IN DEFENSIVE COLORATION 361 



The term ' Mimicry ' has led to much misunderstanding 

 from the fact that in ordinary speech it impHes deHberate 

 imitation. The production of Mimicry in an individual 

 animal has no more to do with consciousness, or taking 

 thought, than any of the other processes of growth in the 

 individual or evolution in the species. 



The example described on pp. 217-18, should it be 

 hereafter confirmed, would provide a striking demonstra- 

 tion of the production of Mimicry by the selective action 

 of enemies alone : model and mimic being, as it is 

 believed, permanently and widely separated by areas and 

 barriers over which the enemies are supposed to pass. 



Protective Mimicry is here defined as an advanta- 

 geous superficial resemblance of a palatable defenceless 

 form to another that is specially defended so as to be 

 disliked or feared by the majority of enemies of the 

 groups to which both mimic and model belong — a resem- 

 blance which appeals to the senses of enemies in the 

 manner described on p. 359, but does not extend to deep- 

 seated characters, except when the superficial likeness is 

 affected thereby. Mutatis miitandis, this definition 

 applies to Aggressive (Pseudepisematic) Mimicry. 



a. pseudaposematic resemblance, or protective 



(Batesian) Mimicry. 



A brief historical account of Protective Mimicry has 

 been given on pp. 220-3. 



H. W. Bates's historic theory is of especial interest 

 because it was one of the first attempts made by 

 naturalists to employ the great weapon put into their 

 hands by the Origin of Species. Natural Selection was 

 here invoked to offer an intelligible explanation of a 

 large class of phenomena, up to that time well known 

 but unexplained. 



I. Wallaces Statement of the Co7iditions binder ivhich 

 Protective Mimicry Occtirs. — The ^\^ conditions are as 

 follows : — ' I. That the imitative species occur in the 

 same area and occupy the same station as the imitated. 



2. That the imitators are always the more defenceless. 



3. That the imitators are always less numerous in indi- 



