508 
APPENDIX E 
with birds, must be wholly independent of any benefit they give to 
their possessors in the way of concealment. Mr. Thayer’s pictures 
in some cases portray such entirely exceptional situations or sur¬ 
roundings that they are misleading—as, for instance, in his pictures 
of the peacock and the male wood-duck. An instant’s reflection is 
sufficient to show that if the gaudily-coloured males of these two 
birds are really protectively coloured, then the females are not, and 
vice versa ; for the males and females inhabit similar places, and if 
the elaborate arrangement of sky or water and foliage in which 
Mr. Thayer has placed his peacock and wood-drake represented 
(which they do not) their habitual environment, a peahen and 
wood-duck could not be regarded as protectively coloured at all ; 
whereas of course in reality, as everyone knows, they are far more 
difficult to see than the corresponding males. Again, he shows a 
chipmunk among twigs and leaves, to make it evident that the 
white and black markings conceal it; but a weasel, which lacks 
these markings, would be even more difficult to see. The simple 
truth is that in most woodland, mountain, and prairie surroundings 
any small mammal that remains motionless is, unless very vividly 
coloured, exceedingly apt to escape notice. I do not think that 
the stripes of the chipmunk are of any protective value—that is, I 
believe (and the case of the weasel seems to me to prove) that its 
coloration would be at least as fully “ protective ” without them. 
The striped gophers and grey gophers seem equally easy to see ; 
they live in similar habitats, and the stripes seem to have no 
protective effect one way or the other. 
It is when Mr. Thayer and the other extreme members of the 
protective coloration school deal with the big game of Africa 
that they go most completely wide of the mark. For instance, 
Mr. Thayer speaks of the giraffe as a sylvan mammal with a 
checkered sun-fleck and leaf-coloured pattern of coloration, accom¬ 
panied by complete obliterative shading, and the whole point of 
his remark is that the giraffe’s coloration 44 always maintains its 
potency for obliteration.” Now, of course, this means nothing 
unless Mr. Thayer intends by it to mean that the giraffe's coloration 
allows it to escape the observation of its foes. I doubt whether 
this is ever under any circumstances the case—that is, I doubt 
whether the giraffe’s varied coloration ever 44 enables ” it to escape 
observation save as the dark monochrome of the elephant, rhinoceros, 
or buffalo may 44 enable ” one of these animals to escape observation 
under practically identical conditions. There is, of course, no 
conceivable colour or scheme of colour which may not, under some 
conceivable circumstances, enable the bearer to escape observation ; 
but if such colouring, for once that it enables the bearer to escape 
observation exposes the bearer to observation a thousand times, it 
cannot be called protective. I do not think that the giraffe’s 
