Accepted Theories Unsatisfactory 
is possible to offer a plausible explanation of a 
large number of phenomena, which nine out of 
ten botanists explain in a very different way. 
So satisfied are the majority of naturalists with 
the ‘‘insect theory,” that they seem of late years 
to have paid but little attention to the subject of 
floral colouration. This affords a striking instance 
of the pernicious influence which Neo-Darwinism 
is exercising on the minds of men to-day. It 
tends to stifle research instead of stimulating it. 
We have now dealt with the theory of protective 
colouration, the theory of warning colouration, 
the theory of mimicry, and the theory of recogni- 
tion markings. We have shown that although 
many organisms undoubtedly derive profit from 
the fact that they are difficult to see in their 
natural surroundings or from their resemblance 
to other organisms, the hypothesis that this in- 
conspicuousness or the mimicry of these animals 
has been caused by the natural selection of small 
variations is untenable. 
Warning colours, we have shown, although a 
disadvantage to their possessors, are sometimes 
seen in nature because they are accompanied by 
unpalatability. The theory of recognition mark- 
ings must, we fear, be laid to rest in the burial 
ground of exploded hypotheses. 
_ The extreme popularity of the existing theories 
regarding animal colouration and their very 
275 
