516 
APPENDIX E 
conceivably in the course of some city fight get into a coal-cellar 
with a white-washed floor, and find that the “coloration pattern” 
of his preposterous uniform was protective; and really it would be 
no more misleading to speak of such a soldier’s dress as protective 
compared to khaki than it is to speak of the Colobus monkey’s 
coloration as protective when compared with the colorations of the 
duller-coloured monkeys of other species that are found in the 
same forests. When hunting with the wild ’Ndorobo, 1 often 
found it impossible to see the ordinary monkeys, which they tried 
to point out to me, before the latter fled ; but I rarely failed to 
see the Colobus monkey when it was pointed out. In the tops of 
the giant trees, any monkey that stood motionless was to my eyes 
difficult to observe; but nine times out of ten it was the dull- 
coloured monkey, and not the black and white Colobus, which was 
most difficult to observe. I questioned the ’Ndorobos as to which 
they found hardest to see, and, rather to my amusement, at first 
they could not understand my question, simply because they could 
not understand failing to make out either; but, when they did 
understand, they always responded that the black and white 
Colobus was the monkey easiest to see and easiest to kill. These 
monkeys stretch nearly across Africa, from a form at one extremity 
of the range which is almost entirely black, to a form at the other 
extremity of the range which is mainly or most conspicuously white. 
Of course it is quite impossible that both forms can be protec¬ 
tively coloured ; and, as a matter of fact, neither is. 
I am not speaking of the general theory of protective coloration. 
I am speaking of certain phases thereof as to which I have made 
observations at first-hand. I have studied the facts as regards big 
game and certain other animals, and I am convinced that as 
regards these animals the protective-coloration theory either does 
not apply at all or applies so little as to render it necessary to 
accept with the utmost reserve the sweeping generalizations of 
Mr. Thayer and the protective-coloration extremists. It is an 
exceedingly interesting subject. It certainly seems that the theory 
must apply as regards many animals; but it is even more certain 
that it does not, as its advocates claim, apply universally; and 
careful study and cautious generalizations are imperatively neces¬ 
sary in striving to apply it extensively, while fanciful and im¬ 
possible efforts to apply it where it certainly does not apply can 
do no real good. It is necessary to remember that some totally 
different principle, in addition to or in substitution for protective 
coloration, must have been at work where totally different colora¬ 
tions and colour patterns seem to bring the same results to the 
wearers. The bear and the skunk are both catchers of small 
rodents, and when the colour patterns of the back, nose, and 
breast, for instance, are directly opposite in the two animals, there 
