1912.) 83 



(v) The conspicuous absence of females supports another con- 

 clusion which follows from the mimicry theories, namely that females 

 are more important than males for the continuation of the species, and 

 that natural selection has evolved for them better means of protection, 

 viz. (i) more sluggish habits, e.g., females do not fly so much or appear 

 in the open like the brightly coloured males which seem almost to 

 court capture or the experimental tasting of young and inexperienced 

 enemies ; (ii) more perfect mimicry of some distasteful pattern or a 

 closer resemblance to their surroundings. 



Critics of the mimicry theories have often pointed out that it 

 is easy enough to illustrate these theories with beautiful examples 

 picked out from the collections of any large and important Museum, 

 but they urge that it is quite a different thing to find such complete 

 examples in real life. It is indeed true enough that one would have 

 to sit in the jungle for many a long year before one managed to find 

 in one spot and at one time a complete illustration of any one mimetic 

 association, i.e., like some of the remarkable series exhibited before the 

 Entomological Society in recent years — series which show, e.g., 100 

 examples of species A the dominant model, together with 50 each of 

 the subsidiary distasteful models B and C, 10 each of the Mullerian 

 mimics D and E, and one example each of the rare Batesian mimics 

 F and Gr. I repeat that if one expects to see all the members of a 

 combination like that alive in the tropics, the minute one finds a likely 

 spot in the jungle, then disappointment awaits the visitor. But it is 

 equally true that a supporter of the mimicry theory, if he diligently 

 applied himself to it, could collect in one locality in a month or two, a 

 very similar series to the picked exhibit which he had seen in London 

 a few months before. And it is also true that a collector, with a bias 

 against the mimicry theories, could make a numerous collection of 

 common butterflies in this country, in which the Euploeine-Danaine 

 element was not obviously dominant, and from which their rarer 

 mimics might well be absent altogether. 



I desire therefore to call attention once more to the value of a 

 collection such as the one now described, since it was formed by one 

 blissfully free of all views in support of, or antagonistic to, these 

 theories. It is more instructive than any formed by a professional 

 collector, who would have been at great pains to search out rarities 

 and at the same time would have passed by the common species ; it is 

 also more valuable than the average collection formed by the amateur- 

 visitor, because such collections usually contain too few specimens, or, 

 if of larger size, have probably been augmented from the duplicate 

 boxes of friends. 



