30 



AFRICAN MIMETIC BUTTERFLIES 



sippus, collectors are generally agreed that the insect is beyond question extremely distasteful 

 to insectivorous animals. The larvae are very conspicuous, and, as Leigh has pointed out 

 (Proc. Ent. Soc, 1903, p. 22), they employ no disguise, and are certainly unpalatable and 

 avoided by birds, hornets, spiders, and Mantidae. The pupae are equally devoid of cryptic 

 protection, and the perfect insects are slow flying and careless of pursuit. Even dead speci- 

 mens in the cabinet are said to be less prone to the attacks of mites than are other species. 

 Wherein lies their nauseous quality it is exceedingly difficult to discover, but there is no doubt 

 that they have a disagreeable smell. Dr. Dixey,in Proc. Ent. Soc, 1906, says : ' The scent in 

 both sexes of chrysippus invariably appeared to me to be of a strong and disagreeable nature, 

 like that of cockroaches, often stronger in the females. . . . The excised glands of the male 

 yield on pressure a yellow or brown juice, without perceptible taste or odour.' Again, in 

 Trans. Ent. Soc, 1905, p. 104, Dr. Longstaff remarks : ' Here I observed in two specimens 

 of chrysippus (of which certainly one was a male) a distinct cockroach-like odour, sufficiently 

 strong to be perceptible when the insect was fluttering in the net.' Again (p. 108) : ' Here 

 I one day had the advantage of the assistance of my host, Mr. Edwin Scott, I.C.S., whose 

 keen appreciation of scents helped me greatly. L. chrysippus was abundant ; of its scent 

 Mr. Scott's first impression was " some sort of dung ", then, "a zoo " ; later he said, " possibly 

 like a cockroach but more like a musk rat." The scent is, I think, general, but is perhaps 

 stronger when the scent sacs in the hind-wing are opened : a fact that I also observed at 

 Calcutta.' 



In chrysippus we have therefore a conspicuous butterfly of exceedingly wide range, 

 producing several well-marked and constant varieties, and by its habits, abundance, and 

 carelessness of pursuit, furnishing ample evidence of its distasteful qualities. It remains 

 to consider the species which are mimetically associated with it. 



HYPOLIMNAS MISIPPUS. 



Linnaeus, Mus. L. Ulr., p 264 (1764). var. ^ alcippoides, Butler. 



Godart {misippe), Enc. Meth., ix, p. 188 (1819). Butler, An. N. H., v, xii, p. 102 (1883). 



Cramer (diocippus), Pap. Exot., i, pi. 28 ff. b, c Trimen, S. Af. Butt., iii, p. 404 (1889). 



(1775). var. 5 inaria, Cramer. 

 Drury {bolina) 111. Ex. Ins. p. 26, pi, 14, ff. 1,2 Cramer, Pap. Exot., iii, p. 36, pi. 214, f. A, B 



(1773)- (1779)- 

 Trimen, S. Af. Butt., i, p. 277 (1887). Trimen, S. Af. Butt., i, p. 278 (1887). 



Aurivillius, Rhop. Aeth., p. 147 (Synonymy) var. 5 dorippoides, Aurivillius. 



(1898). Aurivillius, Rhop. Aeth., p. 148 (1898) 



The resemblance of the female H. misippus to both sexes of D. chrysippus is probably 

 the best-known instance of mimicry in butterflies. The species was described in 1776 by 

 Sulzer as the female of D. chrysippus. It presents a striking instance of the phenomenon 

 of sexual dimorphism, the male and female being entirely different in appearance. As 

 will be seen later this phenomenon is by no means an uncommon one, especially in butterflies 

 which exhibit mimetic resemblance. Further than this the species also exhibits the extra- 

 ordinary feature of female polymorphism, i.e. the female occurs in several different forms, 

 and though in this case the forms resemble the varieties of one species of model, we shall 

 find that there are butterflies the females of which present several different appearances, 

 each resembling a specifically distinct model. 



The typical form of the female is illustrated on Plate II, Fig. 8, from which the general 

 resemblance to D. chrysippus can be clearly seen. The male is shown on the same plate. 

 Fig. 5. The difference in the appearance of the two sexes is so great that it is at first very 



