EXPLANATION OF FORM AND GOLOUEING. 373 



The greater readiness to try P. hippocoon with closed wings than with open was 

 interesting, occuiTiiig as it did in both experiments, in view of the strong upper- 

 surface likeness to A. doniinicanus and far less good under-surface likeness. The 

 upper-surface refusal of <S P. echerioides was probably the result of so recent an 

 experience of it. 



In both expeiiments many insects were refused obstinately without tasting that 

 the bird has not tasted since capture, probably in most cases showing previous 

 knowledge, since the bird readily accepted certain other insects. These were in the 

 first experiment A. lobengida, A. neobiole, A. esehria S ■, A.johnstoni, A^. agatlmia, 

 P. echerioides S underside, B. goetzius, P. hippocoon upper surface (taken probably 

 for A. dominicanus) ; in the second experiment A. cdbimacidata, P. hij3pocoo7i upper 

 side (probably regarded as A. doniinicanus), A. johnstoni, A. esehria, A. igola d and 

 white 5, ^. caldarena, P. aganice 6, M. rueppelli, P. isokani Si Teracolus, 

 P. dardanus S 5 P- angolanus, Lachnocnema hihidus, B, goetzius, and P. uatalensis 

 wet f= (probably taken for a large Acrcea). 



The extent to which the bird's preferences as shown to-day should be discounted 

 owing to his being out of sorts and suffering obvious discomfort on approaching 

 repletion can best be judged by a comparison of them with those of other days. j 



Exp. 219. — March 21. Very hungry, snatched an A. lohengula from the forceps, 

 but at once threw it down in disgust, refusing thereafter to touch either it or 

 A. galene, uppersides shown. But he showed the greatest eagerness for a Charaxes 

 that I was carrying to the bulbuls. 



[An excellent illustration of the value of mimicry.] 



Exp. 220. — March 23. Not very hungry. Most persistently refused without 

 tasting P. echerioides 5 with wings closed and P. trophonius both open and closed ; 

 he leant forward as though to take the butterfly in the latter position, but 

 withdrew again ; he most persistently refused without tasting Danaida chrysippus, 

 each surface in turn, and once more trophoniiis upper surface, A. encedon, 

 Alimacrcea marshalli, A. alhimacidata, and A. johnstoni, all with wings open. 

 I then offered the last with closed wings. It was at first ignored, but on my 

 continuing to hold it to the bird was taken, tasted, and rejected. The bird then 

 most persistently refused without tasting A. caldarena a.nd A. igola, refused but on 

 my pressing it on him tasted perfunctorily and rejected Callioratis hellatrix, 

 refused, then in the same way tasted and rejected B. mesentina and, having treated 

 P. echerioides S (spread) in the same way, refused to touch a G. hrtctios with 

 outspread wings and looking, therefore, like P. echerioides S . But on my closing 

 them and showing the underside he seized it with the greatest eagerness, crushed 

 the thorax, and swallowed the butterfly wings and all. 



He half an hour later refused persistently with shakes of the head to touch the 

 Indian Danaine, Parantica agloia (its wings on an echerioides body), but after at 

 first refusing then seemed inclined to attack two Indian Papilios — P. chaon and 

 P. memnon agenor. Whether he would actually have done so had I not withdrawn 

 them I do not know. "Were there suflicient evidence to indicate that this bird had 

 ever been to India I would prefer to accept his evidence, as a more recent migrant, 

 than that of B with regard to these Papilios. 



