34 
SYNTOMIDAE; GENERAL TOPICS. By Dr. A. Seitz. 
To believe that the enemy is to be kept off by the masking — for instance a spider, Mantis, lizard, bird or the 
like — and is able to consider that an insect swarming 2 or 3 m above it must be an (edible) Syntomidae, because 
its original, the (more dangerous) Hymenopteron flies nearer to the soil and is not used to fly so high, is a 
so-called ,,anthropism“, i. e. a conclusion due to the mistake of assigning human intellectual power to animals. 
In a special work on South American Syntomidae , C. Schrottky recently turned particularly against the 
arguments in Vol. V, p. 6, where among other examples of mimicry particularly also the wasp-imitations of 
the Syntomidae are mentioned. Beside some objections having been disproved long ago, there is a relatively 
new objection made, that the relative rareness of the imitators argue in favour of the futility of the mimicry. 
But the old observers who laid down the theory of mimcry, have based their theory upon this very rareness 
which they alleged in favour of the protective theory, since only if the really protected animals are superior 
in number, an efficacious protection results from the masking. Animals occurring in great numbers, such as 
the cockchafer, are in no way protected and need not be protected, since they do not die out owing to their 
prolificness. Consequently just what argues in favour of the protective theory, is here applied for the refutation, 
and in doing so, Schrottky has also quite overlooked that it is just the lack of specimens of an animal species 
which is particularly advantageous for a quick, conspicuous and vast transformation. E. Haase even mentions 
the rarity of the imitators as a distinctive mark for the decision which is the model and which the copy. Also the 
fact that a bug, as for instance Spiniger ater which is able to sting itself, evidently imitates the Pepsis- wasp, 
is said to argue against the theory of a protective imitation by the Syntomidae. We must, however, remark 
that the Spiniger are clumsy insects and in spite of their (feeding-) spike very helpless, but that the Pepsis 
is able to sting all round its body with an almost incredible dexterity and thus represents a quite incomparably 
more dangerous animal — without counting a great difference in tire intensity of the effect of the spike (the 
Spiniger has almost no poison at all). 
The fact that the mimetic masking is not quite universally carried through in the Syntomidae , has also 
caused the conclusion that it is superfluous. Since the non-mimetic Syntomidae have also withstood the struggle 
for existence — it was inferred at least — it was not to be understood why the mimetic ones should require 
this protection. It is, however, neither to be conceived why some ruminants require big horns, others small 
ones and others again none at all; it cannot be understood why in some animals both sexes are armed, in others, 
however, only the males. The stag has its antlers from February to October, which are absent during the rest 
of the year, or which are then so sensitive that they even hinder and imperil it. How would the inferencs be 
drawn from this fact alone, that it does not serve it as a useful weapon ? Whosoever wishes to be convinced 
of the serviceableness of the antlers of a stag, may, after having without any risk approached an ever so powerful 
hind or an antlerless stag, once enter a deer park where there are stags with fully developed antlers. He may 
also be present at the manipulation often necessary in zoological gardens of embarking well-armed stags, of 
seizing and removing them, of separating them in their fights etc. etc., and he will have to own that the antlers 
are not alone a useful, but an almost crafty defensive weapon; and that it is so, in spite of not all the species 
of stags being provided with them, and though not both sexes, and the males only being temporally provided 
with them. 
Starting from this view, we may divide the Syntomidae into two large groups: into such representing 
an exact copy of offer insects, so exact that the original serving as the model may immediately be pointed out; 
and into such as having on the whole an awe-inspiring exterior, but which may still not be regarded as the 
immediate copy of certain dangerous insects. To the first group belong, in the palearctic fauna, for instance 
the Syntomis phegea mentioned above, copying a Zygaena, to the other group the genus Dysauxes in which, 
we may recognise a type being on the whole little like a butterfly, but more like a saw-fly, for which, however, 
we are not able to name an insect as its truly copied model. In the Indian fauna, the Syntomid genera Syntomis 
(Vol. X, t. 10, 11) are opposing each other in an imitative manner whilst the Euchromia (Vol. X, t. 12) are similar 
to the original. The same contrast is also met with in America, where we immediately recognise for instance 
in the Macrocneme a copy of the wasp-genus Pepsis, in some Isanthrene the copies of clearwinged hawk-wasps, 
in Pseudosphex and Sphecosoma the copies of social wasps, but where on the other hand many genera exhibit 
only indistinctly a ,,hymenopteroid“ exterior, not that of certain aculeata, or even where whole genera, such 
as Napata, Eucereon, Empyreuma etc. show an exterior deviating from the lepidoptera-type, though not hinting 
at any distinct originals. 
The habits of the nearly 2000 American Syntomid-forms are of course very different; to such an extent 
that there are hardly common characteristics to be found applicable to all. One may only say as much as that 
most of them are day-butterflies, appearing particularly when the sun begins to shine very brightly after a 
copious rain and being in eager search for blossoms abounding in honey, as for instance in South Europe the 
Zygaena- species. The skirts of woods, clearings in the forests, and sunny slopes of mountains are the places, 
where you may be sure of capturing numbers of Syntomidae at any season in Tropical America. If among 
