( c ) 



observation in thinking out the value of merely incipient 

 likenesses, but had not thought of its bearing on the ' forest 

 versus veld ' problem when I replied to your question." 



EURYTELA HIARBAS, DbURY, AND E. DRYOPE, CrAMER. PrO- 



fessor PouLTON drew attention to a letter he had received 

 nearly two years ago from Mr. G. F. Leigh, describing the 

 breeding of E. dryope and drawing the infei'ence that the 

 species was distinct from hiarbas. Mr. Leigh had thus been 

 led by his own observations to revise his earlier conclusions 

 on the subject (Proc. Ent. Soc, 1909, p. xxxv). The letter, 

 dated Nov. 2Gth, 1910, was written from Durban : — 



"I have to report that, breeding Eurytela dryope from a 

 wild female (I cannot give the form of the male), I reared 22 

 offspring, all of which were dryope. Apparently, therefore, 

 the two species E. hiarbas and E. dryope are different. Mr. 

 A. D. Millar has a captured specimen, intermediate between 

 these two butterflies, and such a form may, I think, be the 

 result of a pairing between dryope and hiarbas." 



MiJLLERIAN MIMICRY BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN BeeS. — PrO- 



fessor PouLTON exhibited on behalf of Dr. R. C. L. Perkins 

 a male of Prosopis nubilosa, Ckll., (^Prosopidae), and of a 

 species of Halictus (Andrenidae), captured by him in the Cairns 

 district of North Queensland (July 1904). Dr. Perkins had 

 pointed out to the speaker the extremely interesting manner 

 in which the resemblance had been brought about, the hard 

 glistening yellow mark on the black scutellum and post- 

 scutellum of the Prosopis, and that on its lateral prothoracic 

 tubercles being mimicked by a yellow pubescence occupying 

 the same positions in the Halictus. The latter, having 

 departed from the general appearance of its group, was clearly 

 a mimic of the Prosopis, which bore a pattern also found in 

 many allied species. The males and females of both model 

 and mimic were alike, so that the resemblance would be equally 

 striking between the females. Dr. Perkins had suggested 

 that a resemblance brought about in this remarkable manner, 

 by means entirely different from those employed in the model, 

 was certainly inexplicable on the hypothesis of climatic 

 influence. 



This mimetic i^esemblance had been fully described by 



