UHOPALOCERA M. I J,. I J M .V. 1 . 



but the presence of the pseudo scent-gland or brand to anterior wings will at once separate 

 it from that species. It is at least a question whether the term " mimicry" should bo used 

 here, both species belonging (as I consider, and most entomologists till recently considered) to 

 the same genns. All the species of Euplaa with which we are acquainted, and as Mr. Wallace has 

 informed ua, have, with the remaining Banahui of the Old World tropica, the (t same protective 

 odour/'* In this case, if we adopt the explanation of mimicry for the resemblance of these 

 two species, we mnst presumably consider E* distant i as the mimicked species, as it possesses a 

 pseudo scent -gland, which may reasonably be considered as adding to its protective or uneatable 

 character, and which is absent in E> bremerL We thus have the u mimicking" very much more 

 abundant than the "mimicked" species, which is contrary to the usually observed phenomena, 

 though Frita Miiller has recorded some similar exceptions as occurring in Brazil,! and the 

 same observer has also endeavoured to show that there is an advantage in two nauseous species 

 resembling each other, as occurs between two American species, both of which belong to genera 

 which are protected from birds and other enemies by distasteful qualities. J Such propositions 

 are of course at present hypothetical, and are at least supplementary to the carefully observed 

 faUs on which Mr, Bates originally disclosed and argued the admirable doctrine of " mimicry/ 1 § 

 which accounted for the strange external resemblances, long known to entomologists, which 

 wasted l.M'Uvt:on insects belonging to distinct genera, families, and even orders, between which 

 there was no real affinity* In the great genus Papilla we certainly have species mimicking each 

 other, but these belong to different sections of the genus, many instances of which have been 

 pointed out by Mr- Wallace, |] and other examples have been recently given by Mr. Wood-Mason If 

 of species belonging to scentless groups mimicking those which are strong-scented and inedible. 

 But in the genus Euplcea we have at present no knowledge of non- nauseous or no n -protected 

 species, and therefore the probability of the species " mimicked" being E. dulanti, because of 

 its possession of a pseudo scent-gland, and hence presumably protective advantage, is somewhat 

 negatived by the bet that s.une E<tf>i without these, glands are mimicked hx other and very 

 divergent apecies, as notably E. itiidamm by Pttpilm [nrntdoxa and P. mwjma. The possession 

 of these glands does not therefore appear necessary for distastefulness and protection; and 

 hence, until further observations are made by careful observers, it seems at least rash to 

 predicate 44 mimicry in the sense used by its discoverer, as the explanatory cause of these 

 resemblances amongst the species of Eujdwa. The original argument that butterflies which 

 were known by observation to be uneatable or protected were mimicked in appearance by different 

 butterflies which did not possess distasteful qualities for the sake of a similar protection, does 

 not warrant the conclusion that because two or more butterflies or other insects (of not or the 



* Contrib, to Nat. Select, p. 85 (1870), 



i Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, vol. i. p. 157 (1H781 ; 1 Kofsmns,' 1879, p. 100; and Proe. Ent. Soc. 1879, p. *xiv. 

 \ Miilh-r's views have finite been titupliiieil and upprov* <i 1 ■ v Mr. Wallace, which given them no hicoiiRLderahlu &ti-en#-h 

 (" Nature." vtd. xsvi. p. SO). 



§ This word seems to have been first need in a biological senee by Prof. Henfrey, in his translation of Scliouw's 1 Earth, 

 Plants, and Mttu 1 (185^, and in reforcmv to lioUny. hi diseiis-irtt? repetition* in tin vegetable kingdom" lit remarks <p. * j 1 1 . 

 '■There i« still another kind nf repetition which I miylit call 4 habitual repetition," or dcnoniinato * mimicry.'" Both anther 

 and translator, however, milled its philosophical application. 



|| Contrib. to Nat. Select, pp. 87 T 88. * Aim. £ Mag. Nat. Hist. fler. 5, February. 1882, pp. 104, 105. 



Jcs'e SO, 1882. k 



