Protective Coloration in its relation to Mimiery, ete. 563 
of the classes in which the pattern, when the wings are 
open, arranges itself in amphitheatre-like semicircles of 
stripes or dots, etc. When such a butterfly rests with 
open wings on a flower, its head is at the centre, its 
antennze form two stamens, and these semicircles seem to 
belong to half the flower of which its head is the centre. 
In several Preces, and many other butterflies, there is a 
general representation of something like a bunch of 
stamens casting their shadow deep under them in the 
flower’s cavity. Usually a butterfly’s upper-side has the 
exact colour-note characteristic of flowers and _ flower- 
scenery seen from right overhead (take, for example, 
Papilio turnus); while its under-side is a picture of such 
greater distance as would be seen from the side position 
necessary for beholding it when the wings are in their 
characteristic vertically-folded position; and this is the 
position from which enemies on neighbouring bushes 
would see it. So-called “conspicuous” butterflies have, 
in short, their upper-side designed with the full strength 
“values” of the nearest flowers looked into from above, 
and their under surfaces designed in notes more delicate, 
to counterfeit the distance, and a perfectly effacively- 
graded body. Their under-side is also more delicately 
finished, as if against the nearer inspection possible from 
neighbouring bushes. In fact, they wear every conceivable 
aspect to fit them into the background from each point of 
view, and make you think you see through them; or else, 
seen from above, to make you think, as in the case of the 
Pierine, that you see a flower itself. How can such a 
case call for a theory that is based on the hypothesis that 
they are conspicuous? One very important fact is that 
we have abundant proof that animals, including birds, 
have totally different sight from ours; and the existence 
of these patterns, etc., unless it can be denied that they 
even tend to efface, should be taken as proof that they 
sufficiently succeed in effacing. Otherwise, why are they 
there, when almost the whole animal kingdom does need 
concealment? A fox, a deer, a bear, a grouse, a turkey, 
or any small bird or mammal, may come almost to one’s 
feet if one stay still, yet flee wildly on seeing any motion. 
Is not this sufficient proof that even if we were usually 
able to detect a Papilio when it is effacively situated, it 
is no sign that a bird could do so, if the insect kept its 
place ? 
