© xii) 
desired to limit the term, and as he had illustrated it, no 
such one-sided departure was manifest.* 
The President had called attention to the risk, in the case 
of species of the same genus, or of nearly allied genera, of 
mistaking for homcochromatism a similarity due to blood- 
relationship. Of course, the value of resemblances had to be 
estimated in relation both to the range of form existing in 
the genera or sections of a genus involved, and to distribution ; 
and the speaker did not admit that such a mistake had been 
made in respect to any single species of his exhibit. As far 
as his knowledge went, instances of non-mimetic homco- 
chromatism among Neotropical butterflies were entirely 
confined to the Neotropine, Heliconiine, and Hesperiide, 
although other subfamilies afforded mimetic forms. 
He had brought forward certain difficulties attending the 
current theories; Prof. Poulton’s epicriticism thereon was 
based largely on the assumption that each group possessed 
some dominant form. The speaker had already pointed out 
that the Miillerian theory was opposed to the existence of 
dominant forms, and he knew of no direct evidence that such 
actually were present—that was, species which could so far 
influence a group as to compel its components to change 
when they changed. His objections as to geographical 
distribution had been met by two counter-suggestions, one of 
which presupposed that a series of dominant forms had 
preoccupied the country and had influenced the appearance 
of the protected species which subsequently invaded it; but 
one could not bring oneself to believe without strong evidence 
that the groups of insects concerned, the Heliconiine 
and Neotropine, were not coeval in distribution. Prof. 
Poulton’s comments on ‘‘ hypertely ’’ again presupposed the 
*“ Homoeochromatic pairs, such as those of Series I. in my 
exhibit, are not demonstrably in the relation of “model” and 
“mimic,” but in one for which some other word must be found. 
I would suggest that each member of such a pair, or group, which 
does not show the departure indicative of a mimetic form, be 
called the “ homotype” of its associates. Thus Heliconius galanthus 
would be the homotype of, or homotypic with, //. luce—W. F. 
H. Blandford, July, 1897. 
