MEM HR ACII) jE. 
153 
actor intelligently simulates or mimics a king, we have no right to argue that an 
insect must have a quasi-intelligence to carry on its mimicry-deceits. 
If it were possible to concede this intelligence, we might better explain the action 
of the angler or fishing frog Lophiuspiscatorius which hides in the sand and agitates 
its long cirri, which are developed as small silver-like fish, in order to allure its prey 
into its capacious and voracious mouth. Or more appositely consider the marvellous 
imitative faculty of some of the insectivorous Mantidse, or again some species of 
the nearly allied family Phasmidse like Phylliwn sicci-folimn which develop their 
elytra and legs into yellow, brown, green, or red leaf-like expansions. The imitation 
of half-dying leaves is complete, to the exact representation of the brown spots caused 
by the punctures of insects. These are striking examples of aggressive mimicry, but 
the subject has been already well discussed by competent writers. 
It is to be regretted that many cabinets of insects fail to show, side by side, the 
examples of the mimickers and the species which are mimicked. In many cases this 
may be difficult, particularly when the habit is shown between species belonging to 
different orders of insects. The accurate observers, Bates, Wallace, and Belt usually 
were careful as to the identification of the forms they collected. 
Some have argued that mimicry in animals is rather for the purpose of obtaining 
food than for the avoidance of enemies; but Professor Poulton, Mr. G. A. Marshall, 
and others, have shown that the “ Mullerian ” theory of mimicry admits of different 
proups of insects, copying the same distinctive markings, by way of protection 
against birds and reptiles. Professor Lloyd Morgan appears to think that the 
avoidance of distasteful forms is not instinctive, but is the result of experience, on the 
principle that “ a burnt child fears the fire.” 
Mr. Arthur Balfour whilst discussing the Ethics of the Beautiful, shows that 
even repulsive forms may be evolved in nature. Such oddities a naturalist friend 
suggests, may be clumsy experiments made by some Membracidae as the results of the 
efforts of creatures which have reached that stage of evolution that requires them to 
exert their creative or regulative force, but have failed in their attempts to improve. 
In other words, that they are in a transition state, and that here nature has made 
an attempt to supply some particular, but to us unknown want. According to 
the utilitarian theory, it might take centuries to produce some useful adjunct in 
the economy of one insect, and the causes must be continuous and in one direc¬ 
tion. Sometimes even animals seem to acquire, or at least to perpetuate hurtful 
adjuncts. 
The words of Huxley may be quoted, though remembered by many. They were 
spoken before the Darwinian epoch : 
“ Thus, then, natural history plainly teaches us that the utilitarian principle, 
