PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 



179 



October, the best things taken were a few nice forms of Tapinostola 

 rufa, which were not uncommon amongst rushes. Oporahia dilutata 

 this year was not so common as usual. After the middle of October 

 further collecting was quite out of the question. 



Taking the season throughout, the most striking difference between 

 this and an ordinary year was the scarcity of butterflies, which I 

 suppose can be accounted for by the absence of sunshine, and the 

 comparative scarcity of common insects which in normal seasons 

 occur in profusion. However in spite of the season I have been able 

 to add seven new species to our local list, viz : — Ewnorpha elpenor, 

 Hadena (lenistae, Xylophada lithoxylea, Bowbycia vbimialis, Hepialus 

 lupiilina, Malenydris salicata, and Botys hyalinalis. 



Protective Resemblance. 



By C. W. COLTHRUP. 



In Mr. Parkinson Curtis' reply to my note on the above subject 

 [Ent. Bee, vol. xxiv., page 57), I note incidentally that he changes the 

 title to "Coloration Problems." Evidently he is not greatly 

 ena^noured of the term "Protective Resemblance, " as is evidenced by 

 his remarks, " incowplete and in some ways inisleadmy," with which I 

 agree. If I were tempted to alter the title I should add to it "Mimicry 

 and Warning Coloration," but have not done so because I hold that 

 each of these terms is best dealt with separately to avoid confusing the 

 issue, although, in replying to his remarks in the order in which they 

 appear in his paper, I am bound to make reference to them. In the 

 first place I am pleased to note he admits that the attacks by Lt.-Col. 

 Manders and myself have shown some weak spots in the arguments 

 deduced in favour of the theory, and that in some respects the 

 evidence is slender or negative. 



I should like to point out that not only should there be " logic in 

 the laboratory or museum," but also in "examples fresh from the 

 field," and I must say I fail to follow his logic when he doubts the 

 ability of the British Marsh Tit to see a moth when looking for his 

 breakfast, and later on says that " Tits rely entirely on the eye 

 such a scrutiny that one ivould almost think the most perfect cryptic 

 coloration would fail to defy it." I am afraid Mr. Curtis has not read 

 my note as carefully as he might have done, otherwise he would 

 not fa-ther me with the " bad photographic test." If he will refer to 

 my note again, and to the note, Ent. Bee, vol. xxiv., page 76, to 

 which I refer, he will see that my point was that " a photograph was 

 a very bad test of resemblance to surroundings," so that his remarks 

 on the photographic plate only confirm what I had already Avritten. 



With regard to the " elusive collar stud and forceps," I mentioned 

 these ironically to show that it does not follow because an object is 

 difficult to see, although bearing no resemblance to its surroundings, 

 it is therefore a case of " protective resemblance." As an instance of 

 the " confusion of the thought, etc.," which he refers to in connection 

 with the above, I would cite Mr. Russell James, Junr's. note {Ent. 

 Bee, vol. xxiv., p. 306) re Camptoi/ramma fiuviata, where he states 

 that the moth closely resembled the broken " blisters." 



With regard Mr, Curtis's remarks " Cryptic colouring as it becomes 



