312 Correspondence. L April 



read carefully the legend to Fig. 103 of Mr. Thayer's book and the text 

 on page 153, which seem to be the only plaees in the book pertinent to the 



matter in hand, he will agree with me that this is a very ingenious explana- 

 tion but hardly tenable. To assist readers in pursuit of the real facts in 

 the case. I will point out that the words 'quadruped pursuer' do not occur 

 on page 153, while they do occur in the legend to Fig. 103, only a few lines 

 away from the statement ill regard to the conspieuousness of the crouching 

 hare 'when seen from the position of a mouse or cricket.' but in connection 

 with tin 1 white rump of the leaping hare. and. so far as I can see, in no other 

 place in the whole book. Now one can see in this proximity a very natural 

 explanation of how a careless reader could read one expression in place of 

 the other. If this explanation is incorrect, why. I ask, did Air. Roosevelt 

 use quotation marks for the expression 'quadruped pursuer'? It is com- 

 monplace enough in itself, and no one would think of putting it inside 

 quotation marks except for some special purpose. Is it not obvious that 

 Mr. Roosevelt thought he was virtually quoting Mr. Thayer's entire 

 statement about the crouching hare? If he deliberately substituted the 

 words 'quadruped pursuer' for 'mouse or cricket,' why did he not indicate 

 that he was only drawing an inference, not making a quotation or even a 

 paraphrase from Mr. Thayer, and why did he not use the term 'terrestrial 

 enemies," which he found ready to hand on page 153? Rut that Mr. Roose- 

 velt has misread Mr. Thayer on this point is proved beyond a peradventure, 

 it seems to me, by the fact that lie goes on to say, "If a sitting rabbit is 

 'boldly conspicuous' to an animal on a level with it, then all of Mr. Thayer's 

 theories go by the board at once, and all animals are always 'boldly con- 

 spicuous,' to their foes." Now Mr. Thayer did not say that the crouching 

 hare was conspicuous to an animal, 'on a level with it' but 'from the posi- 

 tion of a mouse or cricket.' which animals, of course, would look up at the 

 hare and not view it from the same level. Mr. Roosevelt's attempt to show 

 here that Mr. Thayer is inconsistent is surely a conspicuous failure, is it 

 not'.' The trouble is that Mr. Roosevelt has in this and the other instance 

 of misquotation, or misapprehension, — to which I shall proceed forthwith, 

 — shown a signal lack of understanding of Mr. Thayer's contentions. If 

 he had approached the book with a reasonable desire to find what there was 

 of good in it. lie would never have entertained the notion that Mr. Thayer 

 regarded any crouching animal as conspicuous (in the long run) to its foes, — 

 as if it were necessary for an animal to stand up in order to be obliterated. 

 The whole argument of Mr. Thayer's book is in the opposite direction. It 

 seems plain that Mr. Roosevelt not only misquoted Thayer's words in 

 this instance but failed entirely to grasp the larger meaning of his book. 



Now as to the other misreading of which 1 accuse Mr. Roosevelt, I must 

 admit that, as you put the case, I may seem to have misjudged him. You 

 will notice, however, on referring again to the passage you quote from Mr. 

 Roosevelt, that though your footnote asserts that it is quoted verbatim, 

 you hare omitted the eery daust against which my criticism u-as directed! 

 That you are not unacquainted with the custom of inserting points to 



