322 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 
one man to judge how far even apparently uninteresting results may 
eventually tell for or against a theory—as, too, Mr. Poulton has 
evidently forgotten some of those facts .. . . I think I cannot do 
better than publish the whole of my observations in detail’ (pp. 
463, 464). 
“The most interesting results” made use of by Poulton® are 
remarks upon only four species of insects eaten by birds, while 
Butler’s notes deal with at least forty-seven species of insects and 
other invertebrates. Moreover, without mentioning Butler’s results, 
Poulton discusses the results of his own tests with lizards and a 
marmoset of three other species of insects, which Butler had fed to 
birds. Poulton gratuitously observes: “If I had no more notes 
than those supplied by Mr. Butler, their preparation for publication 
would be only a work of a few hours; but these notes are a very 
small fraction of the whole.” The fact remains, however, that the 
large ‘fraction of the whole,” with unimportant exceptions remains 
unpublished to-day. As a result of this series of experiments, 
Butler concludes that “‘no insect in any stage, excepting the red- 
tailed bumble-bee (which, by the way, I only offered to the missel- 
thrush), was rejected by all my birds; those insects which were 
refused by certain species were eagerly devoured by others. .... 
In the second place, so far from my birds learning by experience to 
reject with scorn that which they had proved to be unpalatable, 
I found that in some instances they seemed to acquire a taste for 
larve previously refused. Birds are very intelligent, but their 
memories are ridiculously short” (p. 473). 
Butler’s third paper” enumerates tests of 17 invertebrates offered 
to birds, with the following principal conclusion: ‘‘My experiments 
have convinced me that the tastes of birds not only differ in individ- 
uals of the same species, but that the same individuals in consecutive 
years vary as to their likes and dislikes.” 
Unfortunately, the experiments of Butler cannot be compared 
with those of Pocock, who also used British insects and both native 
and exotic birds, as Butler does not record the number of times an 
insect was refused or accepted, but only tells what species of birds 
ate it and which did not. Probably the only coincidence of the same 
% Rep. British A. A. S., 1887 (1888), pp. 762, 763. 
9 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1889, pp. 359, 360. 
70 “‘ Notes made during the present year on the Acceptance or Rejection of 
pacers Birds,” Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., Sixth Ser., Vol. VI, 1890, pp. 
4-327. 
