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



[C. hruttis preFerred to the otlier recognized African butterflies and, if the roller 

 knows them (as his refusal of Paralitica might indicate),* P. chaon and P. agenor 

 to P. aglcea. Some of the refusals in African butterflies were probably the result 

 of their resemblance to others, and a comparison of the bird's treatment of 

 P. irophooviits before and after a visual reminder of D. chrysippus may usefully be 

 compared with that of my long-caged roller (C), as showing that a comparatively 

 newly-captured bird may be even more impressed by an imperfect likeness than 

 even a long-captive one — as against my remarks in the Introduction. The probable 

 advantage to C. bruttcs of its excellent upperside likeness to P. echerioides was 

 very prettily illustrated. 



Bubterflies refused without tasting that have not yet been tasted since the bird's 

 capture were: Z>. chrysippios (and its mimics P. trophonius, A. encedon, and M. 

 mar shalli), A. alhimaculata (a,nd its mimic A.johnstoni — tried, however, when its 

 under surface was displayed) ; but A. lobengula was tasted yesterday, A. caldarena, 

 A. igola, Callioratis bellatrix, and Paralitica aglcea (Oriental).] 



Exp. 221. — March 25. Refused to touch a black and red Acrcea esebria, an 

 A.johnstoni, an A. igola, an A. areca S , a M. yulei, or a Terias brigitta, first refused, 

 then crushed mid rejected M. campina, jSfep)tis agatha, and i\\ goochi, readily ate 

 after crushing them a P. hippocoon and aia A. schoeneia, refused, then tried and 

 rejected, an E. hiarbas, accepted, crushed, and ate an II. perspicua, absolutely 

 refused to taste a very dark (^ M. campina, accepted, tried, and rejected a 

 far paler § (more like Henotesia perspicua in general colour), accepted with 

 disinclination, crushed, and rejected a P. lymtts, a P. dardanus S , and an 

 A. schoeneia, took more readily, I thought, a Crenis natalensis and a P. elgiva, 

 crushed and threw them back as though to swallow them, but after iurther 

 crushing rejected each and readily ate a G. candiope. 



[Order : — 



73 7 • ! ]. C. candiope. 



P nijjpocoon, I -' 



77- • 1 2. Crenis natalensis and P. elgiva. 



It. persptcica. -^ 



^ 3. P. lyceus, P. dardanus d , and A. 

 schoeneia. 



4. E. hiarhas, J\\ agatha, JV. goochi, 



M. campina. 



5. A. esebria (red and black § ), A.johnstoni, A. areca ^ , Al.ytdei, 



T. brigitta. 



The incident of the dark and the pale individuals of AI. campina would seem to 

 illustrate what might occur to the individuals of any species that approached in 

 coloration a less unpleasant known species. 



Butterflies refused without tasting that have not been tasted since the bird's 

 capture were : A. esebria (chestnut and black), A. johnstoni, A. igola, A. areca J , 

 and Mylothris yidei.~\ 



Exp. 222. — March 27. Refused in turn, then crushed and rejected Mylothris 

 yulei, T. brigitta, B. severina, and Myc. campina, readily accepted and, after 

 crushing each, ate an Atella phalantha and a Ph. isoJcani S (which I brought up 



These, except A. schoeneia, 

 purely on manner or on 

 degree of inclination ap- 

 parently shown. 



