296 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 
hoppers, spiders, etc. On one occasion a small wasp was released 
in the cage and at once began to buzz about or run up the sides of 
the cage actively. It was but a few moments ere a specimen leaped 
eagerly and captured the prey. Then a most interesting performance 
took place. No sooner was the wasp seized than it was whipped 
into the mouth, and in turn stung the frog; the frog in turn showed a 
very lively appreciation of that fact, and made an apparent effort 
to eject the creature; but the process of ingestion had‘gone too far 
and deglutition was completed without further ado, nor did the 
frog show the least further sign of distress. On another day the 
operation was repeated and very much after the fashion of the 
preceding. It may be doubted whether Amphibia show any particu- 
lar discrimination based on that type of experience.’’”® 
SALAMANDERS.—Albert M. Reese, in a paper on the “Food and 
Chemical Reactions of the Spotted Newt, Diemyctylus viridescens,”” 
says that the animals show no difference in reaction toward bits of 
raw meat and earthworms nor to the juices from these substances.” 
A specimen of hellbender (Cryptobranchus allegheniensis) which 
ejected remains of a crawfish soon after capture, refused to eat any 
of these animals placed in its aquarium later.*! 
REPTILES, 
Experiments in Asia. 
Among Frank Finn’s many experimental contributions to the 
theory of natural selection are two which deal with the food taken 
by lizards. The first®? deals with the Indian lizard (Calotes versi- 
color), both captive and free individuals of which were offered a 
variety of adult Lepidoptera. The results of feedings of the free and 
confined individuals agree very well except in the case of butterflies 
of the genus Euplea. The record for these insects with lizards in a 
cage is A4 R1, and with those unconfined, Al R4. Species of 
Danais, Delias eucharis, and Papilio aristolochie were freely eaten, 
and Finn concludes: ‘‘The behavior of these reptiles certainly does 
not appear to afford support to the belief that the butterflies, at anv 
rate, usually considered nauseous, are distasteful to them” (p. 48). 
The second series of experiments we refer to are reported in 
*9 “Behavior and-Color Changes of Tree Frogs,” Journal of Animal Behavior,” 
Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan—Feb., 1912, pp. 53, 54. 
3° Journ. Animal Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 3, May-June, 1912, p. 207. 
5\“Oconomowoce,”’ Forest and Stream, 8, No. 20, June 21, 1877, p. 320. 
® Journ. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 65, 1896 (1897), pp. 42-48. 
