EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 257 



was readily eaten. A Ypthima was now refused without tasting, as was also a 

 Precis natalensis disguised with a Melanitis wing (incongruous, however, with 

 the blue-black body), but a Gegenes without smell was eaten readily, as also a 

 blackish skipper, though Papilio mKjolanus was refused with a shake of the head. 

 After three or four minutes an Ypthima was thrice offered and each time well 

 tasted and thrown away, two Henotesia perspicua were eaten readily, the 

 Ypthima reoffered was tasted and again thrown away, Eurytela dryope was well 

 crushed and readily eaten, and Neptis saclava was persistently refused without 

 tasting. 



The bird, however, was getting unmistakably hungrier, the result of slight 

 delays between the offerings, and she crushed and without hesitation ate Papilio 

 angolanus, but tasted and threw right away a Byhlia. The P. natalensis f. was 

 now taken with disinclination, crushed slightly and thrown aside (emphasis far less 

 than with Byhlia), though Precis clelia, a Melanitis leda, a Henotesia perspicua, 

 and two Gharaxes brutus natalensis were eaten readily. I now offered another 

 Henotesia, but this was refused persistently with shakes of the head, though 

 Hamanumida dcedalus was eaten readily. 



Five minutes later the Henotesia was eaten readily enough, but a second of the 

 same species crushed and rejected ; a Pyrameis was eaten with apparent relish, but 

 a Byhlia refused persistently, and two more Henotesia, not yet offered, were well 

 tasted and each in turn rejected. 



[Analysis and Summary : — The intervals serve to divide the experiment into 

 nine sub-experiments : — 



In the first, P. cehrene and P. cardui were each preferred to Neptis saclava, and 

 L. argia $ and G. candiope to Byhlia. N. agatha may have been preferred to its 

 congener, but the possible reappetizing influence of the immediately preceding 

 Pyrameis may have brought about its acceptance, as that of the eleven grass- 

 hoppers doubtless did the acceptance of the previously refused N. saclava. That 

 G. vologeses, P. artaxia, and P. cehrene were refused even after G. candiope is 

 evidence of a feeling of repletion. 



In the second sub-expt., Mela^iitis leda was preferred to Precis artaxia and to 

 Precis antilope, and its appetizing influence probably brought about the acceptance 

 of the first-named Precis but failed to secure that of Atella, to which (and to Precis 

 antilope) P. cehrene was preferred. P. cardui was preferred to E. hiarhas and 

 (unless it was its influence that secured their eating) so may have been P. cehrene, 

 H. dcedalus, and M. leda. To E. dryope was preferred P. ceryne, and the subsequent 

 eating of the Eurytela was quite likely due to the appetizing influence of the Precis. 

 Here, again, repletion intervened and, ten minutes later, caused the failure of the 



Third sub-expt. 



Fourth. P. natalensis f, preferred to N. saclava, as also P. cehrene, but it may 

 have been some appetizing eflect of the latter that caused the acceptance after it of 

 L. thalassina 5 and P. hippocoon, though it (and these) failed to get Atella eaten 

 The latter was liked less than P. clelia but better than N. saclava, and was either 

 finally eaten near repletion-point or itself, by inhibitory action, caused a premature 

 rejection of H. dcedalus and P. liheon. 



Fifth. Even the eating of Gatacroptera failed to secure that of N . saclava, Byhliai 



