362 THE PLACE OF MIMICRY 



viduals. 4. That the imitators differ from the bulk of 

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

 external and visible only, never extending to internal 

 characters or to such as do not affect the external 

 appearance.' * 



The wide difference between the Mimicry of Bates and 

 the resemblances explained by Fritz Mtiller is well seen 

 when we attempt to apply these conditions to the latter. 

 A striking exception to the first condition is given on 

 pp. 217-18, and many instances of divergence in station 

 could be quoted (see p. 349). It is still more obvious that 

 the second condition does not apply 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 unpalatability than that of the 

 moth. The third condition also does not appear to be 

 an invariable rule in cases of Mullerian Resemblance (see 

 pp. 216 and 334, n.). A good example to the contrary is 

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

 Lond., 1894, p. 298, n. 



2. The Chief Characteristics of Mimetic Resemblance 

 and the Attempt to Explain their Evolution. In the 

 two preceding Essays the principal general statements 

 that can be made about Mimetic Resemblance, both 

 Batesian and Mullerian, 2 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 



1 Darwinism, London, 1889, pp. 264-5. 



2 The rival interpretations are rarely discriminated, as the discussion of 

 Bates v. Miiller was not the object of Essays VIII and IX. It may be 



unvi o,o mji uiic uujcci ui jL5a.ya v m. aim i/\.. XL may L/C 



safely affirmed that not one of the general statements necessarily supports 

 the hypothesis of Bates. Dr. F. A. Dixey showed in 1894 that the special 

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

 is witnessed in Mullerian Resemblance, and is in no way to be accepted as 

 evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis. The Papilio- Euterpe 

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

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



