328 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 



Nauseous. 



A. R. 



Crateropus canorus 111+ 36 



Leiothrix luteus 52 22 



Dissemurus paradiseus 30+ 22 



Dicrurus ater 17 2 



Kittacincla macroura 21 28 



Sturnus menzbieri 17 16 



Chloropsis sp 6 5 



Malarias capistrata 



Otocompsa emeria 79 21 7 



Molpastes bengalensis 79 15 1 



Molpastes leucotis 15 



Pycnonotus sinensis 7 9 



Turnix taigoor 29 1 



Acridotheres tristis 2 . 1 



343+ 150 471 72 



Finn's conclusions may be discussed in order: 



1. "That there is a general appetite for butterflies among insec- 

 tivorous birds, even though they are rarely seen when wild to attack 

 them" (p. 667). 



This is a thing which can never be proven by experiment. As 

 well say there is a general appetite for boiled rice, bread and milk, 

 and domestic cockroaches which were the stock foods of the birds 

 used in these experiments. Certainly, these things are no more 

 foreign to the natural dietaries of many species of birds than are 

 butterflies, and the eating of either in captivity is no proof that they 

 are taken or even relished by wild birds. This argument is strength- 

 ened by the record of the button-quail (Turnix taigoor) in Finn's 

 experiments. This essentially ground-loving bird, which is in no 

 way equipped for capturing butterflies under natural conditions, 

 and consequently cannot have an appetite for them, in captivity 

 took all but four out of a total of fifty-three that it tried. 



Mason and Lefroy, in the most comprehensive and valuable 

 statement yet published regarding the food of birds in India, say: so 

 "Butterflies do not form any appreciable proportion of the food of 



78 Finn records the refusal of Acrosa by the red-whiskered bulbul (p. 640), 

 while Poulton (Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, p. xxxi) publishes a letter from H. L. 

 Andrewes, which states that this bird was observed to feed to its young Acrcea 

 violce, supposedly one of the most distasteful of the group. 



79 An interesting case of the diversity in results of experiments, and a proof, 

 therefore, of their misleading character, probably refers to this bird, the common 

 bulbul of India. A. G. Butler (Nature, 3, No. 61, December 29, 1870, p. 165) 

 notes that a Mr. Newton, of Bombay, said it was only by repeated persecution 

 that a caged bulbul was induced to touch a Danais. The record of this bird 

 with Danais in Finn's experiments is A 8 R 4. 



80 Mem. Dept. Agr. India, Ent. Ser., Vol. Ill, January, 1912, p. 338. 



