98 Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society. 



There are, on the other hand, a number of instances in which the 

 similarity of parts of plants to other objects is so striking that one 

 can hardly doubt that they have been acquired by natural selection. 

 The best examples of this kind are offered by some orchids, not only 

 among the gorgeous tropical species, but also by some which are 

 fairly common in various parts of Europe. Several species of 

 the genus Ophrys do not bear their names without justification, 

 for the flowers of 0. apifera, muscifera, and aranifcra resemble 

 bees, flies, and spiders to such an extent that they may be easily 

 mistaken for them without closer examination. Of course such 

 similarities are not cases of protective colouring, for the function 

 of these remarkable forms and colours is evidently connected with 

 the fertilisation of the flowers. In all probability they afford the 

 insects which visit the flowers a certain amount of safety from their 

 enemies by hiding them during the time the visitors spend there. 



Another example of this kind of mimicry is afforded by some 

 Stapelias, a group of succulent plants which has its headquarters 

 in South Africa. The flowers of most species of this group emit a 

 strong odour resembling that of putrid meat, thereby attracting 

 carrion flies which effect cross-fertilisation. It is even said that 

 the eggs and larvae of such flies have been observed on these 

 flowers, which would show that the deception had been complete. 

 That the scent must be very deceptive to animals I know from 

 experience. I had a rare Stapelia in my garden which w T as going 

 to flower for the first time, but one day I found the bud scratched 

 to pieces by my dog. 



All these instances, however, are not mimicry in its proper sense, 

 for the resemblance does not afford any protection to the plant. 

 But there are a few examples recorded where this seems to be really 

 the case. Sp. M. Moore * mentions as one of the means of pro- 

 tection w T hich some desert plants of Australia possess, the similarity 

 of the foliage of some species of Lorantlius with the leaves of the 

 host upon which they grow. He avoids the word mimicry and 

 introduces instead the term " homoplasy." In particular are men- 

 tioned Lorantlius penclulus Sieb, and L. Quandang Ldl., which, 

 owing to this close resemblance, can hardly be discovered on the 

 trees or shrubs upon which they grow. He also mentions that 

 camels are very fond of the Lorantlius but do not eat the leaves 

 of the host. That, of course, does not prove much, for camels are 

 not indigenous to Australia. The only inference which one could 

 draw from this observation would be the supposition that other 



* Sp. M. Moore, "The Botanical Results of a -Journey into the Interior of 

 Western Australia," Journ. Linn. Soc., xxxiv., 1899. 



