uiiopALOCKiiA .1/ 1/, ir.i.v I. sa 



but the in-eseuce of the pseudo scent-gland or brand to antisrior wings will at once sei)arate 

 it from that species. It is at least a question whether the term "mimicry" should bo used 

 here, both species belonging (as I consider, and most entomologists till recently considered) to 

 the same genus. All the species of Euphra with which we are acquainted, and as Mr. Wallace has 

 informed us, have, with the remaining Danaimr of the Old World tropics, the " same protective 

 odour."* In this case, if we adopt the exi)lanatiou of mimicry for the resemblance of these 

 two species, we must presumably consider /'.'. distaiiti as the mimicked species, as it possesses a 

 pseudo scent-gland, which may reasonably be considered as adding to its protective or uneatable 

 character, and whieli is absent in /;. hn-mcri. We thus have the " mimicking" very inuL-li more 

 abundant than the "mimicked" species, which is contrary to the usually observed piienomena, 

 though Fritz Midler has recorded some similar exceptions as occui'ring in Brazil,! and the 

 same observer has also endeavoured to show that there is an advantage in two nauseous species 

 resembling each other, as occurs between two American species, both of which belong to genera 

 which are protected from birds and other enemies by distasteful qualities. :|: Such propositions 

 are of course at present hypothetical, and are at least supplementary to the carefully observed 

 facts on which Mr. Bates originally disclosed and argued the admirable doctrine of "mimicry," § 

 which accounted for the strange external resemblances, long known to entomologists, which 

 existed between insects belonging to distinct genera, families, and even orders, between which 

 there was no real affinity. In the great genus Papilio we certainly have species mimicking each 

 other, but these belong to different sections of the genus, many instances of which have been 

 pointed out by Mr. Wallace, || and other examples have been recently given by Mr. Wood-Mason IT 

 of species belonging to scentless groups mimicking those which are strong-scented and inedible. 

 But in the genus Euplwa we have at present no knowledge of non-nauseous or non-protected 

 species, and therefore the probability of the species "mimicked" being E. distauti, because of 

 its possession of a pseudo scent-gland, and hence presumably protective advantage, is somewhat 

 negatived by the fact that some Euphms without these glands are mimicked by other and very 

 divergent species, as notably E. midaiiua by Papilio pamdoxa and P. miigma. The possession 

 of these glands does not therefore appear necessary for distastefulness and protection ; and 

 hence, until further observations are made by careful observers, it seems at least rash to 

 predicate " mimicry," in the sense used by its discoverer, as the explanatory cause of these 

 resemblances amongst the species of Euphra. The original argument that butterflies which 

 were linoirn hij ohscrvaiiaii to be uneatable or protected were mimicked in appearance by different 

 butterflies which did not possess distasteful qualities for the sake of a similar protection, does 

 not warrant the conclusion that because two or more butterflies or other insects (of not or the 



- Coutrib. to Nat. Select, p. 85 (1870). 



+ Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, vol. i. p. 157 (1878) ; • Kosmos,' 1879, p. 100 ; and Proc. Eut. Soc. 1879, p. xxiv. 



* Miiller's views have since been amplified and approved by Mr. Wallace, which gives them no inconsiderable strength 

 ('Nature,' vol. xxvi. p. 86). 



§ This word seems to have been first used in a biological sense by Prof. Heufrey, in his translation of Schoinv's ' Earth, 

 Plants, and Man' (1852), and in reference to Botany. lu discussing " repetitions in the vegetable kingdom" he remarks (p. 61), 

 " There is still another kind of repetition which I miglit call ' habitual repetition,' or dtuominate ' mimiciy.' " Both author 

 and translator, however, missed its philosophical application. 



II Coutrib. to Nat. Select, pp. 87, 88. 1i Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, February. 1882, pp. 104, 105. 



.Tine 30, 1882. k 



