248 THE entomologist's kkcokd. 



With regard to the instances of insects taken by birds (pages 99 and 

 100) referred to above, I submit the following : — 



6. Starling (Stnnnis vnhjaris) and Af/i iadcs cDiidon. This instance 



is of no value as evidence for or against " protective resemb- 

 lance." seeing that the conditions were quite artificial, and with 

 regard to palatability, I have already recorded in the Fjito- 

 Diolni/isfs lifcnrd some years back, in support of Mr. Curtis's 

 note, that I had watched a kestrel feeding on this species at 

 Beacby Head, and also that a pair of stone-chats were feeding 

 their young on them. 



7. Song-thrnsb [Tiirdus iniisicns) and Lciiccniid iinpiira. In this 



case there is no conclusive evidence that the insect was taken 

 at rest, as last summer and autumn I netted quite a number of 

 Nortiiai' flying in the daytime — L. pallms, L.iiii/nira, A.ocitlea, 

 L. litliarijiiria, L.conii/cra, etc. As they were flying to flowers 

 I accounted for it by the fact that the nights being very cold 

 and windy, when no insects came to sugar or light, they were 

 forced to seek for sustenance in the day time. 

 9. With regard to the tree-creeper {('crthia fainiUaiis), this is just 

 the bird I should expect to take L. ludtcrata, or any other 

 insect off tree-trunks, and Mr. Curtis's description of the search- 

 ing powers of the tit, "such a scrutiny, etc.," would apply 

 equally well here. 



11. The house sparrow {P. domesticiis). I note from this experiment 



that Dasycliira piidibimda, a pale night-flying moth, is palat- 

 able to the well-fed sparrows. It is certainly not white, but 

 near enough when flying around electric light against a dark 

 background. 



12. The robin {I''rithara nihecida). I was not aware that the robin's 



feet were adapted for tree-trunk climbing, except near the base 

 of the trunk, or where ivy or honeysuckle gives a foothold. 



The fact of its taking so small an insect as Tortvicndes /n/e)iiana, 

 points to the fact that larger insects would have very little chance of 

 escaping detection. I may here state my firm belief that the sight of 

 birds is much keener than that of himian beings. I have myself often 

 seen the house sparrow hover along searching under rail fences and 

 stone copings, and by their success should imagine their sight and 

 "deductive capacity" is not so inferior as Mr. Curtis thinks (page 98, 

 conclusion c). With regard to the Dartford warbler (page 101). which 

 takes "such small fry obtained by a careful and systematic hunt in 

 bushes," surely he would not suggest that this bird would mistake a 

 specimen of the moth Dasyntoma solicdla sitting on a leaf, or a young 

 larva of the alder moth [Acronicta alni) for bird droppings. The 

 thoroughness with which this bird carries out its search would also be 

 sufficient to cause movement, which would be fatal, and I imagine no 

 other bird would be deceived either. 



The instances of attacks by birds given on page 101, are very use- 

 ful records of the fact, and the only remark I have to make on them is 

 — why is the bumble bee regarded as distasteful ? Surely it is a com- 

 mon object in the shrikes' larder. The hive bee is another insect 

 regarded as distasteful, yet the great tit will sit outside a hive, catch 

 and devour them. With regard to Mr. Curtis's remark on page 126, 

 on the kestrel and Atjriadcs coridon, and his suggestion that " it must 



