282 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [June, 
also proposed to explain cryptic resemblances, or the mimicry of 
inanimate objects by natural selection. Four years later, A. R. 
Wallace stated? that he agreed entirely with Bates as to the cause of 
mimicry, and cited many examples of the phenomenon from the 
Malayan region. In 1867 the same author first gave a definite 
theory® concerning the significance of the brilliant colors which are 
now commonly referred to as warning colors. In 18704 he extended 
the application of Bates’ theory of cryptic and mimicking colors 
and advanced the results of experiments in support of the theory of 
warning colors. 
It is not necessary at this time to trace the later development of 
the theory by Miller, Dixey, Poulton, and others. Suffice it to say 
that the original definite suggestion that conspicuous colors have 
been developed to advertise disagreeable qualities was the result 
of Wallace’s cudgelling his brain at Darwin’s instance, for an explana- 
tion of the coloration of certain insect larve, which obviously could 
not be accounted for by sexual selection. The theory has since been 
expanded to include conspicuous coloration in all groups of animals. 
A certain insect smells badly to man; is colored red and black, for 
example, it is conspicuous and nasty to us, hence it must be to 
insectivorous animals. Its striking color advertises its nauseous 
qualities and it is avoided after experience; in other words, is pro- 
tected. So goes the original theory. Although it has been expanded 
to include all conspicuous forms, whether or not they are nauseous 
to man, its supporters seemingly find it impossible entirely to forsake 
the older anthropomorphic ground. Mimicry theories hold that a 
palatable form gains protection by resembling one of the conspicuous * 
but nauseous ones, and that distasteful forms are mutually benefited 
by resemblance. Each of these theories, it may be repeated, was 
built up in the absence of evidence that the insects concerned were 
actually distasteful or palatable as claimed. This was the principal 
criticism made by the comparatively few who at the time dared 
question the all-sufficiency of natural selection, and it stands to-day 
the greatest obstacle to acceptance of the theories. 
This criticism spurred the supporters of the theory to sporadic 
efforts to produce evidence in favor of their contentions. The 
favorite method of securing such evidence has been by experimenting 
with captive animals, and the principal body of alleged proof of the 
2 Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., XXV, past, pp. 19-22. 
3 Proc. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1867, p 
4 Contributions to the Theory of of Wy Pa "Selection, 1870, Chap. III. 
