1912.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 357 
against natural enemies are unavoidable: (1) The experiments 
are very inconsistent; (2) They have been misinterpreted, and (3) 
They are not trustworthy guides to behavior under natural con- 
ditions, 
The Experiments are very Inconsistent.—Inconsistency in the details 
of various series of experiments have been set forth in previous 
pages (see pp. 298, 300, 313, 316 and 319). Inconsistency 
in the results of entire series is plainly shown by the strongly 
contradictory conclusions different experimenters have drawn. 
Thus Weir, Poulton, Marshall, Pocock, and Finn, for instance, thought 
their experiments supported the selectionist theories concerning 
protective adaptations, while Butler, Manders, Punnett, Plateau, 
Reighard, and Pritchett, among others, drew just the opposite 
conclusion. Beddard’s opinion was that distastefulness was not 
more definitely associated with conspicuous colors, than with plain 
ones. The characteristic inconsistency of experimental results are 
described by him in the following language:? ‘None of these 
experiments are thoroughly satisfactory; it is so difficult to interpret 
them, and they are often contradictory, for a bird will eat one day 
what it has refused before. The experiments that have been 
made are like most other statistics—they may be made to prove 
anything.” 
The Experiments have been Misinterpreted—This chafge weighs 
not so much against the experiments themselves as against their 
makers, but it throws doubt upon the desirability of such tests, 
since the personal equation is so large a factor in the interpretation 
of results. 
Definite instances of misinterpretation have been cited in 
previous pages (295, 303, 305-316, 325 and 328-330). A 
chronic case is well illustrated by the following quotations from 
Prof. E. B. Poulton (Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1902): 
“‘ A mantis is probably less affected in this respect [food preferences] 
by confinement than a vertebrate animal; but the same general 
criticism will probably hold in both cases—that while the rejection 
of an insect by a not over-fed insectivorous animal in captivity is 
evidence of unpalatability or dislike, its acceptance is not sufficient 
evidence of appreciation or that it constitutes an element of the 
normal diet. An insect may be eaten readily in captivity which- 
would be rejected or only eaten under the stress of hunger in the 
wild state” (p. 317). 
2 Animal Coloration, 1892, p. 166. 
