Bulletin of the EANHS 28(3) 
any male that doesn’t look right, so if a male carries a 
mutation which changes its colour pattern, it won’t be 
recognised by females as a suitable partner, it won’t 
get mated and the mutation won’t be passed on to the 
next generation. Males on the other hand are usually 
less choosy and will mate with amost anything that 
moves if it lets them. This is because they can mate 
many limes so that a single mistake is less costly. It is 
nearly always better lor them to mate than to miss the 
chance, even if the female does look different from 
normal. So a female with a new colour pattern will 
still get mated and will pass on the genes for that pattern 
to its offspring. 
Notice that the argument I’ve just presented depends 
crucially on females being able to choose their mates. 
If they don’t fancy their partner then that’s the end of 
the matter, and the frustrated male can do nothing about 
it But what if the females arc not in control? What if 
butterfly mating is often a case of rape? Then it doesn't 
matter what the males look like and they are as free to 
evolve a new colour pattern as the females. 
Which brings us back to the strange mating in the 
flight cage between the diadem and the false Acraea 
The false Acraea is largely orange with black borders, 
and looks something like some of the female colour 
forms of the diadem butterfly. But there is no form of 
the false Acraea that looks anything like a male diadem 
So confusion on the part of the male diadem is 
understandable, but the female Pseudacraeci couldn’t 
possibly have confused it with a male of its own species. 
Either she didn’l mind what he looked like or she was 
raped, and, in either case, our expanation for female- 
limited mimicry falls apart. 
But the real lesson of the odd mating is not that it 
disproves this hypothesis, because it doesn’t Instead, 
it reminds us how much so many evolutionary arguments 
depend on other things being equal, and how little we 
know about courtship and mating in African butterflies 
Other things being equal, colour pattern may indeed 
determine female choice in mating behaviour, but we 
don’t know that they are equal. The truth is that we 
have no idea what factors led to the odd mating It could, 
for example, have been due to a chemical coincidence, 
a chance similarity between male sex pheromones in 
the two species, since these sex perfumes are also 
important in mating (you may not only have to look 
right but also to smell right). It could have been due to 
some common behavioural traits in the mating 
behaviours of the two species Or it could have been an 
artefact of the lack of other suitable partners in the 
flight cage, either as a complete fluke with no wider 
significance, or as a result of the cage preventing female 
escape from the attentions of a stimulated but frustrated 
male. All of which leaves me in a rather similar state; 
stimulated (by the problem) but frustrated (by the lack 
of an answer) . 
I.J. Gordon 
Box 10018. Mombasa. Kenya 
CUDDLY OR TASTY? 
Through our wildlife sanctuary, here in the Shimba 
Hills runs a little-used, dirt, rural access road. My house 
lies a short distance from it. 
One evening, after dark, I became vaguely aware of 
a lorry labouring up the steep incline. Suddenly a wild 
cacophony of excited screams and shouts erupted from 
its passengers, whereupon the vehicle stopped just about 
level with my gate. More maniacal shrieking and 
Scuffling noises were heard. Then the engine restarted 
and off up the hill, then yet more bloodcurdling yells 
and screams, another stoppage. All repeated once again 
The hullabaloo was tremendous. What on earth was 
happening'’ At last, bedlam ceased and the lorry climbed 
on out of the sanctuary, and out of hearing. 
I went to the gate and asked my night watchman 
what it was all about. “Oh, it was the sungura, running 
ahead of the lights. The young people jumped out and 
were trying to catch it But. by bad luck, it escaped 
them.” 
“Oh! Poor, frightened, pretty, little Crawshay’s 
hare!" (It lives just beyond the road verge.) "And if 
they caught it?” 1 asked in trepidation. 
"Oh, they would have tom it to pieces and shared it 
out." 
Now, I have a book about diets. It is written by an 
American couple with, one assumes, their own well 
fed compatriots in mind (Diamond & Diamond (1985). 
The USA— a land flowing with milk and honey, where 
few know whal hunger is Within this little treatise about 
diets, various interesting proposals and advice are 
advanced and some fairly unusual theories propounded 
On one page, the following passage may be found: 
“We as humans are not even psychologically 
equipped to eat meat. Have you ever strolled through a 
lush wooded area, filling your lungs with good air while 
listening to the birds sing? Perhaps it was after a rain, 
and everything was fresh and clean The sun was filtering 
through the trees and glistening off the moisture on the 
flowers and grass. Just then perhaps a chipmunk scurried 
across your path. Whal was your VERY FIRST 
INSTINCTIVE inclination upon the sight of the 
chipmunk, before you even had time to think? To pounce 
on it, grab it with your teeth, rip it apart and swallow 
it, blood, guts, skin, bone, flesh and alP Then lick 
your lips with delight and thank the powers that be that 
you chose this particular path through the woods so you 
had the opportunity to devour this delectable little titbit? 
Or would you instantly, upon sight of the furry little 
creature, say. *Shhh, did you see that cute little 
chipmunk?’ 
Another passage- “Kids are the real test Place a 
small child in a crib with a rabbit and an apple If the 
child cats the rabbit and plays with the apple. I'll buy 
you a new car ” 
Well, if the authors would just step over here into a 
developing, third-world country where poverty and 
hunger are the norms, J might earn mvsdf a new car. 
Or then perhaps I wouldn’t, because the small child 
would avidly consume both the rabbit AND the apple! 
