214 HUXLKV AND NATURAL SELKCTIOX 



* There is a Nice BuUcrtly (whom we will call ^1.) who is 

 iincomfortablyconsciousof being regarded as a delicious tit- 

 bit by every bird or lizard with any jjretensions lo a palate. 



' There is also a Nasty Buttertly (hereinafter referred 

 to as /)\) whom even the least particular li/.ard or bird 

 will, alter a single experience of his peculiar flavour, take 

 uncommonK' o^ood care never to touch aLTain. 



* So says ^1. to himself (or else Nature sa)s it for hini — 

 I am too unscientific to know which) : "If I could only 

 make myself /oo/^- as nasty as B. is, all the birds and 

 li/ards would let vie alone!' Which, by patience and 

 perseverance. A. graduall)' contrives to do. 



'Well. 1 will admit that this idea of^^.'s is not without 

 a showy ingenuity, even if it is wanting in true reciprocity 

 and consideration for J^/s interests. What I fail to see is 

 that, from ^.'s point of view, it is reall)- such a very 

 masterl\- strata-jem." 



The writer then goes on to point out that when the 

 enemy comes across A before /) all the advantages as 

 he conceives them would be lost, while B itself w^ould be 

 endangered in spite of its nauseous qualities. 



Omitting the allusions to conscious imitation, which, 

 although expressing a common popular error, are clearly 

 not intended to be taken seriousU. the whole arorument 

 is a fair j^resentation and criticism of Batesian mimicry. 

 It onl)- fails to do justice to this hypothesis in one respect, 

 — the mimics are represented as relatively common, so 

 common indeed that it is assumed to be a matter of 

 indiffer(Mice whether .1 or /> be met with first. But 

 Inates assumed that the nauseous models are hundreds 

 or even thousands of times as abundant as their palatable 

 mimics. It is true, however, that the mimics are often 

 extremely abundant, but then it is probable that such cases 

 are to be explained b) the alternative theor)- of Fritz 

 Midler. As a matter of fact, the title of the exhibit, 

 'Reciprocal Advantage', is conclusive evidence that it 

 was this theory, and not that of Bates, which was being 

 illustrated. In f^ict both A and B are supposed to be 

 nauseous : then if an enemy eats // first it will be warned 

 against the appearance of A as well as B ; if it eats A 



