| OCR Text |
Show 88/.] VALUE OF COLOUR AND MARKINGS IN INSECTS. 221 continued). xperitnents. A. Weismann. dways refused by L. viridis. E. B. Poulton. Eaten at once by hungry L. muralis. Two specimens eaten successively by the same Frog, and therefore it would seem not to be nauseous to this species. Next day the Moths were found in the case, having been rejected presumably because of iiidigestibility. Refused by L. muralis after biting, although very hungry. H o w far evidence supports the theory of "warning" and "mimetic" colours (Bates and Wallace). Strong support. Also confirmed by Stainton, w ho offered it to Turkeys, with a large number ofprotectively-colouredMoths, all of which were eaten, while the S. menthastri was always rejected after being examined. So far as it goes, against suggestion ; but not tried with sufficient number of enemies, nur with plenty of other food. Strong support. Support from the behaviour of Lizards; the other evidence must, I think, be mistaken. Strong support. Bearing of evidence on Poulton's suggestion, as before. Strong support, especially in the reluctant way in which it was eaten by Robin &c. See Jenner Weir's explanation in case of A.fllipendulcs. N o evidence, unless it should be proved to be nauseous; then this experiment would strongly support suggestion. Strong support in Jenner Weir's explanation as above. In the case of the Frog also hunger very likely caused the insect to be taken, although not retained. Support in that the Lizards were induced to bite it severely. No evidence. PROC ZOOL. SOC-1887, No. XVI. 16 |
