(322%) [XxXxvi, Xxxvil 
speaks of as “deceptively close in both sexes,” applies mainly 
to the dry-season phase of the Belenois and not to the wet. 
This, he observed, was well illustrated by the exhibit, which 
included wet and dry-season examples of both sexes of 
B. thysa; M. agathina showing no seasonal change. The 
resemblance borne by the male Belenois to the male Mylothris 
was much more striking in the dry-season specimen of the 
former than in the wet; and while the dry-season female 
B. hysa was an excellent copy of the female M/. agathina, it 
was seen that the usual wet-season form of the same sex did 
not mimic the Mylothris at all. These facts appeared to be 
significant in relation to the comparative scarcity of insect 
food during the dry or winter months, and the consequent. 
greater liability of dry-season forms to the attacks of enemies. 
The higher need for protection thus experienced by the dry- 
season forms had been clearly shown by Professor Poulton, 
who had found in the principle referred to an explanation of 
the cryptic garb assumed in the dry season by several species 
of Precis (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. 432-443). Other 
examples of the same phenomenon had been subsequently 
adduced by the speaker, who had also brought evidence to 
show that it was especially characteristic of the female sex 
(Ibid., 1903, pp. 155-158, Pl. vii.). But the present instance 
differed from all these in the fact that the protection enjoyed 
by the dry-season phase took the form not of cryptic colora- 
tion but of mimicry. The species of Mylothris were held on 
good grounds to be distasteful, and Mr. G. A. K. Marshall 
had expressed the opinion that B. thysa was a Batesian mimic. 
This might be so, but the speaker rather inclined to the view 
that the resemblance was synaposematic. In either case the 
difference between the seasonal phases with respect to their 
approach to the distasteful model was undoubtedly significant, 
and he thought it would not be easy to find an explanation 
better fitting the facts than that just offered. 
Mr. H. Eltringham, M.A., F.Z.S., contributed the following 
paper on ‘‘The Late Professor Packard’s Paper on the Mark- 
ings of Organisms.” In the absence of the author, Professor 
E. B. Pouttoy, F.R.S., explained the drift of the paper, and 
expressed his agreement with the main lines of argument :— 
