192 PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS. 



forming its characteristic evolutions. Gorka (1898) noted two individuals 

 of Deiliphila elpenor that flew along the walls of a pavilion painted with 

 crude flowers of Phlox and Verbena and attempted to plunge the proboscis 

 in the corollas. Lack of success did not discourage them, for they returned 

 after a moment to renew the attempt. In the instance cited by Motelay 

 (1898), a cabbage butterfly fluttered against the window of a florist's shop, 

 trying for 10 or 15 minutes at all parts of the pane to reach the flowers 

 on the inside. It appeared certain that it was attracted by vision and not 

 by smell, since the door of the shop was open but 6 or 8 feet away, and 

 especially since the butterfly passed the door as it flew away. Benary 

 (1900) stated that a bumble-bee, which entered a room through the open 

 door, flew at first to some natural flowers. After it had examined all of 

 these, it sought for nearly a minute to insert the ligule in one of the flowers 

 of the carpet. According to Aigner-Abafi (1900), Langhoffer saw a bee fly 

 through the open window of his lecture-room and go directly to a colored 

 botanical wall-chart. It flew to one cluster, working upward and then to 

 another flower, but finding itself again deceived it flew away. 



Charlier observed that the males of Rhodocera rhamni were greatly at- 

 tracted by a piece of green paper 10 by 20 cm. moving gently in the sun- 

 shine. They alighted on it several times and moved about in an agitated 

 manner. Errera noticed a number of Hymenoptera flying about the hat 

 of a country-woman for fully a half-hour. The hat was trimmed with 

 artificial flowers, full-blown yellow roses and pansies, but the bees flew to 

 the former and neglected the latter. They were so numerous and their 

 behavior so striking that it was remarked by several people. He also 

 reported an observation communicated by Strasburger, who saw Macro- 

 glossa stellatarum light on the red oleander flowers of the wall-paper of a 

 room; the hawk-moth sought to visit the flowers one by one exactly as 

 though they were natural (Wery, 1904:1224, 1226). Van Bembeke, while 

 walking in a park at Ghent, saw a cabbage butterfly dart toward a piece 

 of red paper, light on it for an instant and then depart abruptly (Wery, 1. c). 



In supporting his opinion that these isolated observations were without 

 value, Plateau cited the case of a Rhodocera that appeared to follow a 

 bicyclist in a dark costume, who was mounted on a wheel without bright 

 colors, pointing out that the presence of bright colors would have led to the 

 fallacious assumption of a real attraction. Instances of visits to bits of 

 paper were regarded as fortuitous and without significance, and it was em- 

 phasized that butterflies often light on objects having neither the form nor 

 the color of flowers, but provided with an odor. With respect to attraction 

 by the colored designs of wall-paper or tapestry, he remarked that several of 

 the accounts were given at second-hand and that some of these were merely 

 verbal, while as to those given by the observer himself, the latter was often 

 taken bj^ surprise. This fact, together with the poor light and the rapid 

 movements of the insects, made it probable that the findings would be 

 very different from those of an investigator prepared to follow the insect's 

 behavior. Moreover, Macroglossa and other insects were found to fly 

 along vertical walls without flower designs, the extension of the ligule 

 being without significance, since Breyer stated that this moth and the 

 sphinx-moths always fly with the ligule unrolled. Furthermore, if paint- 



