Vo i^ CX ] ' orri pond* 3 1 3 



iiidi, ,.,. is shown by the quotation thus abridged on the following 



page, and you must also be aware that it is uot permissible to omit any 

 vital pari of a quotation, even though the omission be so indicated (other- 

 w ise the points mighl be substituted for such a word ae 'not,' for instance, 

 and the quotation be made to read very differently from the original). 

 This failure to quote the passage actually verbatim, since it has resulted 

 in a serious misrepresentation of my side of the 'use. must be regretted, 

 1 am Bure, as much by you as by me. Wha1 Mr. Roosevelt really says in 

 the passage referred to - which you will find correctly quoted in my paper 

 — is, "Mr Thayer insists thai the animal escapes observation, notbecause 

 its colors match its surroundings, or because it sits motionless like a stump," 

 etc. Y.hi omitted the words 1 have italicized and, as I have said, these were 

 the very words I attacked. The omission was purely accidental, of course, 

 for I am far from agreeing with Mr. Thomas Barbour that 'a misquotation 

 would probably be wilful' (Auk, XXX, 82), but it was certainly unfortu- 

 nate. 



I think that you will now admit that my point, against Mr. Roosevelt 

 in this matter was well taken, but I will seize this opportunity to make the 

 point so clear thai no reader can fail to see it. To that end I will quote 

 the same passage from Mr. Thayer's book which you quoted, condensed 

 in the same way, but will italicize only certain words in it instead of the 

 entire passage: "The reader. ... is now in a position to perceive the fallacy 

 of the statement prevalent in former years and still made by certain 

 writer-, thai a protectively colored animal of the type described above escapes 

 detection because being of a dull brown color like the ground and thebushe3, 

 it looks when it sits motionless like a clod or a stump or some such inanimate 

 thing.. . .The protectively colored animal, on the other hand, is as it were 

 obliterated by its [ = his] countergradation of shades. . . .If these animals 

 were ///< rely brown or gray like clods or stumps they would not be concealed, 

 because their structural forms are too distinct, and the eyes of enemies 

 are keen to detect their characteristic modelling and outlines. On the 

 other hand, a perfect shade gradation, even of some rankly brilliant color, 

 would gofai toward concealing an animal." That is what Mr. Thayer says. 

 Now, what does Mr. Roosevelt say? I will quote him again, verbatim, 

 as 1 did in my paper, hut italicizing the crucial portions: "Mr. Thayer 

 insists thai the animal escapes observation, m>i because its colors mulch Us 

 surroundings, or because it sits motionless like a stump, or clod, or some 

 such inanimate thing, but purely because of its shading, which he says is 

 rendered obliterative bj the counter-gradation of shades." I might be 

 content to let Muse t wo passages stand in the form of a 'deadly parallel', 

 but experience teaches me that it is safer to make assurance doubly sure. 

 I will draw attention again, therefore, to the fact that, it, is the protectively 

 colore! animal that is, according to Mr. Thayer, obliterated by its counter- 

 shading and othei animals achieve only an approximation to that con- 

 < 1 1' i<>n, for 'going far toward' concealment is by no means the same as 

 reaching it And it cannot he contended that in employing the words 



