566 APPENDIX E 



ers of small rodents, and when the color patterns of the back, nose, 

 and breast, for instance, are directly opposite in the two animals, there is 

 at least need of very great caution in deciding that either represents 

 obliterative coloration of a sort that benefits the creature in catching its 

 prey. Similarly, to say that white herons and pelicans and roseate-colored 

 flamingoes and spoon-bills are helped by their coloration, when other birds 

 that live exactly in the same fashion and just as successfully, are black, or 

 brown, or black and white, or gray, or green, or blue, certainly represents 

 mere presumption, as yet unaccompanied by a vestige of proof, and 

 probably represents error. There is probably much in the general theory 

 of concealment coloration, but it is not possible to say how much until 

 it is thoroughly tested by men who do not violate the advice of the French 

 scientific professor to his pupils: "Above all things remember in the 

 course of your investigations that if you determine to find out something 

 you will probably do so." 



I have dealt chiefly with big game. But I think it high time that sober 

 scientific men desirous to find out facts should not leave this question of 

 concealing coloration or protective coloration to theorists who, however 

 able, become so interested in their theory that they lose the capacity to 

 state facts exactly. Mr. Thayer and the various gentlemen who share 

 his views have undoubtedly made some very interesting discoveries, 

 and it may well be that these discoveries are of wide-spread importance. 

 But they must be most carefully weighed, considered, and corrected 

 by capable scientific men before it is possible to say how far the theory 

 applies and what limitations there are to it. At present all that is abso- 

 lutely certain is that it does not apply anywhere near as extensively as 

 Mr. Thayer alleges, and that he is so completely mistaken as to some of 

 his facts as to make it necessary carefully to reconsider most of the others. 

 I have shown that as regards most kinds of big game which inhabit open 

 places and do not seek to escape observation but trust to their own 

 wariness for protection, his theories do not apply at all. They cer- 

 tainly do not apply at all to various other mammals. Many of his 

 sweeping assertions are certainly not always true, and may not be true 

 in even a very small number of cases. Thus, in his introductory, Mr. 

 Thayer says of birds that the so-called "nuptial colors, etc., are con- 

 fined to situations where the same colors are to be found in the wearer's 

 background, either at certain periods of his life or all the time," and 

 that apparently not one of these colors "exists anywhere in the world 

 where there is not every reason to believe it the very best conceivable 

 device for the concealment of its wearer, either throughout the main 

 part of this wearer's life or under certain peculiarly important cir- 

 cumstances." It is really difficult to argue about a statement so flatly 

 contradicted by ordinary experience. Taking at random two of the 

 common birds around our own homes, it is only necessary to consider 

 the bobolink and the scarlet tanager. The males of these two birds in 

 the breeding season put on liveries which are not only not the "very best 

 conceivable" but, on the contrary, are the very worst conceivable devices 

 for the concealment of the wearers. If the breeding cock bobolink and 



