No. 605] 



ANIMAL COLORATION 



MulleriJn mimicry. ^ ^ 



It remains to state that among Lepidoptera dii¥erent 

 species have their characteristic attitudes of rest, fre- 

 quent ditf erent places, fly at different levels, and are active 

 at different times in the day. Even the two sexes of some 

 species, and these are commonly dimorphic forms, do not 

 haunt the same stations. It is certainly a pregnant fact, 

 which we may accept since Wallace^^ gives independent 

 testimony to the same effect, that Bates'^o observed many, 

 apparently scores, of species, in which, as he says, the sun- 

 loving males flaunted their gaudy hues in open places, 

 while their respective females, soberly clad, frequented 

 the forest shades. 



These facts and others that might be cited are indi- 

 cations of diversity of habit among insects comparable 

 with that which among fishes is correlated with the dis- 

 play of different types of inconspicuous coloration. They 

 suggest that in this group as well, external pigments are 

 distributed among species according to an intelligible 

 system other than that whose existence is commonly in- 

 ferred. But if this should eventually prove to be ti'ue, we 

 must have an explanation of mimicry without a])]H^al to 

 the concept of warning colors. 



Such a hypothesis has in tact been formulated by 

 Punnett,''! for in spite nf hi^ api-arent belief in the con- 

 spicuousness of manx species of butterflies it happens 

 that he lays no stress upon it in his consideration of the 

 origin of mimetic resemblance. His hypothesis, as he 

 fully recognizes, is at present little more than naked sug- 

 gestion. It is ingenious, is stated attractively in the cur- 

 rent idiom of genetics, and is effectively displayed auaii!>t 

 a background of destructive criticism of its ])vodvrr-^i>v-. 

 from which it differs in minimizing the influence of nai 



«o"The Naturalist ^'on tho ' Rivor ' Ln'./m, " " Roprinted, New 

 York, D. Appleton fiiKlC... 



