262 MR. C. F. M. 8WYNNERT0N ON THE 



greatly liked. Henotesia perspiciui was liked better than JVeptis saclava and the 

 Teracolus. 



"The Acrcea areca was discarded with a greater show of disgust than either 

 Danaine, probably simply because the bird got a good dose of the bitter fluid in 

 her bill. 



" Acrcea natalica — a rubbed specimen and probably without a great store of 

 liquid (it was exuding some, however) — was rejected promptly, but without special 

 fuss, treated, in fact, like Acrcea caldarena and doubledayi. There could be no 

 doubt as to these two being very decidedly more distasteful than even fresh Acixea 

 Serena. I had also little doubt, taking the bird's manner as an indication, that 

 the latter was less liked than Acrcea esebria and still less, probably, than Acra^a 

 cabira. Nyctemera and Mylothris agathina (an unusually strong-smelling $ ) were 

 less objected to than any of the above. Nychitoim I believe to come between 

 Acroia caldarena and Acrcea serena (cf., too, yesterday's experiment). The 

 Amauris lobengula had an unusually slight smell, the d" Mylothris about the 

 average smell for a J of this species. All the Dcmaida used to-day had just 

 the average amount of smell. None of them was quite without, but none possessed 

 the just distinguishable Amauris smell that one occasionally finds in this species. 

 All the butterflies used, except Nychitona, had been captured by myself, so that the 

 rubbed condition of the wings was, when present, due to natural wear and tear 

 and not to native handling." 



2. Order of preference : — 



(a) 1. M. agathina c? & 5 , iV. leuconoe, Terias. 



2. A. esebria. 1 > 7 • 



Y A. cabira. 



3. A. serena. 



N. Tnedusa. 

 D. chrysippus 

 A. lobengula. 



(/3) 1. C. cloantha 



4. A. caldarena, A. doubledayi, A. natalica (rubbed). 



5. A. areca. 



2. N. saclava, jy. goochi, Byblia, H. dcedalus, B. mesentina, 

 T. desjardinsii, A. esebria, &c., &c. 



(y) 1. H. perspicua. 



2. N. saclava and Teracolus.~\ 



Exp. 40. — June 10. Very hungry indeed — 12 noon, and except for termites had 

 received nothing since 6 p.m. last night. 



Tasted and rejected Danaida chrysippus and Amcmris lobengula (without very 

 much smell : the Danaida was normal in this respect), tasted and at once rejected 

 a fresh-looking Actxea caldarenco, crushed and readily ate Acrcea serena, crushed 

 and rejected with special disgust Acrcea sp. inc., crushed thoroughly, holding it for 

 some time as she did so, an Acrcea doubledayi 6 , probably not very lately emerged, 

 and finally rejected it. 



Half an hour later, no food meantime, she crushed and readily ate a $ Danaida 

 chrysippus, tasted and rejected with disgust a strongly-smelling Amauris lobengula, 

 just captured, crushed and ate without hesitation a S Danaida chrysippus, refused 



