PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 240 



have been going on for untold centuries," surely it is about time 

 "protective resemblance" stepped in and put a stop to it; or in other 

 words, the kestrel as a species, has surely had long enough to weed out 

 the conspicuous forms, and given us a form that gains " protection " 

 from its surroundings. Again, although these century old attacks have 

 been going on, and m spite of there being no distasteful species present 

 which it can mimic, A. coridon survives. On page 126 Mr. Curtis says, 

 " 1 do not tliiitli it matters u-liether we ascertain how iiiiic/i protection be 

 afforded b;/ cri/ptic coloration." That is just what is wanted to be found 

 out to justify the term " protective resemblance," and to prove that 

 "cryptic" coloration in butterflies and moths has been brought about 

 by the weeding out of birds. On the same page Mr. Curtis says, " How 

 many people observe these attacks, how many record them ? Few of 

 the former, still fewer ol the latter .... and one may be sure 

 that the entire bird population over the entire area of their residence 

 are doing the same all the time, and the cumulative effect must be very 

 great, etc." If the above goes on and all the birds act as the Dartford 

 warbler did, which Mr. Curtis records on page 101, the result would be 

 extermination. What about "protective resemblance," and why are 

 these insects not distasteful ? Mr. Curtis's last paragraph of despair 

 on page 126 is very pathetic, in which he expresses the thought, which 

 is no doubt fathered by the wish to — " close the mouth of the caviller 

 once and for all." I would remind him that it is possible to cavil — 

 for and against, and because certain field naturalists reason tbings in a 

 difi'erent way, it does not follow that they are wrong or less scientific. 



Mr. Curtis twits me on page 127 with giving birds "credit for a 

 very small amount of intelligence" because I said of the tits that I 

 doubted if they look for wings at all, but rather the body, and again 

 on the same page he says: — " Cannot tite insectiroroiis birds be allowed 

 credit for si(/ficient dediictire faculty to enable tliem to dedttce presence of 

 bodies from presence of wini/s," yet on page 98 he says, " the bird's deduc- 

 tive capacitij is probably inferior to that of man, and certainhj inferior 

 in all-round capacity to that of trained man (f.//., entomologist) who 

 recognises t/ie sittin<i object as a mot/i before tiiovenwnt betraijs the fact of 

 life." I think I gave the birds credit for more intelligence than he 

 does in the above. If the birds do not recognise the moth till it moves, 

 how can it deduce presence of bodies from presence of wings of a sitting 

 moth. On the other hand, if the moth moves, "cryptic." colouring is 

 of no use. I may mention that I was thinking of such insects as 

 Tephrosia bistortata, Boarmia consortaria, 1). ffemmaria, B. cinctaria, 

 Lobophora carpinata (lobulata), etc., which one most commonly finds at 

 rest on tree-trunks, where the bodies are exposed between the flat wings. 

 A tit searches for very small insects on tree-trunks, and, I repeat, would 

 probabbj see the body first, having its eyes focused for small things. 

 The body is the important part to the bird, as it furnishes it with a 

 meal, and the wings are discarded, to the human being the wings have 

 the most interest on account of the markings. With regard to Mr. 

 Curtis's remarks on the oyster-catcher, hawfinch, etc., I am sorry I can- 

 not respond to his invitation to say anything so silly. These instances 

 are not analogous. 



I agree that " Dr. Butler rightly comments that man is given to 

 under-estimating the intelligence of the lower creation," especially 

 when it is suggested in support of " protective resemblance " that a 



