422 SAVAGE SUDAN 



In Africa (ruling man out of the account) the chief 

 enemies of the defenceless animals are the big Carnivora ; but 

 since these hunt by night, when colour counts not, and by 

 scent which excludes the need of sight up to the penultimate 

 moment when, at close quarters, the chase passes " from scent 

 to view," any protection afforded to the feebler by colour alone 

 can only be of infinitesimal value. Personally, I doubt if it 

 count at all. The point has been so clearly elucidated by 

 SELOUS that I will not labour it. See the two opening chapters 

 of his African Nature Notes and Reminiscences}- 



A vast proportion of the muddle and misapprehension that 

 befogs this question has arisen from the system of regarding 

 what are purely human standards as applicable to the totally 

 different conditions of wild-life. The true protection accorded 

 by Nature to all her creatures ought to be patent enough : it 

 is in everyday evidence to the hunter-naturalist, yet is ignored 

 or overlooked by the scientific. That "true protection" 

 (although absolutely relevant to our subject, forming indeed 

 an integral, even though collateral, part thereof) is yet another 

 story : it involves consideration of the whole psychology of the 

 wilderness, a subject quite too extensive to enter upon in this 

 place. Briefly, however, Nature's protection may be stated to 

 include, inter alia complurima, highly specialised development 

 of the senses of Sight both by day and by night, of Scent and 

 of Hearing, intensified beyond compare ; and all these three 

 combined with a patience and a ceaseless vigilance that passes 

 human understanding. Take the sense of scent alone. We 

 humans virtually possess no such sense certainly none what- 

 ever in protective sense. We are constrained to employ 

 watch-dogs, setters, etc., to make good both that deficiency 

 and equally that of our paltry powers in hearing ! But is it 

 known or, if known, is any adequate weight attached to the 



1 A typical illustration of the arguments used by science as against 

 Selous' conclusions is afforded by the following extract from The Field of 

 November 23rd, 1912: "If it be true, as Mr Selous says, that predatory 

 animals are mainly dependent on scent, it must mean that a lion deprived of 

 sight would have almost as good a chance of survival as another with vision 

 unimpaired." How can one deal with such special pleading? It cannot 

 be called argument, being neither logical, consequential, nor relevant, but 

 apparently mere blind obsession to a preconceived formula. 



