104 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, 1892. 



mongrels on a hit or miss method will result in waste of money, 

 , time and discredit to those who work it, be they Government officials, 

 Native Princes^ or private individuals. 



PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCES. 

 By W. E. Hart. 



(Head before the Bombay Natural History Society, 5th A2)ril, 1892.) 



Feom the frequency with which it is reverted to in the pages of 

 the Journal, the subject of protective resemblances in the insect 

 world would appear to be a very fascinating one. In the ease with 

 which it seems to fit into the doctrine of evolution, and the wide field 

 it opens to interesting speculation, those who treat of it will, no 

 doubt, be found in danger of being led into the extremes humorously 

 noticed by "Eha^' in one of his amusing contributions to the Times 

 of Indians "A naturalist on the Prowl." At the same time, he 

 seems to me rather hard on those even of the extremest opinions. 

 As I understand them, none go the length of suggesting any 

 volition on the part of the mimic in the selection of a protected type 

 for imitation. The perpetuation of the likeness is involuntary and 

 brought about, not by selection, but by the fact that those members 

 of an unprotected species which resemble the members of a protected 

 one, have, in that resemblance, an advantage in the struggle for 

 existence, which will be an advantage to the species in proportion as 

 it is transmitted from one generation to another. The perpetuation 

 of the likeness is, therefore, a process of evolution. 



Nor does it seem to be insisted on, even by those who most strongly 

 insist on the value of protective resemblances as a means for securing 

 the perpetuation of an unprotected species, that the likeness between 

 it and a protected one is necessarily always an imitation, in the 

 strictest sense of the word. It is true such expressions as '* imitate'* 

 and " mimic," are very commonly used, but often, I think in a 

 figurative rather than a literal sense, merely because they concisely 

 and conveniently express the resemblance between an uniDrotected 

 species and a protected one, but without any intentional suggestion 



