No. 605] 



ANIMAL COLORATION 



283 



become unpalatable through the possession of disagree- 

 able juices, developed distinguishing marks, wliether in 

 color, form or mode of flight. He then plunges In medias 

 res with the assertion that "during the early stages of 

 this process, some of the Pieridse, inhabiting the same dis- 

 trict, happened to be sufficiently like some of the Heli- 

 conid* to be occasionally mistaken for them." There- 

 after, as may be anticipated, evolution proceeded merrily, 

 and examples of Batesian mimicry were perfected in due 

 time. 



Wallace's pronouncement begs the whole question. 

 Weismann's hypothesis is conceivably true, but lacks the 

 support necessary to carry conviction. Darwin's idea, 

 finally, seems to be at variance with fact, since Poulton'- 

 infers from his own studies that the conclusion that 

 emerges most clearly is the entire independence of 

 zoological affinity exhibited by mimetic resemblance. 



Punnett also shows most clearly how impossible the 

 Darwinian suggestion is, but errs when he supposes that 

 it can not be true in many cases that model and mimic 

 were closely alike to start with. His demonstration may 

 be accepted that the development of mimetic resemblance 

 has not been commonly facilitated hy preexisting like 

 ness due to racial affinity, but he has wholly disregarded 

 the fact that the degree of likeness which it is necessary 

 to presuppose, if mimicry has been brought about by a 

 series of comparatively small variations, might occur for 

 other reasons. 



May we not assume,^^ for example, that the PieridaB 

 and Heliconidae are usually distinctly different in their 

 habits, and that the coloration of typical members of each 



