334 DARWINISM chap. 



of colour or marking, often superimposed upon protective 

 tints, in the importance of easy recognition by many animals 

 of their fellows, their parents, or their mates. By this need 

 we have been able to account for markings that seem calcu- 

 lated to make the animal conspicuous, when the general tints 

 and well-known habits of the whole group demonstrate the 

 need of concealment. Thus also we are able to explain the 

 constant symmetry in the markings of wild animals, as well as 

 the numerous cases in which the conspicuous colours are con- 

 cealed when at rest and only become visible during rapid motion. 



In striking contrast to ordinary protective coloration we 

 have " warning colours," usually very conspicuous and often 

 brilliant or gaudy, which serve to indicate that their possess- 

 ors are either dangerous or uneatable to the usual enemies 

 of their tribe. This kind of coloration is probably more 

 prevalent than has been hitherto supposed, because in the 

 case of many tropical animals we are quite unacquainted with 

 their special and most dangerous enemies, and are also un- 

 able to determine whether they are or are not distasteful to 

 those enemies. As a kind of corollary to the "warning 

 colours," we find the extraordinary phenomena of "mimicry," 

 in which defenceless species obtain protection by being mis- 

 taken for those which, from any cause, possess immunity from 

 attack. Although a large number of instances of warning 

 colour and of mimicry are now recorded, it is probably still 

 an almost unworked field of research, more especially in 

 tropical regions and among the inhabitants of the ocean. 



The phenomena of sexual diversities of coloration next 

 engaged our attention, and the reasons why Mr. Darwin's theory 

 of " sexual selection," as regards colour and ornament, could 

 not be accepted were stated at some length, together with 

 the theory of animal coloration and ornament we propose 

 to substitute for it. This theory is held to be in harmony 

 with the general facts of animal coloration, while it entirely 

 dispenses with the very hypothetical and inadequate agency 

 of female choice in producing the detailed colours, patterns, 

 and ornaments, which in so many cases distinguish the male 

 sex. 



If my arguments on this point are sound, they will dispose 

 also of Mr. Grant Allen's view of the direct action of the 



