Sjjcncs of the Genus Limenitis. 461 



that of the Dauaine model. For the same reason the 

 black mai-gin is wider on both surfaces than in arcliippiis. 

 On the upper surface the white spots in the margin are 

 much reduced and the white sections of the fringe slightly 

 so, while on the under these markings remain conspicuous 

 and distinct, much as in archipinis. The sickle-like curve 

 of white spots is seen at the apex of the fore-wing in 

 herenicc, and this feature is represented in foridensis in the 

 same manner as in areJiippus. On the under surface the 

 hind-wing of the Danaine is strongly veined so that the 

 original mimetic feature of arc}iip)pus holds good for the 

 new model. This is not the case in the fore-wing where it 

 detracts from the resemblance. The darkening of the 

 ground colour of the under surface oi fiorideoisis is especi- 

 ally remarkable because here the more ancestral mimic 

 had acquired so pale a tint, in mimicry of Anosia which 

 has an under side far paler than its upper. In hercnice, 

 on the other hand, the tints of upper and under surface 

 are approximately the same. Against this dark ground all 

 the white markings stand out far more prominently in 

 both model and mimic than in Anosia and archij>inis. The 

 basal costal light mark of the fore-wing under surface is 

 more uniformly distinct in the few specimens o{ fiovidensis 

 I have seen than in those of arcJdjOj^us ; and the white 

 spots bordering the black discal line of the hind-wing 

 under surface are also more developed and certainly more 

 distinct, being in fact often given a clear outline by means 

 of a black margin on their inner edges. Here we have 

 evidently the emphasis and in a sense the re-call of a 

 vanishing character in consequence of the conspicuous 

 spots around the end of the cell in the hind-wing imder 

 side of the new model, herenice. 



Scudder describes the form Jioridcnsis (eros) as ranging 

 into the Mississippi valley and Dakota, far beyond the limits 

 of its Danaine model. It would be very interesting to 

 know the proportionate numbers of such specimens and to 

 compare them with those from Florida, and ascertain 

 whether the mimetic resemblance is in any way affected. 

 Hitherto I have only had the opportunity of examining 

 specimens from Florida. 



In addition to the differences in pattern which distin- 

 guish Jioridcnsis from archij^pus, Dr. W. J. Holland states 

 that the former is generally the larger (1. c, p. 18G), and 

 this is the case with the specimens I have studied. 



