116 THE ENEMIES OP BUTTERFLIES [ch. 



their behaviour towards these three "nauseous" forms. 

 The Hornbill, for example, refused the Danaines and 

 P. aristolochiae absolutely, but ate Delias eucharis. 

 Some species again, notably the Bulbuls (Molpastes) 

 and Mynahs, shewed httle or no discrimination, but 

 devoured the "protected" as readily as the "un- 

 protected" forms. Finn also states that "Papilio 

 polytes was not very generally popular with birds, but 

 much preferred to its model, P. aristolochiae." 



In many of Finn's experiments both model and 



mimic were given to the birds simultaneously so that 



they had a choice, and he says that "in several cases 



I saw the birds apparently deceived by mimicking 



butterflies. The Common Babbler was deceived by 



Nepheronia hippia^ and Liothrix by Hypolimnas misip- 



pus. The latter bird saw through the disguise of the 



mimetic Papilio polites, which, however, was sufficient 



to deceive the Bhimraj and King-crow. I doubt if 



any bird was impressed by the mimetic appearance of 



the female Elymnias undularis" (cf. PI. IV, fig. 5). 



Finn concluded from his experiments that on the whole 



they tended to support the theory of Bates and Wallace, 



though he admits that the unpalatable forms were 



commonly taken without the stimulus of actual hunger 



and generally without signs of dislike. Certainly it 



is as well to be cautious in drawing conclusions from 



experiments with captive birds. The King-crow, for 



instance, according to Finn shewed a marked dislike 



for Danaines in captivity; yet Manders records this 



^ A form closely resembling P. ceylonica figured on PL I, fig. 1. 



