EXPLANATION OF FORM AND COLOURING. 



381 



demodocus, crushed it thoroughly and was disposed to swallow it, but changing his 

 mind ended by rejecting it, crushed and at once rejected Papilio lyceus, refused 

 persistently to touch an Everes cissus (underside shown) or a Papilio angolanus, the 

 latter with many shakes of the head, but accepted, crushed, and ate a Freds 

 antilope 0, refused, then crushed, and threw away an A. sehoeneia, hut readily 

 accepted and ate a Charaxes hriitus. 



There was little doubt in my mind that he had liked Papilio demodocus at least 

 as well as Pajnlio lyoius. 



The Pseudacraa lucretia was now dead and beginning to dry, so was not used in 

 the latter part of the experiment. 



[1. The points of interest about the Oriental butterflies were the refusal of the 

 Danaines and the refusal of their mimic, Nep>}ieronia ceylanica. It is, of course, quite 

 likely that, evenif thebird hadnot been to India hewould, in travelling south through 

 Africa, have come across Tirumala petiverana, and so have refused Indian 

 butterflies with much the same colour-pattern ; and his indecision over the Indian 

 Papilioninse lends colour to this explanation, though it is opposed by his obstinate 

 refusal of the very different-looking Terpsichrois. His refusal of alci2}pus, un- 

 common at Ohirinda, was also probably based on experiences further north, if not in 

 the fore-wing likeness to typical D. chrysippics. The latter butterfly, persistently 

 refused ever since the bird's capture, was again refused, and its protective influence 

 on one of its mimics, Diestogyna, illustrated, though he had to remind himself of 

 A. johnstoni by again tasting it. Further interesting points were his suspicion 

 of Acroia-li^Q P. natalensis wet f., the pellet incident and its results — less marked 

 than last time, — and the special eagerness shown for grasshoppers (and especially, 

 doubtless, for a square meal) after only butterflies, mostly of unsuitable species, 

 had been offered for some time. 



2. Order of preference : — 



H. eriphia, 

 Grasshoppers, 

 including 

 1051 and 45. 



E. cdssus, 

 P. angolanus, 

 P.dai'danus c? 



1. P. antilope f., P. artaxia f., M. leda, 



and perhaps R. forestan and libeon. 



2. A. schoineia, H. perspicua. 



3. P. demodocus, P. lyceus, S H. tnisippus, and^ 



P. natalensis 0, also hereabouts, the latter 

 probably higher. 



4. E.hiarhas , 4.^ Y 



5. M. canijjina and 



B. mesentina. 



6. A. johnstoni. | "^ / 



britt'us, 

 zoolina. 



N. agatha, 

 N. goochi. 



P. litcretia 

 E. dry ope. 



A. 



phalantha. 



Exp. 228. — Aptril 3. Pteadily ate a Belenois mesentina, refused to taste a Terias 

 senegale7isis, but accepted, crushed, and swallowed a Mylothris rueppelli, refused, then 

 tasted and rejected a S Papilio echerioides and refused a Terias brigitta and an 

 Acrcea johnstoni. After a grasshopper or two he refused a Belenois, accepted and 

 ate with disinclination a Mycalesis campina, and accepted and ate Avith distinctly 

 greater readiness a Papilio angolanus. 



