212 



THE AMERICAN MUSEUM JOURNAL 



sons, it is worth while to take it up once 

 more. But let my readers remember 

 that I am dealing only with elementary, 

 with kindergarten scientific matters. 



Professor W. H. Longley, who has 

 been working at the Marine Biological 

 Laboratory, the Tortugas, Florida, has 

 recently published an interesting paper ^ 

 on animal coloration. The paper really 

 consists of two wholly distinct parts. 

 It is primarily a careful study of the 

 colors and color changes of West In- 

 dian reef iishes ; secondarily, it consists 

 of a number of obiter dicta, and of 

 recklessly drawn generalizations, on the 

 subject of concealing coloration among 

 the higher vertebrates. 



As regards the first, the legitimate 

 part of the study, I am not qualified to 

 express an opinion. Professor Longley 

 traverses and emphatically denies the 

 justice of the conclusions of Professor 

 J. E. Eeighard^ in his study of the 

 same subject. Longley's studies have 

 been so painstaking and so seemingly 

 scientific that I would unhesitatingly, 

 accept them were it not that his very 

 unscientific remarks on the general sub- 

 ject give just cause for inquiry as to 

 whether a mind so biased may not un- 

 consciously twist facts out of shape. As 

 it is, before accepting his conclusions 

 — and while fully admitting that on 

 their face they seem at least in large 

 part justified— I should like to get the 

 careful judgment thereon of some ex- 

 pert like Professor Eeighard, whose 

 purpose obviously is to find out the 

 truth wherever it leads, and who is not 

 betrayed by any prejudgment into ex- 

 pressing or suggesting on kindred mat- 

 ters conclusions which have ho warrant 

 or basis in fact. 



It is the second part of the paper, 



' Studies upon the Biological Significance of 

 Animal Coloration, Journal of Experimental Zool- 

 ogy, August. 1917. By \V. H. Longley, of Goucher 

 College, Baltimore, and the department of marine 

 biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Tortu- 

 gas, Florida. 



^ Jacob E. Reighard, professor of zoology at the 

 University of Michigan. Author of An Experi- 

 mental Field Stud!/ of Warning Coloration in 

 Coral Beef Fishes, Papers from the Tortugas Labo- 

 ratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington. Vol. 

 2, pp. 257-325. 



containing these ohiicr dicta and gen- 

 eralizations on the general subject of 

 animal coloration, with which I pro- 

 pose to deal. Inasmuch as Professor 

 Longley has done me the honor to in- 

 clude me among the writers (Wallace, 

 Weismann, Beddard, Reighard, Allen, 

 Selous, Dewar and Finn) whose state- 

 ments he regards as "diametrically op- 

 posed to the just inference from the 

 facts" noted by him, for the purposes of 

 this paper it will be sufficient for me to 

 deal with his comments on the positions 

 I myself have taken, save where, as in 

 the case of Dewar and Finn, I have 

 made the statements of others my own. 

 Professor Longley's position in the 

 specific matter to which his words above 

 quoted refer, well illustrates the pecu- 

 liar twist in his mind, when the ques- 

 tion of animal coloration is concerned. 

 He writes^ that the statement that 

 "movement will betray an animal even 

 if protectively colored" is based upon 

 "wholly illogical" reasoning, is "dia- 



' In Prof. Longley's paper. Biological Signifi- 

 cance of Animal Coloration, in the section which 

 discusses color change and states that various 

 species of fish in moving from one environment to 

 another change color to match, we find the follow- 

 ing paragraph {p. 553) : 



"At this point one should refer for a moment to 

 an idea one frequentl.v encounters, and which 

 seems in fair way to become an article of faith in 

 the matter of animal coloration. The reasoning 

 upon which it rests is wholly illogical, as the 

 reader will observe. Sometimes it is simply af- 

 firmed ex cathedra : 'Absence of movement is abso- 

 lutely essential to protectively colored animals.' 

 (Beddard, '92, p. 90.) Sometimes it is stated 

 with some attempt at justification: 'No color what- 

 ever could make a flying butterfly invisible to its 

 enemies, because the background against which its 

 body shows is continually changing during its 

 flight, and, moreover, the movement alone is 

 enough to betray it. even if it is of dull color.' 

 (Weismann, '04, p. 74.) 'Xo observer of Nature 

 can have failed to remark how the least movement 

 on the part of an animal will betray its where- 

 abouts, even though in color it assimilates very 

 closely to its environment. . . . Thus in order that 

 protective coloration may be of use to its possessor 

 the latter must remain perfectly motionless.' 

 (Dewar and Finn. 09. p. 200.) The same senti- 

 ment is expressed by Werner ('07), Selous ('08), 

 Palmer ('09). and is quoted from Beddard with 

 approval by Roosevelt ('10, p. 493). It reappears 

 in Allen's ('11) review of Roosevelt's Revealing 

 and Concealing Coloration in Birds and Mammals, 

 yet is diametrically opposed to the just inference 

 from the fact noted in the present section of this 

 paper. It is one of the 'obvious' things, the num- 

 ber of which used in constructing theories of col- 

 oration is so great, that if all were eliminated, the 

 skeleton remaining would be scarcely recognizable. 

 It is so inconsistent with the fact that an unusu- 

 ally active fish, such as Iridio bivittatus, which 

 seems never to rest by day, possesses three color 

 phases, which it changes appropriately as it passes 

 from one environment to another, that farther com- 

 ment is unnecessary." 



