IV 



human eye, cannot be denied. And the possibiHty must also be acknowledged 

 that this resemblance may sometimes protect such an animal, though in this 

 respect people are apt to forget that it is the human eye only which serves 

 them as standard. For this, in the first place, it is not developed sharply 

 enough, secondly it is not practised enough and lastly it is not seconded so 

 much by other organs, especially by scent, as is the case with several animals. 

 But it is not this fact only, which is called vmnicry in biological science, but 

 the theor)' based on it. This theory I consider an error. It is however im- 

 possible to refute briefly these erroneons ideas ; too many explanations are 

 needed for that ; the /r(3-literature is so very extensive that the discussions contra 

 would have to count with this and for this reason could not be short. Moreover, 

 I do not think this at all necessary. To be sure these errors still count 

 many upholders, but nevertheless they have already several times been con- 

 troverted in a scientific and most satisfactory way, whereas their advocates 

 have never been able to refute, even for a part, the numerous and ver}' serious 

 objections against them. They never adduced new grounds for their assertions ; 

 they always confined themselves to enumerating new examples, the conception 

 and explanation of w'hich, however, were always founded on the same reasons 

 which have already been proved not to be able to bear a serious examination. 

 Only recentl)- there appeared in the well-known periodical Nature, Oct. 31, 1907, 

 under the title of: ''Recent Developments in the Theory of Mimicry" an '■'■Evening 

 Discourse Delivered at the Leicester Meeting of the British Association, on August 

 5 by Dr. F. A. Dixey." "Recent" it is called in the title, but the essay con- 

 tains nothing but the old assertions ; and there is no question in it of the least 

 contradiction or of any scientific battling with the foresaid objections ; it seems 

 as if this entomologist is entirely ignorant of this or wants to be so. Upon 

 such a work serious science does not set any value. If the said theory has 

 already found from the very beginning, many adversaries among really serious 

 zoologists, after the attacks against it of late years, their number has gready 

 increased, especially in Germany. I myself have already treated this subject 

 extensively in the two ample, above-mentioned books ; and several other authors 

 have also moved in the same direction. Only a short time ago (1908) a very 

 interesting and extensive study by Prof G6za Entz sen. entitled : "Die Farben 

 der Ticre utid die Mitnicry " was published at Leipzig in the : " Mathematische 

 laid Nattitwissenschaftliche Berichte Aus Ungarn, ']^er Band, les Heft." Others 

 too, who are not energetic enough to abandon this theory entirely, have all 

 the same, been obliged to reject so much of it, that we are quite in considering 

 it an erroneous idea which is dying out and which will gradually disappear. 

 I think that I may therefore abstain from discussing it here in a general sense, 



