Theory of Protective Mimicry 
We are not at all sure that no facts are against 
the theory of protective mimicry. We shall 
presently set forth some which to us seem, if not 
actually inconsistent with the theory, at least to 
point to the conclusion that the phenomenon 
may be explained otherwise than as a product of 
natural selection. 
Let us first briefly state the case for the theory 
of protective mimicry. 
1. It is asserted that the mimicking species 
and that which is mimicked are often not nearly 
related. For example, the unpalatable larva of 
the Cinnabar Moth (Zuchelza jacobaez) is said to 
mimic a wasp, because it has black and yellow 
rings round its body. 
“The conclusion which emerges most clearly,” 
writes Poulton (p. 232), “is the entire indepen- 
dence of zoological affinity exhibited by these 
resemblances.” This is supposed to be proof 
that Darwin was wrong when he asserted that 
the original likeness was due to affinity. Says 
Poulton: ‘The preservation of an original like- 
ness due to affinity undoubtedly explains certain 
cases of mimicry, but we cannot appeal to this 
principle in the most remarkable instances.” 
2. It is asserted that species which are 
mimicked are invariably either armed with a 
sting, well defended, or unpalatable, so that it 
is against the interest of insectivorous creatures 
to attack them. It is further asserted that the 
227 
