348 MR. C. F. M. SWYNNERTON ON THE 



after an irritable and not too strenuous pressure on its elytra, refused a hard 

 weevil, 

 \ Order : — 



1. Lachnoptera ayresi (and Salamis cacta, if not merely a matter 

 of special stimulation). 

 Amiantiis I 2. Papilio demodocus. 



glohidipennis. \ 3. Harpactor erythrocnema.l 



Exp. 158. — March 14. C. garruhis battered a large, leathery, blackish slug with 

 pale narrow dorsal stripe once or twice and threw it away. Lanius collaris humercdis 

 tried to eat it, but was greatly bothered by the slime and rejected it finally without 

 having injured it appreciably. The Bulbuls pecked at it, but getting their bills 

 full of slime abandoned it. The Kingfisher {Hcdcyon cyanoleucus) banged it 

 several times, and then rejected it. Crateropus MrM made a most prolonged 

 attack, both shaking it about and hammering it with the point of its bill. It 

 covered it with small scars, constantly desisting to clean its bill, but finally aban- 

 doned it altogether. All hungry, before food in morning. 



[Evidently the slug was very low-grade, being protected efiiciently both by its 

 slime and its leatheriness.] 



Exp. 159. — March 15. Crushed well and ate a M. yidei, battered very thoroughly 

 and ate a P. lyceas larva, took with disinclination, crushed and rejected M. yidei, 

 and twice refused, evidently regarding it with suspicion, but each time ended by 

 accepting, crushing, and at once rejecting the larva of Danaida chrysippus^ readily 

 ate another larva of P. lyceus^ and tasted with disinclination and rejected M. yidei. 



[Order : — 



1. Larva of Papilio lyceus. 



2. Larva of Danaida chrysippus ; Mylothris yulei (imago).] 



Exp. 160. — March 16. Readily ate an A. phalantha, a Terias, and a M. yulei, 

 tasted and rejected an A. esebria with, wings, and refused obstinately even to taste 

 a wingless Danaida chrysippus, then tasted doubtfully and rejected an Ainauris 

 lobengvda. underside shown, very faded and at a little distance even a possible 

 model for P. angolanus, and utterly refused to have anything further to do either 

 with it or with a rather rubbed P. angolamos similarly offered. On my reoffering 

 both after a short interval she again refused to touch the Amauris, but readily 

 accepted and ate the P. angolanus. 



[Order : — 



1. Papilio angolanus. 



2. Amauris lohengida. 



Hungry enough after an Atella phalantha for a Terias and after a Terias for a 

 Mylothris yidei, but refused the rubbed P. angolanus, possibly in mistake for a very 

 rubbed Amauris (to test which possibility the experiment was carried out), but 

 possibly not, as she discriminated between them a little later,] 



