540 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
would eventually supersede those whose instincts were not so well in 
harmony with their colouration. On the other hand, for the suggestion 
of ‘active mimicry,” it is contended that the actions of these insects are 
apparently so purposive that it is difficult to believe that they are not 
due to ‘conscious volition” on their part; and, in support of this conten- 
tion, a large number of other similar cases are adduced, all, be it noted, 
equally, or more fully, I consider, explicable on the theory of natural 
selection. But when we stop to enquire why, or how, these butterflies 
have developed this peculiar colouration, the supporters of the suggestion 
of ‘‘ active mimicry”’ can vouchsafe us no reply. According to this 
suggestion, the tiger selects the bamboo-thicket, the leopard the leafy 
forest, and the lion the open veldt, simply because they have individu- 
ally discovered, by their own reasoning powers, that these respective 
localities are best suited to their particular styles of colouration ;* and 
the question why one is striped, another spotted, and the third uni- 
colourous, reverts to an open problem. Thus all the beautiful explana- 
tions of adaptive colouring, afforded us by Darwin’s grand conception, 
are to be thrown to the winds if “active mimicry’’ be logically 
applied. 
It will be thus seen that it is only among the most generalised types 
of resemblance that we may seek for signs of conscious adaptation, as 
opposed to quasi-mechanical instincts. But even here the foregoing 
objection also applies, though with less force, since the contention of 
coincidence may be put forward in some cases, as indicated by Mr. 
Romanes. But it must be borne in mind that this contention is 
nothing but an argument from ignorance, and, as such, is not scientific- 
ally permissible where any other reasonable and adequate explanation 
can be advanced. The mere citation of a number of instances of 
protective colouring, however purposive the actions of the animals may 
appear, are in themselves no proof of conscious resemblance; neither 
do they in any way weaken the theory of natural selection in this 
regard ; for this theory not only consistently explains the reasons for, 
and the development of, the colouration, but also accounts for that very 
purposiveness upon the occurrence of which the former proposition is 
alone based. Again, in the case of special resemblances, if it be con- 
ceded, as a result of the arguments adduced above, that both the 
morphological and psychological characters have been contemporane- 
ously perfected through the mechanical action of natural selection (and 
in fact the structural peculiarities cannot well be explained on this 
principle without the instincts), then this alone would form strong 
** This is an apparent inference to Mr. Marshall, but no statement of the 
kind appears in the suggestions criticised.—Ep. 
