Protective Coloration in its relation to Blimicry, etc. 563 



of the classes in which the pattern, when the wings are 

 oj^en, arranges itself in amphitheatre-like semicircles of 

 stripes or dots, etc. When such a butterfly rests with 

 open wings on a flower, its head is at the centre, its 

 antenna3 form two stamens, and these semicircles seem to 

 belong to half the flower of which its head is the centre. 

 In several Prcces, and many other butterflies, there is a 

 general representation of something like a bunch of 

 stamens casting their shadow deep under them in the 

 flower's cavity. Usually a butterfly's upper-side has the 

 exact colour-note characteristic of flowers and flower- 

 scenery seen from right overhead (take, for example, 

 Pcqnlio turmts) ; while its under-side is a picture of such 

 greater distance as would be seen from the side position 

 necessary for beholding it when the wings are in their 

 characteristic vertically-folded position ; and this is the 

 position from which enemies on neighbouring bushes 

 would see it. So-called "conspicuous" butterflies have, 

 in short, their upper-side designed with the full strength 

 " values " of the nearest flowers looked into from above, 

 and their under surfaces designed in notes more delicate, 

 to counterfeit the distance, and a perfectly effacively- 

 graded body. Their under-side is also more delicately 

 finished, as if against the nearer inspection possible from 

 neighbouring bushes. In fact, they wear every conceivable 

 aspect to fit them into the background from each point of 

 view, and make you think you see through them ; or else, 

 seen from above, to make you think, as in the case of the 

 Pierinm, that you see a flower itself. How can such a 

 case call for a theory that is based on the hj^Dothesis that 

 they are conspicuous ? One very important fact is that 

 we have abundant proof that animals, including birds, 

 have totally different sight from ours ; and the existence 

 of these patterns, etc., unless it can be denied that they 

 even tend to efface, should be taken as proof that they 

 sufficiently succeed in effacing. Otherwise, why are they 

 there, when almost the whole animal kingdom does need 

 concealment ? A fox, a deer, a bear, a grouse, a turkey, 

 or any small bird or mammal, may come almost to one's 

 feet if one stay still, yet flee wildly on seeing any motion. 

 Is not this sufficient proof that even if we were usually 

 able to detect a Papilio when it is eflacively situated, it 

 is no sign that a bird could do so, if the insect kept its 

 place ? 



TRANS. ENT. SOC. LOND. 1903. — PART lY. (DEC.) 38 



