224 
ANIMAL COLOURING 
attire for which “ sexual selection” could give no 
justification — caterpillars, for instance, which run ad- 
ditional risks by their conspicuous hues. “ That,” 
said the naturalist, “is in order to advertise their 
inedible qualities ! ” “ They require,” writes Mr. 
Wallace, “some signal, or danger flag, which shall 
serve as a warning to would-be enemies not to attack 
them, and they have usually obtained this in the form 
of conspicuous or brilliant coloration, very distinct 
from the protective tints of the defenceless animals 
allied to them.” There is one obvious objection to 
this explanation. It is really too clever. It fits the 
case so perfectly that, in the absence of further ex- 
periment and observation, one is reluctantly obliged 
to pause before yielding entirely to such a brilliant 
surmise, and to welcome the note of warning which 
Mr. Beddard, the Prosector of the Zoological Society, 
utters in his admirable work on “Animal Coloration.” 1 
It is evident, from the space given to the two points 
of “Sexual Selection” and “Warning Colours” in 
this work, which aims only at furnishing a general 
notion of the facts and theories relating to animal 
coloration, that room exists for doubt as to the value 
to be attached to either theory. The contribution 
which Mr. Beddard makes towards solving the diffi- 
culty is threefold. He presents as alternatives to the 
theories of sexual selection and warning coloration, 
1 Animal Coloration , by F. E. Beddard, M.A., Prosector to 
the Zoological Society of London. Swan, Sonnenschein, and Co., 
London. Macmillan and Co., New York. 
