( xlvii ) 



The remainder of the paper is devoted to an able and inter- 

 esting discussion on the origin of the markings of mammals, 

 the effect of the blending of colours when the animals are in 

 motion, and other matters. Deeply interesting as this portion 

 is, it hardly bears on the case of butterfly mimicry. Animals 

 which develop their external attributes of colour and markings 

 under the life-long influence of light and shade, colours which 

 are for the most part cryptic, though presumably developed by 

 natural selection, cannot be compared to creatui-es which reach 

 full colour and pattern development in an hour or so after 

 emerging from the pupa, and which moreover can produce 

 such diverse forms, as for instance the male and female 

 HypoUmnas misippus, from the same batch of larvae fed and 

 pupated under the same physical conditions. 



In conclusion, I trust it will not appear to be an act of pre- 

 sumption on my part to attempt to criticise the work of the 

 eminent naturalist whose loss we must all deplore. I am well 

 aware that an amateur naturalist like myself has not the 

 opportunity of making the extensive and carefvil researches 

 which have made the writings of our prominent scientists such 

 magnificent records of devotion to their work. 



The remarks I have here ventured to make are merely the 

 expression of the thoughts which have occurred to me in a 

 humble endeavour to arrive at sound conclusions on a most 

 complicated, difficult, and deeply interesting subject. 



For some years I have been making a special study of the 

 most interesting forms of mimetic resemblance, more particu- 

 larly amongst the African Rhopalocera, and I have invariably 

 been much touched by the ready assistance which has been 

 afforded me even by those prominent workers with whom I 

 am acquainted only by correspondence, and it will always 

 be my desire to reciprocate in every way which lies in my 

 power. It is therefore with these thoughts in my mind that 

 I should wish my remarks on Professor Packard's paper to be 

 regarded in the light of a friendly discussion on a subject of 

 mutual interest, and not in any way a criticism of the personal 

 views of a naturalist whose work must ever command the 

 respect, both of those whose attainments entitle them to 

 rank with him in eminence, and also of those who, like 



