THE "PROTECTIVE COLORATION" 



THEORY 



A Word of Comment Regarding Its Application to Birds as Outlined in a Previous 



Article in This Journal 



T. Barbour 



Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. 



I HAVE read with interest Mr. 

 Woods's "Random Test in the 

 Theory of Protective Coloration."' 

 This simply consists of presenting 

 photographs of four of the very pleas- 

 ing little habitat groups which have 

 helped in the much needed moderniza- 

 tion of the venerable Boston Society of 

 of Natural History. They represent: 



(1) Piping Plover on sand and rocks: 



(2) The next of a Night Hawk on the 

 ground: (3) The nest of a Phoebe 

 among dark green rocks near the water: 

 (4) A Whippoorwill with its nest 

 arranged like thi^ nest in the Night 

 Hawk group. 



Now the Limicoline and Capri mul- 

 gid groups of birds offer many examples 

 of undoubted protective coloration 

 which have been recognized, described, 

 admired, discussed and admitted as 

 useful to the birds by all naturalists 

 both "field" and "closet" since the 

 dawn of ornithology. The groups of 

 Piping Plover, Whippoorwill and Night 

 Hawk afford no "Random test" for 

 they, as they depict true conditions, 

 inevitably illustrate century old exam- 

 ples or protective coloration and this 

 was well known to us all when the 

 groups were installed. The Phoebe 

 group is in a slightly different catagory. 

 We have sought to illustrate the primi- 

 tive dwelling place of the Phoebe; no 

 easy task now that practically the 

 entire Phoebe population has come 

 to the conclusion that it is easier not to 

 worry about the relationship between 

 dark green rocks and its coloration and 

 has found that the struts and beams 

 under bridges offer most ideal building 

 sites. 



The theories of Mr. Thayer, the 

 artist, here so handsomely endorsed, 

 are in reality only in small part 

 essentially optical. To delimit them 

 especially to determine just what is 

 new, needs not perhaps to "involve 



learned discussions in natural history" 

 but this appraisal does need common 

 sense and knowedge of th^ exact 

 ecological conditions under which 

 animals live and of the published 

 literature. We remember in regard to 

 the introduction of dazzle painting 

 of ships that naval authorities differed 

 sharply in valueing the protection 

 afforded. Moreover, the protective 

 value of the "bright and often dazzling 

 colors of birds" has not in any way, 

 shape or manner been proved by Mr 

 Thayer's "elaborate and magnificent 

 book," although most suggestively 

 discussed, with many novel and valu- 

 able possibilities pointed out for future 

 debate and perhaps in time for experi- 

 mental confirmation. 



The foregoing article was submitted to 

 Dr. Woods as a member of the editorial board 

 of the Journal, who contributed the original 

 discussion, and he returned it with the following 

 note. — Editor. 



New York, May 26, 1921 



Mr. Oliver Olson, 

 Journal of Heredity, 

 Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Mr. Olson: 



Enclosed is Mr. Barbour's 

 "Word of Comment." I think that 

 his criticism is, to a great extent, 

 justified. I do not consider that this 

 contribution, which I made, towards 

 the subject of protective coloration was 

 m.ore than a very trivial one. Its title, 

 and in places its contents, evidently 

 convey a seeming importance beyond 

 what this scanty and insignificant 

 material could justify. Let us hope 

 that the discussion of Abbott Thayer's 

 interesting, and often provocative the- 

 ories may be continued, and especially 

 by those who as artists, or naturalists, 

 are as specialists, qualified to do so. 

 Very truly yours, 

 Frederic Adam.s Woods 



1 Journal of Heredity, 11,6, 1920, p. 284-285, figs. 20-3 2. 



177 



