To MOSTLY MAMMALS 
rate, be conducted with museum specimens; and, if practi- 
cable, they would, at the best, give us but a poor inkling 
of the real truth. What we want are precise and accurate 
observations made on living animals with regard to the 
harmony between their colours and their surroundings ; 
and such observations can only be made by sportsmen and 
travellers, and more especially by the former. And to be 
of any real value such observations must be made under 
all conditions: in the case of a forest animal, for instance, 
both when the creature is in the woods and when out 
feeding in the open. Nor is this all, for it is necessary 
to ascertain what portions of an animal’s coloration are 
adapted to render the body inconspicuous under all 
circumstances—such as the white of the under-parts to 
counteract the effect of shadow—and what portions have 
been developed in correlation with the particular natural 
surroundings of a species or group. Then, again, we have 
to distinguish between protective coloration and what are 
known as “recognition marks,” such as the white under- 
surface of the tail of a rabbit. Furthermore, there is the 
distinction between both these types and the so-called 
‘‘warning colours,” like the black and white of the skunks, 
which are apparently intended to render their owners con- 
spicuous, and thus protect them from attack, either on 
account of some noxious emanation they possess or from 
their fighting power. These warning colours are, however, 
comparatively rare among mammals; and observation is 
mainly required in regard to protective coloration, especially 
when some species of a group are brilliantly spotted or 
striped, while others are uniformly clad in a less gorgeous 
livery. 
Speaking generally, and excepting certain unusually 
bulky kinds, such as elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippo- 
