( 4 ) 



also been influenced by euj)hone. The situation is thus 

 extremely puzzling, tlie female Fajnlio being a far better 

 mimic of the Mauritian Eujyicea than of the species with which 

 it flies in the island of Bourbon. There can be little doubt 

 that the Mauritian euphone presents a more ancestral pattern 

 than goudoti. The Eitplosa mimics of both islands are always 

 mimetic of euphone : they never attain the features by which 

 goudoti is distinguished from etqyhone. This is not only true 

 of the Fapilio and Salamis, but also of the Mauritian Amduris 

 {Berethis) phsedone, F. Concerning this latter species Mr. 

 Roland Trimen, F.R.S., observed in 1866 that "its peculiar 

 facies and colouring give it a strong superficial resemblance to 

 Eujilcea euphone" (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1866, p. 332). He 

 furthermore states that he "found D. p)]ieedone much scarcer 

 than E. euphone, but almost invariably flying in company 

 with the latter." * Inasmuch as these mimetic resemblances 

 to eiiphone cannot have been attained except in the course of 

 a long period of time, the pattern of this Euploea must be 

 ancient as compared with that of E. goudoti, which has 

 produced no apparent effect on its own account. 



Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the upper-surface 

 pattern of the unique and remarkable Lihythea cinyras, 

 Trim., is probably roughly mimetic of XeiMs frohenia. 



We have been accustomed to look upon islands as the 

 homes of the non-mimetic ancestois of mimetic species ; but 

 Mauritius and Bourbon prove that an exceptional develop- 

 ment of mimicry may be found among the members of small 

 communities confined in very restricted areas. It has been 

 already stated that the mimicry of the female pihorhanta is 

 unique in the nireus group. If I am right in supposing 



[vii 

 Lihythea cinyras to be a mimic, it too is a unique example in 

 its group. Salamis augu^tina is also a nearly equally rare 

 instance in the genus. 



A fascinating aspect of the mimicry in these islands is to be 



* So far as I have had the opportunity of examining it phsedone seema 

 to be related to Amauris albhnaadata, Butl., rather than to A. echeria, 

 StoU. Dr. Karl Jordan whom I have consulted on the point kindly 

 informs me that he agrees with the above conclusion as to the affinity 

 of phsedone. 



