1964 Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 169 been used to explain the resemblance of the monarch and viceroy .

AKNOWLEGEMENTS I am indebted to Dr. L. N. Carlough, Dr. H. G. Rodeck, Dr. R. L. King, Mr. and Mrs. Paul W. Nesbit, and Mrs. M. Mac Kinstry for their help in this project. References Bates, H. W., 1862. Contributions to an fauna of the Amazon Valley A Heliconidae. Unnean Transactions, Vol. 23. Brower, J. V. Z., 1958. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. Part 1. The monarch, Danaus plexippus, and Viceroy, Limenitis archippus archippus. Evolution 12: 32-47. Dewar, D. and F. Finn, 1919. The Making of a Species. John Lane Company (Dodd, Meade, and Company). Gurney, G. H., 1922. On the sense of smell possessed by birds. The Ibis, Vol. 4. Riots, A. B., 1960. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America east of the Great Plains. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, (pp. 37). MeAttee, W. L., 1932a. The experimental method of testing the efficiency of warning and cryptic coloration in protecting from their enemies. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 85, No.7. McAttee, W. L., 1932b. Effectiveness in nature of the so-called protective adaptations in the kingdom, chiefly as illustrated by the food habits of Nearetic birds. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 85, No.7. Pumphrey, R. J., 1948. The sense organs of birds. The Ibis, Vol. 90. Punnett, R. C., 1915. Mimicry in Butterflies. Cambridge Univ. Press, viii + 188 pp., 16 pI. Urquhart, F. A., 1957. A Discussion of Batesian Mimicry as applied to the Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies. (pp. 27). University of Toronto Press. Urquhart, F. A., 1960. The Monarch . (pp. 70-76 and 211-215). University of Toronto Press. Wallace, G. }., 1955. An Introduction to Ornithology. The Macmillan Company, New York. Walsh, B. D. and C. V. Riley, 1869. Imitative butterflies. American Entomologist, I: 189-193.

THE STORY OF A "MIXED UP" PYLADES (HESPERIIDAE) While on a oollecting trip near Warsaw, Missouri in early April of 1963 I observed a male Scudder hovering about six inches above the ground in the mating ritual common to thE! species. I cautiously advanced intending to drop my net over a pair of pylades. Then much to my surprise I saw that the object of p;ylades intentions was not a female of the species but a dark little Euclidina cuspidea Hubner. This moth, a member of the family Noctuidae is a common spring species found in wooded areas. It has nervous habits, is eas:ily flushed from the ground, and flies in a -like manner. In fact on several occasions I have started to catch specimens thinking they were specimens of one of the Erynnis species. It was thus with a bit of satisfaction that I saw 170 HEITZMAN: Confused Thorybes VaLlS: no.3 this moth could even fool a skipper into thinking it was one of its own. I gave up collecting butterflies for a moment and decided to watch the outcome of this little drama. The male pylades dipped lower until the moth, startled, skipped a dozen yards away and settled again among the dead leaves. Right behind came pylades and the same thing transpired a second time. The skipper began the nuptial ritual, dipping lower and lower until the moth was startled into flying away to a new location. I followed a few steps behind and witnessed the same procedure a total of eleven times before the tormented little moth finally crawled deep into a clump of dried grass and the disgruntled skipper after a few circles about the grass clump went off in search of a less reluctant re­ cipient of his charms. I watched very carefully the rest of the day to see if this phenomena would occur again and was tw:ice rewarded. On one occasion a series of five passes was made at a cuspidea and the other time a token pass was made at another cuspidea. In both of these cases the skipper gave up while the moths were still re:>ting in the open. All three of the moths were collected and provd to be males in quite fresh condition. I did not collect the skippers and the possibility exists that the same individual was involved in each instance although they occured at widely separated points in the woods.

RICHARD HEITZMAN, 3112 Han'is Avenue., Independence, Mo., U. S. A.

COMMENT ON AE'S LARVAE OF INTERSPECIFIC HYBIRDS IN BLACK SWALLOWTAILS IN JAPAN In his 1963 paper on Papilio hybrids (Journ. Zepid. soc. 17: 163-169) Dr. Ae refers to differences in the stripes on the 4th, 5th, and 6th abdominal somites of the various larvae. In my experience these stripes vary considerably between larvae of the same species and can in no way be taken as an indication of species. In the larva of the African Papilio demodocus Esp., with which I am now most familar, the stripes appear to vary with the degree of light experienced by the larva. I have found larvae feeding; on orange trees growing in full sunshine with these stripes completely obsolete. Larvae reared in the dark have the stripes continuous, heavy, and blackish in colour, and a complete cline can be made from unstriped to heavily striped larvae and with the colour of the stripe varying from almost blackish to a pale lavender-brown.

D. C. SEVASTOPULO, P. O. Box 5026, Mombasa, KENYA