180 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Jan., 



to archippus, and I do not think that any naturalist who recognized 

 the traces of the pattern of mercedonia still lingering almost invisible 

 on the surface of niorgeni or concealed by the overlap of the wings 

 would doubt that the former is the ancestor of the latter and that the 

 model has become itself a mimic. 



Finalh', it must be remembered that L. archippus has a far wider 

 range than arthemis, and it is reasonable to suppose that this advan- 

 tage has been conferred by its mimetic pattern. Arthemis is confined 

 to Canada east of the Rockies and to the northeastern States, while 

 archippus is "found over very nearly the same area as Anosia plex- 

 ippus" (6, 278). 



10. The Relation of the Pattern of Limenitis obsoleta (hulsti) 

 to that of archippus, arthemis and weidemeyeri, 



When I wrote the paper criticised by Dr. Skinner (32), as well as 

 an earlier paper, in some respects more detailed (31), I had never 

 been given the opportunity of examining a series of the Arizona 

 and Utah mimic, Limenitis obsoleta {hulsti), and my brief account was 

 founded on the excellent fig. 5 on plate VII of Dr. W. J. Holland's 

 work (17.) In January, 1909, when I had the honor of repre- 

 senting my country at the Darwin centenary in America, mj^ friend 

 Dr. F. A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum, Central Park, 

 New York, showed me a series of obsoleta together with its model, 

 Danaida strigosa. The specimens were in the Brooklyn Museum, 

 of which Dr. Lucas was then Curator. I saw at once that the form 

 was very variable and that my work required the study and com- 

 parison of a long series of individuals. Dr. Lucas very kindly 

 obtained a few specimens of the model and mimic for me and put 

 me in communication with Dr. R. E. Kunze, of Phoenix, Arizona, 

 who has generously provided me with a fine mass of material. The 

 following account has been drawn up from the study of 24 males and 

 9 females from Phoenix and 2 males and 1 female from Tucson. 

 Thirty-three specimens bear the precise date of capture, one the 

 month and year, one a month of which the interpretation is uncertain, 

 and one for which the month is not recorded. Omitting these last 

 •two, the dates of capture are given in the following table. The three 

 1896 specimens were captured at Tucson (2,400 feet) in southern 

 Arizona, the remaining 31 at Phoenix (1,100 feet) in the valley of the 

 Salt River, southern Arizona. 



Apr. 0, 1896 1 9 June 6, 1896 1 c^ 



Apr. 10, 1896 1 cf Apr. 22, 1897 1 cT 



