6. In his paper on the “Distribution of Arctic Plants,” Trans. Linn. Soc. xxiii. p. 310, Dr. Hooker says:—“The most able and experienced descriptive botanists vary in their estimate of the value of the ‘specific term’ to a much greater extent than is generally supposed.”“I think I may safely affirm that the ‘specific term’ has three different standard values, all current in descriptive botany, but each more or less confined to one class of observers.”“This is no question of what is right or wrong as to the real value of the specific term; I believe each is right according to the standard he assumes as the specific.”
6. In his paper on the “Distribution of Arctic Plants,” Trans. Linn. Soc. xxiii. p. 310, Dr. Hooker says:—
“The most able and experienced descriptive botanists vary in their estimate of the value of the ‘specific term’ to a much greater extent than is generally supposed.”
“I think I may safely affirm that the ‘specific term’ has three different standard values, all current in descriptive botany, but each more or less confined to one class of observers.”
“This is no question of what is right or wrong as to the real value of the specific term; I believe each is right according to the standard he assumes as the specific.”
Lastly, I will adduce Mr. Bates’s researches on the Amazons. During eleven years he accumulated vast materials, and carefully studied the variation and distribution of insects. Yet he has shown that many species of Lepidoptera, which before offered no special difficulties, are in reality most intricately combined in a tangled web of affinities, leading by such gradual steps from the slightest and least stable variations to fixed races and well-marked species, that it is very often impossible to draw those sharp dividing-lines which it is supposed that a careful study and full materials will always enable us to do.
These few examples show, I think, that in every department of nature there occur instances of the instability of specific form, which the increase of materials aggravatesrather than diminishes. And it must be remembered that the naturalist is rarely likely to err on the side of imputing greater indefiniteness to species than really exists. There is a completeness and satisfaction to the mind in defining and limiting and naming a species, which leads us all to do so whenever we conscientiously can, and which we know has led many collectors to reject vague intermediate forms as destroying the symmetry of their cabinets. We must therefore consider these cases of excessive variation and instability as being thoroughly well established; and to the objection that, after all, these cases are but few compared with those in which species can be limited and defined, and are therefore merely exceptions to a general rule, I reply that a true law embraces all apparent exceptions, and that to the great laws of nature there are no real exceptions—that what appear to be such are equally results of law, and are often (perhaps indeed always) those very results which are most important as revealing the true nature and action of the law. It is for such reasons that naturalists now look upon the study ofvarietiesas more important than that of well-fixed species. It is in the former that we see nature still at work, in the very act of producing those wonderful modifications of form, that endless variety of colour, and that complicated harmony of relations, which gratify every sense and give occupation to every faculty of the true lover of nature.
The phenomena of variation as influenced by locality have not hitherto received much attention. Botanists, it is true, are acquainted with the influences of climate, altitude, and other physical conditions in modifying the forms and external characteristics of plants; but I am not aware that any peculiar influence has been traced to locality, independent of climate. Almost the only case I can find recorded is mentioned in that repertory of natural-history facts, ‘The Origin of Species,’ viz. that herbaceous groups have a tendency to become arboreal in islands. In the animal world, I cannot find that any facts have been pointed out as showing the special influence of locality in giving a peculiarfaciesto the several disconnected species that inhabit it. What I have to adduce on this matter will therefore, I hope, possess some interest and novelty.
On examining the closely allied species, local forms, and varieties distributed over the Indian and Malayan regions, I find that larger or smaller districts, or even single islands, give a special character to the majority of their Papilionidæ. For instance: 1. The species of the Indian region (Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) are almost invariably smaller than the allied species inhabiting Celebes and the Moluccas; 2. The species of New Guinea and Australia are also, though in a less degree, smaller than the nearest species or varieties of the Moluccas; 3. In the Moluccas themselves the species of Amboyna are the largest; 4. The species of Celebes equal or even surpass in size those of Amboyna; 5. The species and varieties of Celebes possess a striking character in the form of the anterior wings, different from that of the allied species and varieties of all the surrounding islands; 6. Tailed species in India or the Indian region become tailless as they spread eastward through the archipelago.
Having preserved the finest and largest specimens of Butterflies in my own collection, and having always taken for comparison the largest specimens of the same sex, I believe that the tables I now give are sufficiently exact. The differences of expanse of wingsare in most cases very great, and are much more conspicuous in the specimens themselves than on paper. It will be seen that no less than fourteen Papilionidæ inhabiting Celebes and the Moluccas are from one-third to one-half greater in extent of wing than the allied species representing them in Java, Sumatra, and Borneo. Six species inhabiting Amboyna are larger than the closely allied forms of the northern Moluccas and New Guinea by about one-sixth. These include almost every case in which closely allied species can be compared.
The differences of form are equally clear.
Papilio Pammoneverywhere on the continent is tailed in both sexes. In Java, Sumatra, and Borneo, the closely alliedP. Theseushas a very short tail, or tooth only, in the male, while in the females the tail is retained. Further east, in Celebes and the South Moluccas, the hardly separableP. Alphenorhas quite lost the tail in the male, while the female retains it, but in a narrower and less spatulate form. A little further, in Gilolo,P. Nicanorhas completely lost the tail in both sexes.
Papilio Agamemnonexhibits a somewhat similar series of changes. In India it is always tailed; in the greater part of the archipelago it has a very short tail; while far east, in New Guinea and the adjacent islands, the tail has almost entirely disappeared.
In thePolydorus-group two species,P. AntiphusandP. Diphilus, inhabiting India and the Indian region, are tailed, while the two which take their place in the Moluccas, New Guinea, and Australia,P. PolydorusandP. Leodamas, are destitute of tail, the species furthest east having lost this ornament the most completely.
The most conspicuous instance of local modification of form, however, is exhibited in the island of Celebes, which in this respect, as in some others, stands alone and isolated in the whole archipelago. Almost every species ofPapilioinhabiting Celebes has the wings of a peculiar shape, which distinguishes them at a glance from the allied species of every other island. This peculiarity consists, first, in the upper wings being generally more elongate and falcate; and secondly, in the costa or anterior margin being much more curved, and in most instances exhibiting near the base an abrupt bend or elbow, which in some species is very conspicuous. This peculiarity is visible, not only when the Celebesian species are compared with their small-sized allies of Java and Borneo, but also, and in an almost equal degree, when the large forms of Amboyna and the Moluccas are the objects of comparison, showing that this is quite a distinct phenomenon from the difference of size which has just been pointed out.
In the following Table I have arranged the chief Papilios of Celebes in the order in which they exhibit this characteristic form most prominently. (See Plate VIII.)
It thus appears that every species ofPapilioexhibits this peculiar form in a greater or less degree, except one,P. Polyphontes, Bd., allied toP. Diphilusof India andP. Polydorusof the Moluccas. This fact I shall recur to again, as I think it helps us to understand something of the causes that may have brought about the phenomenon we are considering. Neither do the generaOrnithopteraandLeptocircusexhibit any traces of this peculiar form. In several other families of Butterflies this characteristic form reappears in a few species. In the Pieridæ the following species exhibit it distinctly:—
The other species ofTerias, one or twoPieris, and the genusCallidryasdo not exhibit any perceptible change of form.
In the other families there are but few similar examples. The following are all that I can find in my collection:—
All these belong to the family of the Nymphalidæ. Many other genera of this family, asDiadema,Adolias,Charaxes, andCyrestis, as well as the entire families of the Danaidæ, Satyridæ, Lycænidæ, and Hesperidæ, present no examples of this peculiar form of the upper wing in the Celebesian species.
The facts now brought forward seem to me of the highest interest. We see that almost all the species in two important families of the Lepidoptera (Papilionidæ and Pieridæ) acquire, in a single island, a characteristic modification of form distinguishing them from the allied species and varieties of all the surrounding islands. In other equally extensive families no such change occurs, except in one or two isolated species. However we may account for these phenomena, or whether we may be quite unable to account for them, they furnish, in my opinion, a strong corroborative testimony in favour of the doctrine of the origin of species by successive small variations; for we have here slight varieties, local races, and undoubted species, all modified in exactly the same manner, indicating plainly a common cause producing identical results. On the generally received theory of the original distinctness and permanence of species, we are met by this difficulty: one portion of these curiously modified forms are admitted to have been produced by variation and some natural action of local conditions; whilst the other portion, differing from the former only in degree, and connected with them by insensible gradations, are said to have possessed this peculiarity of form at their first creation, or to have derived it from unknown causes of a totally distinct nature. Is not theà priorievidence in favour of the assumption of an identity of the causes that have produced such similar results? and have we not a right to call upon our opponents for some proofs of their own doctrine, and for an explanation of its difficulties, instead of their assuming that they are right, and laying upon us the burthen of disproof?
Let us now see if the facts in question do not themselves furnish some clue to theirown explanation. Mr. Bates has shown that certain groups of butterflies have a defence against insectivorous animals, independent of swiftness of motion. These are generally very abundant, slow, and weak fliers, and are more or less the objects of mimicry by other groups, which thus gain an advantage in a freedom from persecution similar to that enjoyed by those they resemble. Now the only Papilios which have not in Celebes acquired the peculiar form of wing belong to a group which is imitated both by other species ofPapilioand by Moths of the genusEpicopeia, West. This group is of weak and slow flight; and we may therefore fairly conclude that it possesses some means of defence (probably in a peculiar odour or taste) which saves it from attack. Now the arched costa and falcate form of wing is generally supposed to give increased powers of flight, or, as seems to me more probable, greater facility in making sudden turnings, and thus baffling a pursuer. But the members of thePolydorus-group (to which belongs the only unchanged CelebesianPapilio), being already guarded against attack, have no need of this increased power of wing; and “natural selection” would therefore have no tendency to produce it. The whole family of Danaidæ are in the same position: they are slow and weak fliers; yet they abound in species and individuals, and are the objects of mimicry. The Satyridæ have also probably a means of protection—perhaps their keeping always near the ground and their generally obscure colours; while the Lycænidæ and Hesperidæ may find security in their small size and rapid motions. In the extensive family of the Nymphalidæ, however, we find that several of the larger species, of comparatively feeble structure, have their wings modified (Cethosia,Limenitis,Junonia,Cynthia), while the large-bodied powerful species, which have all an excessively rapid flight, have exactly the same form of wing in Celebes as in the other islands. On the whole, therefore, we may say that all the butterflies of rather large size, conspicuous colours, and not very swift flight have been affected in the manner described, while the smaller-sized and obscure groups, as well as those which are the objects of mimicry, and also those of exceedingly swift flight, have remained unaffected.
It would thus appear as if there must be (or once have been) in the island of Celebes, some peculiar enemy to these larger-sized butterflies which does not exist, or is less abundant, in the surrounding islands. Increased powers of flight, or rapidity of turning, was advantageous in baffling this enemy; and the peculiar form of wing necessary to give this would be readily acquired by the action of “natural selection” on the slight variations of form that are continually occurring. Such an enemy one would naturally suppose to be an insectivorous bird; but it is a remarkable fact that most of the genera of Fly-catchers of Borneo and Java on the one side (Muscipeta,Philentoma), and of the Moluccas on the other (Monarcha,Rhipidura), are almost entirely absent from Celebes. Their place seems to be supplied by the Caterpillar-catchers (Graucalus,Campephaga), of which six or seven species are known from Celebes and are very numerous in individuals. We have no positive evidence that these birds pursue butterflies on the wing, but it is highly probable that they do so when other food is scarce[7]. However this may be, the fauna of Celebes is undoubtedly highly peculiar in every department of which we haveany knowledge; and though we may not be able to trace it satisfactorily, there can, I think, be little doubt that the singular modification in the wings of so many of the butterflies of that island is an effect of that complicated action and reaction of all living things upon each other in the struggle for existence, which continually tends to readjust disturbed relations, and to bring every species into harmony with the varying conditions of the surrounding universe.
7. Mr. Bates has suggested that the larger Dragon-flies (Æshna, &c.) prey upon butterflies; but I did not notice that they were more abundant in Celebes than elsewhere.
7. Mr. Bates has suggested that the larger Dragon-flies (Æshna, &c.) prey upon butterflies; but I did not notice that they were more abundant in Celebes than elsewhere.
But even the conjectural explanation now given fails us in the other cases of local modification. Why the species of the western islands should be smaller than those further east,—why those of Amboyna should exceed in size those of Gilolo and New Guinea—why the tailed species of India should begin to lose that appendage in the islands, and retain no trace of it on the borders of the Pacific, are questions which we cannot at present attempt to answer. That they depend, however, on some general principle is certain, because analogous facts have been observed in other parts of the world. Mr. Bates informs me that, in three distinct groups, Papilios which on the Upper Amazon and in most other parts of South America have spotless upper wings obtain pale or white spots at Para and on the Lower Amazon; and also that theÆneas-group of Papilios never have tails in the equatorial regions and the Amazons valley, but gradually acquire tails in many cases as they range towards the northern or southern tropic. Even in Europe we have somewhat similar facts; for the species and varieties of butterflies peculiar to the island of Sardinia are generally smaller and more deeply coloured than those of the mainland, andPapilio Hospitonhas lost the tail, which is a prominent feature of the closely alliedP. Machaon.
Facts of a similar nature to those now brought forward would no doubt be found to occur in other groups of insects, were local faunas carefully studied in relation to those of the surrounding countries; and they seem to indicate that climate and other physical causes have, in some cases, a very powerful effect in modifying specific form, and thus directly aid in producing the endless variety of nature.
I may state that I can adduce facts perfectly analogous to these from other families of Lepidoptera, especially the Danaidæ; but as the greater part of the species are still undescribed, I can only now assert that similar phenomena do occur there.
I need scarcely say that I entirely agree with Mr. Bates’s explanation of the causes which have led to one group of insects mimicking another (Trans. Linn. Soc. vol. xxiii. p. 495). I have, therefore, only now to adduce such illustrations of this curious phenomenon as are furnished by the Eastern Papilionidæ, and to show their hearing upon the phenomena of variation already mentioned. As in America, so in the Old World, species of Danaidæ are the objects which the other families most often imitate. But, besides these, some genera of Morphidæ and one section of the genusPapilioare also less frequently copied. Many species ofPapiliomimic other species of these three groups so closely that they are undistinguishable when on the wing; and in every case the pairs which resemble each other inhabit the same locality.
The following list exhibits the most important and best-marked cases of mimicry which occur among the Papilionidæ of the Malayan region and India:—
8. The terms “mimicry” and “mimickers” have been objected to on the ground that they implyvoluntary actionon the part of the insects. This appears to me of little importance compared with the advantages of convenience, flexibility, and expressiveness which they undoubtedly possess, especially as the whole theory propounded by the originator of the term in this sense excludes all idea of voluntary action. The only approximately synonymous words, not implying will, areresemblance,similarity, andlikeness; and it is evident that none of these can be applied intelligibly under the variety of forms required, and to which Mr. Bates’s expression so readily lends itself in the termsmimic,mimickers,mimicry,mimicked. Add to this the inconvenience of changing a term which, from the interest and wide discussion of the subject, must be already very generally understood, and I think it will be admitted that nothing would be gained by altering it, even if a better word were pointed out, which has not yet been done.
8. The terms “mimicry” and “mimickers” have been objected to on the ground that they implyvoluntary actionon the part of the insects. This appears to me of little importance compared with the advantages of convenience, flexibility, and expressiveness which they undoubtedly possess, especially as the whole theory propounded by the originator of the term in this sense excludes all idea of voluntary action. The only approximately synonymous words, not implying will, areresemblance,similarity, andlikeness; and it is evident that none of these can be applied intelligibly under the variety of forms required, and to which Mr. Bates’s expression so readily lends itself in the termsmimic,mimickers,mimicry,mimicked. Add to this the inconvenience of changing a term which, from the interest and wide discussion of the subject, must be already very generally understood, and I think it will be admitted that nothing would be gained by altering it, even if a better word were pointed out, which has not yet been done.
We have therefore fifteen species or marked varieties ofPapiliowhich so closely resemble species of other groups in their respective localities, that it is not possible to impute the resemblance to accident. The first two in the list (Papilio paradoxaandP. Caunus) are so exactly likeEuplœa MidamusandE. Rhadamanthuson the wing, that, although they fly very slowly, I was quite unable to distinguish them. The first is a very interesting case, because the male and female differ considerably, and each mimics the corresponding sex of theEuplœa. A new species ofPapiliowhich I discovered in New Guinea resemblesDanais sobrina, Bd., from the same country, just asPapilio MacareusresemblesDanais Aglaiain Malacca, and (according to Dr. Horsfield’s figure) still more closely in Java. The IndianPapilio Agestorclosely imitatesDanais Tytia, which has quite a different style of colouring from the preceding; and the extraordinaryPapilio idæoidesfrom the Philippine Islands must, when on the wing, perfectly resemble theHestia Leuconoëof the same region, as also does theP. Delessertii, Guér., imitate an undescribed species ofHestiafrom Penang. Now in every one of these cases the Papilios are very scarce, while the Danaidæ which they resemble are exceedingly abundant—most of them swarming so as to be a positive nuisance to the collecting entomologist by continually hovering before him when he is in search of newer and more varied captures. Every garden, every roadside, the suburbs of every village are full of them, indicatingvery clearly that their life is an easy one, and that they are free from persecution by the foes which keep down the population of less favoured races. This superabundant population has been shown by Mr. Bates to be a general characteristic of all American groups and species which are objects of mimicry; and it is interesting to find his observations confirmed by examples on the other side of the globe.
The remarkable genusDrusilla, a group of pale-coloured butterflies, more or less adorned with ocellate spots, is also the object of mimicry by three distinct genera (Melanitis,Hyantis, andPapilio). These insects, like theDanaidæ, are abundant in individuals, have a very weak and slow flight, and do not seek concealment, or appear to have any means of protection from insectivorous creatures. It is natural to conclude, therefore, that they have some hidden property which saves them from attack; and it is easy to see that when any other insects, by what we call accidental variation, come more or less remotely to resemble them, the latter will share to some extent in their immunity. An extraordinary dimorphic form of a femalePapiliohas come to resemble the Drusillas sufficiently to be taken for one of that group at a little distance; and it is curious that I captured one of these Papilios in the Aru Islands hovering along the ground, and settling on it occasionally, just as it is the habit of the Drusillas to do. The resemblance in this case is only general; but this form ofPapiliovaries much, and there is therefore material for natural selection to act upon so as ultimately to produce a copy as exact as in the other cases.
The eastern Papilios allied toPolydorus CoonandP. Philoxenus, form a natural section of the genus resembling, in many respects, theÆneas-group of South America, which they may be said to represent in the East. Like them, they are forest insects, have a low and weak flight, and in their favourite localities are rather abundant in individuals; and like them, too, they are the objects of mimicry. We may conclude, therefore, that they possess some hidden means of protection, which makes it useful to other insects to be mistaken for them.
The Papilios which resemble them belong to a very distinct section of the genus, in which the sexes differ greatly; and it is those females only which differ most from the males, and which have already been alluded to as exhibiting instances of dimorphism, which resemble species of the other group.
The resemblance ofP. RomulustoP. Hectoris, in some specimens, very considerable, and has led to the two species being placed to follow each other in the British Museum Catalogues and by Mr. E. Doubleday. I have shown, however, thatP. Romulusis probably a dimorphic form of the femaleP. Pammon, and belongs to a distinct section of the genus[9].
9. See Plate II. fig. 6.
9. See Plate II. fig. 6.
The next pair,P. Theseus, Cr., andP. Antiphus, Fab., have been united as one species both by De Haan and in the British Museum Catalogues. The ordinary variety ofP. Theseusfound in Java almost as nearly resemblesP. Diphilus, Esp., of the same country. The most interesting case, however, is the extreme female form ofP. Memnon(P. Achates, Cr.)[10], which has acquired the general form and markings ofP. Coon, an insect which differs from the ordinary maleP. Memnon, as much as any two species differ which can be chosen in this extensive and highly varied genus; and, as if to show that this resemblance is not accidental, but is the result of law, when in India we find a species closely allied toP. Coon, but with red instead of yellow spots (P. Doubledayi, Wall.), the corresponding variety ofP. Androgeus(P. Achates, Cram., 182,A,B,) has acquired exactly the same peculiarity of having red spots instead of yellow. Lastly, in the island of Timor, the female ofP. Œnomaus(a species allied toP. Memnon) resembles so closelyP. Liris(one of thePolydorus-group), that the two, which were often seen flying together, could only be distinguished by a minute comparison after being captured.
10. See Plate I. fig. 4.
10. See Plate I. fig. 4.
The last six cases of mimicry are especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these cases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself, it may happen that occasionally individual variations will occur having a distant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and which it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have a better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be multiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be rendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and, each successive variation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and all variations departing from the favoured type having less chance of preservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two or more isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimate relationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. The reason why the females are more subject to this kind of modification than the males is, probably, that their slower flight, when laden with eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing their eggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to have some additional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring a resemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy a comparative immunity from persecution.
This summary of the more interesting phenomena of variation presented by the eastern Papilionidæ is, I think, sufficient to substantiate my position, that the Lepidoptera are a group that offer especial facilities for such inquiries; and it will also show that they have undergone an amount of special adaptive modification rarely equalled among the more highly organized animals. And, among the Lepidoptera, the great and pre-eminently tropical families of Papilionidæ and Danaidæ seem to be those in which complicated adaptations to the surrounding organic and inorganic universe have been most completely developed, offering in this respect a striking analogy to the equally extraordinary, though totally different, adaptations which present themselves in theOrchideæ, the only family of plants in which mimicry of other organisms appears to play any important part, and the only one in which striking cases of polymorphism occur; for such we must consider to be the male, female, and hermaphrodite forms ofCatasetum tridentatum, which differ so greatly in form and structure that they were long considered to belong to three distinct genera.
Although the species of Papilionidæ inhabiting the Malayan region are very numerous, they all belong to three out of the nine genera into which the family is divided. One of the remaining genera (Eurycus) is restricted to Australia, and another (Teinopalpus) to the Himalayan Mountains, while no less than four (Parnassius,Doritis,Thais, andSericinus) are confined to Southern Europe and to the mountain-ranges of the Palæarctic region.
The generaOrnithopteraandLeptocircusare highly characteristic of Malayan entomology, but are uniform in character and of small extent. The genusPapilio, on the other hand, presents a great variety of forms, and is so richly represented in the Malay islands, that more than one-fourth of all the known species are found there. It becomes necessary, therefore, to divide this genus into natural groups before we can successfully study its geographical distribution.
Owing principally to Dr. Horsfield’s observations in Java, we are acquainted with a considerable number of the larvæ of Papilios; and these furnish good characters for the primary division of the genus into natural groups. The manner in which the hinder wings are plaited or folded back at the abdominal margin, the size of the anal valves, the structure of the antennæ, and the form of the wings are also of much service, as well as the character of the flight and the style of coloration. Using these characters, I divide the Malayan Papilios into four sections, and seventeen groups, as follows:—
GenusOrnithoptera.
GenusPapilio.
GenusLeptocircus.
making, in all, twenty distinct groups of Malayan Papilionidæ.
The first section of the genusPapilio(A) comprises insects which, though differing considerably in structure, have much general resemblance. They all have a weak, lowflight, frequent the most luxuriant forest districts, seem to love the shade, and are the objects of mimicry by other Papilios.
Section B consists of weak-bodied, large-winged insects, with an irregular wavering flight, and which, when resting on foliage, often expand the wings, which the species of the other sections rarely or never do. They are the most conspicuous and striking of eastern Butterflies.
Section C consists of much weaker and slower-flying insects, often resembling in their flight, as well as in their colours, species of Danaidæ.
Section D contains the strongest-bodied and most swift-flying of the genus. They love sunlight, and frequent the borders of streams and the edges of puddles, where they gather together in swarms consisting of several species, greedily sucking up the moisture, and, when disturbed, circling round in the air, or flying high and with great strength and rapidity.
In the following Table I have arranged all the Malayan Papilionidæ in what appears to me their most natural succession, and have exhibited their distribution in twenty-one columns of localities, extending from the Malay peninsula, on the north-west, to Woodlark Island, near New Guinea, on the south-east. The double line divides the Indo-Malayan from the Austro-Malayan region; and those islands which form natural zoological groups are connected by brackets.