to limitations of the Milllerian Hypothesis of Mimicry. 121 



apex of the upper-wings, and very frequently less marked 

 on the hind-wings. It is not therefore surprising that 

 among the many slight modifications of this commonest 

 and most simple type of coloration, two species belonging 

 to different genera should closely resemble each other 

 externally" (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1867, p. 311). 



Finally, it may be mentioned that very little is known 

 about the $ of /. haliensis. This sex was not known to 

 Frtihstorffer when he described the subspecies in 1897. 

 There is a single specimen at Oxford, namely, that captured 

 by Mr. Shelford and figured by Dr. Dixey (I. c), and only 

 one in the British Museum. The latter differs consider- 

 ably in appearance from the Oxford $, in that it has a 

 pronounced suffusion of yellow in the fore-wing and a 

 reduction of the black markings; it can in no sense be 

 regarded as a mimic of H. corva. There is no evidence 

 available as to the relative occurrence of these two forms. 



VII. The suggested recipivcal 7nimicry between Papilio 

 dardanus $ form cenea and the Danaines Amauris 

 echeria and albimaculata. 



The remarkable suggestion that these two dominant 

 species of Amauris have been modified in mimicry of 

 P. dardanus was propounded by Professor Poulton in 

 Trans. Ent. Soc. 1906, p. 292, and the following comments 

 will be better understood if reference be made to the 

 numerous plates with which his paper is illustrated. 



On examining some of the more primitive females of 

 P. dardamis (such as trimeni, I. c. Pi. XVIII, fig. 1), 

 Professor Poulton was struck by the outward production 

 of the basal pale patch of the hind-wing between veins 

 5 and 6, a character which is readily recognisable in the 

 non-mimetic $. Now, in Amauris echeria and albimaculata 

 the discal pale patch also shows a very marked external 

 angulation at about the same position ; but it is contended 

 that this form of marking cannot have been acquired from 

 the Amauris by the Pcipilio, because it is ancestral in the 

 latter species. The conclusion is therefore reached that 

 the Amauris must have acquired it by mimicking the 

 Papilio, and subsequently exaggerated the character. The 

 possibility of independent origin is not considered. 



This suggestion invites criticism along three lines : the 

 question of the edibility of the Papilio ; the relative 



