192 



D WIGHT E. MINNICH 



These responses are illustrated by two photographs of normal 

 animals reproduced in figures 5 and 6. 



As stated above, one butterfly responded in one instance 

 when the swab was held 1 mm. from the ventral surface of the 

 tarsus. This was a perfectly clear response, the proboscis being 

 uncoiled fully one-half. I am not prepared to explain the case 

 with certainty, although the following excerpt from my note- 

 book is suggestive: "Right hind foot (the one being tested) 

 moved. Fore foot (anterior ambulatory) may have touched 



TABLE 4 

 Pyramcis 



COTTON SWAB 1 CM. X 0.1 CM., SO.\KED IN .\PPLEJUICE 



1 mm. anterior to proboscis 



1 mm. from ventral surface of left second tarsus. . 

 1 mm. from ventral surface of right second tarsus. . 

 1 mm. from ventral surface of left third tarsus. . . . 

 1 mm. from ventral surface of right third tarsus. . . 

 In contact with ventral surface of left second 



t arsus • 



In contact with ventral surface of right second 



tarsus 



In contact with ventral surface of left third tarsus 

 In contact with ventral surface of right third 



tarsus 



NO 



RESPONSe 



No 

 e.xtension 



23 

 6 

 6 

 6 

 5 



RESPONSE 



Partial Complete 

 extensions extension 



swab, though I think not." Whatever the correct explanation 

 may be, the important result of this experiment is not, that in 

 one instance a butterfly responded, apparently without contact 

 between swab and tarsus, but rather that in all other cases the 

 animals failed to respond until such contact had been made. 

 It is clear, therefore, that the organs under consideration are 

 contact chemoreceptors, and not distance chemoreceptors. 



I have made a few trials with local stimulation on Vanessa, 

 but the animals failed to respond in practically every case. 

 While the data are too few to warrant any conclusion, it is my 

 belief that here again the death-feigning instinct was largely 

 responsible for the results obtained. 



