1875.] Difficulires of Darwinism. 323 
of a true prismatic shade can be shown in the whole class. 
The reds found in certain ruminants—e.g., in domestic 
cattle—are merely reddish-browns. The yellows and oranges 
of the cats, the fox, and the jackal, are simply buffs or cuirs 
—‘cures”’ as the English dyers call them. Oken, in his 
great work, concluded a chapter on the Races of Mankind 
by asking why there were no green or blue men? His 
question was received with a somewhat gratuitous amount 
of ridicule,—certainly the easiest, if not the most satisfac- 
tory, way of disposing of it. But it may surely be asked 
why there are no green or blue mammalian species?* In 
beasts, again, iridescent colours—so common in other de- 
partments of the animal creation—are wanting, save in the 
golden mole of Siberia. We find no other case where the 
fur of a beast displays different colours according to the 
position from which it is viewed. Nor is there any near 
approach to the metallic brilliance so commonly met with 
amongst birds, reptiles, and insects. The prevailing garb 
of beasts may, in short, be characterised as monotonous, 
flat, and sombre in its tones ; nor is the pattern or design in 
which the colours are arranged much more striking than the 
shades themselves. The majority of species are either con- 
colourous or irregularly blotched and clouded. Even the 
zebra, the striped and spotted cats, and the spotted deer . 
display nothing which can be brought into comparison with 
the elaborate and delicate designs found in birds and inse¢ts. 
Whence, then, comes the difference? Not, surely, from any 
distinction in the diet of the two classes. There is no 
article of food used by birds which is not also eaten by some 
beasts. The hair, fur, and bristles of beasts cannot be said 
to differ chemically from the feathers of birds, so that we 
can see no reason why the one material should not display 
the same colours as the other. The old school of Natural 
History would cut, rather than untie, the knot, by referring all 
to the ‘‘ szc volo, sic jubeo”’ of the Creator; but, without in the 
least questioning the existence of a superintending Intelli- 
gence, we cannot regard such an explanation as scientific : it 
amounts to little more than the well-known domestic argument 
—‘‘ It is because it is.”” What, then, can Evolutionism—as 
at present understood—do towards solving the difficulty ? 
Certain points connected with the colouration of animals 
it has explained with no small felicity ; it has shown that 
the uniform tawny hue of the lion, resembling the soil of 
* Meaning, of course, species with blue or green fur, hair, or bristles. The 
blueness of the nose in certain baboons can scarcely be taken into account 
here. 
