360 MR. C. F. M. SWYNNBRTON ON THE 



the A. cabira escaped trial through its resemblance to the A. esebria which had been 

 tried and rejected, and the Teracolus, Terias senegalensis, and T. hrigitta mainly 

 through their likeness to T. regidaris. T. senegalensis was preferred to the 

 Acrfieas tasted and M. campina to Terias regularis, and each seemed to indicate 

 the bird's state of appetite when influenced by the resemblances.] 



Exp. 194. — March 4. Twice seized the head and thorax of a huge Elaterid 

 beetle (Tetralobus sp.") from in front, and each time the beetle "clicked" itself 

 clean out of her bill. She then refused for a time to touch it again, but finally 

 anade a flank attack, seizing it across at the joint of the thoi-ax and abdomen, and 

 commenced to bang its head against the perch, but, after the first blow, the beetle, 

 which had pi'obably slipped back in its bill, released itself as before. 



Exp. 195. — March 4. Very hungry indeed, accepted an A. lohengula and crushed 

 it well, and would, I believe, have swallowed it had it not stuck across her bill. 

 This gave moi'e time for hesitation and she ended by throwing it away, afterwards 

 refusing to touch either it. Pap. echerioides $ , A. johnstoni, or A. esebria (buflf hind- 

 wing like this group), though doubtful over the latter, bvit she at once accepted, 

 crushed, and ate Amauris albimaculata . After a small grasshopper she refused to 

 again touch A. albimaculata, A. lobengida, A. johnstoni, P. echet'ioides $ , and the 

 A. esebria, but readily enough accepted and ate an A. igola. Of all the above the 

 upper surface only was shown. The bird next tasted unhesitatingly and rejected, 

 underside uppermost, a dull white (and black) A. esebria, and refused it and a white- 

 marked A. johnstoni without tasting, as also a buflf-patched A. esebria and a buff- 

 patched A. johnstoni. 



Later she tasted and rejected Planema aganice and I'efused both it and a large 

 black and white $ A. esebria, both with upper surface shown, and went on once 

 more to refuse the whole of the previous two series and the F. aganice (underside). 

 She then ate several grasshoppers, a Mycalesis campina, and a few more grass- 

 hoppers, took with disinclination but thi'ew away the next M. campina, then 

 refused it, refused too M. safitza and a dull § Crenis boisduvali, readily ate an 

 E. hiarbas. These were all offered with upper surface shown. On my reoifering 

 them with only the under surface showing the bird persistently refused to touch 

 the M. campina, tasted rather hesitatingly and rejected the M. safitza, and readily 

 took and ate the Crenis, then tasted and rejected the yellow-legged Salius. 



[A mimicry experiment that is worth a little study with the insects before one. 

 Thus while the two species of Mycalesis and the Crenis are sufficiently alike on 

 their upper surface to render it intelligible that the bird might refuse the other 

 two after rejecting one, their under surfaces are unlike in the degrees actually 

 indicated by the bird's treatment of them when thus offered. The preferences 

 shown were A. igola to Amauris albimaculata ; JS. hiarbas and C. boisduvali to 

 M. campina and M. safitza.'] 



Exp. 196. — March 5. Very hungry. Refused persistently to touch either a large 

 Elaterid (^Tetralobus sp.), probably remembering its previous aciobatic feats, or a 



