I 



EXPLANATION OF FOEM AND COLOUEING. 379 



Exp. 226. — April 1. Refused most emphatically and persistently Terias regularis, 

 refused, then barely tasted and again refused Belenois severina and Mycalesis 

 campina, tried ivell and rejected Pseudkicrcea lucretia and Ettrytela hiarhas^ ate 

 readily A. 'phalantha, ate readily Eiirytela dry ope and Henotesia perspicua, tried and 

 rejected Eurytela liiarhas, ate readily Eurytela clryope. 



I was here interrupted. A little later the bird accepted and ate a Etorytela 

 hiarhas, a Mycalesis campina, and a Belenois viesentina, but refused most emphati- 

 cally and persistently Terias regtdaris. 



[1. A.jylialantha, E. dryope, and perhaps H. perspicua. 



2. P. lucretia and E. hiarhas, more seriously considered than 



3. M. campina and B. severina; these less decidedly refused than 



4. Terias regularis, which later was shown to be also probably, at 



any rate, not better than B. mesentina.'] 



Exp. 227. — April 2. Experiments with I^idian hutterjlies. — Only moderately 

 hungry. Refused to touch a Danaida chrysippus, rubbed somewhat, like its 

 successor, a Diestogyna $ , a much-rubbed specimen, or a D. c. alcippus, accepted, 

 crushed, and rejected an Acrcua johnstoni. 



Half-an-hour later, noticeably hungrier, but I did not ascertain the exact degree ; 

 he refused an Indian Danaine, Tirumala septentrionis, with its own body (relaxed), 

 refused, then pecked disapprovingly at a Parantica aglcea furnished with the 

 body of a lively Danaida chrysijypus (he often pecks without grasping or strikes 

 with the side of his bill, both in token of disapproval), but I withdrew it for 

 further experiment and cannot be certain that he might not have tried it 

 eventually. Refused to touch Papilio polyctor ganesa{\x^^ev^i(ie shown; metallic 

 blue and green), bu.t after refusing the first showed an inclination to accept 

 Troides darsius, Papilio jJi'otenor (both underside), and, after them, Papilio ganesa 

 again. The last two were each attached in turn to the body of a Papilio lyceus ; 

 refused most emphatically to have anything to do with Parantica aglcea, Tirumala 

 septentrionis, or their mimic Nefheronia ceylanica, but showed some slight interest 

 in Pajnlio memnon agenor, ending, however, by refusing it, and again refused to 

 touch Tirumala sejjtentrionis or Parantica aglcea, but attacked Papilio proteoior, 

 which, however, I withdrew. 



I then gave the bird a feed of grasshoppers, after which, finding I had forgotten 

 to offer the Indian Danaine, Terpsichrois mulciber, I did so. The roller persistently 

 refused to touch it, refused Myccdesis camqnna, crushed and rejected Pseudacroea 

 lucretia, refused, then crushed and rejected Eurytela Marias. Tried and rejected 

 Eurytela dryope, ate a Pcopilio lyceus, though without enthusiasm, refused to taste 

 again Eicrytelci dryope or Etcrytelct hiarbas, crushed and rejected Antanartia 

 schoeneia, refused without tasting a Henotesia perspicua, a Papilio dardanus S , a 

 Papilio lyceus, and, persistently, a Papilio clemodocus, but readily accepted, crushed, 

 and ate a Melanitis leda and a Phopalocampta forestan, afterwards crushing very 

 thoroughly and throwing away the A. schoeneia re-offered ; but he readily ate, 

 after crushing it, a Precis artaxia f., refused again to taste Papilio clemodocus 

 or Papilio lyceus, but ate without apparent dislike a Tagiades flesus and a Phop)alo- 

 campta liheon, afterwards refusing Pcopilio demodocus, Pcipilio lyceus, Antanartia 

 schoeneia, and Eurytela hiarbas and clryope. 



LINN. JOURN. ZOOLOGY, VOL. XXXIII. 27 



