CASE OF PRESUMED PROTECTIVE IMITATION. — SKUSE. 
91 
The detailed description is as follows : — 
Animal (fig. 1) — inspirits, with two small left and light mantle 
lobes, foot in length the shell’s diameter, with pedal lin3, oblique 
grooves and caudal mucous pore, apparently surmounted by a 
horn, sole tripartite. 
Genitalia (fig. 2) — penis broad, much twisted, containing a 
large blunt papilla, epiphallus more than twice the length of 
penis ; vas deferens long, bound to wall of atrium. Sperm at heca 
boot-shaped, duct moderately long. Base of vagina black, lobed, 
containing no follicles. 
Jaw (fig. 4) — rather thin, arcuate, smooth, broad, without 
central projection. 
In a slightly torn radula (fig. 3) I counted 140 = 4 = 12=1 = 
12-4= 140 teeth in 103 rows. Rachidian twice as long as wide, 
basal plate rather hour-glass shaped, central cusp ovate-lanceolate, 
projecting half its length over the succeeding plate ; small side 
cusps with distinct cutting points arise at two-thirds the length 
of the basal plate. Immediate laterals have the entocone sup- 
pressed, the ectocone appears as a small hook, the mesocone being 
broadly ovate. For three or four transition teeth the ectocone 
rapidly ascends the mesocone, till each of equal size form the 
bifid cusps of the marginals. These are minute, sinuous, and 
very numerous. 
On a CASE of PRESUMED PROTECTIVE IMITATION. 
By Frederick A. A. Skuse. 
(Entomologist to the Australian Museum.) 
[Plate XXII.] 
That wonderful Hepialid, Leto stacyi , Scott, seems to claim a 
place among those famous examples of a similar nature advanced 
by Bates, Wallace, and others. The protective resemblances among 
animals is an established fact, and it is unnecessary to quote classical 
instances. But I cannot find any reference to such a protective 
feature as that of a moth which resembles in situ an approach to 
the head of a reptile known to possess an appetite for birds. In 
the case under notice it may fairly be claimed that such an 
example exists in nature. 
After consulting my colleagues, by submitting to them photo- 
graphs of actual specimens in their natural positions — and I am 
especially indebted to Mr. Edgar R. Waite, whose opinion, from his 
