1 



( vi ) 



coloration of this butterfly bears considerable resemblance to 

 that of Eiq^loea etip/toiie, and I can well imagine its escaping 

 notice if flying in company with the latter species " (Trans. 

 Ent. Soc. Lond., 1866, p. 335). 



We are therefore led to the conclusion that phorhanta has 

 also been influenced by euphone. The situation is thus 

 extremely puzzling, the female Papilio being a far better 

 mimic of the INfauritian Eu-phea than of the species with which 

 it flies in the island of Boiubon. There can be little doubt 

 that the Mauritian eitphone presents a more ancestral pattern 

 than gondoti. The EupUea mimics of both islands are always 

 mimetic of eaphone : they never attain the features by which 

 goudoti is distinguished from euphone. This is not only true 

 of the Papilio and Salamis, but also of the Maui'itian Amciuris 

 (Berethis) 2^h£sdn'ne, F. Concerning this latter species Mr. 

 Rolantl Trimen, F.R.S., ob.served in 1806 that "its peculiar 

 fades and colouring give it a strong superficial resemblance to 

 Euplcea euphone " (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1866, p. 332). He 

 furthermore states that he "found D. phiedone much scarcer 

 than E. euphone, but almost invariably flying iu company 

 with the latter." * Inasmuch as these mimetic resemblances 

 to euphone cannot have been attained except in the course of 

 a long period of time, the pattern of this Eupkea must be 

 ancient as compared with that of E. (joudoti, which has 

 produced no apparent effect on its own account. 



Fuithermore, it must be pointed out that the uppei'-surface 

 pattern of the unique and remarkable Libythea cinyras, 

 Trim., is probably roughly mimetic of Xeptis frohenia. 



We have been accustomed to look upon islands as the 

 homes of the non-mimetic ancestors of mimetic species ; but 

 ftlauritius and Bourbon prove that an exceptional develop- 

 ment of mimicry may be found among the members of small 

 communities confined in very restricted areas. It has been 

 already stated that the mimicry of the female phorbanta is 

 unique in the nireus group. If I am right in supposing 



* So far as I have liad tho opportunity of exaniiiung it jihaedune seems 

 to be related to Amauris ulbiinaculata, Butl., rather than to A. echeria, 

 StoU. Dr. ;Karl Jordan whom I have consulted on the point kindly 

 informs me that he agrees witli the above conclusion as to the affinity 

 of fhstdoiit. 



