1912 J Allen, The Concealing Coloration Question. 495 



because it sits motionless like a stump, or clod, or some such in- 

 animate thing, but purely because of its shading, which he says 

 is rendered obliterative by the counter-gradation of shades." 

 Then, after adducing considerable evidence as to brown rabbits 

 on green lawns, etc., he says (of woodchucks and pikas) that he 

 never found any difficulty in seeing either when he " could get it 

 on an entirely smooth surface of rock or ground, unless the color 

 of the surface happened to agree absolutely with the color of the 

 coat." Of course not; no one could be expected to, and Mr. 

 Thayer would be the last man to suggest it. Again, on page 189, 

 he tilts at the same windmill. In fact, much of his elaborate 

 argument against counter-shading falls to the ground when we 

 see that it is founded on a misconception. 



This matter of color-gradation Roosevelt completely fails to 

 grasp, and his apparent stupidity about it is really amazing. On 

 page 137 he considers it a point against the efficacy of counter- 

 shading that it does not show in a rabbit sitting stern on and that 

 nevertheless the rabbit is no easier to make out in that position 

 than if sideways to the observer. Now of course counter-shading 

 is of avail only where a shadow is cast and in all other positions 

 it is not needed. He falls into the same blunder on page 158 

 where he says that the female Bob-white on her nest is conceal ingly 

 colored in spite of not being counter-shaded in that position. 

 Similarly in another place he adduces the absence of counter- 

 shading on the body of a swimming duck; and in his Appendix 

 on protective coloration in African Game Trails he remarks on the 

 difficulty that some animal or animals had in making him out as 

 he stood in the forest, even though he was not counter-shaded; 

 though it is hard to see how a man standing upright, or any other 

 upright object with practically no under side except what rested 

 actually on the ground, could possibly be counter-shaded. Does 

 he imagine he might have been still more invisible if he had worn 

 white trousers? 



But I think I have said enough to show that Colonel Roosevelt's 

 methods of thought are such that we cannot place implicit confi- 

 dence in the accuracy of his observation or the soundness of his 

 judgments. If Thayer has been carried away by his enthusiasm, 

 Roosevelt has been carried just as far in the opposite direction 



