EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 299 



(2) Note: '•'■ Aletis monteironis c5' , which from its slow flight, smell, and flaunting 

 habits I had supposed to be probably very low-grade, proved actually to be so. The 

 Phymateus was placed rather lower than on previous occasions (on a level with 

 Terias ?). The individual used had a large supply of froth that bubbled out freely 

 from behind its posterior pair of legs. The smell is simply that of strong cocoa 

 and not nearly so objectionable, from a human point of view, as that emitted by 

 the dark dull blue Phymateus. Papilio echerioides ( 5 , the last one offered was a 

 (S , but only the underside was shown) was remembered with some dislike, Papilio 

 antJieits again appeared to be slightly preferred to Papilio lyceus, and Caprona 

 pillaana was placed in 'grade 1 ' of the experiment." 



Exp. 78. — September 1. Crushed and readily ate Mylothris agathina d, tasted 

 and rejected Acrcea huxtoni S , Syntomis cerhera, and Acrcea douhledayi 5 . She then 

 ate six small grasshoppers and refused to touch Mylothris agathina J or a Terias. 

 After six more small grasshoppers she again refused to touch Terias, but, after 

 thorough crushing, ate a Papilio angolanus and, very readily, a Belenois severina, 

 again crushing an angolamis well and swallowing it. After six more grasshoppers, 

 she once more accepted and ate Pa2nlio angolanus and obstinately refused to touch 

 Terias; tasted slightly and rejected, then persistently refused Mycalesis campina, 

 and obstinately refused the next Papilio angolanus as also Neptis agatha; refused, 

 then changing her mind crushed Papilio lyceus well and swallowed it, tasted and 

 rejected Papilio angolanus and refused Exirytela dryope absolutely. 



Twenty minutes later she refused Neptis agatha without tasting, readily ate 

 Eurytela dryope, refused Nep)tis agatha once more, readily ate Papilio angolanus, 

 yet again refused JVeptis agatha and Mycalesis campina without tasting, but, 

 brisking up suddenly, crushed well and ate Pseudacrcea lucretia and Neptis agatha 

 and refused Terias without tasting. After two grasshoppers, she once more 

 readily ate Eurytela dryope, crushed and rejected Papilio angolanus, readily ate, 

 after tasting it well, $ Papilio echerioides, refused for a long time without tasting, 

 but finally accepted and ate E%irytela dryope, tasted and rejected Mycalesis campina, 

 and refused Neptis agatha without tasting, finally, however, accepting and eating 

 it. She then ate six grasshoppers and Eurytela dryope, six more grasshoppers, and 

 crushed and rejected Eurytela dryope, crushed well and ate Leuceronia argia $ , 

 refused without tasting. Eurytela dryope, crushed very thoroughly and ate Papilio 

 dardanus d , but rejected, after tasting it, the next ; refused obstinately, without 

 tasting them, Papilio demodocus 2 and Herp)cenia eriphia, crushed well and rejected 

 Papilio lyoius, refusing it on its being reofiered ; crushed thoroughly and finally 

 ate Catopsilia fiorella ; refused Precis elgiva without tasting (taking it for Eurytela 

 dryope ?), crushed thoroughly and readily ate Char axes neanthes and a Zeritis ; tasted 

 slightly and rejected Herpcenia eriphia ; refused, then crushed very thoroughly and 

 ate a Henotesia perspicua, and readily ate a Precis natalensis f . She then refused 

 obstinately to eat a Precis clelia and a Precis cehrene, crushed and ate two very 

 small grasshoppers, holding each for a very long time before finally swallowing it 

 and absolutely and repeatedly refused to touch another, or a Precis cehrene or 

 Pyrameis cardui. A little later she once more refused grasshoppers. Precis cehrene, 

 and Pyrameis cardui. 



LINN. JOURN. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. XXXIII, 2^ 



