Euploeines forming Mimetic Groups 25 



The species referred to as eleutho Quoy, in these accounts of the 

 Fiji group, should be called helcita eschscholtzi Feld. The synonymy 

 and identity of this and other forms is given in an appendix to this 

 paper. 



A third Euploea occurs on Fiji, which should enter into the combi- 

 nation, but we have seen no specimens of it. This is E. (Galliploea) 

 tulliolus forsteri Feld. It must be very rare. We have seen already 

 that the mimetic forms of this group of Euploea are rare on Tenimber 

 and Key. 



It is interesting to note that E. proserpina is rather different in 

 pattern from any other Euploea, yet in point of structure it is related to 

 either pakullei Butl., or to some other form of the duponcheli group. 



We may note here that but one other species of Euploea occurs on 

 Fiji, E. nemertes macleayi Feld. This is darker than the others. 



The discovery by Professor Poulton that mimetic forms could 

 generally be distinguished, model from mimic, by the eulegnic pattern 

 of the former and the dyslegnic pattern of the latter, is of great 

 importance in determining the bionomic relationship between such 

 forms. Where a mimetic resemblance is found to occur we are able 

 to confirm the other evidence which points to one species being the 

 model and the other the mimic. It also helps in establishing the 

 distinction between model and mimic, a distinction at least specific 

 but more often generic or even indicating a larger group. 



Where a form is found to be structurally different from allied forms 

 and another form likewise structurally different is found to resemble 

 it, we may conclude that such a form is very distinct and has been 

 distinct for a considerable time, and that when a number of forms 

 with similar characters are mimicked, each in its own area, they 

 would constitute a good genus. 



The recognition of mimetic resemblance is therefore an aid to the 

 systematist. 



It is doubtful whether we are correct in considering the Euploeinae 

 and Heliconiinae as representing each a single genus. The number of 

 genera made by Moore for the Euploeinae must in any case be 

 considerably reduced, since these genera were based on secondary 

 sexual characters alone. The grouping made by Fruhstorfer in Seitz's 

 Macrolepidoptera is more probably correct, but in the case of Grastia 

 it is doubtful if this can be divided. The existence of mimetic forms 

 with a characteristic wing-shape and invariable sexual secondary 

 characters, point to a generic association. Thus we may distinguish 

 as genera Grastia, Calliploea, and Salpinx. 



