64 Mr. C. F. M. Swynuertou on 



and over, and tasting it most thoroughly. She finally 

 swallowed it. 



Having done so (and been presumably reassured by doing 

 so) she accepted and swallowed an Amaiiris lohengula without 

 any farther hftsitation. But she refused the next icitli anyer 

 repeatedly. 



A, however, leaned over eventually and took it, eating it 

 promptly, but he emphatically and repeatedly refused an 

 Acraa natalica. 



This, however, was greedily eaten by B, who then once 

 more refused an Amauris lohengula. 



Comment. B had enough of Amauris long before A had 

 enough of Acrcea. Secondly, when she was refusing Amauris 

 she still ate Acrcea, and when A was refusing Acrcea he still 

 ate Amauris. This may have been due (1) to insufficient 

 experience of Acrcea by B and Amauris by A, or (2), more 

 probably, to the fact that their protective properties are 

 different, so that when to eat another Acrcea (on the top of 

 several others) would constitute an overdose, the eating then 

 of an Aynauris would not. 



A third interesting point was the treatment of a mimic — 

 at first evidently taken for its model, then examined more 

 carefully and tried. Probably some of the actual points of 

 difference (size and fore-wing spots) were noted, for birds 

 are very observant. 



530. March 5. — I exchanged the roles to-day, A becoming 

 the Amauris-eater and B the receiver of Acrreas. This was 

 as a control on the last experiment — to test individual 

 difference between the birds. 



A ate readily an Acrcea natalica, then 7 Amaurises (4 

 lohengula and 3 alhimacnlatd) with hesitation at the sixth 

 and seventh. B at the same time ate with avidity 7 Acrcea 

 natalica. 



15 minutes later A ate 7 A. albimaculata with hesitation 

 at the sixth and seventh ; B ate 7 more A. natalica, all with 

 avidity. 



15 minutes later again A ate 4 A. alhimaculata, but with 

 marked hesitation, requiring a great deal of persuasion to 



