EXPLANATION OF FOBM AND OOLOtFRING. 309 



four small grasshoppers, and after distinct hesitation and much crushing a Papilio 

 angolanus, barely tasted the antenna of a Papilio echerioides J , and refused to 

 have an3thing further to do with it ; refused without tasting most persistently a 

 Papilio angolanus and a Papilio demodocus, readily accepted and ate a Precis 

 natalensis f., again refused to touch a Papilio angolanus, 'Axxd tasted very slightly 

 and rejected a Papilio echerioides S • 

 [Summary : — 



(a) 1. JV. agatha, bitter grasshoppers (and E, dryope and P. ango- 



lanus ?), ? Terias, and llijc. campina. 



(b) 1. P. natalensis f. 



2. P. angolanus, P. demodocus, P. echerioides S •] 



Exp. 89. — September 24. Ate a number of grasshoppers, then readily a Papilio 

 demodocus, a Neptis agatha, and several more grasshoppers. She then refused 

 absolutely to eat any more of the latter, crushed and threw away a Paptilio 

 demodocus, crushed at great length a flower-haunting mantis {Pseudocreohotra 

 ivahlhergi), then i-emained holding it as though replete but not liking to part with 

 it, finally again crushed it well and tossed it aside, rejecting in the same way 

 Papilio policenes and Precis natalensis f. Five minutes later she once more 

 accepted each with disinclination and threw it away. Five minutes later she 

 refused the Mantis and Papilio policenes, tasted and rejected Painlio demodocus, 

 crushed well and ate with apparent relish the mantis and refused persistently 

 without tasting Papilio demodocus, Papilio policenes, Papilio lyceus, and Charaxes 

 candiope. 



There could be no doubt that the bird placed the mantis very high, enjoying it 

 thoroughly in spite of the fact that it haunts flowers most conspicuously. [It is 

 probably not lower than Papilio policenes, possibly higher, even perhaps as high as 

 Charaxes.'] 



Exp. 90. — September 28. Hungry ; readily ate a Terias. I now placed a handful 

 of Orthoptera in the cage, and the bird at once descended, ate a number of them 

 (which it appeared to pick up at random apart from the usual preference for the 

 lai'ger spp. on commencing to feed), and retii'ed to a high perch presumably satis- 

 fied. She then nevertheless ate not only a Neptis agatha and a Mycalesis campina, 

 but a Terias brigitta. After six more grasshoppei's given by hand she again readily 

 accepted and ate a Neptis agatha and a Mycalesis cam,pina, but persistently refused, 

 with shakes of the head, to touch a Terias. 



After six more grasshoppers she for some time refused to touch another, although 

 I ofiered her several favourite species in turn. At last, however, she accepted one 

 and once more refused all 1 ofiered, then ate another, and finally and most per- 

 sistently refused to have anything to do with any others. On my now giving her 

 a Precis natalensis f., she just took it in the point of her bill and tossed it aside, 

 but, atti'aeted by the struggles of a Papilio lyceMs, definitely crushed this and fiung 

 it awa}-. She then refused but, changing her mind, accepted and ate with 

 apparent relish Salamis cacta and the Precis natalensis f. which I reofi"ered, 



