

46 Mr, W- L. Distant on the Theory of 



objecting to its being left as a reasonable but unproved 

 hypothesis. 



The second and larger portion of Mr. Meldola's article refers 

 to some remarks made in my c Rhopalocera Malayana, 7 re- 

 specting two species of the genus Euplcea. Mr. Meldola has 

 so very fairly and accurately copied my words that I prefer 

 to leave them in context with his own views, and have 

 nothing to add or retract ; and as he has concluded that in 

 the Malay Peninsula the scarce E. Distanti is the mimic of 

 the somewhat abundant E. Bremeri, I will only make the 

 following remark : — E. Distanti is found both in the Malay 

 Peninsula, Java, and Sumatra, whilst E. Bremeri is unknown 

 from the last two habitats, though plentiful in the first. Con- 

 sequently in Java and Sumatra it mimics a species which does 

 not exist nearer than in the Malay Peninsula (that is, acceptin 

 this u mimicry " hypothesis)*. Mr. Meldola has omitted to take 

 into consideration these divergent elements of locality, though 

 he will find the habitats given in the publications from which he 

 has quoted. To prove his point he has, with the mathematical 

 skill of which he possesses no common endowment, given a 

 numerical statement and argument which, if figures could 

 prove biological hypotheses, would leave nothing to be desired. 

 However, " Nature " does not readily unfold herself to this 

 method ; and it must not be forgotten that Kramer has used 

 the same artificial means in an anti-Darwinian sensef. 



The genus Euplcea , like several of the other large and 

 protected American genera, exhibits groups of species with a 

 common facies, which, at the present time, does not appear 

 to be explained by this proposed extension of u mimicry." 

 It is a question that is now, and has for a long time been, 

 engaging the attention of some of our best lepidopterists, and 

 can only be dealt with patiently and with all the facts. Such 

 collections as are now being formed of the difficult and simu- 

 lating species of the Central-American genera by Messrs. 

 Godman and Salvin, and the results of their exhaustive ex- 

 amination of the same, will be, and must be, studied for an 

 elucidation of the question. Without specimens and without 

 special knowledge the delicate questions which are based on 

 genera and species, as such, can scarcely be fully estimated, 

 much less explained. My reference to the question whether 

 these two species of Euplcea could be brought under the law 

 of mimicry was due to the fact that a prominent and very 

 excellent Eastern lepidopterist, who is specially studying that 



* Of course it may be argued that the model E. Bremeri has become 

 extinct in these region3. 



f See abstract of same in Semper's * Animal Life/ p. 366. 



