( xiv ) 



Professor Poulton had criticised tlie^ use of the term 

 " mimicry " in the case of Mlillerian resemblances. The 

 speaker agreed that any ambiguity between these phenomena 

 and Batesian mimicry was to be avoided, but it had not 

 occurred to him that his use of the term "reciprocal 

 mimicry " was open to this objection. He had also been 

 charged with saying that Mlillerian mimicry was necessarily 

 reciprocal. Possibly he had conveyed this impression ; he did 

 not, however, intend to assert that this form of mimicry must 

 always so demonstrably act as to produce reciprocal alterations 

 among species associated under its influence ; but merely that 

 it exercised a constant potential force, in some cases becoming 

 actual and capable of demonstration, towards mutual converg- 

 ence, whereas in Batesian mimicry the mimic was neces- 

 sarily without any such influence on the model. 



He was glad to hear Professor Poulton say that he was 

 becoming convinced by the speaker's arguments that the 

 Pierinae were a protected group. He should not himself, 

 however, care to assert more than that much evidence point- 

 ing to this conclusion existed in respect to many members 

 of the subfamily— for instance, the genera Delias and Mylo- 

 thris; while in some cases the evidence for inedibility was 

 considerably strengthened by the presence of reciprocal 

 change. 



Canon Fowler : Could anyone explain the existence of the 

 "predominant partner" which was assumed in the explana- 

 tion given of these groups ? He could not imagine why one 

 species should be stable and the others unstable and depen- 

 dent upon the former for their characters. 



Mr. Elwes : The society was much indebted to Messrs. 

 Godman and Salvin for the loan and to Mr. Blandford for 

 the arrangement and exhibition of these valuable specimens. 

 He doubted if there were any other collection in the world 

 from which such an exhibit as that shown could be got together. 

 To his mind the specimens were of infinitely greater scientific 

 value in their present arrangement than they would be if 

 dispersed throughout a collection in their proper systematic 

 positions. 



He therefore pleaded that when the question of their being 



