( vi ) 



with the wings erect, any Heliconine resemblance would 

 be to some extent protective ; and the whole aspect of these 

 males, the underside alone of which shows any mimetic 

 features, is the resultant of these two divergent tendencies. 

 The mimetic features of the male cannot be regarded as a 

 mere incidental result of the more complete transformation 

 of the female, because in many species of other groups the 

 female is completely mimetic while the male shows no 

 approach whatever to a mimetic change ; moreover, there is 

 a species of Hesperocharis (R. Mrlanda), in which not only 

 the male but both sexes show a partial mimetic pattern 

 no further advanced than that of M. lorena $ or M. pyrrha 

 $ . It is difficult to believe that in this case the pattern is 

 not in some degree protective. 



(3.) Red basal spots in combination with a white or yellow 

 costal streak on fore or hindwing are found alike in some of 

 the mimicking Pierines, and of the mimicked Heliconii. These 

 spots are too widespread in the Pierine subfamily to have 

 arisen from imitation of the Heliconii. Their definite pre- 

 sence in the latter is probably due to reciprocal mimicry 

 between distasteful forms, as previously suggested by the 

 author. The same principle is applicable in a very large 

 number of mimetic groups, all or most of whose members 

 are probably inedible (Mi'illerian mimicry or convergence). 

 It would not be applicable in the longer-known cases where 

 a distasteful is mimicked by an edible form (Batesian 

 mimicry). 



(4.) A curious case of a mimetic assemblage is afforded 

 by the Pierines Euterpe tereas and E. bellona, together with 

 their respective models Pajnlio zacyntMis and the Heliconii of 

 the crato group. The Papilio and the Heliconii have no 

 close resemblance to each other ; but appear to be held to- 

 gether, as it were, by the intermediate Pierines. If the 

 Heliconii are considered as the models for the whole group, 

 the question arises, why E. tereas should copy a model {!'. 

 zacynthiis $ ) and not a very good one, instead of the original 

 distasteful model {Heliconius). It is more probable that here 

 also we have an instance of an inedible (Miillerian) associa- 

 tion ; this conclusion being strengthened by the fact that a 



