MR. A. MUEEAY ON MIMETIC ANALOGY. 
113 
union througli all parts. That is exactly parallel to what we see 
in these mimicries. The number of legs and the nervation of the 
wings (in other words, the more structural portions of the animal) 
remain special as in one parent, while the colour and form of the 
wings &c. is taken from the other. In the butterflies it is the 
more structural parts (legs, nervures of wings, &c.) of the male 
parent which are observed in the offspring, while the form and 
general appearance only of the female parent is adopted. In 
plants it may be a question whether we should consider the 
flower or the foliage as the more structural parts : for my part I 
should take the flower as the more important, and therefore 
equivalent to the structure of the legs and wings ; and the foliage 
and habit of the plant in Mr. Anderson-Henry's case as equiva- 
lent to the colour and form of the wings and general appearance 
of the insect. Another phase of the mimicry, which I have no 
doubt will be found to have also its parallel in the hybridization 
of plants, although I am not able to cite any instances exactly in 
point, is that in species which have dissimilar sexes it sometimes 
extends to both sexes, the males being like the males and the 
females like the females, but in other instances is confined to the 
females. I believe that the reason why I have no case in point to 
cite in plants is that it can only be had in dioecious plants ; and 
the hybridization of dioecious plants has hitherto been scarcely 
at all attended to. Mr. Anderson-Henry has some coming forward, 
but they have not yet flowered. 
The last point to be noticed is one of some importance, as 
being the only one furnishing a shadow of objection to the ex- 
planation of the mimicries in question by hybridization. It is 
that the nearest natural allies of both the mimickers and 
mimicked are not always to be found in the same district. This 
deserves the more attention, since it appeared so strong to Mr. 
Bates as to lead him to relinquish the idea of hybridization as an 
explanation after it had crossed his mind. " The explanation," 
says he, " that the whole are the result of hybridization from a 
few originally distinct species cannot at all apply in this case, 
because the distinct forms, whose intercrossing would be required 
to produce the hybrids, are confined to districts situated many 
hundred miles apart." 
Before I proceed to show how simple the explanation of the 
absence of one of the parents is, I must beg to note in passing 
the admission that there are distinct forms whose intercrossing 
