( lii ) 



brought forward by Mr. Knye as to the spatial relations of 

 these forms in the district named, but I observe with interest 

 that in a note to the record of his exhibition in our recently- 

 published 'Proceedings' (Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, p. 

 xxiii), he mentions the fact that according to Seitz, * in 

 Colombia Pereute leticodrosime, Pcqnlio euterpinv.s, Adelpha 

 isis and Heliconnis meljiomene all occur together on the same 

 bush.' This obviously discounts the value of the observations 

 made in Peru, considered as evidence of the exclusion of 

 Heliconius from the mimetic combination. No stress need be 

 laid on the mention of H. melpomene instead of one of the 

 forms which so closely resemble it, as for instance //. hi/darus, 

 inasmuch as befoi-e the publication of Kiffarth and Stichel's 

 excellent systematic work on the genus, many of the melpo- 

 mene-\ike forms were but vaguely distinguished from one 

 another ; and even now it is very probable that by those who 

 do not happen to have made a special study of the genus, forms 

 are inadvertently spoken of as melpomene which are really 

 quite distinct from that species as at present defined. In 1896 

 I used H. melpoTnene as an illustration ; but in the earlier 

 passage then referred to, I spoke of the resemblance as being 

 shared by many species of Heliconius, including H. hi/darus 

 (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1894, p. 294 and note; ibid., 1896, 

 pp. 72-75). The argument, whatever it may be worth, would 

 of course remain unaffected even if it were shown that species 

 had been wrongly identified. 



" But leaving this part of the question, I wish to draw 

 attention to the very wide prevalence of this general type of 

 pattern (a dark wing-surface crossed by a diagonal reddish 

 band) in the Neotropical region, as exemplified by the speci- 

 mens I now exhibit. Opinions may differ as to how far these 

 various forms are in mimetic relation ; that such a relation 

 exists between some at least of them will I think be generally 

 admitted. For instance, the mimetic parallelism between the 

 two sections of Heliconius, which Mr. Kaye has so fully 

 demonstrated to us (Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1907, pp. xiv-xvi), 

 seems to be undeniable. The relation also between the Papilio 

 and the Pierines in this exhibit can scarcely bo doubted. It is 

 true that the latter combination, which, as Mr. Kayo says, is 



