PALATABILITY 



115 



same result followed with ' a Charaxes-eating mantis ' fed principally on Acraeas for about 

 eleven days. This mantis evidently only ate the Acraeas with considerable compunction. 

 Another mantis of the same species was fed on Acraeas, and though it showed great dislike 

 of encedon and serena, and absolutely refused to eat Pardopsis punctatissima, one of which 

 was caught and rejected no less than seven times, the insect did not, at the end of about 

 a fortnight, exhibit signs of ill health. This experiment was not continued. 



A large green mantis {Sphodromantis lineola) was fed on Acraeas for about three weeks. 

 It tasted and constantly rejected caldarena and halali, but during the period ate about nine 

 Acraeas, mostly caldarena, after which it became partially blind and died. 



Another mantis of the same species was fed on butterflies for over a fortnight. The 

 species did not include any Acraeas, but were of such genera as Junonia, Precis, Terias, 

 Catopsilia, &c. The mantis consumed them all eagerly, and during the period named 

 devoured thirty-six examples. It escaped from its cage and was fully as vigorous and healthy 

 on the last day as when first caught. Another mantis, which it was thought might be 

 a seasonal form of one of the others experimented with, ate many Acraeas and Danaines 

 from April 3 to September 8, when it died. It did not show the same signs of distaste so 

 evident in the other examples, though it would not eat Acraea axina. It did not become 

 blind or show marked signs of ill health. 



The same investigator then proceeded to experiment with spiders, the species made 

 use of being Nephilengys malabar crisis. These tests had the advantage that the spiders 

 were not in captivity, as were the mantises. The following is a summary of the results, 

 the number corresponding to the observations made. 



I, 2, and 3. Acraea horia was eaten only when the wings were cut off, entire specimens 

 being immediately rejected. 



4. Wingless specimens of D. chrysippus were at once thrown out of the web. 



5. Wingless specimens of P. hrasidas, P. ophidicephalus , P. euphranor, E. hiarhas, and 

 P. lyaeus were all promptly eaten. 



6. Acraea horta with the colour rubbed off was wrapped up and carried off. 



7. The same species was ejected after being bitten, and subsequently after the colour 

 had been rubbed off, and again after the wings were cut off. 



8. Wingless specimens of P. demodocus were eaten. 



9. Acraea horta, after being several times bitten, was eventually carried off, but 

 ultimately thrown away. 



10. Unsucked specimens of A. horta were observed in spiders' webs in the bush. 



II. Three wingless specimens of the same species were rejected, but one was sucked by 

 another spider. 



12. A wingless Amaiiris echeria was rejected by four spiders, two of which bit it and 

 then would have nothing to do with it. 



13. Terias brigitta, Nepheronia argia, and Precis sesamus were readily eaten. 



14. A. horta was again refused after tasting. 



15. A. violarum was refused by three spiders. 



16. A. horta was ejected from the web by two spiders, tasted and rejected by a third, 

 and ignored by a fourth. 



17. A. buxtoni and Nepheronia argia were eaten. 



18. P. hellica, P. demodocus, and Acraea esebria were eaten, the last with suspicion. 



19. Byblia goetzius-acheloia was eaten after a time. 



20. Wingless specimens of A. horta promptly ejected by three spiders, but a fourth 



p 2 



