In the days of swordsmanship, there was Httle difference between fine 

 fencers, yet the best one would, by the most delicate shades of superiority, get 

 his sword through his opponent's ribs in one fight after another till all men 

 feared him. That such things are more than luck is well known to life- 

 insurance companies and army recruiters. Why do they take no chances, 

 but, instead, calculate averages, and reject each applicant whose defects exceed 

 the limit, even in cases where this applicant has a great many chances of con- 

 tinued health — ^where he may outlast sounder men? If war departments 

 know that minute defects in individual soldiers will affect even a single cam- 

 paign, how is it conceivable that, in the animal kingdom (if there be natural 

 selection at all, or any corresponding principle), hundreds of thousands of 

 years should leave any sifting unperfected, any slightest adaptation incom- 

 plete? All characters, barely noticeable by us, but which are in the long run 

 of more use than harm, must develop. 



This book demonstrates that the colors, patterns, and appendages of ani- 

 mals are the most perfect imaginable effacers under the very circumstances wherein 

 su^h effacement would most serve the wearer. For any particular animal to 

 be seen looking conspicuous means no more than that he is not at those 

 moments looked at under the circumstances for which his concealing-colors 

 are effective; and man's persistent misconception that bold patterns, etc., 

 make the wearer conspicuous, is based on a psychological principle. Let us 

 imagine one hundred butterflies of the same species within range of a nat- 

 uralist's sight, and ninety-nine of them concealed from him by the effect of 

 their bold patterns, while the hundredth happens to be noticed by him, and, 

 of course, identified by all its attributes, bold pattern and all. What impres- 

 sion about the species has this naturalist gained through this experience? He 

 carries away simply one more mental picture of a butterfly of this boldly 

 patterned species, and mistakes its specific recognizability for intrinsic con- 

 spicuousness. The ninety-nine successful disguises have made no impression 

 at all. So he goes on, accumulating a conviction that the species is conspic- 

 uous. He can tell you a long list of cases to prove it: — while the actual case 



9 



