CONSCIOUS PROTECTIVE RESEMBLANCE. 537 



This " active mimicry " is apparently regarded by Mr. Distant as 

 something apart from natural selection, a separate factor in evolution, 

 for he says : "If the process of natural selection was to be applied, 

 according to a very frequent method, as universal, then birds arising 

 from these white and prominent eggs would seem in course of time to 

 be doomed to destruction. But we find nothing of the kind. Natural 

 selection is here replaced by the evolution of intelligence or active 

 mimicry. True, it may be argued that birds laying white eggs would 

 become extinct without they had gradually acquired the intelligent or 

 automatic powers of concealment through a process of natural selec- 

 tion. But this is only begging the question" (I.e., 1899, p. 546). 

 (The italics are my own.) Seeing that this attitude permeates the 

 whole discussion, it is somewhat disconcerting to read in the concluding 

 remarks that, " to fully understand mimicry, we must appreciate 

 general animal intelligence, and then we shall probably comprehend 

 how much activity has been displayed by animals seeking protection 

 by adaptive and assimilative efforts. This in no way contradicts, but 

 supports, the doctrine of Natural Selection. The animal survives 

 which can best hide from its enemies, and this implies that the varia- 

 tions which tend to adaptive and assimilative efforts, not only succeed 

 in the battle of life, but by the selective process become dominant, and 

 more and more accentuated with a greater need " (l. c, 1900, p. 124). 

 It is scarcely necessary to point out that the latter position, which is 

 essentially that of those very selectionists 2 whose views Mr. Distant is 

 combatting, is quite at variance with the former. It will therefore be 

 necessary, for the purpose of this discussion, to neglect this remarkable 

 contradiction. 



The whole question of conscious resemblance must necessarily 



depend upon our ideas of animal intelligence, and in the present state 



of our knowledge these are unavoidably hazy and obscure. It must be 



reeollected that our conception of mind, even in our fellow men, is 



based entirely on analogy, and thus the further we depart from the 



human type, the lower we go in the organic scale, the weaker and 



weaker must that analogy become, and the more careful must we be to 



avoid the conception that any apparently purposive actions we may 



observe in these lower organisms must be due to trains of reasoning 



such as we find in ourselves. The whole subject is, at present, merely 



hypothetical ; but, on the other hand, we must not forget that even 



our most definite scientific facts are only very high probabilities." 



* I observe that Mr. Distant has strongly criticised (Z. c, 1899, p. 361) a 

 somewhat similar remark by Prof. Tyler, who says that " Natural Science 

 does not deal in demonstrations, it rests upon the doctrine of probabilities ; 

 just as we have to order our whole lives upon this doctrine." To this Mr. 



