362 THE PLACE OF MIMICRY 



vicluals. 4. That the imitators differ from the hulk of 

 their allies. 5. That ihc imitation, however minute, is 

 external and visible o\\\\\ never extendinir to internal 

 characters or to such as do not affect the external 

 api^earance.' ^ 



1 he wide difference between the Mimicr)' of Bates and 

 the resemblances explained by hritz Midler is well seen 

 when we attempt to ai>i)ly these conditions to the latter. 

 A strikinor exception to the first condition is i^dven on 

 j)p. 217-1S. and man\- instances of cHveri^^ence in station 

 could he (juoted (see p. 349). It is still more obvious that 

 the second condition does not appl\' to such examples. 

 There is no reason for supposing- that a Chalcosid moth 

 is any more palatable to an insectivorous bird than the 

 Danaine it mimics (see p. 275). But the Danaine is far 

 commoner, and its pattern is consequently a far more 

 effective advertisement of uni)alatability than that of the 

 moth. The third condition also does not appear to be 

 an invariable rule in cases of Miillerian Resemblance (see 

 p[j. 216 and 334. n.). A good example to the contrary is 

 brought forward by Dr. F. A. Dixey in Trans, Ent. Soc, 

 Loud., ^894, p. 298, n. 



2. TJie Chief Charaeteristies of Minietie Resojiblance 

 and the Attempt to Explain their Evolution. — In the 

 two preceding Essays the ])rincipal general statements 

 that can be made about Mimetic Resemblance, both 

 Batesian and Midlerian,- have been brought together 

 and discussed in relation to the various hypotheses which 

 have been proposed as to their evolutionary origin. It 

 was argued that statements based on a very broad 

 foundation of fact receive an adequate explanation on 



' Darwinism, London, i.sSy, j>p. 2(i^--\. 



• The rival inlcrj)rctalionsarc rarely discriminated, as the discussion of 

 Bates 7'. Miillcr was not the ol)ject of Essays VIII and IX. It may be 

 safely affirmed that not one of llie general statements necessarily sujjports 

 the hypothesis of Bales. Dr. F. A. Dixey showed in 1H94 that the special 

 tendency towards mimicry exhibited i)y the female sex (see pp. 244-7) 

 is witnessed in Miillerian Resemblance, and is in no way lobe accepted as 

 evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis. The Papilio- Euterpe 

 association defies interpretation on Batesian lines {Trans. Ent. Soc, 

 Lond., 1902, p. 467, and the references there given). 



