( Ivi ) 
diffei'ent Orders, but also in the fact that they still more 
resembled each other in their habits, either in movement or 
rest. In some instances, this general resemblance was so 
great that it was dilEcult at a casual glance and at a short 
distance to distinguish them at all accurately, even when dead 
in the box and removed from those surroundings which aided 
the greater resemblance, as Mr. Kaye had pointed cut, 
presented by them when alive in their natural habitats. He 
trusted that when Mr. Kaye illustrated these, as he hoped he 
would, that he would do so in those positions in which tlie 
resemblance struck him as being most marked in nature, as in 
most cases the resemblance was entirely lost when the insects 
were set. He observed that a case of two insects of quite 
different appearance when looked at even casually with their 
wings spread, but of remarkable general similarity when at 
rest on flowers of thyme, had come under his notice in the 
Sarnthal in August 1909, the one the common steel-blue form, 
with yellow spots and yellow abdominal belt, of Anthrocera 
ephialtes, the other a Hymenopteron of similar steel-blue colour 
and yellow abdominal bands and spots. It was really in¬ 
credible that two such different insects could appear so similar 
as they did in their normal position of rest. 
Mr. C. J. Gahan remarked that, with the exception of one 
or two, which were amongst the most beautiful of their kind 
he had ever seen, the examples of mimicry shown by Mr. 
Kaye were not more striking or more convincing than 
many others already known, in which the facts in regard 
to the habits of the insects, and their very close and deceptive 
I’esemblance when seen under natural conditions, had been 
observed and put on record. He thought, therefore, that the 
eulogistic terms in which Mr. Tutt had referred to the 
exhibition, as if facts of that kind had only now for the first 
time been brought to notice, were scarcely justified. The 
exhibition was no doubt highly interesting, but its especial 
interest, in his opinion, was to find the field naturalist confirm¬ 
ing those cases of “ museum-made ” mimicry which appeared 
to excite Mr. Tutt’s scepticism. 
]Mr. G. C. Champion said that almost every case exhibited 
had already been observed and described by the various authors 
