MIMICRY 
529 
§ 6. Mimics in the Field deceiving Man. 
It may not be without interest to record a number of cases in 
which a collector with defective eyesight has actually been deceived 
(at any rate momentarily) by Mimics in the field. 
Benares, November 30, 1903. When I first captured Hypolimnas 
misippus, ?, I believed it to be a variety of Danaida chrysippus, 
and I think it probable that other specimens were passed over, 
as males were very common. 
Anantapur, February, 1904. This note was made: “Several times 
saw the £ H. misippus reconnoitring D. chrysippus as if in doubt 
as to its identity.” 
Malakand, October 29, 1903. Argynnis hyperlius, flying about 
flowers was noticed to resemble Danaida plexippus , which was 
in abundance at the same flowers, though in this case there was 
no actual deception. 
Konur, Nilgiris, February, 1904. On one occasion I watched for 
some time a female of Argynnis hyperlius, under the impression 
that it was Danaida chrysippus. The resemblance on the wing 
is greater than might be supposed. 
Horton Plains, Ceylon, March 23,1904. The female Argynnis hyper - 
bins on the wing looked very like Danaida chrysippus. 
Hatton, Ceylon, March, 1908. The following extracts from my note¬ 
book point to the striking difference in the general look of the 
two sexes of A. hyperlius when on the wing:— 
“ a female, captured as Danaida chrysippus .” 
“ a male, looked like a Fritillary.” 
I would urge strongly that the resemblance of model to mimic 
may be much closer in the field than in the cabinet. To some 
extent the converse is probably true. 
Baliganj, Calcutta, December 5, 1903. “The female Elymnias 
undularis, Drury, is a very fair mimic of Danaida plexippus, 
but its flight is weaker.” 
Kandy, February 9, 1908. A tattered $ of Elymnias fraterna, Butl., 
was taken for a tattered Danaida chrysippus . 
Haragama, Ceylon, February 13,1908. A female Nepheronia ceylonica, 
Feld., on a Lantana flower, was taken for Farantica aglea. 
Durban, S. Africa, August, 1905. Acraea encedon , Linn., a some¬ 
what feeble insect with slow flight, was, in spite of its small 
size, twice momentarily believed to be D. chrysippus, which was 
seen in the same spots on the same days. On the other hand, 
2 M 
