2 SPOLIA ZEYLANICA, 
nevertheless made their way into the literature of mimicry. These 
cases I have put together in the following list :— 
Mimic. Model. * 
Hypolimnas bolina, & Sa .. Huplea (several species) 
Mo misippus, 2 .. .. Danais chrysippus j 
Elymnias fraterna, 2 ue an »,  plexippus 
Argynnis hyperbius, & 45 a 43 — 
Pareronia ceylonica, ¢ a i », vulgaris (and allies) 
Prioneris sita,é and? .. .. Delias eucharis, 6 and 2 
Papilio clytia, 6 and ¢ : ..  Huplea (several species) 
3 (var. dissimilis) 6 and? .. Danais vulgaris (and allies) 
Papilio polytes, 2 iS .. Papilio aristolochic 
5 (var. romulus) 2 oR >> hector 
With the exception of Argynnis hyperbius and Prioneris sita 
I have had frequent opportunities of observing all these cases, and 
in every one it has appeared to me that the resemblance is far less 
striking when the insects are seen alive than when they are exhibited 
pinned out in the orthodox way on cork. I have found that with 
very little experience the eye comes to distinguish the “mimic” 
from the model without hesitation. As a rule, it is in mode of flight 
that they differ from one another. By this character the dissimélis 
variety of P. clytia can at once be distinguished from Danais vulgaris 
and its allies, and by it the normal form of P. clytia or the female 
of Hypolimnas bolina (PI. II., fig. 6) can be readily differentiated from 
any of the Hupleas. Or again, it may be a difference in the pattern 
of the under surface of the wings which leads to dissimilarity in the 
general appearance of the living insects. The female of Pareronia 
ceylonica (P\. II., fig. 1 B) with outspread wings is exceedingly like 
Danais vulgaris and the other closely allied species of this genus. 
But as soon as it flies off the difference of under surface at once 
becomes apparent (cf. Pl. II., figs. 1 C and 2 B), and in this parti- 
cular instance there is also a marked difference in the manner of 
flight, so that these forms, although so extraordinarily similar when 
viewed from the upper surface and at rest, could certainly not be 
confused when flying. And when at rest, of course with the wings 
closed, they could not possibly be mistaken for one another. 
One of the best known of the Ceylon models is Danais chrysippus, 
together with its ally D. plexippus (Pl. II., figs. 9 A and 9 B), and 
the three principal mimics of these two forms are the females of 
Hypolimnas misippus, Argynnis hyperbius, and the Satyrid , Hlymnias 
fraterna. Of these three, the last-named was the one I had most 
opportunity of observing. It was common in Colombo during July, 

* | have also seen it suggested that Hlymnias singhala mimics Euplea core, 
and that Hrgolis serves as a model for the female of Apatura parisatis. In 
neither case does the resemblance seem to me sufficiently close to require 
further notice, 
