CONSCIOUS PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 547 
to certain cases which are generally referred to protective resemblance. 
After stating that ‘“‘ colour alone may prove a false analogy to protec- 
tion” (I. c., p. 850), and referring to the strongly protective colouring 
of a certain South American butterfly, Ageronia feronica, he says: 
*‘This observer, however, at the same time refers to the statement of 
Bigg Wither, that this very insect is called the Whip-Butterfly, owing 
to the sharp whip-cracking sound made by its wings when battling 
by its fellows in the air,” and that this sound makes it the easy prey 
of a forest bird, locally known as ‘the Suruqua,’ who thus detects 
and secures it. Here the apparent protection by ‘‘ protective resem- 
blance’’ is invalidated by a peculiar and unusual sound-producing 
quality, which is as equally dangerous as its colour is reported protec- 
tive. A similar remark may be made as to the musical Cicadide. How 
often have the usual green and brown colours of these insects been 
adduced as an example of protective resemblance; . . . but when we 
desire to capture them the shrill noise proclaims their retreat, and 
their assimilative colouration avails them little.”’ Again, in comment- 
ing upon Mr. Tutt’s graphic account of the protective colouring of the 
Lappet Moth (Lasiocampa quercifolia), he says: ‘‘ Here the expression, 
‘trained eye,’ of the entomologist, would suggest a more developed 
‘trained eye’ of the moth’s natural enemies, and hence any theory of 
protective mimicry is much discounted (/.c. p. 455). From these quo- 
tations it may be gathered that Mr. Distant’s attitude towards the 
subject is somewhat as follows :—When we find that the colouring of 
any animal assimilates well with that of its environment, but, at the 
same time, that this animal is apt to render itself more or less notice- 
able by certain movements or noises, then we are not justified in 
regarding its colouration as an efficient protection, and the case must 
therefore be removed from the category of protective resemblance. 
Tempting as such a conclusion may be to the opponents of Darwinism,* 
it appears to me to be wholly erroneous. The fundamental fallacy 
lies in the gratuitous assumption that the protection afforded must be 
absolute ; for otherwise there is no ground whatever for the objection 
raised. In the first place, I am not aware that such absolute protec- 
tion has been anywhere observed in nature, and, indeed, were the 
above proposition a sound one, the principle of protective resemblance 
would have to be entirely abandoned. But, as a matter of fact, this 
principle predicates no such complete immunity from attack; in truth, 
the very essence of the theory of natural selection negatives any such 
* Darwinism does not derive its sole support from theories of ‘‘ mimicry,” 
and the writer of the papers criticised was not aware that he was to be counted 
among ‘‘the opponents of Darwinism.’’—Eb. 
