NO. 7 PROTECTIVE ADAPTATIONS McATEE 75 



simply made a very bad guess. Consider for instance the Cetoniini, 

 the best " protected " tril)e, some of which are said to mimic bees in 

 flight. Our most numerously reiiresented genus, Euphoria, has 445 

 records, of which 148 are for the most beelike species of all, E. inda. 

 Cotinis, very poorly represented in our fauna, has 156 records, and 

 Cremastochiliis. noted for their association with ants, yy. 



Species of Onthophagus " live in and about dung and are of a 

 colour which conceals them well in those surroundings." (Donis- 

 thorpe. Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1901. p. 358.) However, they were 

 preyed upon 642 times by the birds included in the present tabulations. 

 The species of Apliod'nts also are dung-feeders and said to be protected 

 The number of deterniinations of this genus is approximately 3.5^'5 : 

 in numerous cases 100 of these beetles were found in single stomachs 

 and in one instance no fewer than 900. A warningly colored species, 

 A. fiincforius (wnth the thorax black and elytra red), was identified 

 in 913 stomachs. Consider the entirely different case of a beetle, the 

 rose chafer (Macrodacfyliis) , known to be actually poisonous (see 

 Science, n. s., vol. 43, pp. 138-139, Jan. 28, 1916) besides having 

 protective (cryptic) coloration and long spiny legs: although there 

 are but two species in the country, we have 52 records in our tabula- 

 tions representing 15 species of birds. The larger numbers of speci- 

 mens taken were: nine by a crow, 12 by a road-runner, and from 

 15 to 40 in five instances by the eastern kingbird. These records show 

 that the most potent protective adaptations possible do not necessarih' 

 protect. The highly significant fact about the case is that predators 

 do not seem to recognize the dangerous qualities of the rose chafer ; 

 every generation of young chicks and pheasants will pay a heavy 

 death toll if permitted to stufif themselves with these beetles. Even 

 trout kill themselves in the same way. But what advantage is all this 

 to the beetle? Those that cause the death of some predators, them- 

 selves lose their lives, that is, all of those actually ])roved " lit " in 

 this respect are eliminated ; the only efl'ective poisonous action is upon 

 young (among birds) — adults can and do eat them freely. No con- 

 siderable body of predators has ever been killed, and " warning color " 

 has not been acquired (the rose chafer is a uniform and inconspicuous 

 brownish-yellow) . Theories as to protective adaptations seem to suffer 

 from every angle of this case. (For fuller discussion of the subject 

 .see Lamson, Geo. H., Journ. Econ. Ent., vol. 8, no. 6. pp. 547-548, 

 Dec, 1915; Bates, J. M.. Science, n. s., vol. 43, pp. 209-210, Feb. 11. 

 1916; and McAfee, W. L., The Auk, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 205-206, 

 Apr., 1916.) 



