96 THE EVOLUTION THEORY 



Hut tlioiv :\rv also huttrrHies in ^vhic•h botli sexes mimic a 

 in-otrc'tetl iiuxlcl. Tlius uv.my imitators of the unpalatable Acniiides 

 (PI. II, Fi<;. 21) resemble the model in both sexes, and of the South 

 American Whites Avhich mimic the Heliconiid;e there are some 

 which have the appearance of the Heliconiidae even in the male sex 

 (PI. II. Vh^. 18, 19), while others look like ordinary Whites (for , 

 instance, Arcltomas 2^otamea). But in many of these species, which 

 are mimetic in the female sex, w^e find also in the male some indications 

 of the mimetic colourinjx, but in the first instance only on the under 

 surface. Thus the females of Pcrhybris ^yyrrha. (PI. II, Fig. 17) resemble 

 in their black, yellow, and orange-red colour-pattern the immune 

 American Danaid, Lycorea Jicdia (PI. II, Fig. 12), but their mates are, 

 on the upper surface, like our common Whites, though they already 

 show on the under surface the orange-red transverse stripes of the 

 Lycorea (PI. II, Fig. t6). In other mimetic species of Whites a similar 

 beofinnino- is even more faintly hinted at, and in others, again, the 

 upper surface of the male is also provided with protective colours, and 

 only a single white spot on the posterior, or sometimes even on the 

 anterior wing as well, shows the original white of the Pieridae (Fig. 18). 



I do not know how any one can put any other construction on 

 these facts than that the females first assumed the protective colour- 

 ing, and that the males followed later, and more slowly. Whether 

 this is due to inheritance on the female side, and thus ensues as 

 a mechanical necessity, in virtue of laws of inheritance still unknown j 

 to us, or whether it arose because there was a certain advantage 

 in protection to the males — though not such a marked one — and that 

 these, therefore, followed independently along the same path of 

 evolution as the females, has yet to be investigated. Personally, 

 I incline to the latter view, because there are protected mimetic 

 species, in which the female mimics one immune model, and the male 

 another, quite different from the female's. A case in point is that of 

 an Indian butterfly, Eurvpus haliterses, and also Hypolimnas scopas, 

 in the latter of which the male resembles the male of Eupkea 

 pyrglon, and the female is like the somewhat different female of the 

 same protected species. The Indian PapU'io paradoxus, too, seems to y 

 show the independence of the processes of mimetic adaptation, for the | 

 male is like the blue male of the immune Euphea binotata (PI. Ill, 

 ^ig- 25), while the female resembles the radially-striped female of 

 Euploia midamus (PL III, Fig. 27), and this double adaptation is 

 repeated in another of the persecuted butterflies, Elymnias leucocyma 

 (PI. Ill, Fig. 26, 28). 



Many objections have been made to the interpretation of mimicry 



