424 On Mimicry between Butterflies of Protected Genera. 
words, they counterfeit each other, and this to a considerable 
extent. Species belonging to distinct genera have been con- 
founded owing to their being almost identical in colours and 
markings; in fact many of them can scarcely be distin- 
guished, except by their generic characters. It is a most 
strange circumstance connected with this family that its two 
sections or subfamilies have been mingled together by all 
authors, owing to the very close resemblance of many of their 
species.. Analogies between the two subfamilies have been 
mistaken for affinities. It is sometimes difficult to under- 
stand in these cases which is the imitator and which the imi- 
tated. . . .” (Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxiii. p. 507). 
This extract from the writings of the founder of the theory 
_ of mimicry proves to my mind conclusively that Mr. Bates 
had himself observed the resemblance between nearly re- 
lated and protected groups; and Mr. Distant’s strictures upon 
the theory must, in my belief, give way. He admits that 
true mimicry may occur between different sections of the same 
genus, as has been shown to he the case in Papilio by Mr. 
Wallace, and more recently by Mr. Wood-Mason. But here 
again, | would ask how Mr. Distant knows “ by observation ’ 
that one section is inedible? ‘The arguments based on the 
presence or absence of a scent-gland must be used with the 
greatest caution in determining which group serves as the 
model. This appears most forcibly from the inconsistencies 
which Mr. Distant has himself brought to light when making 
use of this character as acriterion. ‘Thus, he states that if we 
admit the theory of mimicry in the case of Huplea Distanti and 
Ei. Bremeri, ‘ we must presumably consider” the former to 
be the model, because of its pseudo scent-gland. Further on 
he continues :—“ But in the genus Huplea we have at present 
no knowledge of non-nauseous or non-protected species, and 
therefore the probability of the species ‘mimicked’ being 
EE. Distanti, because of its possession of a pseudo scent-gland, 
and hence presumably protective advantage, is somewhat 
negatived by the fact that some Hupleas without these 
glands are mimicked by other and very divergent species, as, 
notably, H. midamus by Papilio paradoxa and P. enigma. 
The possession of these glands does not therefore appear 
necessary for distastefulness. . . .” &c. (loc. cit. p. 33). 
Such facts as those mentioned appear to me to be conclusive 
against the said glands being of any use as a protection. In- 
deed there are many dull groups, both of butterflies and 
moths, which we have no reason to regard as being distasteful, 
and of which the males are provided with large scent-glands 
or tufts, e. g. Mycalesis, Hrebus, &c. ~The position which 
