CONSCIOUS PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 541 
presumptive evidence that, at least, the great majority of cases of 
general resemblance are due to the same factor. For it is evident that 
all cases of special resemblance must, at some time or other, have 
passed through a general phase, and therefore we must necessarily 
apply the same explanation in both categories. 
Nevertheless, while the orthodox Darwinist may maintain that 
protective colouration, together with the appropriate instincts which 
are necessary to render it of any use, have been ultimately developed 
through natural selection (save, perhaps, in a very few exceptional 
cases),’ yet it iscompetent for him, without any contradiction, to admit 
that probably some few of the most intelligent animals may, in the 
course of their mental evolution, have arrived at such a standard as to 
be able to appreciate the value of their own protective actions, which 
were originally merely instinctive—a very different position, however, 
from that suggested by Mr. Distant. 
But even for such an admission some definite proof is required. 
On looking through the large number of instances quoted by Mr. 
Distant in support of his suggestions, there appears to be only one case 
which affords anything like real proof, as opposed to mere suggestion. 
I refer to Mr. E. 8. Thompson’s account of the actions of a fox: “A 
fire had swept the middle of the pasture, leaving a broad belt of black; 
over this he skurried until he came to the unburnt yellow grass again, 
-when he squatted down and was lost to view. He had been watching 
us all the time, and would not have moved had we kept to the road. 
The wonderful part of this is, not that he resembled the round stones 
and dry grass, but that he knew he did, and was ready to profit by it’ 
(‘Wild Animals I have known,’ p. 193).§ This is a good example from 
Mr. Distant’s point of view, but the fox is notoriously one of the most 
sagacious and cunning of animals, and, even if we believe that many 
of its actions are due to conscious intelligence, this does not in any way 
prove the occurrence of such intelligence in insects, fishes, or even 
other mammals, each of which cases would require independent proof. 
Further, it may be as well to point out that probably the process of 
reasoning in the fox would be quite different from that which would 
‘prompt a man to put on a khaki-coloured shirt when going out to shoot 
buck. It is improbable that any of the lower animals have any real 
conception of their own appearance, and it is likely that any conscious- 
ness they may exhibit in their protective actions consists rather in the 
general recognition that they are freer from attack in certain particular 
spots or types of country, than from any true appreciation of the 
optical phenomena to which they really owe their safety. 
But it must be noted that a mere desire to hide, apart from any 
