232 THEORIES OF MIMICRY 



extremely distasteful to insect-eating animals. 1 Similarly, 

 Mr. Roland Trimen, F.R.S., in his Presidential Address to 

 the Entomological Society, 2 points out that the ' abundant 

 and extremely conspicuous slow-flying diurnal Lithosiid 

 [Geometrid] moth, Aletis helcita ', together with its ' appa- 

 rently protected analogues . . . the closely similar Lithosiid 

 [Hypsid] Ph&agarista helcitoides, and Agaristid Eusc- 

 mia falkenstdnii\ show great similarity to the group 

 which is headed by Danais (Limnas) chrysippus ' so that 

 from the aspect of warning of distastefulness to enemies 

 the two sets may be regarded as practically but one.' 

 Similar facts will probably be found in numerous other 

 examples of moths which resemble butterflies. 



It may be safely asserted that, even with our present 

 limited knowledge, Mullerian Resemblance, no less than 

 Batesian Mimicry, can be found in the species of groups 

 with all degrees of affinity, and that there is no ground 

 for the contention that the latter theory alone derives 

 support from the facts presented by the groups which 

 include species from different Orders. 



Under Natural Selection the interpretation of the 

 whole series of facts is perfectly valid. The dominant 

 forms which in each locality move towards each other 

 and towards which less dominant forms also move, are in 

 some way specially defended. The principles are the 

 same when the approximation is between the species of 

 different Orders or Sub-Orders, or between those which 

 are much more closely related. The Mullerian Theory 

 explains the resemblance of immense numbers of 

 stinging insects to each other and of other specially 

 defended forms to them, whether they be closely or 

 distantly related : it also explains the resemblance of the 

 dominant Heliconinae and Ithomiinae in each locality in 

 South and Central America and of other forms to them. 

 Batesian Mimicry explains the cases in which the attracted 

 forms are not specially defended. 



The conclusion which emerges most clearly is the 

 entire independence of zoological affinity exhibited by 



^ Nature, 1898, Feb. 7, p. 364. 



2 Delivered Jan. 19, 1898 : Proc. Enl. Soc:, Land., 1897, p. Ixxxv. 



