306 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 
antiqua, Cucullia verbasci," and Hybernia defoliaria, are known to be 
eaten by British wild birds. The other eight species included in the 
table comprise three others disregarded by caged birds, two of which 
are also eaten by British wild birds. These eight, however, were 
used chiefly in experiments with lizards, and four of them were 
accepted as well as refused upon trial. Of the four only refused, 
one (Porthesia auriflua) was eaten by hungry lizards in Poulton’s 
experiments of 1887.52 Another, Pieris brassice, was eaten more 
often than refused in Pocock’s experiments (reviewed later), and a 
third which was rejected by frogs and lizards is known to be eaten 
by nestlings of Parus major. 
Exception may be taken to remarks about some of the species 
listed in this table. For instance, Deilephila euphorbie was eaten 
by a captive lizard, and Newman says, ‘‘sea-gulls and terns devour 
them in numbers.” We may add to the list of enemies the maiise- 
bussard, on the authority of Schuster.* Poulton’s comment on 
this larve is: ‘‘The correlation of a startling appearance with some 
unpleasant attribute must probably have existed once if not now. 
Have we a case in which hunger or opportunity have caused the 
enemies to neglect the latter and therefore to benefit by the former?”’ 
(p. 199). We cannot so conclude, unless we admit also that similar 
-warning coloration (D. euphorbie is “black, red, and yellow or 
white’’) would lose its meaning (admitting for the purposes of argu- 
ment that it has a meaning) to the same enemies in all other cases. 
It is of interest to note that Hybernia defoliaria, included in this 
table because disregarded by captive birds, was found in the stomachs 
of three species of British birds by Robert Newstead.* Schuster 
(l. c.) records many species of birds as enemies of this larva as well 
as of H. brumata, 
Table II includes four larve which only become conspicuous when 
approached and detected; one is not shown to be unpalatable to 
anything, one was both eaten and refused by lizards, and another 
was eaten by at least two species of birds and avoided without trial 
by two or more other species. The fourth species was refused by 
lizards and poultry, but eaten by nestling great tits. 
One of the larve listed in this table has been made the basis of some 
51 See particularly the note, ‘Do birds eat the larve of Cucullia?” by H. 
D’Orville, Entomologists’ Monthly Mag., VI, June, 1869, p. 16. 
82 Rep. British A. A. S., 1887 (1888), p. 764. 
83 Ent. Bl. Nurnberg, 5, Nr. 7, July 15, 1909. 
“4 Suppl. Jour. Bd. Agr. Lond., XV, No. 9, December, 1908. 
