Origin of Different Kinds of Adaptations 359 
assertions of some modern Darwinians, that this imitation 
has been the result of selection. Until it can be shown that ‘ 
the imitating species is dependent on its close imitation for 
its existence, the evidence is unconvincing; and even if, in 
some cases, this should prove to be the case, it does not 
follow that natural selection has brought about the result, or 
even that it is the most plausible explanation that we have 
to account for the results. The mutation theory gives, in 
such cases, an equally good explanation, and at the same time 
avoids some of the difficulties that appear fatal to the selec- 
tion theory. 
What has been said against the theory of mimicry might 
be repeated in much stronger terms against the hypothesis 
of warning colors. 
“It seems to me, in this connection, that the imagination 
of the selectionist: has sometimes been allowed to “run 
wild”; and while it may be true that in some cases the 
colors may serve as a signal to the possible enemies of the 
animal, it seems strange that it has been thought necessary 
to explain the origin of such colors as the result of natural 
selection. Indeed, some of these warning colors appear 
unnecessarily conspicuous for the purpose they have to per- 
form. In other words, it does not seem plausible that an 
animal already protected should need to be so conspicuous. 
If we stop for a moment to consider what an enormous 
amount of destruction must have occurred, according to 
Darwin’s theory, in order to bring this warning coloration 
to its supposed state of perfection, we may well hesitate be- 
fore committing ourselves to such an extreme view. 
That gaudy colors have appeared or been present in ani- 
mals that are protected in other ways is not improbable, 
when we consider the réle that color plays everywhere in 
nature. That the presence of such colors may, to a certain 
limited extent, protect its possessor may be admitted without 
in any degree supposing that natural selection has directed 
