1 88 1 -82.] Edinburgh Nahiralists Field Clnb. 35 



in colour or tint — though that also is found — as in outward appear- 

 ance. It is at once a resemblance to an entirely different groiip, 

 and a want of resemblance to closely allied groups ; so that it has 

 been well remarked that such imitators "appear like actors or 

 masqueraders dressed up and painted for amusement, or like 

 swindlers endeavouring to pass themselves off for well-known and 

 respectable members of society." Examples of this kind of imita- 

 tion exist particularly amongst the Lepidoptera, where we find 

 that they not only mimic each other, but also other insects, as 

 Bees and Wasps ; and at least one tropical Moth is said to 

 resemble closely a Humming-bird. There are fourteen or fifteen 

 species of the Sesiida? or " Clear-wings " in this country, and each 

 is named after some other insect whose uniform it wears. Exactly 

 the same kind of simulation is found to exist amongst Beetles ; 

 and Mr Bates further mentions a Caterpillar which at first sight 

 startled him, and deceived even his practised eye, by its close re- 

 semblance to a poisonous Viper. Were this paper treating of the 

 mimicry of animals, and not that of plants, much might have been 

 added on this fascinating subject ; but any wishing to pursue it 

 further will find much to interest in Mr Wallace's book already 

 mentioned. Having thus prepared the way, we will now pass on 

 to observe some instances of this same law of mimicry amongst 

 plants. 



Mimicry in plants may be divided into two kinds : it may either 

 be general — that is, of the whole habit or mode of growth ; or it 

 may be special, consisting in the development of so:ne particular 

 organ or part, as the leaf, the flower, the seed or fruit, and even the 

 odour. Examples of the first kind — viz., of resemblances in habit 

 — and of foliage resemblances in the second, are perhaps the most 

 numerous, and may be treated of together, leaving out of sight, for 

 the present occasion at all events, flower, fruit, or other resem- 

 blances. It is well known that there are plants in every Natural 

 Order which might easily be taken as belonging to some other Order. 

 The late Mr W. Wilson Saimders of Reigate repeatedly exhibited at 

 the soirees of the Linna^an Society paired specimens of mimetic plants 

 belonging to entirely different Natural Orders, yet resembling one 

 another in their habit and general appearance to so extraordinary 

 a degree, that even a good botanist, it is affirmed, might well have 

 been excused for passing them over as identical. It is a fact 

 familiar to many, that Sir William Hooker once figured and de- 

 scribed a New Zealand Veronica (F. tetragona), without fruit or 

 flower, as a Conifer. Dr Hooker, in his ' Flora Antarctica,' draws 

 and describes a most singular species of Caltha (C Dioncefolia), the 

 leaves of which are almost an exact reproduction of those of the 

 well-known " Venus's Fly-trap." Again, such an authority as 

 Kunze pronounced a Cycad {Stangeria 2^«r«c?oa:a), after an ex- 



