296 



MR. C. F. M. SWYNNERTON ON THE 



Afber a further interruption of nearly half an hour I continued the experiment 

 by lantern-light. The bird now readily ate Eurytela dryope, Neptis agatha, Syn- 

 tomis cerhera, and seven small grasshoppers, refused obstinately to touch Neptis 

 agatha, crushed and rejected Eurytela hiarhas^ refused Eurytela dryope withoixt 

 tasting, crushed and rejected Leuceronia thalassina $ and Papilio lyants, barely 

 closed her bill on Papilio antheus and refused to take it, refused without tasting 

 Salamis anacardii and Gatopsilia florella, refused, then tasted and, evidently 

 attracted, crushed and ate Precis natalensis f., similarly refused, then crushed 

 and ate Precis archesia f., accepted and ate without hesitation Precis antilope, 

 refused for a time (probably taking it for Eurytela dryope), then tasted slightly 

 and, reassured, readily ate Precis elgiva, i-efused obstinately without tasting Precis 

 tugela, Precis cebrene, and Pyrameis, but, attracted by Salamis nebulosa, leaned 

 forward, crushed and swallowed it, and after it three Salamis anacardii with the 

 greatest relish. The last was held for some time before being swallowed, the 

 bird being evidently replete. She now obstinately refused to touch Precis cebrene 

 and Pyrameis cardui. 



Five minutes later she refused to touch Precis elgiva, crushed slightly and tossed 

 away Precis tugela and Haraanumida dcedahcs, and once more obstinately refused 

 Precis cebrene and Pyrameis cardui. 



Ten minutes later I reoffered all four of the above butterflies as also a Precis 

 archesia, a brown Crenis, and a usually highly-acceptable grasshopper, but the bird 

 simply ignored them. An hour later she readily ate Eurytela dry ope, ISfeptis agatha, 

 and a Syntomis cerbera, looking doubtful after the latter, however. 



[Summary: — (1) Note : "Papilio angolanus was roughly but unmistakably placed 

 on a level with Terias, whether just below or just above it is impossible to be 

 sure, but possibly the former. In either case the difference must be very small 

 indeed. Both were once more definitely preferred to Danaida, various Acrfeinse, 

 Leptosia, and Mylothris, as was Neptis agatha to the Terias and the Papilio, and 

 in their turn Eurytela dryope to the JVeptis and Papilio lyceus, and Papilio antheus 

 to the Eurytela. Between Pajnlio lyceus, Papilio antheus, Papilio denfiodocus, and 

 Papilio dardanus rT there is, I believe, no great difference. Leuceronia argia $ , 

 as once or twice before, was taken up to a very late stage and in apparent equality 

 to the pleasanter Papilios or even C.Jlorella." 



(2) Grades : — 



1. Salamis spp. 2. 



2. A favourite grasshopper, P. cebrene. 



P. tugela. 

 P. natalensis f. 

 Pyr. cardui. 

 P. demodocus. 

 P. dardanus S • 



L. argia $ . 

 {L. thalassina $ 

 and E. hiarbas ? 4' •) 



[.3. C.florella. 



[ 4. P. antheus 



1 5. P. lyceus. 



6. E. dryope. 



7. N. agathcL. 



8. Terias, P. angolanus. 



9. D. chrysippus, on manner above 

 10. A. igolcc, red $ , P. aganice. 



A. anemosa. 



A. ctsema, JV. medusa, 

 A. johnstoni, M. yidei, 

 M. agathina ^ . 



