'S12 Till: PLACE OF MIMICRY 



c. Male ivid Female Mini'uk'nii^ Diff'croit Species. — 

 If the ininiickini4' species became common relatively to 

 the mimicked, the deception would he liable to be detected. 

 We therefore find that two or more models are often 

 mimicked by the same species. Thus the male of the 

 Indian Me/ynias 7)ia/e/as i^Elyvniias leiicocyina) mimics 

 Stictoploea JwDrisi, while the female mimics the female 

 Trepsie/irois muleiber. Both these Euploeas are also 

 imperfectl) mimicked by day-flyinj^^ moths [Callamesia 

 viidanhi). So also the male of the Indian Papilio castor 

 mimics Papilio chaon, while the female mimics Crastia 

 core : in Southern India, Papilio cliaon is absent, and botJi 

 sexes of the species [Papilio dravidanu}i) which repre- 

 sents P. castor mimic C. core. 



[There is more reason for believing that the Elynniiinac 

 are Batesian mimics than almost any other butterflies.^ 

 The case has been discussed on pp. 353-4, and the 

 inferences to be drawn from a resemblance to two or more 

 models on pp. 354-6. The resemblance of CalLwiesia, 

 belonging to the highly distasteful Family Zj^^r/z/V/^z^-, Sub- 

 Family Chalcosiinac, is certainly Miillerian, and the same 

 is doubtless true of the Papilios, which are themselves 

 often mimicked by other species. P. aristolochiac has been 

 shown (see p. 269) to be extremely distasteful to birds.] 



d. Fe^nale Mimetic : Male Non-Mimetic. — Female 

 butterflies are exposed to more dangers than the swiftly- 

 flying males, and we fmd many instances in which the 

 former are mimetic, although the latter are not. Thus 

 the female of the Indian Plypolimnas bolina mimics 

 Crastia core, while the male is non-mimetic The same 

 is true of Hypolimnas inisippus, the female of which 

 mimics Limnas clirysippus. The last-named Danaine 

 model is trimorphic, and all three forms are mimicked 

 by the female Hypoli))i}ias. 



[Recent evidence renders it probable that the whole 

 Nymphaline genus Hypolimnas is distasteful, and that j 

 the resemblance is Mullerian : see pp. 215-18.] 



^ As argued by Mr. R. Shelford. at the meeting of the Entomological 

 Society of London, on June 5, 1907. The discussion is not reported in 

 the Proctedings. 



