Gh a) [XXXVill, xxxix 
_ In his introductory remarks Professor Packard compares 
the observed cases of mimicry between butterflies with the 
resemblance of a zebra to an antelope or that of the “spotted 
leopard of the Old World” to the ‘‘ jaguar and ocelot of the 
New World, their habits and environment being the same.” 
But surely the cases are not analogous. No one has ever 
attributed the resemblance between a leopard and a jaguar to 
the pattern of either animal being protective by reason of its 
resemblance to the other. The spotted appearance of a 
leopard and an ocelot is no doubt a case of what Professor 
Poulton has described as “syneryptic” coloration, each 
animal being concealed by resembling the same thing, and 
such a case is of the same nature as the remarkable resem- 
blance of the under-side of many butterflies to dead leaves. 
The only difference being that in the case of the butterflies the 
syneryptic coloration is protective, whereas in the leopard and 
similar animals it is probably aggressive. Neither form of 
coloration comes under the head of Batesian or Miillerian 
resemblance. Following on these remarks, we are told that 
“what has been understood as protective mimicry, in the 
sense of Bates and of Miiller and their followers, has a 
precarious basis.” But the resemblance of an animal to its 
inanimate surroundings is not at all ‘‘what has been under- 
stood as protective mimicry, in the sense of Bates and of 
Miller and their followers.” Professor Packard further 
maintains that ‘‘the Bates-Miiller hypotheses are seriously 
undermined by the fact that the wings of insects were, as 
early as the Carboniferous period, striped or barred and 
spotted long before birds ever appeared.’ I cannot how- 
ever see that this affects the Bates-Miiller hypotheses at all. 
Such stripes, bars and spots may, for all we know, have 
been cryptic or epigamic, but this would not preclude the 
ultimate development either of sematic or pseudosematic 
coloration. 
It will be as well here to recall the fact that Professor 
Packard entirely misunderstood what is generally known as 
‘ Miiller’s hypothesis.” Put very shortly, Miiller’s suggestion 
was that butterflies belonging to different genera, both dis- 
tasteful, might come to resemble one another so that the 
