1887.] 



VALUE OF COLOUR AND MARKINGS IN INSKCTS. 



221 



{continued). 



Experiments. 



A. Weismann. 



E. B. Poulton. 



How far evidence supports 



the theory of 



"warning" and "mimetic" 



colours (Bates and Wallace). 



Strong support. Also confirmed 

 by Stainton, wlio offered it to 

 Turkeys, with a large number 

 ofprotectively-colouredMotbs, 

 all of which were eaten, while 

 the S. menthaafri was always 

 rejected after being examined. 



Eaten at once by ' So far as it goes, against sug- 

 hungry L. muralis. \ gestion ; but not tried with 

 sufficient iiumber of enemies, 

 nor with plenty of other 

 food. 



Always refused by 

 L. viridis. 



Two specimens eat- 

 en successively by 

 the same Frog, 

 and therefore it 

 would seem not to 

 be nauseous to 

 this species. Next 

 day the Moths 

 were found in the 

 case, having been 

 rejected presum- 

 ably because of 

 indigestibility. 



Strong support. 



Eefused by L. mu- 

 ralis after biting, 

 although very 

 hungry. 



Bearing of evidence on 



Poidton's suggestion, 



as before. 



Strong support, especially in 

 the reluctant way in which it 

 was eaten by Eobin &c. Sei 

 Jenner Weir's explanation ii; 

 case of A.filipendul(B. 



Strong support in Jenner Weir't 

 explanation as above. In the 

 case of the Frog also hunger 

 very likely caused the insect 

 to be taken, although not re- 

 tained. 



Support from the behaviour ] Support in that the Lizard; 

 of Lizards ; the other evi- were induced to bits it st- 

 deuce must, I think, be mis- verely. 

 taken. 



No evidence, unless it shoulc 

 be proved to be nauseous ; 

 then this experiment woulr" 

 strongly support suggestion. 



Strong support. 



No evidence. 



Proc. Zool. Soc— 18S7, No. XVI. 



16 



