1912.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 327 
minor part in the experiments, caged as they were with a variety 
of larger birds; the Mesita had an exceedingly brief trial, and the 
Anthracoceros was tested principally with dead and dry insects left 
over from experiments with other birds. Finn remarks that of two 
individuals of this last species, one did not care for insects at all; 
the other on some occasions had to be coerced into eating insects 
of the supposedly palatable kinds. s 
In commenting upon the significance of his experiments Finn puts 
an emphasis on order of choice between insects, which the writer 
does not consider justifiable. These as all other experiments are 
to determine what will be eaten, and the fact that insects not eaten 
in the presence of the experimenter, as a rule, were devoured before 
his next visit or the next morning, shows the futility of drawing fine 
distinctions as to apparent preferences. 
More than 123 butterflies which were left in the cages were eaten 
in the absence of the experimenter or by birds not specified, and 
more than 77 per cent. of them belonged to the ‘‘nauseous”’ group. 
About seventy-two butterflies remained uneaten overnight, though 
it should be remarked that many of these were taken later the next 
day. Of the seventy-two, about 85 per cent. belonged to the ‘‘nau- 
seous”’ group, a percentage practically no different than in the case 
of those eaten. It is worthy of note that the number of butterflies 
left uneaten is definitely stated in every case, while those eaten are 
often included in general terms, as ‘‘some,” ‘‘several,” etc. In 
making these calculations, ““some” has been reckoned as two; 
undoubtedly it sometimes meant more. These expressions occur 
nineteen times for the ‘‘nauseous” group among the butterflies 
eaten in the absence of experimenter, only once for the “palatable” 
group, and not at all in the case of butterflies left over. Hence 
there is no doubt as implied above that the proportions of these 
groups are about the same in the butterflies eaten as in those left 
over. 
In the following table are shown the approximate numbers of 
acceptances and rejections upon trial of both the “nauseous” and 
“palatable” groups of insects. Species of the former group used are 
Acrea viole, Danais chrysippus, D. genutia, D. limniace, Delias 
eucharis, Euplea sp., Euproctis sp., Mylabris sp., Papilio aristo- 
lochie, and Terias sp. The principal species of the “palatable”’ 
group are Catopsilia sp., Junonia sp., Elymnias undularis, Papilio 
demoleus, P. polites, Huphina phryne, Hypolimnas misippus, Nephe- 
roma hippia, Atella phalanta, and Neptis kamarupa. 
