Lvm 



I stated at the time that the inception of the Congress had created in my 

 mind a strong impression that the idea of energetically taking up the defence 

 of the theory of mimicry had played an important role in it. And what 

 actually took place? Messrs. Dixey, Poulton, Trimen, Jordan. Rothschild, 

 and Marshall, being some of the oldest and keenest defenders of the theory 

 of mimicry, attended the congress in Brussels ; of these three spoke on the subject. 

 To me this seemed to be a cruisade conceived with deliberation, a serious 

 attempt to stifle once and for all the biological heresy which during the last 

 few years had become more and more pronounced. Now what was the effect 

 produced? What was it that the whole remainder of the entomological world, 

 appearing at this congress in large numbers and acquainted with the fact that 

 the theory of mimicry would intentionally be brought on the tapis, considered 

 it worth while to adduce in support or against it? A single speaker, besides 

 the three forementioned, addressed the Congress on the subject; one other 

 speaker made a few unimportant observations in opposition to it. With all 

 this ostentation this was all the result produced and I consider, therefore, I 

 was justified in asserting that the theory of mimicry is moribund and that in 

 the domain of science it has ceased to be of any account. 



From the beginning the supporters of the theory of mimicry have continually 

 adduced facts, sometimes isolated, sometimes in whole complexes, observed by 

 the same person, which would, according to their interpretation, establish the 

 existence of mimicry. Later and more accurate observation, however, has 

 demonstrated the invalidity of this reasoning. Sometimes it was proved that 

 the alleged observation had been of an extreme superficial nature or had been 

 carried out under suggestion of the preconceived notion of mimicry. In other 

 instances, whereas the observation itself was indeed accurate, it was found that 

 its interpretation as mimicry originated from the same idea, and that this could 

 quite well be explained in a different manner, but could not in itself demonstrate 

 the existence of mimicry and was only then to be attributed to it if the postulates 

 of this biological theory had, at the outset, themselves been proved, which, 

 however, has never yet been done. In this manner the so-called facts of 

 mimicry in South America of Bates, Fritz Muller, and others, those in 

 Africa — especially concerning Papilio Dardanus Brown — and the numerous 

 Indo-Australian instances, chiefly contributed by Wallace, have been brought 

 forward. Further investigation, in which, chiefly as regards the two latter, I 

 haven taken an active share, has refuted all this to such an extent that the 

 value of the theory in question has greatly depreciated with the majority of 

 serious biologists, if indeed it has not been completely demolished. In spite 

 of this the supporters referred to, again present the selfsame doctrine, not 



