( xxxviii ) 



combined, moisture and dryness, differences in environment or 

 other climatic causes as affecting the amount and distribution 

 of pigment." It is as a student of the so-called mimicry in 

 butterflies endeavouring to be as imjiartial as a deep interest 

 in the subject will allow, that 1 wish to deal with Professor 

 Packard's paper, and the object of the following remai-ks is to 

 show that the difiiculties in the way of accepting that author's 

 arguments against the Bates-MUller theories are at least as 

 great as those which beset their would-be upholders, and 

 that whilst the paper is deserving of the greatest attention 

 as being one of the few lengthy and carefully compiled 

 criticisms of what Dr. Sharp describes as the " fashionable 

 theories," it at the same time falls short of the one essential 

 of providing a really satisfactory alternative. 



In his introductory remarks Professor Packard compai-es 

 the observed cases of mimicry between butterflies with the 

 resemblance of a zebra to an antelope or that of the " spotted 

 leopard of the Old World" to the "jaguar and ocelot of the 

 New World, their habits and environment being the same." 

 But surely the cases are not analogous. No one has ever 

 attributed the resemblance between a leopard and a jaguar to 

 the pattern of either animal being protective by reason of its 

 resemblance to the other. The spotted appearance of a 

 leopai'd and an ocelot is no doubt a case of what Professor 

 Poulton has described as " syncryptic " coloration, each 

 animal being concealed by resembling the same thing, and 

 such a case is of the same nature as the remai-kable resem- 

 blance of the under-side of many butterflies to dead leaves. 

 The only difference being that in the case of the butterflies the 

 syncryptic coloration is protective, whereas in the leopard and 

 similar animals it is prolmbly aggressive. Neither form of 

 coloration comes under the head of Batesian or Miillerian 

 resemblance. Following on these remarks, we are told that 

 " what has been understood as protective mimicry, in the 

 sense of Bates and of Miiller and their followers, has a 

 precarious basis." But the resemblance of an animal to its 

 inanimate surroundings is not at all " what has been under- 

 stood as protective mimicry, in the sense of Bates and of 

 Miiller and their followers." Professor Packard further 



