EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 303 



smell. On my continuing to offer it she crushed it and threw it away, afterwards 

 refusing persistently to touch it again. She then readily ate Pyrameis cardui and 

 Precis cebrene, again tasted and rejected the Rhopalocainjyta, readily ate a Pyrameis 

 cardui and a Precis clelia, refused the Bhopalocainpta without tasting but, on my 

 removing the wings, accepted it, still with some suspicion or disinclination, crushed 

 it well and swallowed it. She then refused for a second but then accepted and ate 

 Precis cebrene, refused Precis elgiva for a time with emphatic shakes of the head, 

 undoubtedly taking it for Eurytela dryo'pe, but finally tasted it cautiously and 

 evidently approving of it accepted, crushed, swallowed it. She then refused Precis 

 cebrene, grasshoppers, &c. 



[Summary : — 



{a) 1. Terias. 



2. A. monteironis, S. cerbera, A. asema, D. chrysi2yp>us. 

 (b) 1. P. policenes, S. nebulosa, prob. M. leda, P. archesia f. 



H. perspicua, f'2. P. devwdocas 2 ? P- lyceios (latter, at any rate, prob. not better 



r 



P.elgiva (or what- | tha.n police7ies). 



ever it was taken | 3. JY. agatha. 

 for). \ 4. P. echerioides S • 



(c) 1. P. cardui. 



2. N. agatha, Rh. forestan. 



P. cebrene, P. clelia, R. forestan itself, and P. elgiva were eaten to ce5re9?e-ref using 

 point, and S. anacardii and P. hippocoon in preference to lyceus, and lyceus in 

 preference to demo.docus, cebrene and clelia to forestan, but in all these cases, as in 

 the eating of P. madagascariensis and of P. elgiva, special stimulation has to be 

 suspected. Still P. elgiva and P. madagascariensis were both, in particular, eaten 

 very high. The crushed state of the P. echerioides may have had to do with its 

 rejection, but I do not feel sure that this is likely.] 



Exp. 82. — September 7. Ate a very large grasshopper and a number of termites, 

 tlien obstinately refused Terias brigitta, readily ate Papilio angolanus and JSTeptis 

 agatha, and once more obstinately refused the Terias. She then ate six small 

 grasshoppers, refused to touch the Tericis, but again i-eadily ate Neptis agatha and 

 Papilio angolanus. After six more small grasshoppers she obstinately refused 

 even to taste Neptis agatha, ate Papilio angolanus slowly and doubtfully or with 

 disinclination, refused Nejjtis agatha and E'arytela dryope, crushed and rejected 

 Pajnlio angolanus, and once more persistently refused Eurytela dryop)e. 



Fifteen minutes later she refused, then tasted slightly and rejected NejMs agatha, 

 readily ate Papilio a7igolanus, again refused to touch Neptis agatha, but crushed and 

 ate Papilio echerioides S , Eurytela dryope, and, doubtfully, the Neptis agatha just 

 refused ; refused for a time, then tasted and rejected a Terias and readily ate a 

 Byblia. After three small grasshoppers she tasted well and rejected Nep)tis agatha, 

 crushed and readily ate a 5 Papilio echerioides, again crushed and rejected Neptis 

 agatha, readily ate a Papilio angolanus, but rejected the next after crushing it • 

 tasted and rejected Neptis agatha, tasted and rejected a c? Papilio echerioides, 



