554 Mr. A. H. Thayer on 
is just so much representation of some structure, whether 
the representation be accidental or intentional. He sees 
at a glance in marble-veins, the grain of wood, etc., not 
imaginary, but actual representations of natural objects 
and perspectives, and weighs the correctness of these. 
Nature has evolved actual Art on the bodies of animals, 
and only an artist can read it. When he examines the 
colour and colour-pattern of the animal kingdom, he sees 
that zoologists are hopelessly off the track in their general 
conception as to which coloration is to be called con- 
spicuous, i.e. rendering its wearer so. Any coloration 
or pattern would be conspicuous somewhere, and Nature 
cannot prevent animals from straying beyond the environ- 
ments that would most perfectly harmonize with their 
colour and pattern. But let us take the broadest possible 
survey, and we cannot doubt that most animals wear on 
their coats pictures of their habitat. As I before pointed 
out, even the under-sides of the wings and tails of hawks bear 
the general twig-patterns so common on forest birds, as if 
Nature found it worth while to efface the white silhouette 
their wings’ under-sides would make when they extended 
them while perching. We see how completely such 
patterns (when couched, of course, as they always are, in 
the effacive gradation) do help to obliterate a partridge, 
grouse, woodcock, hare, or any other of almost all the 
species in every order; since they prove to be actual 
animated pictures of their environment. As I said before, 
in my paper on so-called “ Banner-marks,” * these forest- 
like patterns are found on forest creatures, and not on 
desert creatures, or ocean creatures. Sand-birds are usually 
marked in longitudinal, delicate patterns, very like those 
the sand assumes when seen at the same angle at which 
one observes the birds themselves. Tigers and zebras are 
resolved into pictures of tall, strong flags, grasses, and 
bamboos, while the lion is a picture of the desert. (It 
will some day be plainly understood that the effacive 
gradation is the essence of the success of these pat- 
terns. Were they not arranged to compose one perfect 
counter-gradation, from top-dark to under-white, they would 
appear merely as what artists call “lines of quantity,” 
like the hoops of a barrel, emphasizing the rotundity, not 
effacing it.) 
Now, let me prove that any pattern would somewhere be 
* ©The Auk,’ vol. xvii, 1900, p. 108. 
