xliv Proceedings of the South African Philosophical Society. 
And he adds that— 
d. “In the co-operation of these factors the theory of mimicry 
depends.’ 
Let us consider how Trimen’s first proposition, i.c., persecution by 
insectivorous foes, bears on this southern part of Africa. 
In this South African area the number of insectivorous mammals 
is small in kinds, and, with the exception of bats, certainly in 
examples; lizards are plentiful, batrachians are not numerous. Of 
birds we have 775 species, and of these, Mr. W. L. Sclater informs 
me, 194 are wholly, and 120 are partly, insectivorous. The large 
number of insectivorous birds, as well as the great predomimance of 
lizards, chameleons, &c., over other insectivorous animals certainly 
implies an immense destruction of insect life. But in so far as the 
mimicry of non-edible insects by edible ones is concerned, there is 
not a single well-authenticated record of attack by birds or lizards 
of the mimicker or mimickee. The only instances of butterflies 
captured on the wing recorded during many years by Trimen, who 
took a special interest in the test, are the observations of the late 
Mrs. Barber that various sun-birds caught and brought to their 
nestlings Pyrameis cardut, the ‘‘ painted lady”’; the statement made 
by Mr. Mansel Veale that T’chitrea cristata captures the male of 
Papilio Cenea ; and Mr. T. Ayres notes that the Kingfisher, [spidina 
natalensis, feeds almost entirely on butterflies. In addition to this 
record Mr. Trimen’s observations are limited to the capture, in suc- 
cession, by our common fiscal, Lanwws collaris, of several newly 
emerged Papilio lynceus on the wing. This record is meagre, the 
more so that, as I have already said, butterflies of both sexes have a 
‘specially dangerous time during courtship and pairing. More impor- 
tant still is the fact that none of the species of butterflies mentioned 
by these observers is affected by the theory of mimicry. 
We also find that cases of mimicry in LEPIDOPTERA are compara- 
tively scarce. But if the species is protected by that means, surely 
the number of its progeny should increase more than that of the 
non-protected ones. Notwithstanding that serious defect the latter 
are, however, considerably more numerous. 
A mimicker may also suffer from the mimicry being too realistic. 
We have here a fairly common Eristalidous fly (Hrystalomya modesta), 
which not only greatly resembles the bee, but even overdoes the 
well-known humming noise produced by the mimickee. On two 
occasions I have seen the wasp Philanthus diadema, which stores the 
nest for his young with honey bees, pounce upon and carry away 
this fly, mistaking, with fatal effect, the mimicker for the mimickee. 
Let us now consider the second proposition, ?.e., the possession of 
malodorous and distasteful juices of certain groups. 
