EXPLANATION OP FORM AND COLOURING, 253 



Mycalesis campina. I had no more Char axes, so did not proceed with the 

 experiment. 



[Summary : — 



Much special stimulation probably occurred in this experiment too, and about al] 

 that can be fairly safely deduced is — 



1. Byhlia (on manner above Belenois). 



D. chrysippus. 

 M, camplna. 



E. hiarbas. ^ a t> 



Z. B. sever%na. 



T. hrigitta (not f ^- (P^^obably) A.johnstoni and lYyote- 



above iM. camjnna). 



I 4. N. imedusa.'] 



Exp. 34. — Jione 1. To place Euphmdra neophron : 



This experiment was carried out by my wife in my absence from home. A 

 Euphcedra had been captured and I was anxious to have it " placed." I left 

 instructions to fill up to repletion-point on any food that might be available and 

 then to offer the Eiqjhcedra. My wife states that the bird's ordinary food had not 

 yet come in, and so she used meat and such butterflies as were available for the 

 filling-up process. She offered the latter mostly as they came and without any 

 real attempt to elicit preferences. 



The bird seemed hungry and ate eagerly five or six small pieces of meat, refused 

 without tasting a Terias, readily ate a Eurytela dryope, again refused the Terias, 

 readily ate Eurytela hiarhas, Neptis saclava, and a piece of meat, but refused a second 

 piece, once more readily ate Eurytela hiarhas, and refused without tasting Neptis 

 goochi, but ate it on its being reoffered as also a Leuceronia thalassina and Eurytela 

 hiarhas. She then once more refused a piece of meat, but readily ate a Leuceronia 

 thalassina, a Precis cehrene, two Eurytela dryope, a Henotesia, a Earytela hiarhas, 

 and a Tagiades fiesus, and again refused a piece of meat, then once more readily 

 ate Leuceronia thalassina, Eurytela dryope, Neptis saclava, and a Satyrine, tasted 

 well and rejected a skipper (yellowish), but once more carefully crushed it on 

 its being reoffered and this time ate it as also a Henotesia and Eurytela dryojje. 

 A c? Papilio lyceus was, however, twice rejected after thorough tasting and the 

 third time refused without tasting, as were also Neptis saclava and a Byhlia — the 

 bird had turned her back on being offered the saclava. My wife persisted in 

 offering the Byhlia with much coaxing, and the roller finally turned round and ate 

 both it and the Neptis saclava, but persistently refused a second saclava without 

 tasting. It then tasted and rejected the Papilio lyceus previously disapproved of, 

 but crushed and readily ate another. The first was now picked up and once 

 more reoffered, and still obstinately refused without tasting. Neptis saclava was 

 now twice with an interval between most persistently refused, but a Charaxes 

 was eaten, though a Charaxes hrzitus natalensis was then crushed and di'opped. 

 Nevertheless, the bird now examined for a second and tried, crushed, and swallowed 

 down with apparent relish the abdomen with more than half the thorax of 

 Euphcedra neophron (one wing attached). Charaxes hrutus was then accepted, 

 crushed and dropped, and the head and smaller portion of E. neophron, thorax with 

 one forewing attached, was offered. The bird leant forward evidently tempted to 

 take it, but changed her mind and withdrew when in the very act of closino- her 



19* 



