el 
“se . 
ye 
the Relative Edibility of Insects. 55 
In January 1919 I had another young monkey, probably 
of the same species as M., and offered it one day several 
Acridiidae. She seized two specimens of medium size, 
one in each hand, and bit off their heads. But the first 
one did not seem altogether pleasant to the taste, and she 
did not eat it; its wings were tinted with carmine. Before 
eating the second specimen she pulled apart the wing- 
covers and displayed its wings. In this species they were 
colourless, and the whole was eaten (cp. Obs. 272). Next day 
I gave her first of all another of the carmine-winged species. 
She took it rather hesitatingly, although she hadn’t seen its 
wings, did not bite off its head but rather slowly bit off 
one leg, munched it, and then dropped the grasshopper. ~ 
Two other, larger, very favourite Acridiidae were then 
offered; one she let escape, the other, as I persuaded her, 
was at length taken and its head bitten off. It was eaten 
slowly at first, but with increasing satisfaction, for obviously 
she distrusted it at first after the experience of the carmine- 
winged specimen. 
This question brings us to the coloration of the wings 
in other species which were not found to be distasteful, 
noted in Obs. 33, 44, 45, 118. The meaning has already 
‘been discussed in the note on Obs. 272; I believe that 
the interpretation of these cases is that the very obviously 
coloured wings serve to attract attention when the insect 
flies, and when it very suddenly drops the eye fixes the 
point where the colour was last seen. 
But the insect is not there, having always crawled away 
to hide, when its procryptic tegmina cover the bright wings. 
These coloured wings, however, may form a starting- 
point for the development of an aposematic scheme of 
colour as shown in species No. 16, which was found to use 
them aposematically in Obs. 160; and species No, 58 
appears to be in a transitional stage. For though this 
species is procryptic, its wings appeared to be taken as 
an aposeme by the monkey, who certainly found the grass- 
hopper somewhat distasteful (cp. also the 1919 observation). 
It would appear that it is an advantage to the definitely 
aposematic species to lose the wings; in only two did they 
function as organs of flight (16 and 155). 
A very interesting species is No. 91; a huge procryptic 
absolutely apterous female, which has been discussed in 
the note under Obs. 193. It appears to be slightly dis- 
tasteful and its colour scheme is such that a mere change 
of shade, not pattern, might make it definitely aposematic. 
