358 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF {June, 
“Tt 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. Such acceptance only proves what 
their action would be when they had been, from some exceptional 
cause, kept without their normal food in its usual quantity and 
variety. Hence the fact that Acrzeas were devoured [by:a ground 
hornbill] is no evidence that they are normally eaten except in a 
time of unusual hunger. On the other hand, the rejection of two 
L. chrysippus, after three Acrzeeas had been readily eaten, indicate 
that the former butterfly is decidedly distasteful to this species of 
bird” (p. 348). .... 
i “ Byblia ilithyia was... . distinguished [by baboons] from an 
.Acrea, but this by no means proves that the resemblance is not 
beneficial under natural conditions (p. 388). .... Considering 
what has been already argued about insect-eating animals in con- 
finement, the acceptances (excluding the Hesperiide#) probably do 
not justify the conclusion that the Lepidoptera were palatable, or 
that they would be sought for in the wild state except under the 
stress of hunger”’ (p. 389). 
“Tt has already been pointed out that the’ refusal or evident 
dislike of insect food by captive animals is trustworthy evidence of 
unpalatability, while acceptance is not proof of palatability ”’ (p. 436). 
It is self-evident that this oft-repeated dictum is merely special 
pleading for the admission of as much as possible of the evidence 
favorable to the theories, and the exclusion of as great a proportion 
as possible of the evidence that might be unfavorable. So plain is 
this fact that even Mr. G. A. K. Marshall, collaborator with Prof. 
Poulton in the paper quoted from, severely-criticized the Professor’s 
attitude. He says® in part: 
“There is. too emphatic an insistence upon the possibility of error 
where an insect is accepted; for it practically casts suspicion upon 
every such case. On the other hand, the possibility of error in the 
other direction is not indicated.” 
The Experiments are not Trustworthy Guides to Behavior under Natural 
Conditions.—The writer is by no means the first to question the 
analogy of behavior under experimental to that under natural 
conditions. The idea is put briefly by L. W. Kline in an article on 
“Methods in Animal Psychology”: ‘‘ Nothing so shrinks and in- 
% Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1908, p. 140. 
9% Amer. Journ. of Psychol., 10, 1898-9, p. 276. 
