158 MIMICKY IN N. AMEKICAN BUTTEEFLIES 



between these Old and New World Danaines, and 

 also the validity of the genera created by Moore. ^ 

 Such a comparison had already been partially made 

 by Kothschild and Jordan, who in 1903 published 

 the conclusion that Limnas and Tasitia cannot be 

 generically separated." I therefore wrote to my 

 friend Dr. Jordan, asking if he would kindly 

 extend his survey over all the four so-called genera. 

 He found that in Salatura genutia and Anosia 

 plexi^us, having larvae with two pairs of fila- 

 ments," the male genitalia are of the same type ; 

 while in Limnas chrysippus and Tasitia berenice, 

 having larvae with three pairs of filaments, these 

 genitaUa are of a second type. The final opinion 

 of this distinguished authority on the relationships 

 between the Rhopalocera, was given in the fol- 

 lowing words * : — 



' It appears to be certain that Anosia plexvppus does not 

 stand apart from the others. Therefore, if Tasitia berenice, 

 Limnas chrysippus and Salatura genutia are placed in one 



' Proc. Zool. Soc. Land., 1883, 201. 



2 Nov. Zool. vol. X, Dec, 1903, 502, 



' Dr. Jordan was at first inclined to think that Anosia plexippus 

 should be separated generically, basing his conclusion in part on 

 the larval characters (TmMs. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, 450). A more 

 extended review of the Tring material pointed in the opposite 

 direction, and Dr. Jordan wrote on December 10, 1908, as follows: — 

 ' I find from our specimens [of preserved larvae] that — 



(1) in Euploea (in the wide sense) there are 4 pairs of filaments, 

 or three (the 3rd being absent), or two (the 3rd and 4th being 

 absent). 



(2) In Danaidae, inch of Anosia & Limnas, there are 3 pairs (the 

 3rtt of the 4 pairs of Euploea being absent), or 2 pairs (the 2nd 

 and 3rd being absent). 1 find that, for instance, genutia and 

 jjurpurata have 2 pairs only, like plexippus. The larva therefore 

 does not furnish any argument for separating plexippus as a 

 genus.' 



^ In a letter to the author, dated December 15, 1908. 



