EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 29l 



more grasshoppers and yet another Terias, this one as readily as the rest. After 

 six more grasshoppers she for some time refused to touch a Terias senegalensis, but 

 finally, persuaded, took and swallowed it. Then two more grasshoppers, but I had 

 evidently slightly overdone the feeding, for she now not only refused, then tasted, 

 and rejected a Terias, but treated a Belenois severina exactly similarly. 



Ten minutes later the bird readily ate the Belenois and refused the Terias most 

 persistently without tasting. She then accepted doubtfully, crushed very slightly, 

 and rejected a pupa of Acroea buxfo7ii. 



Next, after eating a migratory locust, she persistently refused without tasting a 

 second Belenois, but recognized and most readily ate a Neptis agatha. 



After ten more small grasshoppers she obstinately refused to touch Neptis agatha, 

 tasted doubtfully and rejected Eurytela dry ope, refused without tasting Leuceronia 

 thalassina cS , crushed and readily ate a Gyrestis camillus, and after it the Eurytela 

 dry ope just rejected, refused to touch the Neptis agatha, but on my removing its 

 wings crushed and definitely rejected it ; crushed and readily ate Eurytela hiarbas 

 and Eurytela dryope, tasted and rejected a wingless Teracolus, half-tasted, evidently 

 viewing it with suspicion, a Papilio angolanus with one wing and refused to take 

 it, then readily enough ate a Eurytela dryope and the Papilio angolanus with the 

 wing removed. 



After six more small gi^asshoppers she tasted and rejected emphatically both 

 Neptis agatha and Eurytela dryope, refused to touch Exirytela hiarhas and readily 

 ate Papilio angolanus, but also, immediately after it, the rejected Eurytela dryope. 



Then two more grasshoppers and another Eurytela dryope and two more grass- 

 hoppers and yet another Eurytela dryope. After another four grasshoppers she 

 crushed and rejected Eurytela hiarhas and Eurytela dryope, but ate the latter on 

 its being reoffered, refusing, however, to have anything to do with the Eurytela 

 hiarhas. The attendant had during the last few offerings been busying himself in 

 distributing white ants to the various cages and the roller was unmistakably 

 distracted in watching him. It seemed to me to account for this changeableness. 



She now (the white ants having disappeared) readily ate a Papilio angolanus and 

 a Papilio demodocus, crushed and rejected Papilio angolanus, refused persistently 

 even to taste a wingless Papilio echerioides $ , seeming to me to notice its 

 very distinct bean-smell when brought close up, then crushed and rejected a 

 Papilio demodocus and a Papilio lyceus, both $ s. The latter was held in the bill 

 longer and crushed more thoroughly, with an occasional pause, but it too was 

 finally jerked away. She now refused persistently to again touch any of the four 

 Papilios. 



Fifteen minutes later, by lamplight, after at first ignoring them, she tasted all 

 four in succession and at once rejected each. 



Fifteen minutes later she crushed and ate the Papilio demodocus 5 and the 

 Papilio angolanus, refused, then tasted and rejected the Papilio echerioides 5 

 (wingless), readily and without hesitation ate a Papilio lyceus (without wings and 

 looking much like the Papilio echei-ioides), also a <3 Papilio demodocus, crushed 

 and rejected the Papilio echerioides, readily accepted and ate a wingless Pajnho 

 lymus, and persistently refused without tasting and with signs of annoyance 

 (shakes of head, retreating, etc.) the Papilio echerioides. She, I believe, recognized 



