The Bates-Müller Hypothesis of Mimicry: a Question of Historical Accuracy


A PAPER dealing with the above subject, by the late Dr. A. S. Packard, has just been published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (vol. xliii., No. 178, p. 393), in which this well known entomologist endeavours to show that the markings of organisms (“pœcilogenesis”) are “due to the physical rather than to the biological environment.” I must leave it to others to consider how far the late author has established his case as against Bates, Fritz Müller, and those who have accepted the theories of mimicry associated with these names. My object in asking you to give space to this letter is to point Out a distinct error which, if allowed to pass unchallenged, is likely to be accepted as a true statement of Darwin's views in the sense conveyed by the American writer.


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MELDOLA, R. The Bates-Müller Hypothesis of Mimicry: a Question of Historical Accuracy. Nature 73, 100 (1905).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing