1887.] VALUE OF COLOUR AND MARKINGS IN INSECTS. 273 



I also offered (Sept. 6) the same species of Lizard a number of 

 larvae of the Sawfly (Croesus septentrionalis), and although the Lizards 

 seized them eagerly at first, they soon rejected them with every sign 

 of disgust, the jaws being rubbed against the floor of the cage to 

 remove as far as possible every trace of the unpleasant taste. How- 

 ever, on the railway journey from Birmingham to Oxford (Sept. 6) 

 I actually saw a hungry Lizard seize one of these larvae, and with 

 much hesitation reluctantly swallow it. I was surprised at this 

 behaviour, for earlier in the summer I had ceitainly seen these same 

 larvae devoured with apparent avidity by nearly all the Lizards. On 

 one occasion also I placed the conspicuous pupa of Abraxas grossu- 

 lariata in the cage of i. muralis. I subsequently found that it had 

 been bitten, and as all its contents were gone it seems certain that it 

 had been at any rate partially eaten. I have also offered the imago 

 of this species to the Lizards, but it has always been refused after 

 tasting in some instances. Furthermore, immense numbers of pupae 

 and imagos of Vanessa urticce were eaten by all the Lizards at 

 various dates towards the end of August and beginning of September, 

 while early in the summer humble-bees (Bombus lapidarius &c.) 

 were sometimes eaten by Lacerta viridis, and the common hive-bee 

 (worker) was sometimes eaten with considerable caution by most of 

 the Lizards. Common wasps (queens and workers), on the other 

 hand, were invariably undisturbed ; and this was also the case with 

 Nomada marshamella. Cockroaches were always eaten with avidity 

 by all the Lizards, as well as the common species of Muscidse, with 

 their larvae and pupae. Coccinella septem-punctata was invariably 

 refused without tasting. The Carabidae — Carabus hortensis and 

 Omaseus melanarius — were eaten readily. The Isopod (Armadillo 

 vulgaris) was also relished. 



Experiments with the Frogs {Hyla arborea, var. meridionalis) were 

 less numerous and systematic ; but they yielded some very interest- 

 ing results : — 



May 7, 1886. — A queen wasp was put in the aquarium, and 

 immediately a Frog sprang at it and drew it into its mouth, but 

 instantly recognizing (apparently by the tactile sense) the danger, 

 released the insect. It is possible that the Frog was stung, but the 

 whole process, capture and release, was so rapid that it is very likely 

 that the animal escaped. As soon as the wasp was free a second Frog 

 behaved in precisely the same manner, and after this a third. After 

 this I did not see the wasp again attacked, and it was left iu the 

 aquarium for twenty-four hours. 



May 9. — One imago of Pieris napi taken instantly. 



May 13. — One imago of A. carclamines ( $ ) taken instantly by 

 one Frog after being refused by others. 



May 29. — One imago of A. cardamines ( $ ) eaten at once by one 

 Frog after having been refused by others. 



Oue imago of Orgyia pudibunda {<S) eaten at once by one Frog 

 after having been refused by others. 



June 6. — Two imagos of E. jacobcea. were eaten at once, one 

 directly after the other, by the same Frog, so that the taste could not 



