CURRENT NOTES. 121 



by young birds in England, you can reply— the same evidence that 

 there is in other cases of Mullerian mimicry, that is, none whatever. 

 1 cannot help thinking that the adherents of this theory are carrying 

 their ideas to the most unwarrantable lengths." 



Most entomologists accept the general principles underlying the 

 usual explanations of the theories of what are commonly known as 

 simple instances of ' Batesian," and even of '' Miillerian," mimicry. 

 When these theories were first propounded, explanations of the 

 phenomena observed were offered l)y men who knew the habits of the 

 mimics and their supposed models in nature, and who were in a 

 position to state the details in favour of, and those against, the sug- 

 gestions made in explanation. 



During the last fifteen or twenty years the question of the explana- 

 tion of assumed phases of Mimicry has been discussed by a host of men 

 who have often never seen the supposed models or mimics alive, who 

 know nothing of their habits, of their times of appearance, or even of 

 the fact that they inhabit the same places at the same time, the most 

 snnple necessity for mimicry to be of the least effective value. 

 In proportion to the ignorance of the authority of the exact locality, 

 time of appearance, and habit of species supposed to be •' mimickers " 

 and "mimicked," has been the tendency for the said authority to enter 

 into a wealth of detail with regard to the assumed origin of minor 

 points of resemblance in various species, coupled with the manufacture 

 of a peculiar terminological jargon which appears to have been created 

 largely for the purpose of making ignorance appear to be knowledge. 



The result has been that, at last, we have reached a point when the 

 study of theoretic mimicry in its own particular language, has reached 

 the status of a brilliant game of mental gymnastics, far in advance of 

 chess, in which the names of insects are used as the pieces to move, 

 the cloth on which the game is played having peculiar insects figured 

 thereon, but from which game all reference to the habits of real insects 

 is definitely excluded. Entomology is, as it were, called in as a sort of 

 table-cloth on which the new philosophic, brainy, develo))ment, is to be 

 played. A first-class game in this new philosophical, pseudo-entomo- 

 logy, was played at a recent meeting of the Entomological Society of 

 London. The game (which was only one of a series) was opened by 

 Mr. Guy Marshall, who had a sheet on which were drawn five figures 

 of butterfiies, three of which interest us. One of these had apparently 

 a red splotch on its forewing. another had a blue splotch on its hind- 

 wing, the third one had both a red splotch on its forewing and a blue 

 splotch on its hindwing. The red splotch and the blue splotch were, 

 we understand, to be called aposemes, the bnttertly with the two 

 splotches had, therefore, a double aposeme. 



Without going into the supposed details that had led up to this special 

 form of coloration, we will merely note that one of the elements in the 

 game, was to find out, if it so happened that three species of butterflies, 

 one nasty to the taste with a red aposeme on its forewing, a second 

 nasty to the taste with a blue aposeme on its hindwing, and a third 

 nice to the taste with both a red aposeme on its forewing, and a blue 

 aposeme on its hindwing, lived in the same place, what chances the 

 butterfly with the two aposemes would have of escaping from two 

 birds, one of whom had learned from tackling the butterfly with a red 



