1912.) NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 307 
of the most far-fetched theorizing imaginable. Chaerocampa elpenor 
is its name; ‘‘When approached the anterior part of the body is 
distended and resembles a serpent-like head (of the cobra type)”’ 
(p. 206). In Weismann’s experiments, “A tame jay ate the larva at 
once; sparrows and chaffinches (wild) were frightened by it, and 
would not come near a seed trough in which it was placed; fowls 
were evidently frightened, but in the end cautiously attacked it, 
when it was soon eaten.’ Lady Verney notes that small birds 
“‘would not come near a tray with crumbs on it on which the larva 
had been placed” (p. 206). The larva of Cherocampa is a large one 
(the ocellated spots are present only in last stage; if so useful, why 
is this the case?) and its size alone is’sufficient to explain the actions 
of the small birds. In the case of the sparrows at least, almost any 
strange object of the same size might cause the same reaction. 
Anything new about their regular haunts is viewed with suspicion. 
In regard to the Cobra-like appearance of Cherocampa, Poulton 
says: ‘It is likely that the terrifying appearance of our own larve 
probably first arose in the tropics, where the imitated cause of alarm 
to the enemies of the larve is real and obvious. And it is probable 
that the success of the same method in countries where the reptilian 
fauna cannot be said to constitute a source of alarm is due to the 
inherited memories of a tropical life which live on, as that instinctive 
fear of anything snake-like which is so commonly exhibited by the 
higher land vertebrates, including ourselves” (p. 204). 
What a characteristic piece of selectionist reasoning(?); at least 
four very debatable biological propositions, namely, the tropical 
origin of the European fauna, its origin in a part of the tropics having 
cobras, and instinctive fear in man and other vertebrates, are prac- 
tically taken as established facts. Aside from these assumptions, 
the argument is very amusing also when contrasted with that insisted 
upon by selectionists, in a hundred places, that birds have no instinct- 
ive knowledge of what is suitable for food, but must learn by experi- 
ence. If an instinct of cobra fear is present in birds whose remote 
ancestors may possibly have seen cobras, it would seem that instinct 
about such an every-day matter as food were not a point to strain. at. 
However, it is obvious that both arguments cannot well be sup- 
ported by any but the exceedingly versatile. 
Table III includes seven ‘“‘not inconspicuous larve which are not 
nocturnal and which do not conceal themselves.” Two are not 
shown to be unpalatable to anything and four are included on the 
basis of disregard by birds or lizards, at least two of which are eaten 
