558 APPENDIX E 



to any appreciable extent) by wbat Mr. Thayer lays such especial stress 

 upon as being "full obliterative shading (counter-shading) of surface 

 coloring." 



Certainly many of the markings of mammals, just as is the case with 

 birds, must be wholly independent of any benefit they give to their pos- 

 sessors in the way of concealment. Mr. Thayer's pictures in some cases 

 portray such entirely exceptional situations or surroundings that they 

 are misleading as, for instance, in his pictures of the peacock and the 

 male wood-duck. An instant's reflection is sufficient to show that if the 

 gaudily colored males of these two birds are really protectively colored, 

 then the females are not, and vice versa; for the males and females in- 

 habit similar places, and if the elaborate arrangement of sky or water 

 and foliage in which Mr. Thayer has placed his peacock and wood-drake 

 represented (which they do not) their habitual environment, a peahen 

 and wood-duck could not be regarded as protectively colored at all; 

 whereas of course in reality, as every one knows, they are far more difficult 

 to see than the corresponding males. Again, he shows a chipmunk among 

 twigs and leaves, to make it evident that the white and black markings 

 conceal it; but a weasel which lacks these markings would be even 

 more difficult to see. The simple truth is that in most woodland, moun- 

 tain, and prairie surroundings, any small mammal that remains motionless 

 is, unless very vividly colored, exceedingly apt to escape notice. I do 

 not think that the stripes of the chipmunk are of any protective value; 

 that is, I believe (and the case of the weasel seems to me to prove) that 

 its coloration would be at least as fully "protective" without them. The 

 striped gophers and gray gophers seem equally easy to see; they live in 

 similar habitats and the stripes seem to have no protective effect one way 

 or the other. 



It is when Mr. Thayer and the other extreme members of the protec- 

 tive coloration school deal with the big game of Africa that they go most 

 completely wide of the mark. For instance, Mr. Thayer speaks of the 

 giraffe as a sylvan mammal with a checkered sun-fleck and leaf-colored 

 pattern of coloration accompanied by complete obliterative shading, 

 and the whole point of his remarks is that the giraffe's coloration "al- 

 ways maintains its potency for obliteration." Now of course this means 

 nothing unless Mr. Thayer intends by it to mean that the giraffe's color- 

 ation allows it to escape the observation of its foes. I doubt whether this 

 is evei under any circumstances the case; that is, I doubt whether the 

 giraffe's varied coloration ever "enables" it to escape observation save 

 as the dark monochrome of the elephant, rhinoceros, or buffalo may 

 "enable" on of these animals to escape observation under practically 

 identical conditions. There is of course no conceivable color or scheme 

 of color which may not under some conceivable circumstances enable 

 the bearer to escape observation; but if such coloring, for once that it 

 enables the bearer to escape observation, exposes the bearer to observa- 

 tion a thousand tims, it cannot be called protective. I do not think that 

 the giraffe's coloration exposes it to observation on the part of its foes; 



