300 MR. C. F. M. SWYNNBRTON ON THK 



[Summary : — 



1. Small gi'asshoppei'S, abpve Precis cehrene and P. clella and 



.*. prob. above 



2. P. natalensis f., C. neanthes, Charaxes Jlorella. 



3. P. lyceus in manner above 



4. P. dardanus S and, say, P. demodocus 5 , L. argia § . 



5. Eurytela dry ope and Papilio echerioides ? , 1 ,-, 



r. r, 1 1.1 f ". lifjcretia ? ^ . 



o. F, angoLanus about here. J 



7. Neptis agatha, perhaps above 



8. Mycalesis campina. Terias, M. agathina S , and (not above it) 



A. Serena, S. cerhera, and A. douhledayi 5 . B. severina was 

 placed above Terias.'] 



Exp. 79. — Several hours later — plenty of food meantime in cage — a Terias was 

 persistently refused but a Papilio angolanus readily eaten. The bird then ate six 

 small grasshoppers ; refused, then tasted very slightly and rejected in turn Belenois 

 severina and Papilio angolanus, obstinately refused Terias and a second Papilio 

 angolanus without tasting, but readily ate Neptis agatha. Ten minutes later she 

 tasted very slightly and rejected Mycalesis campina, and refused without tasting 

 Papilio angolanus. In offering the latter insect I had brought it close up to the 

 bird's bill, which it now grasped, crawling up over the roller's head. The bird 

 shook it off, caught it as it fell, crushed it well, and rejected it. She then refused 

 to touch Belenois severina. After four more grasshoppers, she tasted very slightly 

 and refused to take Neptis agatha, but readily ate a Eurytela dryope, and after it 

 she rejected Neptis. She then ate four more small grasshoppers, tasted and rejected 

 Neptis agatha, Eurytela dryope, Papilio echerioides $ , and Herpcenia eriphia, but 

 readily ate a J Leuceronia argia, refused without tasting a Pinacopteryx (like 

 S agathina, but size of yulei), readily ate a S Papilio dardanus, and tasted well 

 and rejected the Pinacopteryx. 



Fifteen minutes later she readily ate Eurytela dryope and Neptis agatha, a small 

 grasshopper and one more Neptis agatha, three more grasshoppers, and a Pajnlio 

 angolanus. After seven more grasshoppers, however, she tasted slightly and 

 rejected Neptis agatha, readily ate a Eurytela dryope, refused without tasting 

 Neptis agatha, crushed and readily ate the 5 Papilio echei'ioides and immediately 

 afterwards ate not only the hitherto rejected Neptis agatha and two Papilio 

 angolanus, but a Belenois severina and, after refusing a Terias, quite a number of 

 small grasshoppers. Fluctuations of appetite, the result usually of stimulation, are 

 not infrequent, but a jump such as this, from pudding to soup, involving practi- 

 cally a recommencement of her nearly completed meal, was rather unprecedented. 



In the evening, by lantern-light, she readily ate five small grasshoppers, crushed 

 and rejected Neptis agatha and Eurytela dryope, and refused, then tasted slightly 

 and rejected the Pinacopteryx, without wings. Five minutes later she crushed 

 well and rejected with obvious dislike the Pinacopteryx (the body was now lost, so 

 could not be reoffered), refused Neptis agatha without tasting, crushed and rejected 

 Eurytela dryope, ate readily Herpcenia eriphia (but it had previously fallen in water. 



