1887.] VALUE OF COLOUR AND MARKINGS IN INSECTS. 195 



more mature larva with its characteristic warning hairs was never 

 even molested. It is probable that this explanation may be true 

 of this and some other species, but it obviously does not apply in 

 the case of P. auriflua, &c., in which the hairs themselves are a 

 source of intense irritation and annoyance. Mr. Jenner Weir found 

 the same results with the spiny larvae of Vanessa urticce and F. io, 

 and he draws the same conclusions as to the meaning of the spines. 



In this case the author states that " the metallic-looking chrysa- 

 lides were also invariably rejected, thus showing that the spines were 

 not the cause of the uneatableness of the larvae." Experiments 

 were also made with the following comparatively smooth-skinned,, 

 highly conspicuous caterpillars : — Abraxas grossulariata, Diloha ccb- 

 ruleocephala, Anthrocera JilipendultB, and Cueullia verbasci. In no 

 case were these species molested. Thus these experiments strongly 

 confirm Wallace's prediction. It may be doubted whether the 

 larvae of Arctia caja and of Spilosoma menthastri can be included 

 among the brightly-coloured larvae intended by Wallace, but there 

 is no doubt that the habits of these species are such as to reader 

 them conspicuous in spite of their sober coloration. In Trans. Ent. 

 Soc. Loud. 1870 (part iii., August), Jenner Weir has contributed 

 another paper on the same subject. Mr. H. D'Orville, in the 

 'Entomologist's Monthly Magazine' (vol. vi. p. 16), had affirmed 

 that the larvae of Cueullia verbasci are eaten by birds in the wild 

 state. In his second paper Jenner Weir conclusively showed that 

 this species was not eaten in the wild state in certain localities, and 

 he again proved that it was not touched in his aviary. It seems 

 therefore certain that Jenner Weir is correct as far as his species 

 of birds are concerned ; but at the same time D'Orville seems to 

 prove that this distasteful species may be eaten by certain birds. In 

 this paper Jeuner Weir confirms his previous experience with regard 

 to E. lanestris, D. cceruleocephala, A. grossulariata, and P. auriflua. 

 He also includes the following new species in the list of gaudy or 

 conspicuous larvae which were untouched by the above-mentioned 

 birds: — Orlonestis Rotatoria, Lasiocampa quercus, CUsiocampa 

 neustria, Hybernia defoliaria. Of these the two first are hairy, and 

 although with sober colour, are generally conspicuously placed on 

 their food-plants. (I think it is also exceedingly probable that their 

 rejection may be partially due to the possession of irritating hairs.) 

 The two last-named larvae are certainly brightly coloured. 



Mr. A. G. Butler (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., March 1869, p. 27) 

 only records experiments with three species of conspicuous larvse. 

 Lacerta viridis always refused the larva of A. grossulariata, but 

 devoured that of Phragmatobia fuliginosa. The latter is not 

 brightly coloured but, like the larva of S. menthastri, it is hairy and 

 not inconspicuous. Frogs also refused the conspicuous larvse of 

 A. grossulariata and Halia ivavaria, although this was often after 

 tasting them, the rejection being accompanied by evident signs of 

 disgust. The former larva was also rejected by Spiders, either with 

 or without preliminary seizure. It is noteworthy that the larvae 

 would certainly be uninjured after being seized and then relinquished 



