LVI 



Concerning so-called mimicry phenomena, where these are supposed to occur 

 in Danaidae or Satyridae, I will briefly refer to them without, however, deeply 

 going into the subject, because, as I have already stated in the introduction 

 to my monograph of the Java Pieridae, I do not consider it a subject for 

 scientific discussion but merely a matter of belief against which reasoning is of 

 no avail and which w'ith its supporters will probably die a natural death. In 

 1 910 an attempt was made again to bring the subject on the carpet and this 

 was undoubtedly one of the principal reasons which led to an international 

 entomological congress being held, all the principal supporters of this theory 

 having turned up in a solid body. I was kindly invited to take part in the 

 preliminary deliberations concerning this congress and I was also offered the 

 chairmanship of the section in which the subject of mimicry would definitely 

 come up for discussion, but while fully appreciating this courtesy I have thought 

 it expedient not to accept the invitation. In the first place I have long since 

 arrived at the conclusion that for the discussion of scientific subject congresses 

 are altogether unsuitable. Differences of opinion on really scientific subjects 

 can only be discussed with advantage by those who are acquainted with the 

 pros and contras and who can adduce their arguments against a theory they 

 feel bound to contest, in a detailed and thorough manner; but with verbal 

 discussion this is impossible since the time for carefully weighing the adversary's 

 contention is lacking, and the proper place for one-sided propositions undoubtedly 

 is in scientific periodicals where they can be considered quietly and at leisure. 

 Congresses are the product of our democratic age, a kind of popular assemblies 

 where superficiality sits enthroned, but such discussion cannot be reconciled 

 with the conception of serious knowledge. Thus the question of mimicry can 

 only be solved by serious scientific investigation. In the second place I consider 

 such investigation no longer required since this has already taken place. The 

 propositions in connection with the subject have been refuted by numerous 

 writers after an examination, as careful as it was comprehensive ; against the 

 facts on which the latter have based their opinion the supporters of the theory 

 of mimicry have never adduced any serious arguments; the opponents of this 

 doctrine are therefore entitled to consider them incapable of discussing this 

 theory in a scientific manner and to look upon them as supporters, not of a 

 scientifically formed doctrine, but of a creed, and against a creed no argument 

 avails. Everything they continually bring forward is nothing but the repeated 

 marshalling of new facts which under the dominance of their creed they represent 

 as mimicry but without ever adducing anything of the nature of proof to 

 support their explanation or to refute the contending interpretation of others. 

 It could not, therefore, be reasonably expected that a discussion of the subject 



