xlvi Proceedings of the South African Philosophical Society. 
will affirm that a carnivorous animal never misses his intended 
quarry ? 3 
Some years ago, the whole of the garden at the back of the present 
Public Library was tenanted by numerous EHpeirid spiders (Argyope 
australis), than which there was probably no more conspicuous. 
animal in the landscape, with their silvery white cephalothorax and 
the broadly expanded, pale-yellow abdomen banded with silvery 
white. I happened to be in my greenhouse, recording some obser- 
vations, when a Cape Bulbul (Pycnonotus capensis), whose plumage 
denoted its youth, swooped down on one of these spiders two yards 
from my window, but suddenly stopped and remained poised in the 
air for as long as thirty seconds, then flew away. He came back 
three times, but in the end he flew away for good, leaving the 
tempting but suspicious morsel untouched. Although an insectivo- 
rous bird, and in spite of its youth, he did not make a sudden attack 
on the conspicuous animal, to the partial or complete detriment 
of the latter. Evidence of this kind should be reckoned with, 
when attributing so much importance to the Mullerian theory of 
inexperienced enemies. 
There are also, in addition, instances recorded of some of these 
unpalatable butterflies being preyed upon. Sir G. Hampson remarks. 
that in South India the Huploce and Danaide, which are supposed 
to be protected by their evil taste, were caught by enemies as often 
as any other. Distant, in his “ Naturalist in the Transvaal,” 
mentions a Danais chrysuppus being devoured by an orthopterous. 
Hemisaga, &e., &e. 
Until the conditions of life have been carefully followed and care- 
fully observed, we cannot affirm that this protective resemblance, 
mimetism of unpalatable insects, and warning colours are due to 
one cause, although man’s logical mind may be inclined to find a 
satisfactory explanation for these phenomena. They exist; they are 
patent ; any observer can control them. But the explanation is not 
satisfactory, because we probably ascribe to some factors results not 
commensurate with their relative value. I shall not venture to add 
a new explanation to those already offered. But in summing up I 
may add that many cases have been now brought forward which 
cannot be reconciled with the theories accepted of late years, and 
it is not surprising, therefore, that some naturalists, entomologists. 
especially, are not quite convinced of the truth of these hypotheses, 
although they have to recognise the phenomena. 
