EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 361 



larva of the large SaturniicI, Gynanisa ethra (pale green with silver spikes, only 

 about one-fifth grown), or an A. caldarena, refused, then hesitatingly tasted and 

 threw away a Planema aganice, refused it, a large white-and-black 5 ^ • esehria, and a 

 Pap. echerioides $ , all showing the underside only, accepted with reluctance, then 

 tasted well and threw away a small Saturniid larva of the same species (perhaps 

 one-fifth grown), eagerly ate a Belenois severina and, from the state of her hunger 

 there evinced, would, I felt sure, have taken even a Mylothris had I had one to 

 offer. 



[Order : — 



1. JB. severina. 



2. Larva of Gynariisa ethra., P. aganice $ , A. caldarena, 



Tetralohus sp. 

 A further mimicry experiment, this time to test such resemblance as exists 

 between the undersides of PI. aganice, A. esehria, and Pap. echerioides $ .] 



Exp. 197. — March 21, Very hungry indeed. Accepted an A. lohengula and 

 crushed it very thoroughly before rejecting it, almost disposed to eat it, a second 

 time accepted and rejected it, then refused to touch it again and equally persist- 

 ently refused a 5 Aterica galene (upperside in each case), but ate (an indication of 

 some hunger) a very large spiky-legged Acridium [A. lineatum), and showed the 

 greatest eagerness for a Charaxes hrutus I was cai-rying to a bulbnl. 



[A very striking suggestion of the probable value to A. galene of its resemblance 

 to A. lohengida.'\ 



Exp. 198. — March 23. Very hungry. Persistently and with shakes of the head 

 refused to touch a P. echerioides 5 with upper surface displayed, also refused to 

 taste a P. dardamis $ f. trophonius either with wings open or closed, or a Danaida 

 chrysipjnis offered in both positions. On my now reoffering the P. trophonitis she 

 showed a distinct inclination to try it, but decided not. to, refused positively an 

 A. encedon and a Mimacrcea maishalli, and once more became interested in the 

 Papilio trophonius, upper surface, but ended by again refusing it ; refused positively 

 to touch an A. alhimaculata with light hind-wing patch, leant forward to take an 

 A. johnstoni (which she should now be getting to know well), but thought better of 

 it and withdrew — both these were offered with upper surface shown, — but at once 

 seized it when offered with closed wings, crushed and swallowed it. 



Refused to touch A. caldarena S , refused, then tasted and rejected red $ A. igola, 

 but accepted and ate a Callioratis hellati'ix and another A. johnstoni (underside), 

 refused most emphatically and persistently without tasting P. eclterioides 5 , upper- 

 side, but at once seized, crushed, and readily ate a S with closed wings. She then 

 refused persistently to have anything to do with three Indian butterflies, Paralitica 

 aglcea, Cram., 5 , Papilio chaon, Westw., and Papilio memnon agenor, Linn., each 

 with an appropriate local body — actually those of P. echerioides S and P. lyceus 

 respectively, — but eagerly ate an actual P. lyceus. 



[An interesting mimicry experiment, the absolute I'efusal of P. trophonius before 

 the bird was visually reminded of \heDanaida'& exact appearance, and his inclination 

 to take it afterwards being highly suggestive. That it still was not taken seems a 



