(| xxvii ) 
He then exhibited a further series of neotropical butterflies 
from the Godman-Salvin collection, illustrating the various 
members of the group which had been formed round Methona 
confusa, Butl., and Thyridia psidii, L.; the best known moths 
(of the genera Castnia and Hyelosia) which fell into the group, 
were supplied by specimens from the Hope collection. This 
group which, as regards most of its members, had been 
originally described by H. W. Bates, occupied a very wide 
geographical area, and was of special interest, not only on 
account of the number of forms which entered into it, but 
also because of the perfection of the resemblance. 
Further, he exhibited the smaller group which convergcs 
around Ituna lamira, Latr.,and species of Olyras, Thyridia, ete., 
the specimens being selected from the Godman-Salvin collec- 
tion; he also showed several groups characteristic of Honduras, 
Surinam, Eastern Brazil, etc., the specimens haying been 
recently acquired by the Hope collection for the purpose of 
illustrating the principles of Warning Colours and Mimicry. 
Many of these specimens possessed the special interest that 
they were captured by one collector nearly at the same time, 
and in one locality. In fact, in the case of the Honduras 
insects (presented by Col. Swinhoe), examples of several 
different species and genera had been sent in one set of papers 
as a single species. Thus in the case of these groups evi- 
dence was actually forthcoming that the separate species do 
live together intermingled, and are liable to be confused, at 
any rate by a human collector. 
The term “ homcochromatism’’ was criticized on the 
ground that it was a mistake in science rigidly to exclude 
theory and interpretation. A theory might be a good guide 
to discovery, even if it turned out in the end to be imperfect 
cr wrong. And in this case it was contended that the theories _ 
of Mimicry and of Warning Colours had by no means been 
proved to be wrong, but remained as the only hopeful inter- 
pretation of the facts. 
He also objected to Dr. Dixey’s phrase, ‘reciprocal 
mimicry,’ inasmuch as the resemblances alluded to were 
those of specially defended insects, and not of forms which, 
being themselves harmless, lived on the reputation of their 
