Butterflies of Protected Genera. 423 
ever, not only refuses to admit the Batesian theory in the 
case of two protected species (because they happen to be nearly 
allied or even in the same genus), but would restrict the 
original theory within such narrow limits that no philosophi- 
cal entomologist can possibly accept his interpretation. Thus 
he states :—‘‘ The original argument that butterflies which 
were known by observation to be uneatable or protected were 
mimicked in appearance by different butterflies which did not 
possess distasteful qualities for the sake of a similar protection, 
does not warrant the conclusion that because two or more 
buttertlies or other insects (of or not of the same genus) re- 
semble each other, therefore, without observation of the fact, it is 
proved that one must be protected or uneatable, and the other 
or others are mimickers””’ (Rhop. Malay. pp. 33, 34). 
If, in accordance with this statement, we are to confine the 
term ‘‘ mimicry” to those cases only in which the model is 
“known by observation’ to be uneatable, it may be fairly 
asked how far we know that such imitated groups as Heli- 
conius, Huplea, Danais, Acrea, &c. are distasteful. But 
very few direct observations have, as far as | am aware, been 
made even upon these groups which are generally admitted 
to be the objects of imitation; and I certainly know of no 
systematic experiments conducted with these models and 
insectivorous foes. ‘Thus the resemblance of Diadema misip- 
pus 2 to Danais plexippus may be called “ mimicry,” be- 
eause Danais is “ known by observation” to be a protected 
genus. But are the resemblances between such genera as 
Apatura and Athyma, Laogona and Neptis, &c. not to be 
considered as “‘mimicry”’ simply because we do not know 
with certainty which form to call the model? If we refuse to 
admit the theory of mimicry in such cases as the latter, we 
should leave unexplained a very large number of most exact 
imitations between very distinct genera—a retrograde step 
which few scientific entomologists will be disposed to take. 
In the case of the two Huplwas upon which Mr. Distant 
bases his objections, the fact of their being near blood-relations 
seems to be the great stumbling-block which prevents him 
from admitting the mimetic explanation. But it is some- 
what surprising that an author, whose work is so far in ad- 
vance of all other works of the kind in the knowledge dis- 
played in the philosophical portions of his subject, should 
have overlooked or should have failed to mention the fact that 
Mr. Bates in his original memoir admits mimicry between 
nearly related (and distasteful) groups. He says :—“ Not 
only, however, are Heliconide the objects selected for imita- 
tion, some of them are themselves the imitators; in other 
