211 



three CJiaritonias on a chrysalis of same species in the woods* 

 They were firmly attached, and on trying to drive them off they 

 would not go. I tried repeatedly, and finally used force. But 

 after flying around a few times they took up their former position, 

 heads down. 



The next day the same thing occurred, only I noticed that 

 one butterfly at a time would leave to feed ; force was again 

 used, with the same result as before. The following day, shortly 

 after dawn, only a trifle of empty shell remained. 



This observation prompted me to raise another chrysalis, 

 which I suspended in a flowering shrub, which Charitonia fre- 

 quented, June 27. Soon some butterflies came and touched the 

 chrysalis, but its wriggling seemed to cause them to move off. 

 Two days before the imago was due, they attached themselves 

 again, two or three at a time, and would only yield to force, al- 

 ways returning. On the third day, at daybreak, only a trifling 

 bit of the empty shell was left, and the butterflies were all gone." 

 Dr. Wittfeld adds, " Did they come to protect the chrysalis or 

 to assist the butterfly to come forth, or was there anything of 

 sexual desire?" 



I replied to this, asking how the butterflies attached them- 

 selves. Did they actually rest on the chrysalis, holding on by the 

 legs? Also, was I to understand by bits of empty shells remaining 

 that the imagos had come from the two chrysalids? I sug- 

 gested, if this last was not what he meant, that, perhaps, the 

 butterflies had discovered that the chrysalids were dead and decay- 

 ing and came to seek the fluids as they come to carrion. 



On this Dr. Wittfeld again writes: " In each case the butter- 

 fly emerged from the chrysalis. The chrysalis looked natural but 

 was growing darker, and the day before the emerging, the com- 

 ing live insect could, to some extent, be distinguished. There 

 was nothing dead or decayed or partly eaten about it. All the 

 legs of the guarding butterflies had firm hold of the chrysalis, and 

 it required a little effort to remove them with the fingers. They 

 sat firmly, not lightly upon it. To frighten them off did no good, 

 it required force to remove them. After having been picked ofT 

 they did not stay long away, but flying around a few times, (I 

 having removed to some distance), returned to the chrysalis and 

 attached themselves to it just as they had done before." 



This is explicit. May there not be here a case of intelligent 

 protection of the unborn butterfly by other individuals of its 

 species? The butterflies themselves are protected, as we read, 

 by their obnoxious smell and taste, or both, from birds, lizards 

 and other animals, and the chrysalis might be just as obnoxious 

 after it was seized. But its color or appearance would not be 

 sufficiently well known for its protection, and at the time when it 

 was least able to take care of itself. To be sure, the chrysalis 

 may, in a measure, protect itself by wriggling about, and by the 



