252 MR. C. F. M. SWYNNERTON ON THE 



/■ 1. P. archesia © f . ^E. dryope. 



M vnlei J ^- ^•>''^^^^- U.^ers^^m«.. 



I 3. L. thalassina, L. argia. J P. isokam. 



I 4. JV. agatha. ^ ^. pUnius. 



f 5. Perhaps if. agathina. H. lingeus. 



iV^. goochi. J g. i\^. leuconoe (on manner). yByhlia. 



' 7. iV. medusa. I -M'. campina. 



I iV. saclava. 



It is possible that even the eating of Atella and ^. dryope at the end may have 

 been influenced by that of the much-liked P. archesia shortly before. At any 

 rate, Atella was preferred to Gegenes, E. dryope to E. hiarhas, Gegenes and Byhlia, 

 and P. cehrene to these and to P. isokani. 



After the interruption C . florella vf&s, preferred to the dark skipper and P. cardui 

 to (probably) the last-named, to Gegenes, to E. hiarhas, C. cithoiron, P. elgiva, and 

 (more certainly) to P. cehrene, and C. h7~utus to the Gegenes, Eurytela, and dark 

 skipper. 



(3) Some interesting points in the experiment were (as will appear better latei') 

 the high placing of Atella (stimulated ?), the more consistent placing of Byhlia as 

 low as it has remained in subsequent experiments, the low placing of the Lyc«nids 

 untasted. and the placing of the skippers. The roller seemed more inclined for 

 N. agatha than for N. goochi, but her treatment of the former and shortly afterwards 

 of P. isokani would seem to indicate that she was barely hungry enough even for 

 them. The first rejection of H. perspicua was quite possibly in pai't due to 

 suspicion of the not dissimilar M. campina — and even tasting does not always 

 dissipate suspicion, — and it is possible that its acceptance later more accurately 

 indicates its own standing. Similarly, the initial hesitation over E. dryope and 

 C. florella may have been due to suspicion of something more unwelcome : thus 

 a S L. thalassina for which the bird was insufficiently hungry had immediately 

 preceded the offering of the Catopsilia. The same might have applied to the other 

 Eurytela refused without tasting, but hardly, I think, where I offered it disguised 

 as a Pyrameis, and I believe the evidence in this experiment indicating that 

 E. hiarhas was placed slightly below its congener to be probably reliable.] 



Exp. 33. — May 31. After a fast and rather hungry in manner. Tasted and at 

 once rejected Nychitona medusa, then tasted well and rejected Acrma johnstoni and 

 Nyctemera leuconoe (with tomato-leaf smell), ate two Gharaxes citha;ron and tasted 

 and at once rejected Terias hrigitta, Belenois severina, and Danaida chrysippus, and 

 tried and rejected a Myc. campina, but crushed and readily ate Eurytela hiarhas, 

 Neptis goochi, Neptis agatha, a small blackish skipper (probably of same species as 

 rejected yesterday), Neptis saclava, two Byhlia, and a Satyrine. 



She later ate two Gharaxes hrutus, and after them a Neptis saclava, a Neptis 

 agatha, and a M. caonpina, refused without tasting a Terias hrigitta, crushed and 

 swallowed rather waveringly the previous Belenois (now wingless), once more 

 persistently refused the Tei^ias without tasting, but readily ate a Byhlia, ate two 

 Gharaxes ethalion, three Precis cehrene, a Pyrameis cardui, a Neptis saclava, and a 



