EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 263 



with shakes of the head but finally tasted well and rejected with marked dislike a 

 second freshly-captured Amcmris lohengula with decided smell, afterwards shaking 

 her head violently, tasted and rejected in turn Acrcea douhledayi J", Acrcea natalica, 

 and Acrcea sp. inc., also Acrcea serencc, but ate after crushing- it, with apparently 

 the greatest readiness, Datudda chrysippus. 



Half an hour later she tasted and rejected Acrceci douhledayi 6 , Acrcea natcdica., 

 and Acrcea sp. inc., refused with what looked like horror Danaida chrysippus but 

 finally cautiously tasted and rejected it, refused Amauris lohengulcc but then 

 accepted, crushed and dashed it away with the greatest show of disgust. 



I twice during the next thirty or forty minutes, no food meantime, offered again 

 the Danaida chrysippus, and it was each time obstinately refused without tasting, 

 as it also was late in the aftenioon after a further period of starvation. Amauris 

 lobengida was similarly treated. 



[Summary, etc.: — 1. JVote at the time. "I purposely carried out this Danaida 

 experiment on the roller and kingfisher on much the same lines, and the results 

 were veiy similar in each case to those obtained already from other birds. 



" Danaida here, as there, appeared to be not only less obviously unpleasant than 

 Amjauris but even perhaps than any Acrcea, but its after-effects, if eaten out of 

 place, are quite probably villainous, whether worse than those of Amauris it is 

 impossible to say, but it was refused even after a fiirther period of starvation. 

 Amauris was detested by both birds, and in point of obvious unpleasantness is 

 quite likely as bad as even Acrcea areca. " 



2. Order indicated : — 



1. D. chrysippus and A. serena (each, at different times, eaten in 



preference to the other). 



2. A. douhledayi $ , " without a good supply of fluid." 



3. A. caldarena, " fresh S , rejected with greater decision than" 2. 



4. A. areca, highly spotted, "rejected with greater fuss than" 3, 



'■'■A. lohengula. ^''\ 



Exp. 41. — June 12. Had fed well on grasshoppers, &c., and retired once more 

 to her perch. I gave her a very large wood-boring larva, probably that of 

 Anthores leuconotus, equal in weight to perhaps four Charaxes. It was run 

 several times through her bill and swallowed with apparent relish. 



She then refused without tasting a Terias and a Neptis saclava, but readily 

 accepted, crushed, and swallowed a Hamanumida dcedcdus, tasted and rejected a 

 Mycalesis cccmpina with evident dislike, readily ate after crushing them 

 a Leuceronia and a Papilio lyceus, hesitated to accept but after tasting readily 

 swallowed a Henotesia perspicua, crushed and readily ate a J Phrissura isokani, 

 tasted well and rejected a dark-coloured Byhlia, refused obstinately with shakes of 

 the head a Mycalesis campina, but ate with evident relish a Precis natalensis f ., 

 ate readily a second big longicorn larva, crushed and tossed away Leuceronia 

 argia S , refused without tasting Papilio dardanus S , readily ate after crushing 

 it Precis clelia, refused without tasting Leuceronia argia, but crushed and ate with 

 apparent enjoyment Precis archesia and Precis natalensis © f,, refused without 



