to limitations of the Millhrian Hypothesis of Mimiery. 137 



Junonia) were offered to mantises, a spider, a kestrel, 

 a ground-hornbill, a mongoose, a monkey {Cercopithecu's 

 pygerythrus) and baboons ; and subsequently (unpublished) 

 to another species of monkey, Cere, alhigularis. In no 

 case did the behaviour of these animals give any grounds 

 for the supposition that the butterflies possessed any 

 unpleasant flavour whatsoever ; and the value of the evi- 

 dence is obviously enhanced by the fact that the Prceis 

 were readily eaten by a number of very different animals. 

 But leaving out of consideration those animals which 

 exhibited rather indiscriminate tastes, we may briefly 

 summarise the remaining cases: — 



Preeis antilope (dry phase) : 2 examples eaten readily by 

 Cere, jjygerythrus. 



P. archesia (wet) : 4 eaten with relish by kestrel ; also 

 eaten by wild rock lizards. 



P. arehesia (dry) : 1 eaten by baboon, 



P. scsavms (wet) : 4 eaten with relish by kestrel ; 1 eaten 

 readily by Cere, pygenjthrus ; 5 eaten by baboons ; 

 also eaten by wild rock lizards. 



P. sesamus (dry): 2 eaten readily by baboons; 12 eaten 

 on five different occasions by Cere, alhigularis, which 

 received the first with some caution, while every sub- 

 sequent insect was taken with evident appreciation, 

 the monkey cramming them into its mouth wings 

 and all. The same animal refused Acrsea nataliea 

 and two species of Amauris with evident signs of 

 disgust. 



P. eehrene : 5 eaten with relish by kestrel ; 1 eaten readily 

 by Cere, pygerythrus ; 1 eaten by wild kingfisher. 



The first P. sesamvs (wet) which was given to a baboon 

 was merely pulled to pieces without being tasted, but the 

 remains were promptly eaten by its companion, and imme- 

 diately afterwards each baboon ate another specimen. In 

 the light of a subsequent experiment (/. c. p. 382), there 

 can be little doubt that this first rejection was due to the 

 misapprehension that the insect was an Acriea, to which 

 it presents a general resemblance. 



In view of all the foregoing considerations I find it 

 impossible to entertain the idea that the genus Precis 

 possesses any appreciable distasteful qualities. 



