locusta $ from this particular point of view, I have little or no hesitation in pronouncing it to be a member of a mimetic association of an exceptionally interesting kind. It will be remembered that the males of Mylothris lorena, M. pyrrha, etc., form a good illustration of the accurate manner in which the appropriate habits are correlated with adaptive colouring—the mimetic pattern in these instances being confined to the underside, and being in all probability useless as a protection except during the resting position; while the habits of these males, as testified to by Wallace,+ are such as would probably render a Heliconiine resemblance during flight a source of danger to its possessors rather than of safety. Similarly in P. locusta ~, it is only on the underside that the mimetic pattern appears, and here again there can be * See also an abstract in “ British Association Reports,” 1894, p. 692. t+ “ Tropical Nature,” 1878, p. 205. See also Haase, op. cit.,. p. 68. It should, however, be stated that neither of these authors assigns any protective value to the underside of the male forms in question. 326 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on little doubt that its use has reference only to the resting position. The aspect suggested is rather that of several forms of Heliconius in general than that of any one in particular ; the most definite relation, however, is with the group of which Heliconius cydno and H. galanthus are examples, a group characterised by the presence on both surfaces, but especially beneath, of a good deal of light yellowoften paling further to white. When the undersides of Preris locusta and one of these Heliconw, say H. cydno (which inhabits the same part of the neotropical region), are compared together, both insects being in the resting position, we find not indeed an exact resemblance, but a general similarity which, judging from other instances, we may consider as probably sufficient to suggest the possession of like qualities. In both there occurs on the forewing a certain amount of white ground colour; on one side bounded by a dark tip, and on the other more or less limited by the dark area of the hindwing ; which latter is traversed by a bright yellow streak, and beset about the base with red or chestnut patches. The elements of the pattern in both insects are the same, and their general relation to one another much alike, though the pale marginal band on the hindwing that occurs in this species of Heliconius is not found in the Pierine. A further point of interest is the manner in which the partial breaking up of the white colour is effected in the Heliconius and the Pieris respectively. There is, I think, little doubt that the dark marks on the costa of the hindwing in P. locusta represent m a general way the dark discoidal spot and a portion of the inner dark area of the forewing in the Heliconius. The bright yellow line of the hindwing will be seen in each case to terminate in relation with a dark patch; but in the first instance (that of the Pieris) this belongs to the same wing; and in the second instance (that of the Heliconius) it is contributed to by both wings. This seems to exemplify a principle repeatedly met with in mimicry ; viz., that exact homology is dis- regarded, and the whole exposed surface of the insect is taken as it were as a canvas on which the mimetic picture is painted with a free hand. The relation of this particular group of Heliconius with the Pierines is remarkable, and deserves more detailed treatment; here Mimetic Attraction. oe it will be sufficient to point out that there is more reason to suppose that the Heliconius has adopted certain features from the Pieris (for example, the whiteness of the ground colour, and the disposition, if not the exist- ence, of the basal red marks) than that the converse alone has taken place. Reciprocal Mimicry and Convergence. ‘This fact of the reciprocal copying of two or more species by each other is perhaps implied, though not distinctly so, in the term ‘ convergence,” which has been used by many authors to express the phenomenon of Miil- lerian mimicry; but I am not aware that any writer who so employs the term has laid stress on the mutual character of the changes involved, or has traced in any instance the actual modifications undergone by both species of a Mullerian couple under the influence of the attractive force existing between them. It seems hitherto to have been taken for granted that a dominant form will attract or retain other species within its own sphere of influence, without being itself attracted in return ; whereas the fact is, as we have seen, that each member of an inedible association has more or less influence upon all the rest. The respective value of the attraction exercised or suffered by any member of a Miillerian group will depend on its numbers, its nauseous qualities, and its notoriety. The stronger any species is in these respects, the stronger will be its power of attraction, and the weaker in comparison will be any force tending to draw it in the direction of other mem- bers of the group. The actual mimetic path taken by any species will be the resultant of the various forces acting uponit. If the form happens to be a dominant one, these external forces will be insignificant in comparison with its own stability ; and it will therefore resist change to a large extent, or perhaps altogether. The most com- plete intermingling of characters given and taken on both sides may be expected when two species meet on equal terms, neither being strong enough to predominate over the other. While there can be no doubt of the convenience of the term “convergence,” and its suitability to express relations of the kind just discussed, there would seem to be no sufficient reason for disallowing in their case the earlier term “mimicry.” ‘This latter word may be quite 328 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on legitimately employed to designate the adoption of any new features borrowed from another species. In so far as A copies the appearance of B, it may properly he said to “mimic” the latter, whether the object be to suggest the presence of a disagreeable flavour which it does not really possess, or merely to convey the impression that it and its model are alike in all respects. Muil- lerian assimilation may be quite as deceptive as Batesian, in the sense of leading to confusion between species essentially distinct ; and in the case of a “ weak’’ species being associated with a “strong” one, the departure of a form from the typical aspect of its congeners by the development of strictly imitative features may be as well marked in the one kind of mimicry as in the other. But although either of the terms ‘ Miillerian mimicry ” or ‘convergence ” would appear to express quite adequately the general idea of the mimetic relation between inedible species, a separate term is wanted to designate the peculiar give-and-take changes which we have seen are theoretically possible to a greater or less extent in every case of Miullerian association, and which in fact do actually occur in several. It is to supply this want of a term that I have proposed the expression “ reciprocal mimicry,’”* which is meant to convey, besides the general idea of convergence, the special information that in the cases to which the term is applied, the convergence is brought about not by the simple imitation of one form by another, but by the interchange of features between forms, and their consequent simultaneous approach to an intermediate position. The foregoing remarks will, I think, have made it sufficiently clear, (1) that reciprocal mimicry can only take place in Miillerian associations, not in Batesian; and that it 1s therefore, as I have elsewhere said “ good evidence of the distastefulness of all the forms between which it can be shown to occur;” (2) that although a mimic which is of relatively plentiful occurrence must be Miil- lerian, it does not follow that a mimic which is scarce must necessarily be Batesian. An inedible mimic may be either rare or common ; an edible mimic must be rare. Judging by these principles, we must conclude that the association of Pieris locusta f$ with Heliconius cydno is “ Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1894, p. 298. Mimetic Attraction. 329 Miillerian, and an addition is thus supplied to the evidence already existing in favour of the distasteful qualities of this and other Pierine genera.* Conclusion. If we take a comprehensive survey of the whole butterfly facies of the neotropical region, we cannot fail to be struck with the numerous cases of mimetic assimi- lation which it presents. It would in fact almost seem that scarcely any conspicuous form is completely isolated. In a region where enemies to insect life are so numerous, and competition for existence is so keen, a butterfly can hardly afford to be conspicuous unless it is also distaste- ful; nor is the mere individual possession of these qualities in the majority of instances sufficient for safety. Any form that requires to establish a reputation for inedibility, must as it were seek allies; and no sooner does it make a bid for survival as a nauseous species, than it becomes subject to the influence of mimetic attraction, and probably finds itself drawn into the vortex of one of the great Miillerian associations. It is no doubt true that the process of mimetic assim1- lation is subject to limitation by the operation of other forces. Thus it may be needful that the resemblance to a model, though close enough to deceive enemies, should not be so close as to interfere with due recognitzon between the sexes. We know little of the means by which insects recognise each other, but there are at least some grounds for thinking that they are assisted at times by external marks. ‘his may atford one reason for the dif- ferent ways in which the sexes of the same species occasion- ally react to mimetic influences ; and it may possibly be the meaning of the retention of a portion of the original white ground-colour in the males of certain species of Dismorphia. It is also quite conceivable that the aspect of every species is to some extent controlled by its physiological constitution ;+ and this fact may tend to disturb the perfect operation of the process of mimetic change. But notwithstanding all limitations, it remains the fact that any inedible form, in the midst of competing * Vide Trans, Ent. Soc. Lond. 1894, pp. 297, 298; ibid., 1896, pp. 74, 76. + Vide Presidential Address by Prof. Meldola, Proc. Ent. Soc Lond, 1896, pp. Ixxx. et seqq. 330 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on mimetic systems, is liable to be carried off in this or that direction as it comes under their influence. Sometimes, as in the forms that were discussed at the beginning of this paper, we find several species, closely related to one another by affinity, being drawn away in different direc- tions by the attractive power of the Miillerian groups that surround them; and the same assemblage of cases illustrates the fact that a mimetic change from the original form in the direction of one protected group may serve as a stepping-stone for a further de ane towards another.* Sometimes again, as in Mylothris lypera, M. lorena, M. malenka, and M. pyrrha, we see that in the males a compromise is struck between the ordinary Pierine aspect (used for flicht), and a mimetic dress like that of the female (used for repose); while in Pieris lucusta we find the same compromise in the male, with the curious difference that here even the sexes of the same species have been wrested apart into separate mimetic relations. Finally, the comparison will perhaps not seem too far- fetched, if the several mimetic groups, each with its own type of coloration, are likened to the solar and stellar systems of astronomers. Sometimes, as in the solar system, there is one central body (7.e., species) dominat- ing the whole, and influencing its attendant planets (7.e., mimics) to an extent im comparison with which the force they themselves can exercise is insignificant. At other times, as in the systems of double and multiple stars, there are bodies (7.e., species) more nearly equal in mass and importance, bound together by mutual attraction into a single combination, where each one effectively controls and is controlled by the rest. We may even push the comparison so far as to find an analogy between those irregular wanderers through cosmic space which from time to time get drawn within the limits of some * E.g., a8 was pointed out above, forms hke Pieris pandosia, P, leptatina, etc,, show the result of attraction by the énachia group upon Pieris of the ordinary kind. Similarly the yellow female of P. demophile exemplifies the ordinary form attracted in another direction, that of the agna combination, Again, the last-named development of Pieris has served as a basis for a further attraction, that by Heliconius charitonia, as seen in P. viardi 9 ; and this latter form has given scope for the influence of the atthis group as shown by P. locusta 9. Mimetic Attraction. 331 established system, and certain species which seem to hover on the outskirts of mimetic groups, undecided as it were whether to throw in their lot with one association or another. I am indebted to Professor Poulton, F.R.S., for free access to the Hope Department, and for permission to figure insects from the collection under his charge. Nore. In the. course of the discussion which followed the reading of this paper, my friend Professor Poulton expressed the opinion that the term “mimicry” should be restricted entirely to cases of Batesian association, and should not be applied to resemblances between distasteful forms. I am, of course, entirely af one with Professor Poulton as to the essential difference between the false warning which is the leading feature in the one case, and the true warning which characterises the other ; and I agree that it would be most desirable to mark the distinction by the use of separate terms. Though the present paper must stand as it was read, IT am willing in future to attempt the restriction which he recommends, Perhaps ‘“ Miillerian assimilation” and “ reciprocal assimilation,” though a little cumbrous, may serve instead of the terms used in the text ; and it may be hoped that the advantage of greater pre- cision thus gained will outweigh the disadvantage of having to drop such convenient words as ‘ mimic,” “mimetic” and ‘ model ” when speaking of a Miillerian group.—June 2, 1897, 332 Dr. Frederick A. Dixey on Mimetic Attraction. List oF Species MENTIONED. PIERINZE. HELICONIINA. Pieris phaloe, Godt. Heliconius numata, Cram. P. calydonia, Boisd. H. atthis, Doubl. P. demophile, Linn. H. charitonia, Godt. P. viardi, Boisd. HI, cydno, Doubl. & Hew. P. locusta, Feld. Hi. galanthus, Bates. P. pandosia, Hew. P. kigaha, Reak, § P. leptalina, Bates. ( IE pisonis, Hew. DANAINA. Mylothris lypera, Koll. M. lorena, Hew. Aeria agna, Godm. & Saly. M. malenka, Hew. Tithorea pavonii, Butl. M, pyrrha, Fabr. T. tarracina, Hew. M. alethina, Butl. Napeogenes inachia, Hew. EXPLANATION oF Prats VII. . Pieris calydonia 9. . P. leptalina, underside. . P. demophile 2. . Napeogenes inachia. 5 ER Goin . Aeria ugna. » Plocusiar®y. . Heliconius atthis. ADANanFrwwnwre IN ALL THE FIGURES k, diagonal dark bar of forewing. 1, dark bar of forewing parallel to inner margin. m, pale area on apical side of diagonal bar. n, submarginal pale spots. o, transverse bar of hindwing. N.B., k and / asin Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond, 1896, Plates III.-Y. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1897. PL. Vil L 7 ig is VETLS VLO ai ) ba ane 17.7 ) D 7 + Heltsconwis atthars CLEP US LOCALS TOL O - Y g 8 FAD mey pinx' West,Newmsan chrorno Mametic Attraction [Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 1897, pp. xx.-xxxii., xxxiv.-xlvii.] PAPER, EXHIBITION, AND DISCUSSION ON MIMICRY. (May 5th, 1897.) Dr. Dixy read a paper on ‘‘Mimetic Attraction.” He began by pointing out with the aid of diagrams that the process of mimetic assimilation might start from a given point and proceed along several divergent paths. For example, from an ordinary non-mimetic form of neotropical Pieris, such as Pieris phaloe, not one only but several diver- gent series of mimetic modifications could be traced; each passing through a graduated series of closely-allied forms until it terminated in a Pieris or Mylothris bearing a more or less intimate relation with some protected form or forms of entirely different affinities. Such were the series leading through P. calydonia to P. demophile 2, a mimic of Aeria agna ; the series starting from P. demophile and passing into forms such as P. locusta 2, which was in mimetic relation- ship with Heliconius atthis; the series represented by P. pan- dosia and P, leptalina, which approached Napeogenes inachia ; the series dealt with in a previous communication (Trans, Ent. Soc. Lond., 1896, pp. 65-79), which led up to forms associated with Heliconius numata; and lastly, a series derived from the one last-mentioned, which ended in Mylothris alethina 2, a mimic of Tithorea tarracina, In all these instances, the model towards which the series tended did not present an isolated scheme of colour, but was a member of a larger or smaller group of forms, associated in external features; such as were shown in the series to be exhibited by Mr. Blandford. These mimetic groups were no doubt mainly of the ‘‘ Millerian” kind, that is, they were associations between inedible species of various affinities. Reasons were given for attributing great importance to the operation of the Miillerian principle in producing such a facies as that of the neotropical fauna, and for assigning to Batesian mimicry a comparatively subordinate position. Stress was laid on the facts (1) that Batesian mimicry could exist only when the numbers of the mimic were insignificant compared with those of the model, whilst a Miillerian group was strengthened by every fresh accession; and (2) that the a ao attractive power in Batesian mimicry acted only from the model towards the mimic, whereas in Miillerian association it was mutual, and tended to produce, reciprocal changes. For this mutual modification of characters the term ‘‘reciprocal mimicry’ was suggested. A relation of the latter kind appeared to exist, e.g., between Pieris locusta ¢ and Heliconius cydno, and it must therefore be concluded that the Pierid was inedible, a conclusion previously reached in the case of other Pieridze on more than one kind of evidence. A consequence of the keen competition for life in such a region as the neotropical was that scarcely any conspicuous form was completely isolated. If edible, it would generally be a Batesian mimic; if nauseous, it would be drawn into the vortex of one of the great Miil- lerian groups. The force exerted by these latter was well exemplified by the facts dwelt upon at the beginning of the paper, which showed the steps by which the members of a single genus such as Pieris, and sometimes even the sexes of a single species such as P. locusta were drawn apart into more or less intimate relationships with separate Miillerian groups. Mr. Buanprorp then exhibited and described the series of Neotropical butterflies from the Godman-Salvin collection, which were shown by him on a previous occasion (Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1896, p. xxxviii.); he stated that he used the term ‘‘homceochromatism,” originally employed in the ‘* Biologia Centrali-Americana,”’ in preference to Dr. Dixey’s term ‘‘reciprocal mimicry,” to denote the phenomenon exhibited by ‘‘ Miillerian”’ groups, because it gave a sufficient indication of its nature without assuming any theoretical con- sideration as to its origin. The series shown were :— J. Homa@ocHRoMATISM BETWEEN Parrep SPECIES OF THE SAME GENUS. Heliconius galanthus and H. luce. Guatemala. H. chioneus and H. sappho. Panama. H, cydno and H. eleuchia. Colombia. H. alithea and H. primularis. EKeuador. Each pair was closely alike on the upper-side; the under- sides were different, there being common types for the right- hand and left-hand members of the pairs respectively. There was also a progressive modification in the patterns of the upper-side in proceeding from North to South. ( iw) Il. HomaocurRoMATISM BETWEEN ParrepD SPECIES OF DIFFERENT GENERA. Tithorea humboldti and Heliconius cassandra. Colombia. Tithorea candollei and Heliconius sp, Antioquia. (with these associated E’picalia chromis, @ ). Tithorea bonplandi and Heliconius hecuba. | Colombia. Tithorea pavonit and Heliconius atthis Ecuador. (with these associated Pieris locusta, 2). Il]. Groerapuicat Mopirications or HomamocHromatic SPECIES OF THE SAME GENUS. Heliconius thelviope and H, vesta, a. Parallel varieties of both species in Cayenne, inoscu- lating with H. melpomene at one end of the series, and extending to typical H. thelwxiope and H. vesta at - the other end; the varieties occurring without refe- rence to geographical distribution. b, Fixed geographical paired races of both species from British Guiana, Lower Amazons (Para), Upper Amazons (Pebas), Ecuador and Bolivia, and accom- pained in the first three localities by homeochro- matic races of H. ade, c. Intermediate forms connecting H, vesta with H. phyllis in Bolivia. TV. Exrenstve Homa@ocnromatic (Minuertan) Groups.* 1. North Central-American Type.—Guatemala to Nicaragua. Lycorea atergatis. Heliconius telchinia, Melinea imitata. Eiueides zorcaon, Tithorea sp. Eresia philyra. Mechanitis doryssus. Protogonius cecrops. Ceratinia dionea. Dismorphia praxinoe, C. fenestella, Mylothris malenka. * The genera in the left-hand columns of the list, except Lycorea, a true Danaid, belong entirely to the Heliconioid Danainz (Neotro- pine). Of those in the right-hand columns, Heliconius and Eueides belong to the Heliconiine ; Hresia, Anwa and Protogonius to the Nymphaline ; Archonias, Mylothrisand Dismorphia to the Pierine ; and /thomeis to the Erycinide. ( iv.) Intermediate between Groups 1 and 2. Melinea scylax. Heliconius clarescens. Mechanitis lycidice. Napeogenes tolosa. Ithomia heraldica. 2. South Central-American Type.—Costa Rica to Panama. Thyridia melantho, Heliconius zuleika. Tithorea helicaon, HZ, formosus. T. duenna. Hueides vulgiformis. T. pinthias. Eresia nigripennis. Mechanitis isthmia. E. pecillina, Ceratinia decumana. Anaa jansoni, &. C. callispila, Ithomeis imitatria. Napeogenes tolosa. Archonias lyceas, ¢ . Dircenna relata. Dismorphia deione, ?. Callithomia hezia. D. sororna, ?. Hyposcada adelphina. Mylothris malenka, ?. Pteronymia notilla. Papilio zalates. Hypoleria libera. Colombian modification of 2. Tithorea hecalesina, Heliconius hecalesia. Napeogenes peridia. Eresia ithomioides. Pteronymia picta. Anea panariste, 2. 3. East Brazilian Type. (a.) The apical spots on the forewing yellow. Lycorea halia. Heliconius dryalus. Melinea ethra. Hueides dianasa. Tithorea sp. Hresia esora. Mechanitis nesaa, Eresia sp. Napeogenes xanthone. Dismorphia astyonome. Ceratinia laphria. (6.) The apical spots on the forewing white. Mechanitis lysimnia. Heliconius narcea. Napeogenes euryanassa. Ceratinia dacta. 4. Guiana Type. Lycorea ceres, Melinea mneme. Tithorea harmonia. Mechanitis polymnia. Ceratinia philidas. 5. Upper Amazons. a. Kga Type. Lycorea cinnamomeana, Melinea pardalis. Tithorea harmonia. Mechanitis egaensis. Ceratinia fluonia. b. Sao Paulo Type. Lycorea cinnamomeana. Melinea cydon. Mechanitis olivencius. Ceratinia tigrina. Heliconius numata. Eresia sp. Dismorphia amphione, Heliconius pardalinus. Protogonius castaneus. Dismorphia egeana, Heliconius isabellinus. c. Lower Rio Napo Type. Melinea sp. Mechanitis sp. Callithomia sp. Ceratinia sp. 6. Ecuador Type. Melinaa cydippe. Mechanitis mothone. Ceratinia semifulva. Napeogenes sp. FTeliconius sp. Eueides sp. Eresia sp. Heliconius aristiona. Eueides acacetes. Acrea acipha. Evesia tthomiola. Protogonius semifulvus. Papilio bacchus. ( wy 7. Central Colombian modification of 6. Melinea messenina. Heliconius messene. Mechanitis menophilus. Napeogenes sp. The greater part of these groups, which also contained a few moths belonging chiefly to the genus Pericopis, consisted of species of the Heliconioid Danaine or, as they had been recently called, Neotropine ; one or more species of Heli- coniide were constantly present, and the associated forms of Heliconius might conveniently be regarded as representatives of the respective colour-types. A few Nymphaline, Pierine, Papilionins, and in one case an Erycinid, had been drawn into the vortex. The colour-types which they represented were so far diagnostic of the geographical distribution that a strange specimen belonging to one or other of these groups, which were a few only out of many such that could be put together, could be unhesitatingly assigned by its facies to its original habitat in Tropical America.* But whereas certain groups, such as 1, 2, 8, and 4, were of extensive geographical range, others, such as the Ega group, 5a, with its peculiar suffused brown coloration, or the Rio Napo group, 5c, were restricted to a comparatively small area. This was intelligible in the Andean region, where every valley had its own special set of forms and where isolation played the same part as in the evolution of insular faunas, but, as Bates had pointed out, it was a very remarkable phenomenon in the Amazon valley, throughout which the physical conditions were very uniform. He did not propose to dispute either of the theories of mimi- cry which were associated with the names of Bates and Miller, but they rested very largely on hypothesis and were * As an example, group 4 is distinguished mainly by having the hindwings almost or quite black behind the transverse black bar usually present. The same character exists in British Guiana examples of H. thelxtope and H. vesta, not in other respects true components of the group; it is absent in their Amazon repre- sentatives, at least as far as Bolivia, where it turns up again in association with very different groups. (. vii.) in want of further support from observation and experi- ment, which would afford a large if arduous field of work to the enterprising naturalist; the difficulties of the subject did not appear to him to be fully overcome by these theories, which should not be pushed so far as to lead to the disregard of other factors which might have influenced the genesis of these groups. One difficulty was that of distribu- tion. As before mentioned, the groups of the Upper Amazon valley were often of limited range; but if they were geneti- cally connected and the conditions of their environment were constant, the causes which brought about association under a common type, if prohibiting deviation therefrom under penalty of destruction, should have operated to extend the limits of a group as widely as possible by acting as a check to variation on its outskirts. If it were assumed that one form were so far dominant as to drag its associates with it in any given direction, it must be also recollected that the prin- ciple on which these large ‘‘ Millerian’’ associations were supposed to be based was prohibitive to variation of any component species, either as a whole, or in any part of the range of the system. ‘The logical tendency of such a group would be to extend its limits indefinitely and not to give rise to repeated changes of the colour-type. Another difficulty was presented by the very close resem- blance, at times amounting to identity in external characters, between certain pairs in these groups, a resemblance to which Brunner’s epithet, ‘‘ hypertelic’? might be applied. Existing theories postulated a selective elimination by insecti- vorous birds, ete. ; but the birds’ discrimination of members of a ‘* Millerian,” z.c., protected group must be in relation to its distinctness from the other insects co-existing in the same region. If, as was frequently the case, such a group was immediately recognisable by its broad features as protected and inedible, such further discrimination between its members as would be necessary to bring about the intimate likeness found, e.g., between many species of Melinea and Heliconius was not adequately accounted for by Miuller’s hypothesis. With regard to ‘‘ convergence,” which had been put forward as a necessary phenomenon in Millerian mimicry, the CY yi) possibility of parallel variation ought not to be excluded. To take the case of H. thelxiope and H. vesta, the ‘ typical” forms might be assumed, ex hypothesi, to be the most ancestral, and to have acquired their common resemblance by conver- gence; but from these forms were derived, as the series exhibited showed, a number of paired varieties which were progressively modified in relation to their distribution. There was nothing to show that either species had been influenced in its variation by the other, and that it would not have followed the same course if it had been isolated. And it was conceivable that the causes, in most cases unknown, which brought about modifications in the colour and markings of a species in association with its geographical range, might have produced identical results in two species of the same genus, with a common facies, under common conditions. Prof. Pouttron : He congratulated Dr. Dixey on his care- ful work, and on the deep interest of the results he had obtained. It was a great source of satisfaction to him that this research had been conducted in the Hope Department of the Oxford University Museum. He then exhibited a further series of neotropical butterflies from the Godman-Salvin collection, illustrating the various members of the group which had been formed round Methona confusa, Butl., and Thyridia psidii, L.; the best known moths (of the genera Castnia and Hyelosia) which fell into the group, were supplied by specimens from the Hope collection. This group which, as regards most of its members, had been originally described by H. W. Bates, occupied a very wide geographical area, and was of special interest, not only on account of the number of forms which entered into it, but also because of the perfection of the resemblance. Further, he exhibited the smaller group which converges around [tuna lamira, Latr.,and species of Olyras, Thyridia, ete., the specimens being selected from the Godman-Salvin collec- tion; he also showed several groups characteristic of Honduras, Surinam, Eastern Brazil, etc., the specimens having been recently acquired by the Hope collection for the purpose of illustrating the principles of Warning Colours and Mimicry. Many of these specimens possessed the special interest that Ci) they were captured by one collector nearly at the same time, and in one locality. In fact, in the case of the Honduras insects (presented by Col. Swinhoe), examples of several different species and genera had been sent in one set of papers as a single species. Thus in the case of these groups evi- dence was actually forthcoming that the separate species do live together intermingled, and are liable to be confused, at any rate by a human collector. The term “ homcochromatism”’ was criticized on the ground that it was a mistake in science rigidly to exclude theory and interpretation. A theory might be a good guide to discovery, even if it turned out in the end to be imperfect or wrong. And in this case it was contended that the theories of Mimicry and of Warning Colours had by no means been proved to be wrong, but remained as the only hopeful inter- pretation of the facts. He also objected to Dr. Dixey’s phrase, ‘reciprocal mimicry,’ inasmuch as the resemblances alluded to were those of specially defended insects, and not of forms which, being themselves harmless, lived on the reputation of their better defended neighbours, as in mimicry proper. Protective Mimicry had been defined by the speaker as ‘‘ False Warning or Deceptive Warning Colours” (pseudaposematic), while, according to Dr. Dixey’s contention, there was nothing false about the warning colours of the insects described.* It was contended that the peculiar local groups, such as those of Ega and the Rio Napo do not offer any difficulty to the theory. The ordinary laws of variation continued to operate after the formation of a group, only in this case the * Tt has since occurred to me that terms accurately descriptive for those who accept the theories of Mimicry and Warning Colours may be obtained by an extension of the terminology proposed by me in 1890 (“The Colours of Animals,” pp. 336 e¢ seqq.). In the majority of cases there is reason for the belief that Miillerian groups have been formed by a gradual approximation towards the appearance of some aggressive and abundant species, or towards that of the most prominent general characteristics of several such species belonging to a specially defended section of Lepidoptera, such as the Euploeine or Acrzinz. Miilleriau groups of this kind— probably by far the commonest—may besaid to possess Synaposematic es) change which so often occurs in a species with a wide geogra- phical range, ultimately splittmg it up into subspecies and true species, would draw the associated forms after it by the operation of the very principles by which the group was originally formed. If this process were sufficiently gradual no principle of Miullerian association need be violated. Or the facts might be reasonably explained in another way: the dominant (a word which here implies only the commonest and best known, in fact, the most widely advertised of the specially defended Lepidoptera of the district) form might have inhabited the region in question, and assumed its peculiar aspect before the formation of the group, and may have then separately ‘‘ converted ’’ each new- comer as it arrived in the district. The tendency of a group was certainly, as Mr. Blandford maintained, to extend its limits indefinitely—a tendency which had operated with great success in certain cases. But the spread of species always encountered opposing forces which in many cases acted as effective barriers. With regard to Brunner’s ‘ Hypertely,’’ he maintained that one knew far too litle of the details of the struggle for existence to justify the conclusion that it was incompetent to produce such effects. What little was known confirmed the belief that very minute differences might serve to turn the scale. The differences between extremely perfect resem- blances and those which were less perfect or only very rough, were probably to be explained by the relative age of the association in the former, or the more complete and rapid operation of natural selection on account of a special reliance on this among other modes of defence possessed by the (abv, together ; ard, away : ofa, sign) colours, pattern, or appear- ance, the noun being Synaposeme. They may also be said to possess Millerian Warning Colours or Common Warning Colours. For those extremely interesting but, as I believe, relatively uncommon cases, in which the approach is mutual—a process of ‘give and take,” so well described by Dr. Dixey—the term Diaposematic (Sd, used to express mutual relation, as in “ dialogue,” ard, and ojua) may be employed, the noun being Diaposeme. These cases may also be spoken of as Reciprocal Warning Colours. Mr. Arthur Sidgwick has kindly helped in the formation of these new terms. —E. B. Poulton, June 14th, 1897. ( xi) species. One was compelled to believe that every perfect resemblance began as an imperfect resemblance, and then passed through stages in which the likeness was gradually increased ; and it was only to be expected that examples of all such stages should exist at the present day among the numberless forms which exhibited mimicry and common warning colours. Gradual changes in the geographical distribution of the constituent species along the borders of groups would tend from time to time to bring certain of them within the influence of other groups, and so begin a change in another direction. Furthermore, there was no reason for concluding that the detached members of Miillerian groups must become extinct, as in the case of the Batesian or true mimic. In the presence of other dominant members of a group, any ten- dency towards resemblance might well be of selection value : in their absence it was by no means necessary to assume that a species, which, ex hypothesi, was specially protected in some way, must become extinct, although any further advance towards the likeness would be checked, and the ground gained in the past lost after a longer or shorter interval. To enter the area of another group would tend towards a rapid modifi- cation of the old appearance. The suggestion that parallel variation assisted in the for- mation of these resemblances was strongly opposed by the fact that the superficial characters were alone affected, and that the closeness of resemblance bore no relation to degree of affinity. For. instance, the resemblance between a Melinea and a Heliconius was frequently much closer than that between the former and a Mechanitis, or the latter and an Eueides, in the same groups. Although the interesting facts brought forward by Mr. Blandford with regard to Heli- conius thelxiope and H. vesta, etc., would, taken alone, seem to support his suggestion of parallel variation, yet when they were considered as part of the whole phenomena of Millerian warning colours, as exhibited and as at present known and understood, in the Neotropical Rhopalocera, one was led to believe that one set of principles had been at work, and that natural selection, which, he contended, offered the only hopeful (xr) solution in the vast majority of cases was the true explanation of the others also. Further strong support for this conclusion and further difficulty in the way of any other interpretation as yet offered was to be found in the similar behaviour of the groups which in other tropical countries represented the Danaine, Nectro- pine, and Heliconiine of 8. America. Thus unmistakable indications of Miillerian association were to be found among the Acreine of Africa and among the Danaine and Kupleine of the Oriental Region. It was impossible to contend that these representative groups possessed the monopoly of parallel variation, or of change under direct influence of the environ- ment. The Presipent: In treating of the Miillerian associations of species closely resembling each other—many of which were so well illustrated by the admirably arranged series of Tropical- American Lepidoptera exhibited by Mr. Blandford—there was always, in his opinion, great risk, in the case of species of the same genus or even of nearly allied genera, of mis- taking for mimicry the similarity really due to close affinity in blood. It also occurred to him that in these Miillerian com- panies, where each component species is admittedly protected, some certainly and the rest presumably, by offensive and dis- tasteful secretions, there did not apparently exist the same necessity for exact imitation as was demanded in the case of the Batesian mimicries, when the very existence of the unpro- tected edible individual and species depended on the closest simulation of the protected inedible form. The opinion had been expressed that in the latter cases mimicry had some- times been carried to an exactness in minutie quite unneces- sary; but he thought that no one, who considered the life conditions under which these mimicries had been brought about—the intensity of competition, the overwhelming fer- tility, the complex inter-relations of organisms, so charac- teristic of tropical regions, could seriously conclude that these special modes of protection could by any possibility be too perfect. We might rest assured that imitations so complete as many of them are would certainly not exist if they had not become necessary. (7 xin) In the discussion of these extremely interesting phenomena it was only too evident how great was the need for prolonged and continuous systematic study of the living forms in their natural environment. The collector in tropical regions, however able and enlightened, and however desirous of con- tributing to the elucidation of these and kindred problems, was too much hampered by the hindrances and interruptions incident to his main occupation to admit of his undertaking such a series of observations as was essential. What was wanted were Biological Stations dealing with the terrestrial fauna on the lines of late so successfully followed in marine biological research. The discussion was then adjourned till June 2. Discussion on Mimicry, ete. The discussion on Mimicry and Homeochromatism in Butterflies, adjourned from May 5, was then resumed. Dr. Dixry: He wished to add his voice to the chorus of approval and thanks which had greeted the very fine exhibit arranged by Mr. Blandford from the collection of Messrs. Godman and Salvin. He thought that his own views were supported by the contents of the drawers shown, and that the series of examples contained therein were, in most instances, Miillerian associations of an extensive character. He agreed that the term ‘‘ homceochromatism”’ had an advantage in merely denoting the facts, without reference to any theory ; but he thought that Mr. Blandford ought not to restrict it, if such were his intention, to Millerian mimicry. It was equally true that Batesian mimics were homcochro- matic with the models they represented. He was not sure whether Mr. Blandford intended his remarks about the intimate resemblance existing between certain species included in these groups to be considered as a criticism of the Millerian theory. The course taken by any species was a resultant of the various forces acting upon it, and the perfection of a mimetic resemblance would therefore stand in relation to the facility for its acquisition which was allowed by the other forces tending to modify the external appearance. ( xive 1} Professor Poulton had criticised the use of the term “mimicry” in the case of Miillerian resemblances. The speaker agreed that any ambiguity between these phenomena and Batesian mimicry was to be avoided, but it had not occurred to him that his use of the term ‘reciprocal mimicry’’ was open to this objection. He had also been charged with saying that Miillerian mimicry was necessarily reciprocal. Possibly he had conveyed this impression ; he did not, however, intend to assert that this form of mimicry must always so demonstrably act as to produce reciprocal alterations among species associated under its influence; but merely that it exercised a constant potential force, in some cases becoming actual and capable of demonstration, towards mutual converg- ence, whereas in Batesian mimicry the mimic was neces- sarily without any such influence on the model. He was glad to hear Professor Poulton say that he was becoming convinced by the speaker’s arguments that the Pierine were a protected group. He should not himself, however, care to assert more than that much evidence point- ing to this conclusion existed in respect to many members of the subfamily—for instance, the genera Delias and Mylo- thris; while in some cases the evidence for inedibility was considerably strengthened by the presence of reciprocal change. Canon Fowrrer: Could anyone explain the existence of the ‘*predominant partner’ which was assumed in the explana- tion given of these groups? He could not imagine why one species should be stable and the others unstable and depen- dent upon the former for their characters. Mr. Exwes: The society was much indebted to Messrs. Godman and Salvin for the loan and to Mr. Blandford for the arrangement and exhibition of these valuable specimens. He doubted if there were any other collection in the world from which such an exhibit as that shown could be got together. To his mind the specimens were of infinitely greater scientific value in their present arrangement than they would be if dispersed throughout a collection in their proper systematic positions. He therefore pleaded that when the question of their being ( xv ) sent to their ultimate destination, the British Museum, arose, the possibility of their being kept permanently to- gether might be considered, and their retention in the present arrangement stipulated for, The absence of any rare or unique examples from their proper places in the collection would be more than compensated for by the increased interest which would thus be secured, and the series would serve as a model to curators of other museums in the art of making butterfly collections interesting and instructive. He had to speak that evening without the advantage of having heard the first part of the discussion, and what he had to say was therefore based mainly on the abstract which had been furnished of it. He thought, and his opinion was formed on personal experience gained in collecting in many countries, tropical and otherwise, that there was too much assumption about either the Batesian or Miillerian theories of mimicry. In many supposed cases he doubted whether the so-called models were protected either by taste or smell, and he thought that the importance of birds as enemies of butterflies had been overrated. It seemed to him that the protection supposed to be given to the imago was of little account in the perpetuation of the species when compared with the destruction which took place in the larval or pupal stage by climatic influence, as well as by insect and other enemies. However beautiful these explanations of the phenomena of mimicry were in theory they ought not in most cases to be treated as proved scientific axioms. He did not deny that there might be some truth in each of the theories which had been put forward, but it appeared to him that altogether too much stress was laid on them. Had any observations been made which would justify the statement that the members of a Miillerian group were inedible, as was asserted by Dr. Dixey in his quoted remarks ? He desired to call attention again to a passage in his Presidential Address on Geographical Distribution (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1894, pp. lxv., Ixvi.). He had said: ‘* What is most remarkable is the existence, at high eleva- tions in various parts of the Andes, and at sea level in South (sya) Chili and Patagonia, of several genera and species elsewhere unknown in the Neotropical region, and which are isolated from their congeners in North America by an enormous area of country. ‘‘ Among these Trifurcula huanaco is a remarkable species which occurs in the Andes of Bolivia, at 16,000 to 17,000 feet, and has a marvellous likeness to Baltia shawi, found at a similar elevation in Ladak. “‘ Phulia, a genus of three or four nearly allied species also occurring at great elevations in the Andes and Chili, has a striking resemblance to Synchloe butleri, a species which accompanies Baltia in Ladak. If similar conditions of en- vironment do not produce similar effects, how can these extraordinary cases of resemblance in remote and discon- nected areas be accounted for ?”’ He hoped that entomologists who resided in places where any of the supposed instances of protective mimicry occurred would pay special attention to the life-history of the species affected by it, as such observation alone could prove or dis- prove the question. Mr. Verratt : Homcochromatism was not a phenomenon confined to the tropics. Homcochromatic resemblances existed even in Europe between Diptera and Hymenoptera, and it must be assumed that they stood in relation to the protective armature of the Hymenoptera. Col. Swrnnor: A challenge had been held out as to whether the distasteful qualities of protected Lepidoptera had been experimented on. As an example of a species, of which such qualities were placed beyond doubt, he instanced Danais chrysippus, one of the most widely-spread protected models. This insect was so free from attack, owing to its nauseous character, that the protection extended even to dried examples. These would be found untouched in a box of insects, although the remainder of its contents had been destroyed by mites or Anthrent. He did not doubt that there were many other protected Lepidoptera, including many Pierine genera—for example, all the species of Teracolus appeared to be inedible. Mr. Jacosy: If protected and inedible species were so (y xvile *) widely distributed, why were they not universally imitated by unprotected insects? He did not think that sufficient proof had been given of the existence of protection. Sir Grorce Hampson, Bart.: In his personal experience in 8. India he had found that it was quite an exceptional thing to see birds catch, or even attempt to catch, butterflies, whilst it was a matter of daily occurrence to see them taking other insects, especially moths, ete., started from a position of rest. In the cases he had witnessed the Huplee and Danaidae were caught as often as any others, but usually escaped eventually from the beak of the bird and flew away none the worse owing to the toughness of the integuments. The only bird he had observed frequently to pursue butter- flles was the common Indian Bee-eater, which he had seen hawking Pieride, and among them Teracolus, which Col. Swinhoe had expressly referred to as a protected genus. He thought the cause demanded by these theories was inadequate to produce the results assigned to it. The Hon. Watrer Roruscuitp: It had struck him that it was much more conceivable that certain climatic influences, etc., had played a part in bringing about these resemblances, and he thought that these groups assumed the same appear- ance because one given influence was at work on them. Such a case as that of Papilio merope, and its various representative forms inhabiting Africa (except the Palearctic North part) and Madagascar were inexplicable by mimicry alone. This Papilia was monomorphic in Madagascar, the female being similar to the male both in colour and form of wings, while the representative found in Abyssinia had the hindwing tailed like the male, but possessed a decidedly ‘‘mimetic’’ pattern. In this respect it resembled the female forms of S. and W. Africa, which were, however, tailless. He contended that these geographical forms of Papilio merope had probably sprung up under the direct influence of the extarnal conditions of the respective areas rather than in consequence of the direct selection of specimens with a more ‘‘mimetic” pattern. Canon Fowirer: There was too much assumption about the current theories. ( xviii) Mr. McLacutan: A point that appeared to him to be a good deal overlooked in this matter was the possibility that two species might go on independently and yet apparently mimic each other by arriving at the same results in their modifications. Prof. Weupon, F.R.S.: He did not intend to enter upon the details of mimetic resemblances or upon the theories which had been put forward, but, speaking as a visitor, he would like to take the opportunity, as he did whenever an occasion presented itself, of pointing out to entomologists that the truth or falsity of these theories was capable of being tested to a large extent experimentally, and especially by experiments which would give a basis for statistical deter- minations. Thus, if one took a mimetic species distributed over a large area, homceochromatie with one species in one district, and with another in another district, such a species on theoretical grounds must be variable and susceptible to a moderately rapid selective action. In any given area, although the examples caught might conform fairly closely with a common type, the species must still be variable and capable of selection ; if the theories were true there should be evidence of continued selective destruc- tion, and this could be ascertained by experimental breeding on a large scale from eggs of wild individuals. A comparison of the examples thus reared with an equal number of wild specimens from the same locality would show whether there was any greater variability among the bred forms. Assuming that sources of error had been excluded, such a result would be good evidence of the existence of continued selection tending to ensure conformity with the model. Mr. J. J. Watxer: He was unable to believe that birds were effective agents in causing mimetic resemblances. During all his experience as a collector in different parts of the world he had never seen a bird pursue and catch a butterfly but once. On the other hand, butterflies were often eaten when at rest by lizards, small mammals and monkeys. Col. Yersury: During his personal experience of many years in India and Ceylon he had hardly ever seen a bird GC sis }) touch a butterfly. Some years ago the question was raised by the Bombay Natural History Society, and he, with others, took notes on the subject. He recorded two cases only during three years’ observing. It was significant that while the flocks of locusts and white ants were attended by vertebrates of all orders, the tlocks of butterflies in Ceylon (locally known as ‘‘snowstorms’’) were attended by one species only of bird, and that but seldom. In his opinion the enemies of butterflies were chiefly, if not entirely invertebrate. In Ceylon two protected species, Euplea core and Delias eucharis, were largely taken by a mantis, Gongylus gongyloides, while two of the large Asilide, Promachus maculatus and Scleropogon ambryon preyed largely on Danais limnace. Mr. Buanprorp: In criticizing the term ‘‘ homceochroma- tism.’’ Prof. Poulton had, he thought, somewhat mistaken the speaker's attitude. 2 had no intention whatever of excluding theoretical considerations, even if he could not accept them at their full value. But it was obviously unjust that a class of facts, about which there could be no dispute, should be labelled with a collective name implying the acceptance of a theory which, however well it might stand criticism, had certainly not yet been established. He preferred to keep one terminology for the facts and another for the explanatory theory. The wideness of meaning which he proposed to attach to the term ‘‘homeochromatism’’ required some explanation. Certainly he conceded that it covered cases of Batesian mimicry; but if generally adopted, it would probably prove convenient to give it a more restricted and conventional meaning by their exclusion: such a conventional limit had constantly to be applied in terminology. In order to keep the nomenclature of these facts independent of speculation it seemed desirable to employ the words ‘‘ mimic” and ‘“ model” without reference to the questions of Batesian or Miillerian mimicry, the essential character ot a ‘“‘ mimic ’”’ being that of a wide departure from the general type of its genus or subfamily with a resulting likeness to a model which was not, or scarcely, modified thereby; in homcochromatism, as he ( xx ) desired to limit the term, and as he had illustrated it, no such one-sided departure was manifest.* The President had called attention to the risk, in the case of species of the same genus, or of nearly allied genera, of mistaking for homeochromatism a similarity due to blood- relationship. Of course, the value of resemblances had to be estimated in relation both to the range of form existing in the genera or sections of a genus involved, and to distribution ; and the speaker did not admit that such a mistake had been made in respect to any single species of his exhibit. As far as his knowledge went, instances of non-mimetic hom«o- chromatism among Neotropical butterflies were entirely confined to the Neotropine, Heliconiine, and Hesperiide, although other subfamilies afforded mimetic forms. He had brought forward certain difficulties attending the current theories; Prof. Poulton’s epicriticism thereon was based largely on the assumption that each group possessed some dominant form. The speaker had already pointed out that the Millerian theory was opposed to the existence of dominant forms, and he knew of no direct evidence that such actually were present—that was, species which could so far influence a group as to compel its components to change when they changed. His objections as to geographical distribution had been met by two counter-suggestions, one of which presupposed that a series of dominant forms had preoccupied the country and had influenced the appearance of the protected species which subsequently invaded it; but one could not bring oneself to believe without strong evidence that the groups of insects concerned, the Heliconiine and Neotropme, were not coeval in distribution. Prof. Poulton’s comments on ‘“ hypertely ’’ again presupposed the * Homeeochromatic pairs, such as those of Series I. in my exhibit, are not demonstrably in the relation of ‘ model” and “mimic,” but in one for which some other word must be found. I would suggest that each member of such a pair, or group, which does not show the departure indicative of a mimetic form, be called the “ homotype” of its associates. Thus Heliconius galanthus would be the homotype of, or homotypic with, A. luce—W. F. H. Blandford, July, 1897. Csr J existence of a dominant form in each group, the other com- ponents of which were capable of being arranged in a descending order of resemblance to it. That was scarcely borne out by the specimens. A group such as that shown from Panama presented several hypertelic pairs and did not support the idea that the species could be arranged in degrees of adaptation towards one particular model. Whilst the facts of geographical distribution afforded, in his view, areal objection to the Millerian theory, he did not look to distribution alone as likely to have hada considerable share in the production of these groups.* It might have had some ; but their production might conceivably be due to a variety of causes, and not one alone. He had certainly intended his remarks on hypertely to be taken as a criticism of the Miullerian hypothesis. However effective a destructive agency might be in pro- ducing change, directly it became non-selective, the resulting change must stop short at the point reached; and _ his argument was that the process of discrimination by birds, the only available agents, would be limited to the recognition of a group of associated forms as an inedible whole, and being superfluous if carried farther would not be exercised so as to bring about such minute resemblances as were often met with. As an instance, he might mention the two Brazilian groups, differing in the white or yellow colour of the apical spots of the forewing. ‘To use a rough illustration, a person whose object was to avoid the society of a policeman would betake himself off at the first sight of the familiar uniform and would not stop to decipher such minutiz as the distin- guishing number thereon. His view was strengthened by the President’s admission that in Miillerian groups there apparently did not exist the same necessity for exact imitation as was demanded in the case of Batesian mimics ; it practically conceded his point. Every one who had listened to the discussion must, he thought, be struck with the amount of doubt thrown on the * The objections to any explanation based on distribution alone have been forcibly stated by Fritz Miiller himself. “ Kosmos,” 1882, p. 262. @ xa} bird-theory by speakers whose competence and opportunities for observation were quite beyond dispute. Further impor- tant evidence on this point had been lately given by M. Piepers (Congr. Internat. Zool., III., p. 460) who had studied the question in Sumatra and Java for twenty-eight years. In that time M. Piepers had seen four cases only of butterflies, two belonging to the “ protected’? genus Huplwa, being attacked by birds; and his paper referred to the fact that neither Pryer, after twenty years’ observation in Borneo, Skertchley nor Scudder had geen or accepted such a phenomenon. M. Piepers had arrived at the sufficiently striking result that mimicry had nothing to do with Natural selection. The premisses necessary to support either theory of Mimicry had been unduly neglected. For example, though evidence existed to show that the models were protected and inedible, the proof of the edibility of mimetic butterflies had not received enough attention; it was necessary to Bates’s theory, and all the more so since Dr. Dixey’s work on the “‘ Millerian ” character of certain Pierine. These theories, indeed, were really working hypotheses, the object of which was to suggest experimental work tending to prove or disprove them ; they were not yet to be put forward dogmati- cally as true and as convincing proofs of Natural selection. To insist that these homceochromatic groups owed their origin merely to the educational requirements of birds had led, in his view, not so much to a development as to a stifling of broad speculation on and inquiry into the problem. The facts presented by the Ithomie (s. lat.) had scarcely been touched upon in the discussion. Almost every colour- type among these insects, however insignificant in appearance, was represented by species of two or more of the genera into which the old genus /thomia had been divided; so that the Ithomie might be said habitually to exist as homceochromatic pairs. The coloration of many of these pairs, consisting of nothing but afew black patches and a white or yellow patch on a transparent ground was far from exhibiting the striking features which one was led to believe were characteristic of warning colours. (- Sxxi >) Personally, he was not disposed to reject Bates’s theory which, even if of less general application than was commonly supposed, was strongly supported by evidence from other orders of insects, but he was unable to accept that which had been called by the name of Fritz Miller. What was to take the place of the latter? At present, nothing. Until more information had been collected on the habits and variation of homeeochromatic species, and on selective agencies, there were no data on which a new theory could be legitimately founded. But he desired to call attention to a significant passage in Bates’s original paper on Mimicry (Trans. Linn. Soc., 1861, p. 501). Bates said therein: ‘“‘ The process of the creation of a new species I believe to be accelerated in the Ithomie and allied genera by the strong tendency of these insects, when pairing, to select none but their exact counter- parts ; this also enables a number of very closely allied ones to exist together, or the representative forms to live side by side on the confines of their areas, without amalgamating.” Such a statement indicated the possibility that sexual selection, or the segregation of forms might take place as a direct act of p2rception on the part of the insects themselves. If such a phenomenon were shown really to exist, it would remove many of the difficulties which the present theories entailed, and in view of Bates’s definite and repeated state- ments, some proof or disproof of them should be attempted before the Miillerian theory came to be regarded as more than a merely provisional suggestion. The Prestipent: The point had been raised by Mr. Elwes that the destruction of species in the imago stage was of little importance when compared with the much greater destruction of larve and pupx which took place. As a matter of fact, he could bear witness that certain species at any rate of - Danais and Acrea were distasteful and protected in all stages. The larve and pupe of Danais chrysippus and of five or six species of South-African Acrea were rejected by cage-birds and common fowls; they were highly conspicuous (especially the pup of Acrea, which are white or yellowish-white with orange and black bars and spots, and suspended indiscrimin- ately on green leaves, dark-brown bark of trees, tarred (" Sai 9) palings, etc.) and all gave out an odour weaker than, but of the same character as, that emitted by the perfect insects. With respect to the term ‘‘ homceochromatism,” it had this disadvantage, that it was at once too wide and too restricted — too wide, because it did not exclude cases of resemblance due to mere relationship, and too restricted, because it left out of sight the similarity in shape of wings or body, or of move- ment and habit which often made up part of a mimetic likeness. He did not agree with Mr. Rothschild as to the case of Papilio merope, considering that cases in which the 9 alone was exactly modified in imitation of a protected form (or, as in the instance under notice, of three or four differing protected forms) were, by reason of the extraordinary contrast with the unmodified ¢, more striking and unmistakable instances of obvious and indisputable mimicry than even those in which both sexes were similarly modified. As regards the Abyssinian representative of P. merope named P. antinorii, which until recently was thought like the Madagascar and Comoro representatives (P. meriones and P. humbloti) to have the sexes alike, without any mimetic modification of the 9, Prof. Kheil had described and figured in 1890 two forms of the 9? (collected, with seven ¢ ¢ and two ? ? coloured like the ¢, at Lake Tana by thelate Dr. A. Stecker) respectively closely imitative of D. chrysippus and Amauris niavius, but still retaining the conspicuous tails on the hindwings which all the other known forms of 9? of the allied species on the African continent have lost. There, it seemed to him, was a most interesting and con- clusive case of mimetic modification still actually im progress, the @ usually resembling the ¢ in both colouring and pattern as well as in outline of wings, but also presenting two other forms, each profoundly modified in simulation of: a protected Danaine butterfly, yet an imcomplete mimicker in so far that the tailed outline of the hindwings remained unaltered. He must admit that the capture by birds of butterflies was rare, but he had himself seen birds, especially the Drongo shrike, chasing butterflies. Caan) Mr. Mansel Weale had recorded his having witnessed the capture of the ¢ Papilio cenea (the S. African representative of P. merope) by the Fly-catcher, Tehitrea cristata; and Mr. T. Ayres has observed that the small King-hunter, Zspidina natalensis, fed almost entirely on butterflies. The larger Madagascar Chameleons also ate butterflies, but appeared to show no discrimination. Lizards attacked them, but must necessarily see the undersides only, which were protectively coloured in many cases. As regarded the known protected butterflies, it should be borne in mind that there was very little difference in colour- ing and pattern between the two surfaces of the wings in the Danaine and Acreine, so that warning indications of dis- tastefulness were shown almost as conspicuously when at rest as When in flight. The importance of this as a means of protection was manifest, and was further evidenced by the fact that it was exhibited very markedly by the mimicking forms as well. The chief invertebrate enemies he had noticed were Asilide and dragon-flies. It seemed to him impossible to explain except by the theory of mimicry such cases as that of Danais chrysippus, a widely distributed and very common insect which was attended by a troop of mimetic species wherever it went. Dr. Drxry: It was too late to deal fully with all the points which had been raised, and he must necessarily leave some unanswered for that reason, and not because he undervalued their importance. He agreed with Canon Fowler as to the danger of making too much assumption upon a matter such as mimicry—it was a subject upon which he had no desire to dogmatise. His position was rather this:—Supposing the theory that such and such forms were inedible seemed to supply a provisional explanation of observed facts, it was desirable to work out fully the logical consequences of such a theory, and then to make a fresh appeal to observers for verification. Mr. Elwes had laid stress on the importance of getting more observations from naturalists resident in the country c ( -xkmi- )) where these phenomena existed; with that the speaker fully agreed. With respect to Mr. Elwes’s question as to the reason for concluding that the various members of a ‘ Millerian ”’ group were inedible; that was an inference which was drawn from several data, in some instances resting on direct observation, in others depending mainly on the accordance of the characters exhibited with the logical requirements of the theory. Cases of the latter .kind awaited verification. | The suggestion made by Mr. Rothschild with regard to the similar results produced by a similar environment did not remove the difficulty ; for these effects were not uniform, and even closely allied species inhabiting the same region might differ widely in aspect. [From the PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, VOL, XLVI, 1897. ] MIMICRY IN BUTTERFLIES OF THE GENUS HYPOLIMNAS AND ITS BEARING ON OLDER AND MORE RECENT THEORIES OF MIMICRY. By Prof. EDWARD B. Poutton, M.A., F.R.S., University of Oxford, England. Tue theory of mimicry suggested by H. W. Bates in 1862 explained the superficial resemblance of a rare to a common species in the same locality by supposing that the latter possessed some special means of de- fence (such as unpleasant taste, smell, etc.), and that the former, without the special defence, was mistaken by enemies for the latter, and thus es- caped a considerable amount of persecution. The relation may be com- pared to that existing between a successful well-known firm and another small unscrupulous one which lives upon its reputation. On the other hand, Bates thoroughly recognized the existence of resemblance between the specially defended forms themselves. These he could not explain by his theory of mimicry, and suggested that they were a result of the in- fluence of locality. Many years later Fritz Miiller satisfactorily explained this difficulty by suggesting that a common type of appearance simplified the education of enemies and thus was the means of saving life. The lives of many individuals must be sacrificed before enemies have learned to recognize and to avoid the colors and patterns which indicate some special means of defence, and the fewer such patterns in any locality the smaller the sacrifice. The relation may be compared to that between two successful firms which combine to use a common advertisement. This latter theory, although received rather coldly at first, las gradu- ally made way, and seems now likely to occupy a good dealof the ground (242) 943 ZOOLOGY. formerly believed to be covered by the former theory. Thus, Dr. F. A. Dixey, of Oxford, has recently shown that South American Heliconine are affected by the color of certain Pier‘ne which have hitherto been looked upon as true Batesian mimics of the former. The old-world nymphaline genus Hypolimnas has been regarded as one of the best examples of mimicry, but an unbiassed examination leads to the opinion that it affords a case of Millerian rather than Batesian resem- blance. In India the female of the common species H. bolina resembles Huplea core while the male is a dark butterfly with a large white spot, shot with blue, on each of the four wings. Throughout the Malay Archipel- ago representative species occur with males like that of H. bolina and females reseinbling the local Euploeas. Occasionally, as in Ke Island and the Solomons, species of the genus occur in which the male as well as the female resembles a Huplea. In Fiji the male is as in the Indian species while the female is extremely variable, ranging from forms like the male through intermediate varieties, to be brown and straw-colored individ- uals. The Euploeas of Fiji are not sufficiently known, but it is very improbable that all the forms of the female Hypolimnas are mimetic. A still more instructive case is that of the nerina form of female found, with a male like that of H. dolina, in Australia, Celebes, New Guinea, and other E. Indian Islands and in many of the Polynesian groups. This conspicuous and abundant butterfly has, in addition to the four white-and-blue spots of the male, a large reddish brown patch upon each fore-wing. This well-marked form resembles no other butterfly except the Danais chianippe of Celebes, and, as this latter appears to be very rare, it is far more probable that the resemblance has come from the other side, and that the Danais has approached the Hypolimnas. In Africa the sub-genus Huralia is represented by several species which resemble in both sexes species of the Ethiopian Danaine genus Amauris. Finally there is the well-known and widespread Hypolimnas missippus which accompanies Limnas chrysippus throughout its range; while the female of the former resembles the latter very closely. In this case it is certain that we have to do with no struggling hard-pressed form, for the Hypolimnas has recently established itself in some of the West Indian Isl- ands and in Demerara — localities in which its model, L. chrysippus, is as yet unknown. Tosum up —the genus Hypolimnas is distinguished among nymphaline genera for the extent to which its numerous and widespread species re- semble the local distasteful forms of Euploeins or Danaine. Upon the older theory of Bates this would be explained by supposing that the genus is very hard-pressed in the struggle and has thus been driven to mimicry almost everywhere. Upon the newer Miillerian theory it is supposed that the genus is distinguished among nymphaline genera by some special defence, probably in the way of taste or smell or indi- gestibility, and that it has been to its advantage to adopt the advertise- SECTION F. 244 ment of still better-known and probably still more distasteful forms in its locality. The abundance of the various species, the conspicuous nerina form of female, and the resemblance of a rare Danaid to it, the recent spread of H. misippus beyond the limits of its model all support this latter inter- pretation. MIMICRY AS EVIDENCE FOR THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF A WIDE-RANGING specius. By Prof. Epwarp B. PouLton, M.A., F.R.S., University of Oxford, England. We know on historic evidence that Anosia plexippus has spread and is spreading through the warmer parts of the world. If we had not this evidence, it might still be inferred with safety that North America is- the ancestral home as compared with the other countries now inhabited by this species. In North America we find a very perfect mimic in Limenitis misippus, while in no other country has the occupation been long enough to permit of such a resemblance growing up. Similar evidence indicates that Africa is the ancestral home of Limnas chrysippus which now ranges through almost all the warmer parts of the Old World. The far greater effect which has been produced by this species upon the Lepidopterous fauna of Africa as compared with that of other lands, proves a far longer sojourn in the former. A METHOD OF LABELLING TYPE SPECIMENS IN COLLECTIONS OF INSECTS. By Prof. Epwarp B. PouLTon, M.A., F.R.S.,University of Oxford, England. THE method adopted in the Hope Department of the University Museum, Oxford, consists in printing a form of type label to which the reference to the author’s description of the species can be added. Such a label is placed on the pin, below the specimen, while a duplicate label is pinned beside it, in the most convenient position for the student. All essential facts are recorded on this label and a second one stating the locality, date of capture, name of captor, and date of presentation. This latter (which is prepared for all specimens recently added to the collections) is simi- larly placed beside as well as on the insect. Ordinary printers’ ink is used for both labels because of its permanence; but the type labels are distin- guished by a redline just within the margin. Theories of Mimicry, as vlustrated by African Butterflies. By Epwarp B. Poutron, WA., 7. R.S., Hope Professor of Zoology, Oxford. (An abstract of the paper read before Section D of the BRITISH ASSOCIATION at Toronto on Friday, August 20, 1897. Reprinted from the ‘Report’ of the Meeting, pages 688-91.) H. W. Bates, in his epoch-making paper (‘ Trans. Linn. Soc.,’ vol. xxiii. 1862), first gave an intelligible theory of mimicry, and accounted for the superficial resemblances which had been known for so long by supposing that the most dominant, well-defended, and conspicuous forms in a country become the models towards which natural selection leads many of the weaker hard-pressed species in the same locality. The material on which Bates’ theory was formed was con- fined to tropical America, and his generalisation remained incomplete until it could be applied to the other great tropical regions. This want, however, was soon supplied by A. R. Wallace for the East (‘ Trans. Linn, Soc.,’ vol. xxv. 1866), and by Roland Trimen for Africa ( ‘Trans, Linn. Soc.,’ vol. xxvi. 1870). In Bates’ original paper a certain class of facts—frequently mentioned and abundantly illustrated—cannot be explained under his theory of mimicry. This is the strong resemblance which is apt to exist between the dominant forms them- selves, and which is as minute and as remarkable as the resemblance of the weaker for the stronger species. Bates pointed out that this was unsolved by his theory, and both he and Wallace were compelled to suggest the direct action of some unknown local influence as the possible cause. There the matter rested until Fritz Miiller, in a paper published in Kosmos for May 1879, suggested an explana- tion, viz., that the dominant forms gain an advantage by this resemblance, inasmuch as it facilitates the education of their enemies by giving them fewer patterns to learn. The necessary waste of life by which the education of young birds, &c., is brought about is here divided between the various species of a closely convergent group, instead of being contributed by each member independently. The chief sub-families of butterflies which in tropical America appear to be specially dis- tasteful to insect-eating animals, and which are specially mimicked by others, are the Danaine, Ithomiine, Heliconine, and Acreine. Of these the second and third are confined to this part of the world. The resemblances which Fritz Muller explained are those which occur very commonly between the Danaine, Ithomine, Heliconing, and less commonly the Acreine of any locality. In order to complete this theory it was necessary to test its application in other parts of the world. In the East the butterflies which take the place of the four above-named sub- families belong almost exclusively to the Danaine, the Acreine being represented by very few species. The Danaine are, however, extremely rich in species, and F. Moore first pointed out in ‘ Proc. Zool. Soc.,’ 1883, p. 201, that there is the same relationship between the species of this dominant group that obtains between those of tropical America. Not only do Danaine of very different genera closely re- semble each other, but there is often a strong likeness between the species belonging to the two chief divisions of the sub-family—the Danaina and Eupleima, As in America, these resemblances are always between the species of the same locality. While, however, Miiller’s theory received full confirmation from the facts observed in India and the tropical East generally, no attempt has been made until now to apply it to the African lepidopterous fauna. I have therefore examined this fauna from the Miillerian standpoint, and find that in it too the same relationship: can be traced. The dominant distasteful groups of Africa are the Acreine, which have their metropolis here, and the Danaine. The latter are chiefly represented by the species of the peculiar African genus Amauris, and by the abundant and wide- spread Danais (Limnas) chrysippus. I first looked for evidence of convergence between the dereine and Limnas chrysippus, and soon found what appeared to d 3 “3 be evident traces of it. Such species as Planema esebria (certain forms of), Acrea petrea (female), A. oppidia, and, above all, A. encedon (lycia) bear a considerable resemblance to L. chrysippus, inasmuch as all of them possess a dark tip to the fore wing crossed by a white bar, as in the Danaine butterfly. Looking at the near allies of these species and at the Acreine@ as a whole, we may feel confident that this black-and-white tip is not an ancestral character of the group, but a comparatively recent modification. Again, the fact that this character is some- times more strongly developed in, and sometimes confined to, the female sex agrees with the corresponding relationships in other parts of the world, and furthermore supports the conclusion as to the recent acquisition of the markings. Convergence between the Acreine and Danaine of the genus Amauris was next looked for and many examples found. Thus Acrea johnstoni of Kast Central Africa certainly suggests the appearance of one of the echeria group, such as A, hanningtonz, found in the same locality; while in West Africa Acrea lycoa resembles the black-and-white Amawris damocles and A. egialea. Similar resem- blances in the West are to be seen between the large black-and-white females of the numerous species of the Acreeine genus Planema and other Acrzeas in the same locality, such as A. carmentis (female) and A. jodutta (female), while the species referred to, of both Acreeine genera, bear some considerable resemblance to an abundant West African black-and-white Danaine—