LIX 



indeed accompanied by arguments absolutely essential to it but simply, as on 

 former occasions, by an appeal to alleged facts. 



Some of these are new and so far in themselves irrefutable. For this purpose 

 their observations would first have to be controlled. Even though the bona fides 

 of Dr. Wiggins need not be questioned he is clearly what Mr. Jordan terms E. 

 Haase, an ardent believer in mimicry, and that little reliance is to be placed upon 

 observations made under this obsession is known in numerous instances. The 

 accuracy of these observations requires to be controlled by other independent 

 observers who are sceptical on the subject ; not until then shall we be in a 

 position to estimate their value. It may, however, even now be assumed that 

 these facts, even though they be correctly observed, can assuredly be explained 

 without having recourse to mimicry. In reality they exhibit no character other 

 than that pertaining to many other facts observed elsewhere, which clearly 

 proves that a similar mutual resemblance in identical circumstances may indeed 

 occur through a similar line of development being influenced in the same 

 manner, without there being any question, however, of mimicry. Resemblance 

 does not constitute mimicry but resemblance considered under the suggestion 

 of mimicry creates alleged instances thereof 



While once more discussing the subject of mimicry I propose here cursorily 

 to subject the proceedings in this connection at the said Congress to a critical 

 examination ; more especially to demonstrate that on this occasion the requisite 

 arguments were totally lacking. 



On August y^ 19 lo Dr. Dixey gave a lecture on "Mimicry" . He does 

 not, however, commence, as a basis of his observations, by pointing out the 

 scientific necessity of acknowledging the existence of this alleged biological 

 phenomenon, in other words by indicating the scientifically sound, or at least 

 most credible, grounds on which this necessity is based. 



To this he makes no allusion whatever, he simply assumes its existence a priori 

 and attempts to extend the knowledge of this phenomenon by connecting with 

 it various simple resemblances observed. He asserts, in fact, that the said 

 resemblance are so numerous and exhibit such peculiarities that it will not do 

 to attribute them merely to accident which, although nothing but a vague 

 expression, certainly does not sound incredible but which can in no case imply 

 that it can only be accounted for by the existence of mimicry; a great number 

 of similar facts have indeed long since been explained in other ways. He next 

 gives a detailed description of such cases of resemblance which, by the way, 

 contain inaccuracies or assertions which have long since been refuted to which, 

 however, no further reference can here be made. One is struck, however, in 



