OCR Text |
Show 206 MR F. MOORE ON LIMNAINA AND EUPLCEINA. [Apr. 17, Distant, and others ; and these facts have since served as materials for discussion in certain recent articles on mimicry in Butterflies1. The extent to which this form of mimicry exists among the species of the old genera Danais and Euplcea will be better understood by an examination of the accompanying Tables of the five primary groups into which I have divided each of these old genera. In these Tables the names of certain genera and species in each of these five groups are given, and the names of those genera and species, inhabiting the same locality, which imitate them. These Tables were chiefly compiled from actual inspection of the several species, chiefly at the British Museum, where I had a good opportunity, by tbe kindness of tbe officers of the Zoological Department, of examining (mostly at the same time), besides the contents of their own cabinets, together with those in m y own collection, Boisduval's types, Lucas's types, several of Dr. Felder's types, a large series from the collections of M . Oberthur, G. Semper, and Messrs. Salvin and Godman, all of which were most generously confided to m y care for examination2. This imitative character pervades all the groups into which I have divided the species hitherto arranged under Danais and Euplcea ; and, in the EUPLCEINA, so far as 1 have yet verified by actual comparison, it would appear most numerously so in Group A (see Table II.), tbe males of which have no " sexual mark" or "scent-producing organ" on the upper side of the wings, in Group B (see Table III.), the males of which possess one "sexual mark" on the fore wing, in Group D (see Table V.), the males of which possess one "sexual mark" on the fore wing and a glandular patch on the hind wing, and in Group E (see Table VI.), in which, though it contains only three genera, the species are numerously mimicked. The least amount of imitativeness yet observed and verified appears in Group C (see Table IV.), the males of which possess a glandular patch on the hind wing only. On further analysis Table I. shows that, in the L I M N A I N A , of the five groups into which the old genus Danais, Hestia, &c, have been divided, a certain number of the species are mimicked by others within these groups. These instances are but few, considering the large number of species therein, and show most clearly their highly protected condition. Table I. A. embraces the names of certain species of the old genus Danais that are mimicked by species of the old genus Euplcea. The few species here noted would appear to indicate how small must be the necessity for attainment of further protection in the numerous species of these two highly protected genera. Table II., Group A (no sexual mark). Of the 13 genera into which I have divided the species embraced within it, the second 1 See W. L. Distant, Rhop. Malayana, p. 33 (1882) ; R. Meldola, Ann. Nat. Hist. 1882, vol. x. p. 417 ; W . L. Distant, Ann. Nat. Hist, 1883, vol. xi. p. 43, See also Wallace, ' Nature,' May 25, 1882. 2 These Tablet could have been much extended had it been possible to have brought the abo\e collections together at the present moment. |