EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 233 



enough but usually perfectly futile, for it merely gave the bird time to become 

 just hungry enough for more of the same species.] 



Exp. 9. — Mar. 24. In this experiment, which is certainly not worth quoting in 

 detail, seven Papilio lyceus and five P. demodocus were eaten at intervals, refusals 

 intervening. Some of the intervals were long, as the result, apparently, of great 

 restlessness on the part of the roller, which kept moving about the cage. I regard 

 the experiment as completely unreliable. 



Exp. 10. — Ma7\ 26. Ate most readily a Catopsilia fiorella (just rejected by 

 Lohivanellus lateralis), a Papilio lyceus S (just refused by Irrisor erythrorhynchus), 

 and five Papilio demodocus in quick succession. The sixth, however, was thrown 

 away and the bird at once descended and ate a migratory locust or two. It later 

 again refused the sixth P. demodocus, this time without tasting. 



[It seems likely that it preferi-ed the locusts to P. demodocus, but there is 

 nothing to indicate the estimation in which it held the Catopsilia and the 

 P. lyceus relatively either to each other, to P. demodocus, or the migratory 

 locusts — nor to show how near to, or far from, actual repletion the bird still was 

 when the latter were eaten.] 



Exp, 11.— Mar. 30. The bird readily accepted from the forceps seven wino-less 

 Charaxes candiope in rapid succession, crushing each well before svvallowino- it. 

 She was evidently, from her manner, becoming replete towards the end, and a 

 wingless Charaxes hrutus which I now ofliered was merely played with beino- for 

 quite a long time continually tossed up into the air and caught again as it 

 descended. Finally, it was dropped. I reoflfered it ten minutes later when it was 

 eaten readily, as also a second and a third. The next was accepted and then 

 listlessly dropped, but readily eaten on being reoflfered a few minutes later, as was 

 also a fifth. I now oflfered two more, also a Charaxes candiope, but the roller 

 could not be persuaded to eat them. I accordingly left all three in the cao-e and 

 on returning shortly afterwards found that the candiope had been eaten. In the 

 evening, six hours later, one hrutus was still left, but there had been quantities of 

 other and varied food in the cage all the time, so that it may quite likely have 

 been overlooked. Certainly the bird seemed to enjoy both species of Charaxes. 



[I was probably correct in supposing the bird to be replete. Real repletion on 

 the part of the roller was usually easy to recognize, and the playing with the prey 

 recorded above, was only indulged in at that stage. The eating of C. candiope and 

 G. hrutus right up to this point certainly seems to indicate that they were much 

 liked— probably what we may call " Grade 1 " insects. Subsequent refusals may 

 well have been the result of sheer repletion, and there was nothing apparently 

 to indicate that the C. hrutus left in the cage was noticed by the bird.] 



Exp. 12.— Apr. 1. A Mimicry Experiment. — Tasted and at once rejected Acrcea 

 areca S , afterwards refusing decidedly and persistently to have anythino- to do 

 with Pseudacrcea trimeni $ , Acrcea areca $ , and, once more, the Pseudacrcea 

 trimeni. On being shown an Acrcea acara, however, it leant forward and 



