1936 - Norris - The Feeding Habitst of The Adult Lepidoptera

THE FEEDING-HABITS OP THE ADULT LEPIDOPTERA
HETERONEURA
By MAUD J. NORRIS,Ph.D. (Mrs. 0. W. RICHARDS).
(Dept. of Entomology, Imperial College of Xcience and Technology.)
[Read 20th November, 1935.1
CONTENTS.
PAGE
1. Introduction . 61
2. Nectar . 63
3. Over-ripe and rotting fruit . 65
4. Juices of sound fruit (fruit-piercing) . 66
5. Exuding sap of plants. . 67
6. Honeydew . 67
7. Honey . 68
8. Artificial sugar-baits . 68
9. Water . 70
( a ) The geographical distribution and environment of water-
drinkers.
( b ) The behaviour of water-drinkers.
(c) The sex of water-drinkers.
10. Animal excreta (dung, perspiration, etc.) 80
11. Summary and conclusions . 84
12. Acknowledgments . 86
13. Bibliography . 86
1. INTRODUCTION.
DURINGthe year 1933 a series of experiments was carried out on the nutritional
requirements of the adults of the Phycitid moths Ephestia kuhniella Z., and
E. cautella Wlk. These experiments gave some rather curious results, the
details of which have been published in another place (Norris, 1934 A). Briefly
speaking, it was found that both the longevity and the fecundity (the number
of eggs hid) of adult E. cautella Wlk. are roughly halved if the moths are
deprived of drinking-water, but that E . kuhniella Z. is only very slightly affected
in these respects by lack of water. It was further found that although the
longevity of both species was considerably increased if the moths were fed on
cane-sugar solution, their fecundity was no greater than if they had been fed
on distilled water only. While, therefore, the insects will feed readily on
sugars, they derive from them no benefit which can normally be of any survival
value. Now adult butterflies feed extensively on the nectar of flowers and it
has naturally always been assumed that they cannot live normally without a
sugar diet. I n view of these experiments with Ephestia, however, it seemed
necessary to prove that the butterflies really do require the sugars and not
merely the water of which nectar is so largely composed. During the summer
of 1934 a small-scale experiment was carried out on Pieris rapae L., the Small
TRANS. R. ENT. SOC. LOND. 85. PART 11. (MARCH 1936.) F
13652311a, 1936, 2, Downloaded from https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1936.tb00239.x by University Estadual De Campina, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
62 Dr. M. J. Norris ofi
Cabbage White butterfly. The results of this experiment verified satisfactorily
the truth of the usual assumption-at least for this species. The details of
the experiment have been published (Norris, 1935B).
On the considerations briefly summarised above the Lepidoptera Heter-
oneura may be roughly divided into the following groups :-*
A. Those which require both sugar and water for normal longevity and
reproduction, e.g. a t least some Rhopalocera.
B. Those which require water but not sugar for normal longevity and repro-
duction, e.g. Ephestia cautella Wlk.
C. Those which can imbibe liquids but which require neither water nor sugar
for normal longevity and reproduction (hypothetical).
D. Those which have the mouth-parts atrophied and are incapable of taking
any nourishment e.g. Rombyx mori L., Lymantria dispar L., etc.
While the existence of these groups is established the number of hepidoptera
which can be assigned to their correct group is, in the existing state of our
knowledge, exceedingly small. Experimental work on the actual food-require-
ments of the adult Lepidoptera is very small and is almost entirely confined to
work on a few economically important species ; such work has already been
summarised (Norris, 1934 A). Concerning the feeding-habits of the adult
Lepidoptera, on the other hand, a considerable number of observations have
been made. Tutt (1897) refers to a number of these in his paper on the drinking-
habits of butterflies and moths, but for the most part the records are scattered
throughout the literature in a highly inaccessible form. I n the absence of
sufficient data on food-requirements it seemed desirable to collect together
in one place as much as possible of what is known about feeding-habits.
Such a survey suggesting, as it does, various probabilities as to food-require-
ments, should provide a useful basis for future work in this field. The summary
is necessarily very incomplete, the observations of Lepidopterists being
frequently published as short notes, often without titles, in the proceedings
of innumerable societies. It has consequently only been possible to collect
together a mere fraction of the observations which must have been published,
in the hope that the sample will be sufficiently representative to illustrate all
essential points. It must also be remembered that there exists a large body
of traditional entomological knowledge which does not necessarily find its way
into the literature. It is, therefore, quite possible that the experienced Lepi-
dopterist may be able to supply answers to some of the questions which I
have had to leave unanswered.
The classification of the Lepidoptera used in the review is, for all practical
purposes, that recommended by Imms (1934). An attempt was a t first made
to standardise the nomenclature used by referring to various standard
systematic works, but it was found that the result of substituting the correct
names for those used by the original authors would merely be to confuse the
general reader and to render the references to published work needlessly
obscure. It may therefore be taken that the name mentioned is that employed
by the author to whose work reference is made; in a few instances it has,
however, been necessary to add the correct name in brackets in order to avoid
confusion arising from referring to the same insect under more than one name
in different parts of the review.
* This question is discussed in greater detail in a previous paper (Norris 1934 A), and
is only summarised here ao far as is necessary to explain the raison d’&e of the present
publication.
The feeding-habits .f the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura. 63
It became evident from the outset that, with the exception of a few econ-
omically important insccts, practically nothing was to be discovered concern-
ing the feeding-habits of the Microlepidoptera. Lepidopterists seldom record
these insects as being captured while feeding a t flowers or a t " sugar," but this
negative evidence is of little value as in most cases they would probably be
ignored. Where they are needed for collections they are more usually obtained
by breeding.
2. NECTAR.
It is a matter of common observation that the majority of adult butterflies
spend a great deal of their time feeding on the nectar of flowers, and it is not
intended t o pursue this subject here in any detail. Exceptions to this condition
will be mentioned later. I n view of the difference in habit which often exists
between the sexes in the Lepidoptera, it would be interesting to know whether
males and femaIes feed on nectar with equal activity. At present there are
practically no data which throw any light on this question, the sexes of butter-
flies caught being seldom recorded. Exceptions to this rule are found in the
work of Robertson (1929) and Fritsch (1928, 1930, 1931 and 1932) where the
sexes of Rhopalocera visiting flowers are in some instances recorded. These
records do little more than show that, as might indeed be supposed, both sexes
do frequent flowers to some extent; they are insufficient to give any idea as
to the relative frequency with which they do so.
The position as regards nectar feeding in the Heterocera is very much less
clear. It is highly probable that a great number, possibly the majority of
species, do not feed a t flowers but either take no food a t all, or take water
only. The subject is to some extent discussed by Ord (1899). He includes
among the flower-frequenting Heterocera the SPHINGIDAE, the NOCTUIDAE
and the PTEROPHORIDAE, among the non-flower-frequenting Heterocera the
BOMBYCIDAE (except Thyatira batis L.), the GEOMETRIDAE (except Larentia
Eupithecia, Anticlea, Iodis, Cidaria, etc.) and the PYRALIDAE (except Pionca
and Scapula).
A list has been made of the Noctuids and Geometrids (British species only)
mentioned as visiting flowers in the following publications :-Ord (1899),
South (1907-1908), Langlois (1925), Robertson (1929) and Tutt (1901-1905).
A very rough analysis of these lists, which need not be given here in full, gave
the following results :-
NOCTUIDAE : 113 species belonging to 62 genera.
GEOMETRIDAE: 29 ,, 9, ,i 15 2,
Sccording to Meyrick (1928) the British NOCTUIDAE number about 345

species and the GEOMETRIDAE about 283 species." Thus about a third of the
total number of British Noctuids are included in these records and only about
a tenth of the total number of GEOMETRIDAE. Needless to say these numbers
represent only a fraction of the nectar-feeding species belonging to the two
families. Many of the rarer species are probably not included, and in many
of the records the genus only is given, in which case the reference was considered
as being t o one species only. This objection holds good, however, for both
families equally, and it seems reasonable to suppose that, as stated by Ord,
the nectar-feeding habit is more general among the Noctuids than among the
* In this calculation the NOCTUIDAEinclude Meyrick's CARADRINIDAE
and PLUSIADAE
and the GEOMETRIDAEinclude his STERRHIDAE,GEOMETRIDAE, HYDRIOMENIDAE,
MONOCTENIADAE and SELIDOSEMIDAE.
64 Dr. M. J. Norris on
Geometrids. Species of Tephrosia and Hybernia may be added to Ord’s list
of the flower-feeding Geometrids.
The SPHINGIDAE are notable nectar-feeders, but exceptions are Smerinthus
and Dilina where the proboscis is reduced, and in Acherontia atropos L., which
has the proboscis adapted to stealing honey from bee-hives. Among the
ARCTIIDAE, a t least some of the “ Footmen ” moths or LITHOSIINAE seem to be
nectar-feeders ; Tutt (1901-1905) records Lithosia complana L., and Oenestis
quadra L. as being flower-visitors. According to South (1907-1908) the “ Tiger
moths ” or ARCTIINAE have an imperfect proboscis and do not visit flowers.
As regards the feeding-habits of the NOTODONTIDAE no information has been
found, but South observes that they are seldom obtained except a t light traps,
and Tutt (1901-1905) has no record of their being taken either a t flowers or
a t “ sugar.” The tongue is known to be rudimentary at least in Stauropus
.fagi L. and in Dicranura vinula L. ; it is probable that most members of this
family do not feed. The LYMANTRIIDAE have the proboscis reduced and so
also have the majority of the Bombycoidea including the LASIOCAMPIDAE, the
SATURNIIDAE and the BOMBYCIDAE.The proboscis is likewise reduced in
most of the Psychoidea but not in the ZYGAENIDAE, and South describes
In0 globulariae Hb. and I . statices L. as being flower-feeders; species of Zygaefia
are well known as flower-feeders.
As has been pointed out before, evidence as to the feeding-habits of the
Microlepidoptera is practically non-existent. I n the course of this investigation
flower-feeding records have been obtained only for eight species of Pyraloids,
three Tineoids, one Tortricid and one Pterophorid. It is probable that the
majority of the Microlepidoptera do not feed on nectar, but it is, on the other
hand, very unlikely that the habit is as rare as might be supposed from the
exceedingly small number of records quoted above.
No data concerning the sexes of Heterocera taken a t flowers has been
forthcoming.
The British wild flowers which are most characteristically visited by the
crepuscular and nocturnal moths are the following :-ivy (Hedera helix), sallow
(Xaliz spp.), campions (Silene and Lychnis spp.), wild sage (Salvia spp.), wild
thyme (Thymus serpyllum), ragwort (Xenecio jacobaea), knapweed (Centaurea
nigra), thistles (Carduus spp.), hemp agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinurn), rush
(Juncus spp.) and sedge (Carez spp.). Ord (1899) observed that salloy, ivy
and ragwort attract more moths than all the others put together, and these
are certainly the flowers most worked by collectors. It is doubtful whether
sallow and ivy are really specially attractive or whether their popularity is
merely due to their flowering in the spring and autumn when few other flowers
are available. Favourite garden flowers are berberis (Berberisvulgaris),tobacco
(Nicotiana sp.), pansy (Viola spp.), golden rod (Solidago sp.), and valerian
(Valeriana spp.).
It is a matter of controversy how far the Lepidoptera are attracted to flowers
by scent and how far by sight. It is noticeable that most of the flowers which
attract nocturnal moths are highly scented and not necessarily conspicuous ;
Knoll (1927), however, showed that the nocturnal Sphingid Protoparce convolvuli
L. was attracted almost entirely by sight to the dark purple blossoms of
Nicotiana, when it was so dark that they were invisible to the human eye.
It is therefore quite possible that nocturnal moths use sight in finding
flowers to a greater extent than might be supposed merely on grounds of what
the human eye can discern. At the same time it must be remembered that
the SPHINGIDAE may be exceptional in this respect. There are various sugary
The feeding-habits of ihc adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura. 65
substances other than flower nectar to which Lepidoptera are attracted definitely
by scent alone. Included in this category are rotting fruit, the outflowing sap
of trees and other plants, aphid honeydew and the fermented sugar-baits used
by entomologists for the capture of crepuscular and nocturnal Heterocera.
These substances are attractive on account of the strong smell given off during
the processes of fermentation, and experiments with artificial baits show that the
liquids, to be attractive, must be in a state of fermentation. The Heterocera
are, as a group, much more generally attracted to such substances than are
the Rhopalocera and it is probable that the great majority of the sugar-feeding
nocturnal moths are, in some degree, so attracted. The work of Knoll (1926)
and of Ilse (1928) has shown that the Rhopalocera may be roughly divided
into several groups according to the method by which they find their food.
Many of the flower-visiting butterflies are attracted to flowers entirely visually ;
a flower, either up or down wind is sighted and then approached in a direct
line, the olfactory sense playing no part in the attraction except, in some cases,
when the insect is very near the flower. To this group belong the Pierines
and the Papilios. At the opposite extreme are those butterflies which are
guided to their food entirely by scent ; the food is generally strongly smelling
and the insects approach it with a probing, zigzag flight. Examples of this
are found in the Nymphalines Charaxm.jasius L. and Apatum iris L., neither
of which are known to visit flowers. Under certain conditions some species
of Vanessa may be similarly attracted by scent alone. According to Ilse
(1928) most butterflies belong to an intermediate group where both colour and
scent are the attractive agents, the scent calling attention to the flower in
the first instance and before it is actually seen. It having been shown that
certain members of the NYMPHALIDAE are more responsive to odours than other
Rhopalocera it is not surprising, as will be seen in succeeding sections of this
paper, that most of the butterflies which visit strongly smelling but visually
unattractive substances belong to this family. This question will be more
fully discussed in a later section.
3. OVER-RIPEAND ROTTINGFRUIT,
A number of Lepidoptera are strongly attracted to the sweet juices of
over-ripe fruit, either while it is still on the plant or after it has fallen to the
ground. In temperate countries thc chief frequenters of rotten fruit are the
NOCTUIDAE, and Tutt (1901-1905) says that ripe yew-berries in the autumn
attract nearly all the species which normally visit the flowers of the ivy. Ripe
blackberries and plums are also particularly attractive to Noctuids. Hewett
(1888) describes how, on one occasion, the absence of moths a t artificial sugar-
baits was explainedwhen they were found swarming over the ripe fruit in a neigh-
bouring plum orchard ; 15 species of Noctuids were taken on the fruit. Barrett
(1900) mentions 40 species of Noctuids taken feeding on damaged peaches in
South Africa. The most characteristic British fruit-feeders, to judge from the
frequency with which they are recorded by different workers appear to be
Anchocelis pistacina Fb. (on yew-berries), Dasycampa rubiginea Fb. (on yew-
berries), and Gonoptera Zibatrix L. (on blackberries). South (1907-1908)
describes the Nolid Sarrothripa rewyana Tr. as feeding on ripe blackberries,
but apart from this no references have been found to Heterocera, other than
Noctuids, feeding on ripe fruit. The only British butterfly described as visiting
ripe fruit to any extent is Pyrameis atalanta L. which feeds on plums (Morgan,
1925, South, 1906). Kirby (1894-1897, I: 93) stated that Vanessa antiopa L.
66 Dr. 11. J. Norris on
feeds on fallen fruit. Probably the most consistent butterfly fruit-feeders
belong, however, to the non-British genus Charaxes. Knoll (1926) has studied
the behaviour of Charaxes jasius L. in Dalmatia in great detail. Both
males and females of this species were observed to feed mainly on ripe figs,
grapes, and the fruits of Solanum lycopersicurn. They never visited the neigh-
bouring Erica flowers on which swarms of other Lepidoptera were feeding.
Other observers agree that these butterflies never visit flowers. De Nic6viIle
(1895, J . asiat. Xoc. Bengal,64),describes all species of Thaumantis andMymEesis,
Zeuxidia aurelius Cram. and Euthalia dirtea Fab. as frequenting fruit juices.
Morpho hecuba L. has been seen feeding on rotten bananas (Moss, 1933), and
Seitz (1894) saw Neptis aceris Cram. on a fruit-barrow in Tokyo. There is no
mention on this habit in connection with any species of butterfly outside the
NYMPHALIDAE.
OF SOUND
4. JUICES FRUIT(FRUIT-PIERCING).
Some Lepidoptera have the habit of piercing the rind of fruit with the
proboscis and sucking out the juices. These fruit-suckers are most frequently
reported from Africa, where citrus fruits, apples and peaches are attacked.
Unripe fruit is often attacked and the decay resulting from the punctures
made by the insects may cause serious damage to crops. The true fruit-
suckers nearly all belong to the NOCTUIDAE, important African species being
Ophideres materna L., 0. fullonica L., Aletia argillacea Hb., Achea lienardi
Boisd., and A. catocacloides Gn. Hargreaves (1929) records the habit for six
Gold Coast species of NOCTUIDAE,and Brain (1929) records it for six
South African species. The species mentioned by these authors and not
included in the above list are the following :-Hypocala rostrata Fab., Erebus
walkeri Butl., Berrnaleipa rubicata Holl., Xphingomorpha chlorea Cram., Xerrodes
partita Fabre., and Anna tirhaea Cram. Ophideres materna L. and 0.fullonica
L. are the principal fruit-suckers in India (Susainathan, 1924) and also in
Australia (Tillyard, 1926). As Leefmans (1932) has pointed out, many records
of fruit-sucking may really refer to moths which do not themselves puncture
the fruit but merely suck a t the holes previously made by the true fruit-suckers
such as Ophideres. For this reason records of fruit-sucking on the part of any
species must be regarded with suspicion unless detailed observation of the
feeding processes or morphological examination of the proboscis has been
made. Leefmans (1932) has described the proboscis and method of feeding in
Ophideres fullonica L. The moth settles on the fruit with outspread wings
and the head is moved up and down quickly, the stiff serrated tip of the pro-
boscis acting meanwhile as a drill. Breitenbach (1877) pointed out that the
teeth on the proboscis of Ophideres point backwards and only tear the fruit
tissues during the outward movement. Further, one half of the proboscis is
a little shorter than the other so that the sharp tip is rendered as fine as possible.
It is unlikely that any species of Lepidoptera having a perfectly typical proboscis
could pierce the skin of any fruit, much less the tough rinds of unripe
citrus fruits. The tip of the proboscis must a t least be stiffer and more pointed
than is the general rule, even although serrations, as in Ophideres, may not
be present. Brain (1929) only states that the tip of the proboscis is modified
in Ophideres and Serrodes, but it is not clear whether or not the proboscis of
the other species mentioned was examined.
The fruit-sucking habit is infrequent among the Rhopalocera, but Howard
(1909) describes how a whole crop of apples and some quinces in east Africa
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Hetcronewa. 67
were ruined by the attack of the adults of the Nymphalid Crenis boisduvali
Wallgr. The butterflies sucked all the juices out of the fruit and the action
of puncturing the rind was aetually observed. Decay set in and the fruit
fell t o the ground, after which the butterflies continued to feed on the decaying
mass. The same author describes a similar attack by Charaxes neanthes Hew.
and C. zoolina Westw. on oranges. Hundreds of the butterflies were present,
and as many as seven or eight were often seen on one fruit. Howard stated
that he was unable to find any other references to Rhopalocera damaging fruit
in this manner. Knoll (1926) observed Charaxes*jasius L. piercing holes in
the ripe fruits of Solanum lycopersicum ; it is therefore probable that the habit
is more or less characteristic of the genus Charaxes.
5. EXUDING
SAP OF PLANTS.
The exuding sap of wounded trees is very attractive to a number of Nymph-
alid butterflies. There are many records of the butterflies feeding to excess
on these liquids and becoming completely intoxicated and incapable of flight.
The literature of this subject has been reviewed by Pox Wilson (1926). The
British species most commonly found a t the sap of oaks and willows is Pymmeis
atalanta L., which is also the butterfly most often found on rotten fruit. There
are also a few British records for Vanessa antiopa L. and V . polychloros L.
(Benson, 1877; Peachall, 1900); other species mentioned by Pox Wilson as
feeding on sap in Europe are Vmessa c-album L., Limenitis carnilla Xchiff.,
Argynnis pandora Schiff., Apatura iris L. and Satyrus spp. One Lycaenid,
Zephyrus quercus L., is mentioned. Knoll (1926) and Trimen (1862-1866 : 166)
describe the fruit-feeding Charaxes as being much attracted to sap, and
Carpenter (see Poulton, 1918) saw six east African Charazes, all of different
species, feeding a t one time on the sap of a tree. Various references to other
tropical sap-feeders are made by De Nic6ville (1895) and Kirby (1894-1897) ; the
species referred tobelong, without exception, to the NYMPHALIDAE. It is remark-
able that the NOCTUIDAE, which are the predominant visitors a t most sugary
fluids, are hardly ever recorded from sap. Pox Wilson (1926)found several un-
specified Tortricids caught in sap, but states that few Heterocera were actually
found feeding on it ; species of Catocala, Plusia and T'riphaena are the only ones
mentioned in his review. It is, however, highly likely that this peculiarity
may be due to the trees having been observed mainly during the daytime.
6. HONEYDEW.
The sweet secretion of Homoptera, known as honeydew, has frequently
been found to attract enormous numbers of Noctuids. Pittoni (1923) gives
a list of 37 species of Noctuids taken a t the honeydew of aphids on a peach
tree in Austria. Nearly all the species were also taken a t artificial sugar-baits
in the same neighbourhood. Further lists of Noctuids taken a t honeydew
are given by van Duzee (1885) and by Manson (1931). None of these workers
mention any species outside the NOCTUIDAE.Thorpe (1928) in carrying out
some experiments with adults of the Tineid Hyponorneuta cognatella Tr. ob-
served that the captive moths frequented certain shoots of the food-plant which
happened to be infested with aphids. They moved about actively with the
proboscis extended, prodding a t the leaves ; when an aphid was touched with
the proboscis a drop of honeydew was exuded and.was immediately sucked
up by the moth. It was observed that the moths did not seem to stroke the
aphids intentionally but merely to prod them more or less by accident. Mar-
telli (1916) describes the Pyralids Glyphodes unionalis Hb. and Zelleria oleastrek
Mill. as feeding on the excretions of olive scale insects. Jack (1885) records
having found the Nymphalids Vanessa antiopa L., Limenitis arthemis Drury
and L. disippus Godt. drinking honeydew. The most remarkable honeydew
visitors are, however, to be found among certain LYCAENIDAE.This relation
between Lycaenids and aphids has been fully discussed by Clark (1926); it
is believed to be in some way connected with the larval habit developed in
some members of this family of living carnivorously in ants’ nests. The
species mentioned by Clark belong to the genera Gerydus, Allotinus and Meg-
alopalpus. Poulton (1912) recorded the habit for Epilota honorius Fal. and
Hewitsonia boisducali Hew. These butterflies settle among the aphids, usually
in company with ants, and suck up the honeydew. An early record of the
habit is found in Bingham, 1907, Fauna of British India, 2 : 287-288, where
the observations of H. J. W. Barrow on Allotinus horsjieldi Moore are described.
The butterfly was seen to stroke the aphids with the proboscis just as the ants
do with their antennae. Similar stroking motions were observed by Roepke
(1918) in Gerydus boisduvali Moore. Clark (1926) found that, a t least in
Megalopalpus zyrnna Doubl. & Hew., the habit was equally common ahong
males and females.
7. HONEY.
The Death’s Head Hawk-Moth, Acherontia atropos L., instead of visiting
flowers for nectar, as is the habit of other Sphingids, enters the hives of bees,
pierces the wax opercula of the cells and sucks out the honey. The habits and
morphology of this insect have been described by d’Herculais (1916). The
particularly robust proboscis is much sclerotised and sharply pointed, so that
it is well adapted to piercing the honey cells. A curious feature is that the
aperture of the proboscis, through which the fluid enters, instead of being
terminal is situated dorsally a little behind the tip. Hering (1926 : 126) states
that Amorpha populi L. and Sphinx ligustri L., are also honey-stealers. This,
however, seems rather dubious, since Meyrick (1928) describes the proboscides
of both these species as being imperfect. No further records of the occurrence
of this habit in other species of Lepidoptera have been traced.
8. ARTIFICIALSUGAR-BAITS.
One of the commonest methods of catching nocturnal and crepuscular
Heterocera is by attracting them to fermented sugar-baits. This is employed
both as a means of catching them for collections and aIso as a means of pest
control. There is an enormous literature dealing with this subject, and it
provides a very valuable source of information concerning feeding-habits.
It is true that the moths which come to the sugar-baits are attracted by an
artificial medium, but their presence there indicates that they do normally
feed on one or more of the natural sugary substances mentioned in the preceding
sections. Generally speaking, the records of economic trapping experiments
give the best details concerning the numbers of moths caught, the proportions
of the sexes, the chemical nature of the baits and so on, while it is necessary
to consult collectors’ records for variety of species.
The baits, to be ,attractive, must be in a- more or less fermenting state,
although they have sometimes been found to be more attractive during the
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepidopteru Heteroneura. 69
early than during the later stages of fermentation. The moths are attracted
to the baits by their olfactory sense only--needless to say there can be no
question of visual attraction-and since unfermented sugars are practically
odourless it is natural that they should not be visited to any great extent.
The chemical factors involved have been experimentally investigated by many
workers. Important examples of such work have been published by Frost
(1926, 1928 and 1929) and by Peterson (1925 and 1927), both working with
-
the Tortricid Cydia molesta Busck, and by Eyer (1931) working with Cydia
pomonella L.
It is noticeable that the nocturnal sugar-visitors belong to the same families
and often to the same species as the nocturnal flower-visitors which justifies
the assumption that the appearance of a moth a t sugar-baits indicates that it
is normally a sugar-feeder. Thus it is well known that most of the NOCTUIDAE
come to the baits, and although there are doubtless exceptional species which
do not, it is difficuIt to discover which they are. Negative evidence in a question
of this kind means so little. The only Noctuids definitely stated by South
(1907-1908) not to visit sugar are Heliophobus hispidus Hb., Luperina testacea
Hb. and Acosmetia mliginosa Hb. Kirby (1882) observes that the genera
hTonagria,Cucullia and Plusia are not attracted ; this might indeed be expected
in the case of Plusia, as most of the species are diurnal and the baits are usually
employed a t night.
The late Mr. R. Adkin was kind enough to give me some unpublished
details concerning the species other than Noctuids which were caught during
a whole season’s sugaring from June to October, 1924. The following is a n
analysis of this list :-
GEOMETRIDAE: 16 specimens belonging to 10 species.
TORTRICIDAE
: 27 >> >7 7 9,
PYRALIDAE : 5 >7,, 2 ,,
TINEIDAE: 3 9, 7, 1 9,
PTEROPHORIDAE
: 2 >7 77 2 ,Y
Considering the enormous number of Noctuids which would be caught during
such a season of sugaring this catch is sufficiently meagre to leave no doubt
that, just as the majority of nectar-feeders in the Heterocera belong to the
NOCTUIDAE, so the majority of the sugar-visitors belong to the same family.
The principal sources consulted for records of Heterocera other than Noctuids
visiting sugar are the following :-Adkin (1925 and unpublished data), South
(1907-1908), Carr (1916) and Tutt (1901-1905). 25 species of Geometrids,
7 Cymatophorids, 6 Arctiids, and 3 Sphingids are mentioned by these workers.
Nymphalid butterflies occasionally visit sugar patches during the daytime ;
Tutt (1897) recorded that the following specimens were taken a t sugar a t
Brockenhurst :-4 Dryas paphia L., 1 Eugonia polychloros L., 4 Vanessa i o L.,
1 Pyrameis atalanta L., 6 Limenitis sibylla L., 1Apatura iris L., 4 Pararge egeria
L., 1 Epiniphele ianira L., 1 E. tithonus L. and 1 Enodia hyperanthus L.
Standfuss (1896) said that sugar-baits were visited in the daytime by species
of Apatura, Vantssa, Pararge and other Satyrids.
As regards the sexes of the moths caught a t sugar-baits, it seems that there
is no particular tendency for one sex to preponderate. The exact proportions
of males and females caught naturally varies considerably in different instances,
but speaking generally males and females are attracted equally. This point
is illustrated by the examples given in the following table.
70 Dr. M. 5. Norris on
Family. Species.
yoFemales Authority.
caught.
VOCTUIDAE. Feltia gladiaria Morr. 50% Crumb (1929).
F. ducens Wlk. and
F. subgothica Hard. 33.8% 9,
F . exclamationis L. 87.1% Coriainov (1915).

Noctua badinodis Grote. 14.40/0 Crumb (1929).
Polia renigera Steph. 54.5%
P. oleracea L. 71% L l k d (1diO).
Agrotis ypsilon Roth. 56.5%, 52.1% Woodhouse ’ & D u t t
and 38.4% (1913).
,9 54.7% Crumb (1929).
Lycophotia saucia Hb. 90% 99 ,,
1, Prodenia ornithogalli Gn. 54.5% 99
Euxoa segetum SchiE. 64% Dobrovlj&qky (1913).

9 ,, ,, 19.8% Goriainov (1915).
CORTRICIDAE. Polychrosis botrana Schiff. and
Clysia ambiguella Hb. 46% Lafforgue (1914).
3, 53% Feytaud (1913).
9, Clysia ambiguella Hb. 65.1% Moreau & Vinet (1919)
Cydia pornonella L. 53% Fowler (1927).
,, ,, 9, 60 Spuler (1927).
C. rnolesta Busck. , Amrox. 50% Frost (1926).
I
I -
L L
Feytaud (1916) working with vine-moths Clysia ambiguella Hb., and

Polychrosis botrana Schiff., observed that the greater the number of traps in
a given area the greater was the proportion of females caught. From this he
inferred that the females do not scent the baits from such great distances
as the males and are not sufficiently active to fly far.
There is very little accurate knowledge concerning the effects of different
atmospheric and other environmental conditions on the readiness with which
the moths are attracted to baits. It is usually considered that they come in
greater numbers on dark nights than on moonlit ones and that still, thundery
conditions are the most favourable. No good explanation for these tendencies
has, however, been advanced. Seitz (1894) and Skertchly (1889)both observed
that they were unable to attract moths to sugar in the tropics and this has
been confirmed by other workers. Hering (1926 : 128) attributed this to the
rich tropical flora, and pointed out that sugaring in temperate countries is
most effective in early spring, late summer and autumn when fewest flowers
are available.
9. WATER.
(a) The geographical distribution and environment of water-drinkers.
The habit of water-drinking is very widespread among the Lepidoptera,
and has aroused considerable interest owing to various peculiarities in the
behaviour of the drinkers which remain a t present without satisfactory
explanation. A short review of the subject mentioning a few of the most
outstanding records was included by Buxton in his review of insects and
humidity (1932). Tutt (1897) gave a summary of the then existing know-
ledge of the subject, based both on personal observations and on those of
other workers ; to the latter, however, no bibliographical references are given.
Water-drinking has been recorded of a large number of species of Rhopa-
Iocera, and although the habit seems to be more prevalent in some families than
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepicloptera Heteroneura. 71
in others, all families are well represented if the records from different parts of
the world be taken into consideration. Owing to the crepuscular or nocturnal
habits of most of the Heterocera, very little is known of their habits with regard
to water-drinking. Hering (1926 : 128) observed that in Germany the most
numerous water-drinkers are Lycaenids but that even night-moths have been
observed to drink ; the only examples cited are the Sphingid Hyloicus pinastri
L. and some unspecified SYNTOMIIDAE. The most extensive and indeed almost
the only detailed observations on nocturnal drinkers are those of Collenette
(1934), who collected the moths visiting damp sand in Matto Grosso, Brazil.
63 specimens of Noctuids, 8 Notodontids, 234 Geometrids, 5 Uraniids and 26
Pyralids were obtained. Seitx (1894) saw the Brazilian Sphingid Macroglossa
tantalus L. flying from leaf to leaf and drinking dew-drops, ignoring meanwhile
the flowers which were growing in the neighbourhood. Rothschild and Jordan
(1910) recorded the capture by W. Hoffmans of large numbers of nocturnal
Sphingids which were hovering over pools in Brazil. About 2500 specimens
were caught over a period of several weeks; most of them belonged to the
SESIINAE and nearly half to the two species PachyliaJicus L. and P. resumens
Wlk. It does not appear that drinking was actually observed in these Sphin-
gids, but it was taken for granted and it was stated that the moths drank so
much water that jets of it spurted out when they were dissected. This habit
of hovering over pools seems to be very prevalent in the SPHINGIDAE, and
Mr. C. L. Collenette informs me that he observed it very frequently in Matto
Grosso. I made some observations (Norris, 1934 B) on the Rhopalocera and
diurnal Heterocera seen drinking on damp paths in the Alps. The Pyralids
Pyrausta funebris Strom., P. cingulata L. and Titanio phrygialis Hb. were
very abundant, and the Geometrids Cidaria tristata L. and Ematurga atomaria
L. were also fairly frequently seen. Fassnidge (1924) saw the Geometrid
Halia brunneata Thunb. drinking a t wet mud in the Alps and also numbers
of unspecified crepuscular Geometrids drinking in irrigation ditches ; these
were most abundant after particularly hot days. The experiments of Noyes
(1930) claimed to show that the Phycitid moth Ephestia elutella Hb. is attracted
t o pure water in fairly large numbers, although more are attracted to fermenting
sugar-baits. Johnson (1895) described a similar attraction of the flour-moth,
Ephestia kiihniella Z. to wet flour paste in mills. Trapping experiments with
pure water, are, however, seldom carried out since fermenting baits are always
more attractive. A certain amount of indirect evidence regarding water-
drinking may be obtained from the findings of experimental workers who
have shown that some Heterocera require water but not sugars for normal
longevity and oviposition. The existence of such a condition has been shown
in the Gelechiid Sitotroga cerealella 01. (Simmons and Ellington, 1933), in the
Phycitids Ephestia kiihniella Z., E. elutella Hb. and E. cautella Wlk. (Norris,
, the Crambid Crambus tetcrrellus Zinck. (Ainslie, 1917) and in the
1 9 3 4 ~ )in
Tortricids Cydia molesta Busch. (Swingle, 1928)) Polychrosis botrana Schifl.
and Clysia ambiguella Hb. (Marchal, 1912). It may be supposed that these
moths drink water under natural conditions if it is available. Thus Marchal
(1912) found that the vine-moths when kept in captivity drink water with great
eagerness and that, unless they do so, they die prematurely before ovipositing.
It was further observed that the moths haunt the damper parts of vineyards
and that they do not visit the flowers in the neighbourhood; the inference
in this case is obvious. Ditman and Cory (1933) showed that the feeding-
responses invoked in the Noctuid Heliothis obsoleta Fabr. on stimulation of the
tarsal sense-organs by water, are exactly similar to those described by Minnich
in the butterflies Pyameis atalanta L. (1922 A and B) and Pieris rapae L.
(1924).
Fragmentary as is the evidence brought forward in the preceding paragraph,
it does nevertheless suggest strongly that water-drinking is no less general
among the Heterocera than among the Rhopalocera, and that the paucity
of records concerning the former is due more to lack of observation than to
their non-indulgence in the habit. The remainder of this section will be
confined'almost entirely to discussion of the phenomenon as it occurs in the
Rhopalocera.
I n Great Britain itself water-drinking is not practised with any regularity,
but i t has occasionally been observed on very hot summer days, chiefly in
places near the South Coast. Adkin (1898) saw numbers of white butterflies
following a water-cart on the parade a t Eastbourne and settling to drink on
the ground a t intervals. Tutt (1897) recorded seeing Pieris rupae L. and
P. brussicae L. drinking behind water-carts both in Deal and in the busy streets
of Greenwich. He also saw a group of males of the Lycaenid Polyommatus
corydon Poda drinking a t a puddle near the South Foreland lighthouse. Long-
staff (1905) saw a group of 14 or 15 Pieris napi L. drinking a t wet mud a t
Morthoe in Devon. No records of drinking in more northerly parts of the
British Isles have been traced.
Many writers have commented on the prevalence of the drinking-habit in
Lepidoptera of the Alps. The swarms of butterflies which are to be seen
drinking a t damp spots on the mountain paths on any sunny summer day
cannot fail to attract the attention of every entomologist. Comparatively
few really detailed observations on the subject have, however, been published.
The commonest Alpine drinkers are the Lycaenids, Pierines, and Hesperiids,
but the habit is by no means confined to these families. Tutt (1897) commented
in general terms on the swarms of blue butterflies which rise from the runnels
crossing Alpine tracks, and also gave a few specific records. I n the neigh-
bourhood of Digne males of Nomiades cyllarus Rott. are commonly seen sitting
on damp stones imbibing the moisture. On a path in Dauphine the following
butterflies were seen a t a wet spot only one square yard in size :-3 Papilio
podalirius L., 1 Vanessa antiopa L., 2 Leucophasia sinapis L., hundreds of
Polyommatus damon Schiff. and P. corydon Poda, a few P. [Lysandra] bellargus
Rott. and a few P. ustrarche Bergstr. On another occasion enormous numbers
of P. corydon Poda and P. astrarche Bergstr. were seen drinking in Dauphine.
Large numbers of the Geometrids Cidaria populata L. and Larentiu caesiata
Lang, were once found drowned in puddles after a stormy night in the Cogne
valley; it was believed that they came t o drink, and were unable to rise again
during the storm.
My own observations on the Lepidoptera taken drinking on paths in the
Austrian Tyrol have already been referred to in connection with the Heterocera.
By far the most abundant of the Rhopalocera was the small Lycaenid Cupid0
minimus Fuess. ; wherever drinkers were present this species was to be seen
in enormous numbers. The larger Lycaenids seen drinking frequently belonged
to the genera Maculinea and Cyaniris, C. semiargus Rott. being the commonest
of these. Several other species were also observed. Very frequently seen
among the drinkers were the Hesperiids of the genera Pyrgus and Erynnis.
The only Nymphalid drinker was the Satyrine Erebia euryale Esp. Fassnidge
(1924) observed numbers of unspecified Erebias on wet boulders beside an
Alpine cascade. Most of my observations were made a t altitudes of over
5000 feet, from which regions Pierines were absent, but Pieris napi L., Leptidea
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Hetezoneura. 73
sinapis L., and Aporia crataegi L. were seen drinking a t places lower down the
same valleys. At altitudes of over 6000 feet few butterflies were seen and
assemblages of drinkers were consequently absent. Longstaff (1905 : 117)
recorded seeing swarms of Lycaenids drinking a t small puddles in the road in
Germany; the species mentioned are Lycaem alsus Schiff ., L. [Maculinea]
arion L. and L. baeticcc L. Apatura iris L. was also caught drinking a t the
same place; Tutt (1897), Kane (1885 : 55) and Kirby (1882 : 24) all state
that this butterfly is in the habit of settling on the ground to suck moisture.
Goodman (1926) saw masses of Hesperiids sucking a t wet mud on a river bank
in the. Cevennes. The commonest species was Hesperia alveus Hb., but
Carcharodus lavatherae Esp., Spilothris altheae Hb., S. alceae Esp. and Nisoniades
tages L. were also present.
The most important work on the water-drinking butterflies of the United
States is that of Clark (1932) who studied in some detail the assemblages a t
roadside puddles in the district of Columbia. The commonest drinkers in
this region are apparently the yellow Pierines Colias philodice Godt. and
Eurema lisa Boisd. and Lec. ; groups of this latter species consisting of from
four to twenty individuals are seen. Scudder (1889 : 493) also remarked on
the yellow butterflies which are seen ranged in hundreds along the edges of
roadside puddles in New England. Species mentioned by Clark as being
water-drinkers are the following :-
PIERIDAE. "Eurema lisa Boisd. and Lec., "E. nicippe Cr., *Phoebis eubule
L., "Colias philodice Godt.
PAPILIONIDAE. "Papilio glaucus L., "P. marcellus Cr., P. troilus L., P.
polyxenes Fab.
LYCAENIDAE."Phyciodes tharos Drury, "Everes comyntas Godt., Fenisem
tarquinius Fab., Lycaenopsis a r g i o h L.
NYMPHALIDAE. Basilarchia arthemis Drury, Junonia lavinia Cr., Polygonia
comma Harr., P . interrogationis Fab., Vanessa antiopa L., Pyrameis
virginiensis Drury, P.atalanta L.
HESPERIIDAE. "Epargyreus tityrus Fab., Pholisora catullus Fab., Thorybes
daunus Cr., Pyrgus tessellatus Scud.
All the families of the Rhopalocera are thus well represented among the
water-drinkers of this region. It should be noticed that none of the most
characteristic drinkers belong to the family NYMPHALIDAE.Several other
points of interest concerning the habits of drinkers are brought out in this
paper, but these will be discussed in the relevant sections.
The only other temperate region from which detailed records are forth-
coming is South Africa, where some specimens drinking a t mud were taken
by Dixey and Longstaff (1907). Among those recorded were :-
PIERIDAE. Bebnois gidica Godt., B. mesentina Cram., Terias brigitta Cram.
NYMPHALIDAE.Acraea alboradiata Auriv., A. atolmis Westw.
LYCAENIDAE.Axiocerces amanga Westw., Limnas chrysippus L.
By far the greatest number of observations on water-drinkers has been
made in tropical regions where great assemblages of conspicuous butterflies,
most notably Pierines, are a common sight on the banks of streams, damp
places on roads, etc. One of the classical descriptions of such an assemblage
is given by Bates in 1863, Naturalist on the River Amazon, 2 : 227-228. He
wrote :-" It was impossible to walk far without disturbing flocks of them
* The most characteristic water-drinkers.
[butterflies] from the damp sand a t the edge of the water, where they con-
gregated to imbibe the moisture. They were of almost all colours, sizes, and
shapes ; I noticed here altogether eighty species belonging to twenty-two
different genera. It is a singular fact that, with very few exceptions, all the
individuals of these varied species thus sporting in sunny places were of the
male sex; their partners, which are much more soberly dressed and immensely
less numerous than the males, being confined to the shades of the woods.’)
Bates goes on to say that the yellow and orange Pierines belonging to seven
species of the genus Callidryas were the most abundant. The same preponder-
ance of Callidryas was remarked by Gibbs (1912) in the assemblages in. British
Honduras and Guatemala and by Rosenberg (1909) in Colombia. Next to these
in order of abundance (in Bates’s assemblages) were about twelve species of
Cybdelis. Callithen markii Hew. was occasionally present. On some very
calm days the small green Erycinids Symrnachia trochilus Er. were seen literally
swarming on the sand. Collenette (see Collenette, C. L., and Talbot, G., 1928 :
400-9) made some extensive observations on the assemblages of drinkers in
Matto Grosso, Brazil. As many as 2000 individuals were frequently seen in an
assemblage, the commonest species being Catopsilia statira Cram. Four other
speciesof Catopsilia were commonas well as five other Pierines and twelve Papilios.
Also mentioned were a Libythea, seven Nymphalids, two Lycaenids, an Erycinid
and some unspecified Hesperiids. A number of observations made by Carpenter
on the water-drinkers of tropical east Africa have been recorded a t various times
in the Proceedings of the Entomological Xociety of London (see Poulton, 1914,1915,
1917 A and 1918). The information to be derived from these sources may be
briefly summarised as follows :-As in Brazil, enormous assemblages, consisting
principally of Pierines, often are seen drinliing a t wet mud. The predominant
butterflies in these assemblages are species of Pinacopteryx,but speciesof Belenois
and Terias are also exceedingly abundant. Other Pierines mentioned are Tera-
colus, Mylothris, and Catopsilia. Six species of Papibio were observed drinking
as well as many Lycaenids and Hesperiids. The only Nymphalid recorded is
Atella phalanth Drury. Dixey (1906) described a catch of 153 butterflies
all taken with one sweep of the net while they were drinking a t a pool near the
Ripon Palls; 104 of the butterflies were Pinacopteryx vidua Butl. and the
remainder belonged to two other species of Pinacopteryx and five species of
Belenois. It seems that, speaking generally, these two genera of Pierines
contribute the greatest proportion of drinkers to the assemblages of East
Africa, just as Callidryas does to those in many parts of tropical America.
Species of Libythea are also commonly seen drinking in large numbers (Poulton,
1 9 2 7 ~and 1921). It is well known that many Papilios drink water, and
although they are perhaps not usually seen in such enormous numbers as the
Pierines, they feature in most of the descriptions of African assemblages.
Comparatively few of the records are specific, but enough evidence exists to
show that the habit is indulged by a great variety of species belonging to this
genus.
Longstaff (1905) recorded water-drinking in a number of species from
India and Ceylon. The principal butterfly mentioned as drinking in dense
groups is the Pierine Catophaga paulina Cram. ; on one occasion a net put
down over an assemblage a t wet sand caught 38 individuals of this species,
as well as 4 Huphina and 1 Hebomoiu. Another abundant Pierine was Cutop-
silia pomona Fab. Six species of Papilio and a number of Lycaenids and
Nymphalids are also mentioned. De Nic6ville (1895) referred to the habit of
water-drinking in connection with many of the species described. Analysis of
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura. 75
his records show that the occurrence of the phenomenon differs in no essential
respect from its occurrence in south America, Africa, and India. Pierines are
as usual predominant in the assemblages, the principal species being Catophaga
leis Hb., Catopsilia crocale Cram., and nearly all species of Terias. The pre-
dominant Lycaenids are of the genus Nacaduba, of which all species are said to
be particularly fond of water. Seven other species of Lycaenids and four
Hesperiids are recorded. Special mention is made of the Nymphalids Junonia
atlites Johanns., Cyrestis irrnae Forb. and Charaxes delphis Doubl. and ten other
species are recorded ; this is an unusually large number for the family. Of
Papilionids nine species of Papilio as well as Leptocircus rneges Zink. and Troides
brookiana Wall. are said to drink. This last species has been seen drinking in
large assemblages in the Malay States (Poulton, 1925 A) and Kirby (1894) gave
a translation from the Dutch of a paper by Piepers in which are described two
remarkable flower-like assemblages seen in Celebes. One of the ‘‘ flowers ”
was composed of two concentric rings of Callidryas scylla L. surrounding a group
of white Pierines ; the other was composed of Pieris zarinda Boisd., and other
Pierines. Poulton (1911) recorded that in Borneo Terias hecabe L. often settles
to drink in closely packed assemblages.
The foregoing summary of water-drinking as it occurs in different parts
of the world is necessarily very fragmentary; there exist huge regions from
which no records whatsoever are forthcoming. At the same time the evidence
is sufficient for certain generalisations t o be made with some degree of safety.
In all regions where drinking occurs the predominant (diurnal) drinkers are
nearly always Pierines. Where this is not the case, as a t high altitudes in the
Alps (see p. 72), it is probably due simply to absence of Pierines from the
region as a whole. This usually unknown factor of abundance of individuals
of a species in the region as a whole, has always to be taken into account before
any estimation of the relative frequency of drinking between two species can
be made. Judging from what is seen in the Alps, it would seem that the
drinking-habit is a t least as highly developed in the Lycaenids as in the Pier-
ines ; that it has been less commented on by observers in the tropics may be
due to the Lycaenids being rendered less noticeable by the ubiquitous and
more conspicuous Pierines and Papilionids. The habit is also undoubtedly
very highly developed in this last mentioned family. I n the NYMPHALIDAE,
on the other hand, the habit is definitely less prevalent. I n none of the descrip-
tions of water-drinking do the members of this family feature to any great
extent. It is true that De Nic6ville (1895) and Clark (1932) describe a fair
number of species as visiting water, but assemblages containing any number
of individuals do not often seem to occur ; most observers either record one
or two odd captures or do not mention them a t all.
The exact nature of the environmental factors which determine whether or
not drinking shall occur in any particular region, are very little understood.
The same species may be a habitual drinker in one region and not in another,
so it is clear that the presence or absence of drinkers depends more on the
environment than on the character of the local Lepidopterous fauna. That
atmospheric conditions are important is demonstrated by the fact that, in any
one region, drinking may occur on some days and not on others. Drinking is,
speaking generally, more prevalent in the tropics than in temperate countries,
and, in countries such as Great Britain, where it seldom occurs, the exceptions
are always noticed on unusually hot days. Consideration of these facts points
t o the natural conclusion that drinking is induced by high temperature. But
this explanation is insufficient to account for some peculiarities in the
76 Dr. M. J. Norris ow
distribution of drinkers. Simes (1934) pointed out that, although drinkers are
common in the maritime Alps, they are not to be seen on the Mediterranean
Coast of France. Nor have I ever observed butterflies drinking a t the small
Mediterranean springs which are so much frequented in summer by the
Hymenoptera of this excessively arid region. Sheldon (1934) comments on
the rarity with which butterflies are seen drinking in Trinidad. It is the
existence of such anomalies which make it impossible to discern any simple
relation between temperature and the occurrence of drinking. Nor is the
position much simplified if the question of atmospheric humidity be con-
sidered. Speaking generally the Alps definitely provide a much damper
environment than the Mediterranean coast during the summer months.. A
glance a t the vegetation of the two regions is sufficient to show that this is
true. Nevertheless it seenied possible that, on a hot and sunny day, the
relative humidity of the atmosphere may be lower a t high altitudes than at
low ones near the sea. But examination of the very insufficient meteorological
data which are available gave no striking confirmation of this idea. It is
likely that the phenomenon might be better related to saturation deficiency
than t o relative humidity; but the necessary data for testing this point are
not available. I n any case drinkers are seen in the Alps when the sun comes
out soon after heavy rain when, according to any standards of measurement,
the atmosphere must be infinitely damper than it could normally be during a
summer month in the Mediterranean. Moreover, Collenette (1928) mentions
that Brazilian assemblages were more abundant after heavy rain. These
considerations serve to show how badly in need of investigation are the problems
concerned with the occurrence of water-drinking.
(b) The behaviour of the water-drinkers.

The tendency for the water-drinking Lepidoptera to congregate in closely
packed assemblages at drinking places has always attracted much attention.
This tendency is well marked in Pierines, Lycaenids, Papilionids and Hesperiids,
all of which sometimes form groups of their own and sometimes come together
in mixed assemblages. Similarly groups may be formed all of one species or,
as is more frequent, of several species. I have described in detail (1934 B) the
composition of some of the assemblages in the Austrian Tirol. The bulk of
the assemblages at high altitudes in this region is formed by Lycaenids, but a t
lower altitudes Pierines are present. The diurnal Heterocera seen drinking
were almost all solitary, the only exception being the Geometrid Cidarria
tristata L. which was often seen in the assemblages. The typical assemblage-
makers are of course sometimes seen drinking in solitude, but this is probably
less usual in Pierines than in members of other families. Clark (1932) drew
a definite distinction between the typical " puddle-butterflies which assemble
))
together a t puddles and what he termed the " roadside-butterflies '' which are
fairly often seen drinking, but never in groups. Collenette (1928) divided the
butterflies caught a t damp sand in Brazil into several categories according to
their behaviour with regard to assemblage formation. The categories being
as follows :-(1) Those which make up the main bulk of the assemblages and
settle together without distinction of species-these were all Pierines. (2)
Those which either mix indiscriminately with the main assemblage or form
gatherings of their own-five species of Papilio and one of Terias. (3) Those
which form gatherings of their own on the outskirts of the main assemblage
or apart from it-the Nymphalid Megalura, an Ericynid, two Lycaenids and
some Hesperiids. (4) Those which either form groups of their own or drink
in solitude-four species of Papilio, one of Libythea, and one of the'Nymphalid
Haematera. (5) Those which usually drink in solitude-these were all Nymph-
alids and Hesperiids. Experiments with dead decoy specimens of the Pierine
Catopsilia indicated that the formation of the assemblages depended largely on
a visually-determined instinct to crowd together ; it was inferred that other
factors must be a t work in determining the choice of drinking spot in the
case of less constant assemblage-formers. Clark (1932) also found that when
a dead, yellow Pierine, or even a piece of yellow paper, was thrown down on
the mud, a group of butterflies soon assembled round it. These observations
are quite compatible with what is known concerning the importance of sight
in the finding of flowers by Pierines (see p. 65). It is probable that flower-
visiting and assemblage-formation are two manifestations of the same instinct.
How far the choice of a drinking-spot by the originator of the assemblage depends
on chance and how far on definitely attractive properties of the water a t the
spots in question, is a matter of some doubt. Butterflies are frequently seen
to return persistently to the same patch of ground after having been disturbed,
and it may be supposed that in these instances some definite chemical attrac-
tion must be at work. This point, however, may better be discussed in a
later section.
Butterflies, a t least in the Alps, drink only when the sun is shining; the
assemblages disappear at once when the sun goes behind a cloud. They are
most numerous on the hottest day (Norris, 1934 B). Collenette (1928) observed
that the Brazilian drinkers were most numerous on hot sunny days after rain,
and that although they begin to appear a t about 11.0 a.m. they only reach
their maximum at 1 p.m. There are several records of butterflies drinking
without intermittance for very long periods. Dukinfield Jones (1883) saw
the Brazilian Geometrid Panthera apardalaria Wlk. drinking on wet stones in
the bed of a flowing stream. The moths were drinking continuously and a t
the same time exuding droplets of water from the anus a t the rate of fifty per
minute. The same moth was observed to drink for three hours, and it was
calculated that about 200 times the volume of the body in water must have
passed through the alimentary canal during this time, Baron (1884) observed
numbers of Papilio oribazus Boisd. and of the Pierine Appias saba Fab. behav-
ing in the same manner on the bank of a stream in Madagascar. Layard
(1883) also observed it in several species of Callidryas and Pieris in Ceylon
and in Papilio demoleus L. in South Africa. Skertchly (1889) saw the Papilionid,
Leptocircus curius Fab., pumping water out of the anus in rhythmical squirts
reaching as much as three inches. How far such prolonged drinking accom-
panied by exudation of water from the anus is the rule is doubtful, since few
observers record having watched individuals for any length of time.* Nor is
the physiological significance of this behaviour understood. It has been
suggested that the passage of water through the body has a necessary cooling
effect, or that nutriment is extracted from the water during its passage through
the alimentary canal. Dukinfield Jones, however, pointed out that the
water of the Brazilian stream where his observations on Panthera were made,
was extremely pure and clear.
Lepidoptera have on several occasions been seen to settle actually on the
surface of water-not merely on damp places. Joannis (1901) saw a crowd
* Mr. C. L. Collenette informed me that he never observed water being exuded from
the anus in the Brazilian assemblages; the sandbanks in this instance were not, however,
very wet.
TRANS. R. ENT. SOC. LOND. 85. PART 11. (MARCH 1936) G
of unspecified Pierines resting on the surface of a river, flying off and returning
again to settle a t intervals ; it was not clear, however, whether the butterflies
were drinking or merely bathing. Poulton (1932) records that the Sphingid
Deilephila euphorbiae L. was twice seen to alight on the surface of a pool at
Quetta; the first time it hovered over the surface with rapidly vibrating
wings, but the second time it actually rested on the water with outspread
wings. Some Crambids and Pyralids have been observed to alight on the
surface of the open sea, but this habit is regarded as being an aid to migration
and it is unlikely that any question of drinking is involved (Poulton, 1909,
1928).
( c ) The sex .f water-drinkers.
One of the most interesting and the least understood features of the water-
drinking problem is the greater development of the habit among males than
among females. I n a regrettably large proportion of the records the sex of
the butterflies is not mentioned or the subject is dismissed with a vague remark
t o the effect “ that, as is well known, the drinkers are always males.” Such
comments are unreliable to a degree, since the presence of a minority of females
would probably pass unnoticed by an observer whose ideas on the subject
were preconceived. At the same time sufficient detailed evidence exists to
show that the habit of drinking in open places is very much commoner in
males than in females. Of the 153 Pierines caught in one sweep of the net
near the Ripon falls (Dixey, 1906) not a single one was a female. Longstaff
(1905) saw clusters of 20 or more Catophaga paulina Cram. drinking a t damp
sand; all of these were males. The butterflies described by Bates (1863)
were, with a few exceptions, all males. De NicBville’s records of water-drinking
concern the males only, and he says of nearly all the species that the males
assemble to drink at moist spots but that the females keep to the forest. This
restriction of the females to the forest has been noticed by all tropical Lepido-
pterists. An outstanding exception t o the general rule was reported by
Carpenter (see Dixey, 1915) who remarked that both males and females of the
Pierine Leuceronia thalassina Boisd. assemble to drink at moist spots. This
is the only definite record of female Pierines taking a significant part in
assemblage formation that has been encountered. Collenette (1928)throughout
his work on the Brazilian drinkers only took the following females a t damp
sand :-
PIERIDAE.1 Daptoneura lysimnia Fabr., 1 Catopsilia statira Cram.
PAPILIONIDAE.1 Papilio thoas L.
LYCAENIDAE.2 Leptotes cassius Cram.
NYMPHALIDAE.1 Haematera pyramus Fabr.
Dixey and Longstaff (1907) took at wet mud single females of Terias brigitta
Cram., Acraea alboradiata Auriv., and A. atolmis Westw. Longstaff (1905)
took three females of the Nymphalid Euthalia garuda Moore a t wet mud. All
the butterflies caught by me (1 9 3 4 ~ )in thAlps
e were males, but Simes (1934) saw
several female Satyrines belonging to nine species drinking near Digne. Some
females of the Pierine Aporia crataegi L. and of the Lycaenid Plebeius orgus
L. were also seen drinking. Simes observed that most of these females were
old and worn and they were solitary, not in assemblages. These observa-
tions agree with those of Clark (1932), who remarked that the occasional
females seen at the Columbian puddles were very worn and that the males
paid no attention to them.
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepdoptera Heterimeura. 79
The same preponderance of males over females was seen in the Heterocera
taken drinking at damp sand by Collenette (1934). Of 63 Noctuids taken,
6 specimens were females, and of 234 Geometrids, 2 specimens were female.
Of 26 Pyralids, 1 was female. Of about 30 diurnal Heterocera taken in the
Alps only one Pyralid was a female (Norris 1934 B). The Sphingids taken by
Hoffmanns hovering over pools in Brazil (see Rothschild and Jordan 1910)
were practically all males. Hampson (1900), on the other hand, saw a n
enormous assemblage of the Pyralid Oligostigma arealis Hmpsn. in Ceylon,
and the sexes here were present in equal proportions.
Various theories have been advanced in explanation of this curious sexual
difference in habit, but none is entirely satisfactory since they are all based
on supposition only and not on experimental evidence. The most obvious,
and a t first sight the most reasonable theory, is that of Poulton (1906), namely
that the males fly about more actively in the sun than do the females and
consequently have more need of moisture. This may be so in the tropics
where the females of the species concerned are found only in the forest and
not in the open places with the males. But it is difficult to imagine that this
factor can be very important in such an open habitat as the Alpine meadows,
where the females must necessarily fly about actively in the sun both for
purposes of feeding and of oviposition. Moreover, it is well known that in
temperate countries both males and females of such butterflies as the Pierines
spend much of their time on the wing flying from place to place. Personal
observations on Pieris rapae L. showed that the females fly rapidly from one
place to another, pausing to flutter over each patch of plants, laying a n egg
if a suitable crucifer happens to be present, and then passing on to the next.
It is improbable that the lives of the males can be very much more active
than this. If the females can obtain sufficient moisture from the nectar of
flowers, there is a t least no a priori reason why the males should not do like-
wise. My experiments (Norris, 1 9 3 5 ~ showed
) that male Pierines, no more
than females, can live normally without sugars, even if water is supplied to
them; so there can be no question of the water serving as a n easily obtained
substitute for nectar. Exact observations on the relative frequency with
which flowers are visited by the two sexes would be of the greatest value in
this connection. It is difficult to avoid considering the likelihood that the
male butterflies may have developed a habit from which they obtain no benefit.
It is surely unreasonable to deny that the development of such a habit is a
biological possibility. An entomological precedent for such a state of affairs
is afforded by the Mediterranean Fruit Ply, Ceratitis capitata Wied., the males
of which are attracted in large numbers to ordinary kerosene, while the females
are not attracted a t all (Severin and Severin, 1913). Moreover, even if water
were beneficial to both sexes, it could readily be understood that the females
might be prevented, in the interests of survival, from developing a habit which
would involve their being diverted from the breeding-grounds. It must be
remembered that although the females do not join the assemblages, there is
no evidence to show that they do not drink water in solitude amongst the
herbage. Clark (1932) considers that the puddle-butterflies represent the
newly emerged immature males from overpopulated areas, which, driven away
by the older males, resort to the puddles where (in the absence of the females)
they cease to be pugnacious and become gregarious. This idea is based on
his observation that the drinkers are nearly always fresh-looking, whereas
the males which are found in the surrounding fields are worn and battered.
Clark also states that drinkers are never seen unless the species is common in
the vicinity and that in a certain very dry year, when the numbers of all
butterflies were reduced, none at all were seen a t the puddles. This theory
is interesting, but the evidence in favour of it is somewhat circumstantial,
and many detailed observations on the behaviour of the butterflies and exact
computations of the sex-ratios a t different times would be necessary in order
t o render it fully convincing.
10. ANIMALEXCRETA
(DUNG,PERSPIRATION,
etc.).
Dung-visiting, like water-drinking, is not regularly practised by the Lepido-
ptera of Great Britain, but it does sometimes occur on exceptionally hot days.
Little has been published concerning British butterflies visiting dung, but
personal information seems to show that those most frequently seen on dung
are the Lycaenids Lysandra beblargus Rott. (the Adonis butterfly) and Polyom-
naatus corydon Poda and the Nymphalid Apatura iris L. This last species has
a particularly noticeable attraction to dung as it has also to carrion, rotten cheese
and other strongly smelling, putrid substances. I recorded (Norris, 1935 A)
seeing several specimens of Pieris rapae L. and P. napi L. as well as some
Lycaenids on dung.
Although the majority of butterflies seen drinking in the Alps are settled
on the bare soil of paths, they often settle and feed actually on the patches
of dung. This applies alike to Pierines, Lycaenids, Papilios and Hesperiids.
Seitz (1894) mentions Apatura, Vanessa and Limenitis as being characteristic
dung-visitors. The Satyrine Erebias are particularly attracted to dung (Tutt,
1897 ; Norris, 1934 B) and my observations showed that they normally formed
groups of their own on patches of dung. It was only on one particularly hot
day that they were seen drinking on the bare soil in company with members
of the other families. It was further remarkable that, whereas the dung
visited by the Erebias was often old and dried, that visited by the other butter-
flies was usually fresh and moist. Hering (1926 : 129) says that when the
dung is dry the butterflies moisten it with a drop of fluid from the anus and
then suck this up again. I, however, watched the Erebias while they were
feeding on the dung and was never able to detect the use of this
device. It is probable that Hering had in mind the Hesperiids which are well
known t o behave in this way when attracted to human perspiration on skin,
clothing, and furniture. The principal species of which this habit has been
recorded are the African Hesperiid Rhopalocampta forestan Cram. (Farquharson,
1921; Poulton, 1925 B) and the Alpine Augiades sylwanus Esp. (Richards,
1930; Dietze, 1921). The latter species was once observed to perform the
same actions when attracted to a drop of dried ink (Poulton, 1913), and Kiihn
(1887) observed it in two Hesperiids settled on apiece of dried bird-dung.
The Alpine Erebias are also very commonly attracted to sweat (Seitz, 1894;
Dietze, 1921 ; Norris, 1934 B), but the habit has been more discussed in relation
t o the Hesperiids on account of their curious mode of feeding. Collenette
(1928) captured a number of Nymphalids and Hesperiids a t sweat on clothing
in Brazil ; only the Hesperiids exuded the droplet of water, none of the Nymph-
alids were observed to do so, although the sweat was perfectly dry. There
seems to be little doubt that this habit, so characteristic of the HESPERIIDAE,
is not shared by the NYMPHALIDAE.It is reputed to have been observed in a
Lycaenid of unknown species (Poulton, 1917 B), but it was suggested that the
butterflies in question may really have been Hesperiids. Kirby (1882 : 24)
records the attraction to sweat of large numbers of Apatura iris L. in Germany.
The feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneiira. 81
Standfuss (1884) describes a remarkable swarm of Psychids attracted to sweat
in Italy, about thirty individuals belonging to two species of Psyche being
present ; he saw similar gatherings on several other occasions. Oberthiir
(1876) wrote that the Pierine Anthocharis charlonia Donz. is attracted to sweat
of horses in Algeria. There exists-a large number of rather vague records
concerning the attraction of tropical butterflies to dung and sweat, but only a
few of the more definite ones can be mentioned here. Carpenter (see Poulton,
1918) took the following Pierines on a patch of cow-dung in east Africa :-
8 Belenois mesentina Cram., 5 B. severina Cram., 2 Pinacopteryx simana Hopff.,
1 Teracolus eris Klug, 1 Herpaenia eriphia Godt. and 1 Glutophrissa epaphia
Cram. Poulton (1927 B) records the attraction to water contaminated with
leopard-dung of the following east African butterflies :-Papilio nireus Cram.,
P. bromius Doubl., P. dardanus Brown, Aspenetheus lormieri Dist. and Charaxes
spp. On the same occasion large numbers of the Nymphalid, Crenis sp., were
attracted to human sweat. Longstaff (1905) observed an enormous assemblage
of butterflies at a wet halting-place of bullocks in Ceylon; one sweep of the
net took 50 Catophaga paulina Cram. as well as some odd Nymphalids. Pryer
(1884) describes how the guano impregnated water running out from a cave
in Borneo was frequented by many butterflies of the genera Papilio and Pieris.
Comparison of these observations with those on the water-drinkers in the
corresponding parts of the world demonstrates the essential similarity between
the two sets of records. Sumatran butterflies which have been known to
settle in large numbers on sweat are the Nymphalids Euploea ochsenheimeri
Luc. and Cynthia, juliana Cram. (Forbes, 1885). De NicBville’s Sumatran
record provide an interesting parallel with those from the Alps. It is found
that, whereas many members of nearly all families are said to frequent wet
spots on roads, it is particularly the Nymphalids which are described as
definitely coming to faeces on the roads. There is little doubt that, while mem-
bers of all families are attracted to water and damp soil contaminated with
animal excreta, the Nymphalids are more surely guided to the actual faeces
or main source of the contamination. It is probable that this is due to their
having a more finely developed olfactory sense ; that they find their sugary
foods by scent to a greater extent than other butterflies has been demonstrated
by Knoll and Ilse (see p. 65). Reasons for considering that their visual
instinct for assemblage formation is, on the other hand, less developed than
that of other butterflies have already been discussed (see p. 65), and it
may be supposed that on this account their attention is less diverted from
the actual source of the scent than is the case with members of other
families.
The observations of Collenette (1928) on the butterflies visiting damp sand
in Brazil (see p. 82) are of the greatest importance in c o n n e c t h wkh the
problem of the visits of Lepidoptera to animal excreta. It was noticed that
the assemblages on the river banks were always formed a t fords or a t places
where clothes were washed ; huge stretches of mud intervening between these
places were not frequented by the butterflies, although apparently equally
suitable for drinking purposes. The washing-places seemed to be particularly
frequented, and a similar attraction has been occasionally recorded by other
workers ; thus Swynnerton (see Poulton, 1921) records seeing numbers of
African Libytheas settling at a washing-place and suggested the possibility
that the alkali of the soap was sought after. Collenette carried out some very
interesting experiments which showed that the soap itself was not attractive,
but that if a handkerchief soaked in perspiration was dipped in water and
a2 Dr. M. J. Norris on
then squeezed out on a sandbank frequented by butterflies, that particuIar
spot on the sandbank soon became the greatest centre of attraction. It was
found, on the other hand, that if a similar spot was prepared on an unfrequented
sandbank, it was not usually discovered by the butterflies unless a dead decoy
butterfly was thrown down as well. I n some experiments such decoys were
put down alike on treated and untreated patches of sand; the butterflies were
attracted in both instances but they only remained to form the nucleus of an
assemblage in those places where perspiration was present-in the other places
they simply tested the soil with the proboscis and then flew off again. It was
therefore obvious that, at least in the case of the principal assemblage formers,
the originator of the assemblage finds a suitable place by means of trial and
error, and that the newcomers are visually attracted by the presence of other
butterflies. That is to say the olfactory sense is apparently not employed at
all in the choice of drinking-places. Passing butterflies were only attracted
to an assemblage if they came within seven yards of it ; Mr. Collenette informs
me that this distance was accurately measured and suggests that its constancy
affords further proof of the importance of sight. I n spite of this it was observed
that a t the beginning of each day the originators of the assemblages did tend
t o alight and test the soil a t the fords and washing-places; this was considered
t o be due to some memory of the previous day’s assemblage, but it seems
equally possible that it may be attributed to the operation of some rather
inaccurate olfactory sense acting as a vague attractant to neighbourhoods
where the contamination is particularly concentrated. That scent is not of
prime importance was, however, further shown by the fact that garments
soaked in perspiration and hung up on frequented sandbanks did not them-
selves attract any of the assemblage-forming butterflies ; only the treated sand
was attractive. It was nevertheless possible to attract certain Nymphalids
and Hesperiids to such garments when hung up in the forest, and in these
instances it was thought that scent must be involved. The latter captures
were comparable to those of Nymphalids and Hesperiids so often recorded from
other parts of the world, and there is no doubt whatever that an olfactory
sense is employcd by these butterflies when they are attracted to sweat on
animals and human clothing. That a great proportion of such visits should
be made by Nymphalids only bears out what has already been said concerning
the olfactory sense of the members of this family.
Collenette was also able to attract large numbers of Brazilian nocturnal
Heterocera to perspiration-soaked objects as well as to damp sand; the details
of these experiments were published in a later paper (Collenette, 1934). The
attraction of Heterocera to damp sand has already been discussed (see p. 76),
but it should be mentioned here that they showed the same preference for
fords and washing-places as the butterflies, but they were scattered about in
the favoured spots rather than packed in crowded assemblages. The following
specimens were taken on perspiration-soaked objects :-
Family. No. of males. No. of females.
ARCTIIDAE. 21 -
AGARISTIDAE. 3 -
NOCTUIDAE. 704 314
NOTODONTIDAE. 95 2
GEOMETRIDAE. 418 13
URANIIDAE. 17 -
THYRIDIDAE. 8 -
PYRALIDAE. 84 -
The preponderance of Noctuids is comparable with their preponderance a t
fermenting sugars, and may be attributed to their particularly well-developed
olfactory sense. The high proportion of female Noctuids is remarkable since,
with the exception of the six specimens already mentioned (see p. 78), all the
Brazilian Rhopalocera taken at perspiration were, as is usual with water-
drinkers, of the male sex. It was further noticed that, on any one night,
practically all the specimens of a particular species were of the same sex;
that is to say all males of a species would come on one night and all females
on others. For various reasons this curious fact could not be referred to
sexual differences in dates of emergence or hours of flight, and no satisfactory
explanation of it was forthcoming. It is doubtless owing to their nocturnal
habits that there are so few other records of Heterocera visiting sweat or
dung. Fassnidge (1924) observed numbers of the diurnal Geometrid Halia
brunneata Thunb. attracted to human sweat, and Norris (1934 B) took one
male each of the diurnal Pyralid Titanio phrygialis Hb. and the Torticid
Argyroploce mygindana Schiff. at sweat. Dewitz (1911) observed that the
Tortricid Clysia ambiguella Hb. is attracted to those parts of vineyards where
dung is present.
The assemblages of butterflies described by Collenette are perfectly typical,
both as regards species and sexes, of the water-drinking assemblages noticed
by other tropical observers, and the likelihood that many, if not all, assemblages
may be attributed to contamination of the water by dung or sweat is very
great. It is, of course, hardly possible to dram any distinction between the
two types of contamination, as traces of sweat are probably left behind
wherever animals have been recently; Collenette found that a very small
trace might act as an effective attractant. Here may be an explanation of
the virtual restriction of the assemblages to the pathways in such regions as the
Alps, where I never saw a single drinker except on or beside roads or paths.
There could be no question of the paths being the only places where water
was available, as in many localities, especially after rain, the surrounding
hillsides were streaming with water. It remains to be proved that butterflies
are never attracted to pure water, but the arguments against this taking place
with any frequency are very considerable. It must be remembered that the
vast majority of observations are made in places where animals or man are
likely to have been, and, where this is not true, it is under no circumstances
possible to be sure that the water is uncontaminated unless chemical analysis
is undertaken. These considerations are, however, without prejudice to the
probIem concerning the physiological need which is satisfied by the drinking-
habit. It has been suggested that the attraction of Lepidoptera to animal
excreta is due to their need of certain salts, possibly of sodium chloride (Poulton,
1917 B). Skertchly (1889) described how numbers of Bornean Papilio,
Catopsilia, Terias and Charaxes were attracted both to plain salt and to salt
fish soaked in water and laid out on the sand to dry. Collenette (1928)) on
the contrary, observed that the salt put out for cattle in Brazil never attracted
any butterflies, although it was often quite moist. There exists, a t the other
extreme, the possibility that the insects are really only in search of moisture
but that, water being odourless, they are attracted to it only when contaminated
with the highly-smelling substances which they have come to associate with
its presence. Here we should have an exact analogy with the attraction of
some Lepidoptera to fermenting sugars in adaptation to their need for the
odourless and therefore unattractive sugar. This question of associative
attraction has been previously discussed (Norris, 1934 A). There remains to
84 Dr. M. J. Norris om
be considered the possibility that the development of the habit is accidental
and non-adaptive. These problems can only be solved experimentally, and,
pending the carrying out of such work, further speculation on the subject is
without value.
Dung and perspiration are not the only animal excreta which have been
known to attract Lepidoptera. The Noctuid moth Arcyophora longivalis
G u h has the singular habit of feeding on the moisture exuding from the eyes
of cattle (Marshall, 1915; Brain, 1929 : 257), on account of which it is believed
to be instrumental in transmitting ophthalmia. Shannon (1928) records the
attraction of a large number of nocturnal moths to the secretions of horses’
eyes in the Argentine. These included eight species of Geometrids, a Sphingid,
a Notodontid and a Pyrausta. Some of the moths were seen to be feeding
simply on the sweat, but it was suggested that they were really attracted by
the light reflected from the animals’ eyes. Polygona c-album L. has been
seen sucking the blood of a wounded horse (Seitz, 1894), and a number of
African moths were once found sucking the moisture from a wounded buck
(Marshall, 1915). Human saliva is sometimes said to be attractive to butter-
flies. Tiimler (1885) found that Pieris brassicae L. when kept in captivity
would feed on saliva in preference to sugar solution. Dc NicBville (1895)
reported that Sumatran species of the Nymphalid Mycalesis are often attracted
t o the saliva of the betel-chewing natives.
AND CONCLUSIONS.
11. SUMMARY
The principal source of food of the adult Rhopalocera is the nectar of
flowers ; this fact is too well known to require much discussion. How far the
same is true of the adult Heterocera is exceedingly doubtful. It is certain
that flowers are visited by a large proportion of the NOCTUIDAE, a smaller
proportion of the GEOMETRIDAE, most of the SPHINGIDAE, and by the Lithosiine
group of the ARCTIIDAE.Very little is known concerning the feeding-habits
of the Microlepidoptera; there are only a very few definite records of flower-
feeding, but no generalisations as to its relative frequency in different families
can be made. It has been shown that many butterflies (particularly PIERIDAE
and PAPILIONIDAE) find flowers entirely by the exercise of their powers of
vision, whereas in others (particularly the NYMPHALIDAE) the olfactory sense
is more important. It has also been shown that even a nocturnal moth may
find flowers by sight and not by scent.
There is a number of highly-smelling sugary substances besides flower-
nectar which are frequently fed upon by those Lepidoptera which have a
highly developed olfactory sense. These include the juices of rotting fruit,
the exuding sap of wounded plants, the honeydew of aphids and the artificial
sugar-baits used by entomologists. The principal visitors to such sources of
food nearly always belong either to the NOCTUIDAE or to the NYMPHALIDAE,
but they are occasionally joined by members of other families. Since these
substances can only be detected by their smell they are only attractive when
in a fermenting state. The habit of honeydew-feeding indulged in by certain
Lycaenids is of rather a special nature, arising as it does probably from their
association with honeydew-feeding ants during their larval life. A number of
Noctuids are known to pierce the rind of sound and even unripe fruit in order
t o suck out the juices. I n some of these species the proboscis is modified in
adaptation to this mode of feeding, but it is doubtful whether or not this is
always the case. A few Nymphalids are known to behave in a similar manner.
A curious aberration is seen in the Sphingid, Acheroatia atropos L., which
obtains its sugars by robbing the honey from bee-hives. So far as positive
records go, it seems that all these sugary substances are visited t o an equal
extent by the two sexes.
It is well known that a large number of Lepidoptera have the habit of
water-drinking very highly developed. The regular occurrence of this
phenomenon is restricted to certain parts of the world ; it is most noticeable
in the tropics and is also exceedingly prevalent in the Alps, but it does not occur
in the more northerly temperate countries except in unusually hot weather.
The exact nature of the environmental and atmospheric conditions governing
its occurrence are very little understood. For various reasons the habit has
attracted most attention in the Pierines, but it seems to be equally developed
in the Papilionids, Lycaenids, and Hesperiids ; it is probably less developed in
the Nymphalids. Certain Heterocera are known to drink, but very few records
are available. The water-drinking butterflies tend to settle together in closely
packed assemblages, either of the same or of different species. The bulk of
most of the assemblages is formed of Pierines except in districts from which
they are absent, when Lycaenids may predominate. The Papilionids and
Hesperiids also form assemblages, but the tendency is less developed in the
Nymphalids. Such water-drinking is almost entirely confined to the male sex,
and the presence of females in these assemblages in open places must definitely
be regarded as exceptional; the possibility that the females may drink water
independently from the males and not in assemblages has to be considered.
The problem of water-drinking in the Lepidoptera is inextricably confused
with that of their attraction to the dung and perspiration of animals and
human beings. There is some reason to believe that practically all water-
drinking may be primarily due to such attraction. It has been definitely
shown, a t least in one instance, that the formation of a series of perfectly
typical water-drinking assemblages, involving members of all the principal
families, could be traced to the presence of human perspiration in the soil.
It is also true, firstly, that most observations have been made in places where
animals and man may have been present, secondly, that in such localities as
the Alps it has definitely been observed that the drinkers are virtually restricted
to pathways and roads, and, thirdly, that butterflies are very frequently
observed to settle and feed on actual patches of dung.
Such evidence as exists seems to show that Lepidoptera may be attracted
to animal contamination in two different ways. I n the Pierines, for instance,
the originator of the assemblage has been shown to find the suitably con-
taminated patch of soil by methods of trial and error ; when the spot is selected
this butterfly settles down to drink and the newcomers are attracted to it
entirely by sight. I n the Nymphalids, on the other hand, the visual assemblage-
forming instinct is usually less developed and the power of smelling the sub-
stances a t a distance is exercised. This is shown by the particular tendency
of members of this family to visit perspiration on the human skin and clothing
as well as the actual patches of dung lying in a generally contaminated area ;
they are more accurately guided to the actual source of the scent than other
butterflies. The HESPERIIDAE seem to occupy an intermediate position in this
respect between the NYMPHRLIDAE and the principal assemblage-forming
butterflies.
The problem of the physiological needs, if any, which are satisfied by the
drinking of water, pure or contaminated, remains entirely uninvestigated.
86 Dr. M. J. Norris orz
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
I am indebted t o Professor J. W. Munro under whose supervision this
review was written and t o Dr. 0. W. Richards for suggestions and advice of
many kinds. I have also t o thank Mr. C. L. Collenette for reading the manu-
script and making some valuable suggestions.
13. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ADKIN, R., 1898, Lazy days by the sea (chiefly concerning Lepidoptera).
Proc. S. Lond. ent. nat. Hist. SOC.,1898 : 50-51.
-, 1925, [No title.] Ibid., 1925 :56-58.
AINSLIE,G. G., 1917, Crambid moths and light. J . econ. Ent., 10 : 114-123.
BARON,R., 1884, Curious habit of a Brazilian moth. Nature, 29 :503.
BARRETT, C. G., 1900, [No title.] Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 1900 :vii-viii.
BATES,H. W., 1863, The Naturalist on the River Amazons. 2 vols. London.
BENSON,H., 1877, Vanessa antiopa and Sphinx convolvuli in the Isle of Wight.
Entomologist, 10 : 252.
BINGRAM, C. T., 1907, The fauna of British India. Butterflies, 2. London.
BRAIN,C. K., 1929, Insect pests and their control in South Africa. Capetown.
BREITENBACH, W., 1877, Vorlaufige Mitteilung iiber einige neue Untersuchungen
an Schmetterlingsriisseln. Arch. micr. Anat., 14 : 308-317, 1pl.
BUXTON,P. A., 1932, Terrestrial insects and the humidity of the environment.
Biol. Rev., 7 : 275-320, 4 figs.
CARR,F. M. B., 1916, [No title.] Proc. S. Lond. ent. nat. Hist. SOC.,1916: 77-78.
CLARK,A. H., 1926, Carnivorous Butterflies. Ann. Rep. Smithson. Inst., 1925 :
439-508, 5 figs.
-, 1932, The butterflies of the District of Columbia and vicinity. Bull. U.S.
nat. Mus., 157.
COLLENETTE,C. L., 1934, On the sexes of some South American moths attracted
to light, human perspiration, and damp sand. Entomologist, 67 : 81-84.
COLLENETTE, C. L., and TALBOT,G., 1928, Observations on the bionomics of the
Lepidoptera of Matto Grosso, Brazil. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond., 76 :391-414,
6 pls., 1 fig.
CRUMB.,S. E., 1929, Tobacco cutworms. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., 88.
DEKHTYAREV, N. S., 1925, Combating the common Dart Moth by trapping the
adults with fermenting molasses. [In Russian.] Protect. Plants Ukraine,
1925 (5-6) : 54-66, 3 figs. [Abstract in Rev. app. Ent., (A) 14 : 211.1
DEWITZ,J., 1911, Bearbeitung der Literatur der Traubenwickler, Nr. 2. Ber. k.
Lehranst. Wein, Obst, u. Gartenbau Geisenheim a. Rh. Berlin. I911 : 218-277.
DIETZE,K., 1921, Ueber die Fahigkeit getrocknete Substanzen durch Ausscheiden
einer Fliissigkeit zum Aufsaugen losbar zu machen bei Augiades sylvanus
Esp. Ent. Rundsch., 38 : 1.
DITMAN,L. P., and CORY,E. N., 1333, The response of Corn Earworm Moths to
various sugar solutions. J . econ. Ent., 26 :109-115, 1 graph.
DIXEY,F. A., 1906, [No title.] Proc. ent. Xoc. Lond., 1906 :Mi.
--, 1915, Mimicry of Nychitona medusa Boisd. by Leuceronia pharis Boisd.,
extending t o habits and flight. Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 1915 : xcvii-xcviii.
DIXEY,F. A., and LONGSTAFF, G. B., 1907, Entomological observations and cap-
tures during the visit of the British Association to South Africa in 1905.
Trans. ent. SOC.Lond., 1907 :309-381, 1 pl.
DOBROVLJANSKY, V. V., 1913, Pests of fields and orchards according to observa-
tions made a t the Kiev Entomological Station in the year 1912. [In Russian.]
Ent. Stat. Kiev S. Russ. SOC.Prom. Agric. Ind., 1913 :14. [Abstract in Rev.
app. Ent., (A) 1 :481.)
T h e feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura. 87
DRUCE,H. H. C., 1910, A Lycaenid in attendance on a Homopteron. Proc. ent.
Xoc. Lond., 1910 :xxrtviii-xxxix.
DUKINFIELD JONES, E., 1883, Curious habit of a Brazilian moth. Nature, 28 : 55.
DUZEE,E. P. VAN, 1885, Correspondence. Canad. Ent., 17 : 80.
EYER,J. R., 1931, A four-year study of Codling Moth baits in New Mexico. J .
econ. Ent., 24 : 998-1001, 1 fig.
FARQUHARSON, C. 0.)1921, Five years observations (1914-1918) on the bionomics
of Southern Nigeria& insects, chiefly directed to the investigation of Lycaenid
life-histories and to the relation of the Lycaenidae, Diptera, and other insects
to ants. Trans. ent. Xoc. Lond., 1921 : 319-448.
FASSNIDGE, W., 1924, A locality in the High Alps, NQvache-le-chateau. Ent. Rec.,
36 : 55-60.
FEYTAUD,J., 1913, Cochylis et Eudkmis; prockdks de capture des Papillons.
Bull. Xoc. I h d e zulgar. 2001.agric. Bordeaux, 12 : 33-41, 73-83, 97-104,
14 figs.
-, 1916, Recherches snr les pibges-appbts. 111. Le pourcentage des sexes.
Bull. Xoc. I h d e vulgar. 2001.agric. Bordeaux, 15 :113-118.
FORBES, H. O., 1885, A naturalist’s wanderings in the Eastern Archipela,go. London.
FOWLER,R., 1927, Further investigations into Codling Moth control. Second
report on experiments carried out a t Blackwood Experiment Orchard. J .
Dept. Agric. S. Aust., 31 :480-492.
FOXWILSON,G. See WILSON,G. F.
FRITSCH, K., 1928-1932, Beobachtungen iiber blutenbesuchende Insekten in
Steiermark, 1907. SitzBer. Akad. Wiss. Wien, (1)137 : 227-241 ; 1910, Ibzd.,
139 : 601-639 ; 1911, Ibid., 140 : 821-846 ; 1912, Ibid., 141 : 183-194.
FROST, S. W., 1926, Bait pails as a possible control for the Oriental Fruit Moth.
J . econ. Ent., 19 :441-450, 5 ch.
-, 1928, Continued studies of baits for Oriental Fruit Moth. J. econ. Ent., 21 :
339-348, 2 diagr.
---, 1929, Fourth contribution to a study of baits with special reference to the
Oriental Fruit Moth. J. econ. Ent., 22 : 101-108, 1 chart, 1 fig.
GIBBS, A. E., 1912, Butterflies from British Honduras and Guatemala. Proc. ent.
Soc. Lond., 1912 : xlv-xlviii.
GOODMAN, 0. R., 1926, Three weeks in the Cevennes. Proc. X . Lond. ent. nat.
Hist. SOC.,1926 :30-40.
GORIAINOV, A. A., 1915, Thc work of the Bureau relating to Applied Entomology
and Phytopathology in 1915. [In Russian.] [Abstract in Rev. app. Ent.,
(A) 5 : 90.1
HAMPSON, G. F., 1900, [No title.] Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 1900 : x-xi.
HARGREAVES, E., 1929, Report on the Entomological Station, Section I. Rep.
Lds For. Dept. Sierra Leone, 1928 ;20-22.
D’HERCULAIS, J. K., 1916, Les Sphingides du genre Acherontia, LBpidop tBres
mellivores parasites des Abeilles. Adaptation gBn6rale ; adaptation speciale
de la trompe. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, 1916 : 17-49, 1pl.
HERING,M., 1926, Biologie der Xchmetterlinge. Berlin.
HEWETT,G. M. A., 1888, Ripe plums a bait for insects. Entomologist, 21 : 65.
HOWARD,C. W., 1909, A feeding habit of some Lourenpo Marques butterflies.
Ann. Transvaal Mus. Pretoria, 1909 : 224-225.
ILSE,D., 1928, f7ber den Farbensinn der Tagfalter. 2. vergb. Physiob., 8 : 658-692,
14 figs.
IMMS,A. D., 1934, A General Textbook of Entomology. 3rd edit., London.
JACK, J. G., 1885, Entomological notes. Canad. Ent., I ? :29-31.
JOANNIS, J. DE, 1901, Observation sur un Lkpidoptbre de Ngan hoei. Bull. Xoc.
ent. Fr., 1901 :228-229.
JOHNSON, W. G., 1895, The Mediterranean Flour Moth (Ephestia kiihniella, Zeller)
in Europe and America. Rep. Xtate Ent. Illinois, 19 : 1-65, 7 figs.
88 Dr. M. J. Norris 0%
KANE,W. F. DE V., 1885, European Butterjies. London.

KIRBY,W. F., 1882, European butterjies and moths. London.
-, 1894-1897, A handbook to the order Lepidoptera. 5 vols., London.
KNOLL,F., 1926, Insekten und Blumen. Abh. 2001. bot. Ges. Wien, 12 : 1-646,
10 pls., 91 figs.
--, 1927, ffber Abendschwarmer und Schwarmerblumen. Ber. deuts. botan. Ges.,
45 :510-518.
KOHN, H., 1887, Instinct oder Ueberlegung. CorrespBE. ent. Tier. “ Iris,”
I:118.
LAFFORGUE, G., 1914, Les pikges alimentaires dans la lutte contre la Cochylis et
l’Eud6mis.” Progr. Agric. Vitic. Montpellier, 31 :38-43.
LANGLOIS, A., 1925, Liste de Ldpidoptkres pris sup fleurs de lierre, du 20 Septembre
au 20 Octobre, 1925 A Evreux. Bull. Xoc. Sci. nat. Rouen, (6-7) 1924-1925 :
197-199.
LAYARD, E. L., 1883, Curious habit of a Brazilian moth. Nature, 28 : 589.
LEEFMANS, S., 1932, Van een in Vruchten borende Uil (Ophideres fullonica, Linn.)
de indische Banduil. Trop. Natuur, 21 :224-228, 3 figs.
LLOYD,LI., 1920, The habits of the Glasshouse Tomato Moth, Hadena (Polia)
cleracea, and its control. Ann. app. Biol., 7 : 66-102, 3 pls., 4 diagr.
LONGSTAFF, G. B., 1905, Notes on the butterflies observed in a tour through India
and Ceylon, 1903-1904. Trans. ent. SOC.Lond., 1905 : 61-144.
-, 1908, Bionomic notes on butterflies. Trans. ent. Xoc. Lond., 1908:
607-673.
MANSON,G. F., 1931, Aphid galls as a Noctuid feeding ground. Canad. Ent., 63 :
171-172.
MARCHAL,P., 1912, Rapport sur les travaux accomplis par la Mission de l’fitude
de la Cochylis et de 1’Euddmispendant l’ann8e 1911. Paris.
MARSHALL, G. A. K., 1915, A Noctuid moth feeding on the moisture from the eyes
of mules. Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 1915 :cxvii-cxk
MARTELLI, G., 1916, Intorno a due specie de Lepidotteri dei generi Zelleria e Glyphodes
viventi sull’olivo. Boll. Lab. 2001.Portici, 10 :89-102.
MEYRICK,E., 1928, A revised handbook of British Lepidoptera. London.
MINNICH,D. E., 1922 (A),The chemical sensitivity of the tarsi of the Red Admiral
Butterfly, Pyrameis atalanta, Linn. J . exp. Zool., 35 : 57-81, 3 figs.
---, 1922 (B), A quantitative study of tarsal sensitivity to solutions of saccharose
in the Red Admiral Butterfly (Pyrameis atalanta, Linn.). Ibid., 36 : 445-457.
-, 1924, The olfactory sense of the Cabbage Butterfly. Ibid., 39 :339-356.
MOREAU, L., and VINET, E., 1919, Les pi&ges-ap,pits dans la lutte contre la
Cochylis. Ann. Sera. Epiphyties, 6 : 299-312, 2 pls.
MORGAN, E. D., 1925, Plants and Lepidoptera. Trans. Proc. Torpuay nat. Hist.
SOC.,4 :244-254.
MOSS,A. M., 1933, Butterflies from the Amazonas attracted by coloured rags, etc.
Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 7 : 60.
DE NIC~VILLE, L., and MARTIN, L., 1895, A list of the butterflies of Sumatra. J . asiat.
Soc. Bengal, 64 : 357-555.
NORRIS,M. J., 1934 (A), Contributions towards the study of insect fertility.
111. Adult nutrition, fecundity, and longevity in the genus Ephestia (Lepido-
ptera, Phycitidae). Proc. 2001. Soc. Lond., 1934 : 333-360.
-, 1934 (B), Notes on the drinking habits of Lepidoptera in the Austrian Tyrol.
Entomologist, 67 :280-283.
--, 1935 (A),Butterflies attracted to dung, sweat, and water. Proc. ent. SOC.
Lond., 9 : 87.
-, 1935 (B), A feeding experiment on the adults of Pieris rapae. Entornologist,
68 : 125-7.
NOYES,W. M., 1930, Moth pests in cacao and confectionery. Bull. ent. Res., 21 :
77-121.
T h e feeding-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura. 89
OBERTHUR,C., 1876, Gtude sur la faune des LBpidoptkres de l’Alg6rie. $tudes
d’Ent., I:17.
ORD, G. W., 1899, The Lepidoptera in relation to flowers. Trans. Glasgow SOC.
nut. Hist., 5 :355-366.
PEACHALL, G. E., 1900, Vanessapolychloros a t Herne, Kent. Entomologist, 33 : 304.
PETERSON, A., 1925, A bait which attracts the Oriental Peach Moth (Laspeyresia
rnolesta, Busck). J . econ. Ent., 18 : 181-189, 2 figs.
---, 1927, Some baits more attractive to the Oriental Peach Moth than black-
strap molasses. Ibid., 20 : 174-185.
PITTONI, B., 1923, Noctuidenfang an “ natiirlichem ” Koder. Ent. Z., 37 : 21-22.
POULTON, E. B., 1906, [No title.] Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 1906 :lx-lxii.
--, 1909, Small moths captured a t sea probably 190 miles from the land they
had left. Ibid., 1909 : xxxviii-xl.
--, 1911, Instances of mimicry exhibited by certain Sarawak insects. Ibid.,
1911 : lxxiii-lxxx.
-, 1912, The sluggishness of two west African Lycacnidac of the genera Epitola
and Hewitsonia. Ibid., 1912 :xxxiii-xxxiv.
-, 1913, A Hesperid drinking ink after first moistening it. Ibid., 1913 :XI.
-, 1914, Dr. G. D. H. Carpenter’s observations in the islands in the N.W. of the
Victoria Nyanza. Ibid., 1914 : li-lv.
--, 1915, Observations on butterflies and the attacks made on them by birds
about 30 miles W. of the Victoria Nyanza and about 1”S. Lat. Ibid., 1915 :
lxiv-lxxii.
--, 1917 (A), Observations on Fossors in East Africa, by G. D. H. Carpenter.
Ibid., 1917 :xli-xliv.
-, 1917 (B), Salt (chloride of sodium) probably sought by the Hesperiidae.
Ibid., 1917 : lxxvii.
---, 1918, Capt. G. D. H. Carpenter’s further notes in ex-German East Africa,
almost exclusively East of Lake Tanganyika. Ibid., 1918 :lxxxviii-cxlix.
---, 1921, Libythea probably L. Eaius Trim., congregating perhaps before or
during migration. Ibid., 1921 : lxii-lxiii.
-, 1925 (A), Troides brookiana albescens Rothsch. in crowds a t mud near Kuala
Lumpur, F.M.S. Ibid., 1925 : lxiv-lxv.
-, 1925 (B), Various observations on insects in Uganda, by Dr. G. D. H Car-
penter. Ibid., 1925 : liii-lviii.
-, 1927 (A), A note on the migratory flight of Libythea labdaca, Westw. in
Nigeria. Ibid., 2 :50.
-, 1927 (B), Examples of male butterflies drinking on a road in Uganda. Ibid.,
2 :88-89.
--, 1928, The migratory Pyrale, Nomophila noctuella Schiff. observed resting on
the calm surface of the Atlantic and flying up on the approach of a ship.
Ibid., 3 :64-65.
-, 1932, Hawk-moth alighting on and rising from the surface of a pool. Ibid.,
7: 21.
PRYER, H., 1884, An account of a visit to the birds’ nest caves of British North
Borneo. Proc. 2001. Xoc. Lond., 1884 : 532-538.
RICHARDS, 0. W., 1930, A note on the habits of Augiades sylvanus Esp. (Hes-
periidae). Proc. ent. Xoc. Lond., 5 :88.
ROBERTSON, C., 1929, Flowers and Insects. Carlinville, Ill.
ROEPKE,W., 1918, Zur Myrmekophilie von Gerydus boisduvali, Moore (Lep. Rhop.
Lycaenid.). T’ijds. Ent., 61 : 1-16, 2 figs.
ROSENBERG, W. F., 1909, The liability of butterflies to attacks by birds and lizards.
Proc. ent. Xoc. Lond., 1909 : lix-lxii.
ROTHSCHILD, L. W., and JORDAN, K., 1910, List of the Sphingidae collected by
the late W. Hoffmanns a t Allianca, Rio Madeira, Amazonas. No&. Zool.,
17 : 447-455.
90 T h e feedhg-habits of the adult Lepidoptera Heteroneura.
~ C U D D E R ,H.
S., 1889, The Butter-ies of the Eastern United States and Canada with
special reference to New England. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.
SEITZ, A., 1894, Allgemeine Biologie des Schmetterlinge. I1 Teil. Die Ernah-
rung. 2001.Jahrb. (Syst.), 7 :9-186.
SEVERIN, H. P., and SEVERIN,H. C., 1913, A historical account of the use of
kerosene to trap the Mediterranean Fruit Fly (Ceratitis capitata, Wied.). J .
%on. Ent., 6 :347-351, 1 fig.
SHANNON, R. C., 1928, Zoophilous moths. Science, N.Y., 68 : 461-462.
SHELDON, W. G., 1934, Winter butterfly holidays. Entomologist, 67 : 241-248.
SIMES,J. A., 1934, Observations made in 1934 on butterflies and their enemies in
south-eastern France. Proc. ent. SOC.Lond., 9 : 64-68.
SIMMONS, P., and ELLINGTON, G. W., 1933, Life history of the Angumois Grain
Moth in Maryland. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric., 351 : 1-34, 10 figs.
SKERTCHLY, S. B. J., 1889, On the habits of certain Bornean butterflies. Ann.
Mag. nut. Hist. ( 6 ) 4 : 209-218.
SOUTH,R., 1906, The Butter-ies of the British Isles. London.
-, 1907-1908, The Moths of the British Isles. 2 vols., London.
SPULER, A., 1927, Codling Moth traps. Bull. Wash. Agric. Expt. Sta., 214 : 1-12,
3 figs.
STANDFUSS, M., 1884, Lepidopterologisches. Ent. Ztg., Stettin, 1884 :207.
-, 1896, Handbuch der palaarktischen Gross-Schmetterliizge. Jena.
SUSAINATHAN, P., 1924, Fruit-sucking moths of South India. Rept. Proc. 5th eat.
Mtg., Pusa, 1923, 1 :23-27, 2 pls.
SWINGLE, H. S., 1928, Digestive enzymes of the Oriental Fruit Moth. Ann. ent.
SOC.Amer., 21 :469-475.
THORPE,W. H., 1928, Note on Hyponomeda cognatella Hiibn. feeding on the
Honey-dew of Aphis rumicis, Linn. Ent. mon. Mag., 64 : 46.
TILLYARD, R. J., 1926, The insects of Australia and New Zealand. Sydney.
TRIMEN,R., 1862-1866, Rhopalocerae Africae australis. London.
TUMLER,G., 1885, Lebensdauer der Tagschmetterlinge wahrend des Sommers.
JBer. Westfal. Ver. Wiss. Kunst, 1885 :31.
TUTT,J. W., 1897, The drinking habits of butterflies and moths. Proc. S. Lo&.
ent. nut. Hist. SOC.,1897 :73-81.
-, 1901-1905, Practical hints for the Jield Lepidopterist. London.
WILSON,G. B., 1926, Insect visitors to sap-exudations of trees. Trans. ent. Xoc.
Lond., 74 : 243-253, 3 pls., 1 fig.
WOODHOUSE, E. J., and DUTT,H. L., 1913, Purther work against surface cater-
pillars a t Mokameh in 1912. Agric. J . India, 8 :372-89, 1 pl., 2 maps.

1936 - Norris - The Feeding Habitst of The Adult Lepidoptera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1936 - Norris - The Feeding Habitst of The Adult Lepidoptera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1936 - Norris - The Feeding Habitst of The Adult Lepidoptera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FEEDING-HABITS OP THE ADULT LEPIDOPTERA

Sccording to Meyrick (1928) the British NOCTUIDAE number about 345

F . exclamationis L. 87.1% Coriainov (1915).

Euxoa segetum SchiE. 64% Dobrovlj&qky (1913).

Feytaud (1916) working with vine-moths Clysia ambiguella Hb., and

(b) The behaviour of the water-drinkers.

KANE,W. F. DE V., 1885, European Butterjies. London.

You might also like