1912.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 325 
The experiments were performed in Ceylon with Gracula sp., 
and domestic fowls. ‘So far as these experiments teach any- 
thing, it would appear that these mainas would eat with relish 
Nissanga patina, Yphthima ceylonica, Atella phalanta, Ergolis 
sp., and Lampides sp. On the other hand, Papilio aristolochie 
and Crastia asela were distinctly distasteful. The evidence 
as to the other species experimented with fails to convince me 
one way or the other” (p. 631). In several of the experiments 
the birds apparently were not hungry enough to care for any- 
thing. 
Experiments in Africa. 
In their extensive and interesting paper on the “ Bionomics of 
South African Insects,’’”* Marshall and Poulton record the results 
of experiments with kestrels (Cerchneis rupicoloides and C. naumannt) 
and.a ground horn-bill (Bucoraz caffer). 
The experiments with the kestrels (pp. 340-345) are characterized 
by the average small number of trials of the various insects used. 
The writer desires to draw attention to only one point in the dis- 
cussion of these experiments. On p. 346, Poulton says with regard 
to some supposedly distasteful beetles which the birds had eaten: 
“It is probable that most of the defensive fluid had been already 
discharged in the case of the Carabide of the genera Piezia, Poly- 
hirma,, and Graphipterus, of which the acid secretion was seen to be 
a very positive protection when there was opportunity for its opera- 
tion on a normal scale.’’ The “normal scale” referred to was the 
offering of the beetles tail first! Marshall found these carabids in 
the stomachs of certain wild birds, and in discussing this Poulton 
says the fact is not remarkable, as “the defensive secretions may be 
discharged and lost as the result of the attacks of an experienced 
enemy” (p. 353). This better illustrates action on a “normal 
scale.” 
The ground horn-bill experimented.upon by Marshall (pp. 347- 
348) ate all butterflies offered it, including several of the reputed 
“protected” forms, with the exception of two specimens of Limnas 
(Danais) chrysippus. Poulton, therefore, remarks: ‘It has already 
been pointed out that the acceptance of insects by insectivorous 
animals in captivity is no proof of their normal likes or dislikes in a 
wild state... .. Hence the fact the Acreeas were devoured is no 
evidence that they are normally eaten except in a time of unusual 
hunger”? (p. 348). Marshall,” however, says: ‘The bird was 
% Trans. Ent..Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. 287-504. 
7 Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, p. 139. 
