Theory of Protective Mimicry 



We are not at all sure that no facts are against 

 the theory of protective mimicry. We shall 

 presently set forth some which to us seem, if not 

 actually inconsistent with the theory, at least to 

 point to the conclusion that the phenomenon 

 may be explained otherwise than as a product of 

 natural selection. 



Let us first briefly state the case for the theory 

 of protective mimicry. 



1. It is asserted that the mimicking species 

 and that which is mimicked are often not nearly 

 related. For example, the unpalatable larva of 

 the Cinnabar Moth {Euchelia jacobaece) is said to 

 mimic a wasp, because it has black and yellow 

 rings round its body. 



4 'The conclusion which emerges most clearly," 

 writes Poulton (p. 232), "is the entire indepen- 

 dence of zoological affinity exhibited by these 

 resemblances." This is supposed to be proof 

 that Darwin was wrong when he asserted that 

 the original likeness was due to affinity. Says 

 Poulton : " The preservation of an original like- 

 ness due to affinity undoubtedly explains certain 

 cases of mimicry, but we cannot appeal to this 

 principle in the most remarkable instances." 



2. It is asserted that species which are 

 mimicked are invariably either armed with a 

 sting, well defended, or unpalatable, so that it 

 is against the interest of insectivorous creatures 

 to attack them. It is further asserted that the 



227 



