422 
SAVAGE SUDAN 
In Africa—(ruling man out of the account)—the chief 
enemies of the defenceless animals are the big Carnivora; but 
since these hunt by night, when colour counts not, and by 
scent which excludes the need of sight up to the penultimate 
moment when, at close quarters, the chase passes “ from scent 
to view,” any protection afforded to the feebler by colour alone 
can only be of infinitesimal value. Personally, I doubt if it 
count at all. The point has been so clearly elucidated by 
Selous that I will not labour it. See the two opening chapters 
of his African Nature Notes and Reminiscences} 
A vast proportion of the muddle and misapprehension that 
befogs this question has arisen from the system of regarding 
what are purely human standards as applicable to the totally 
different conditions of wild-life. The true protection accorded 
by Nature to all her creatures ought to be patent enough: it 
is in everyday evidence to the hunter-naturalist, yet is ignored 
or overlooked by the scientific. That “ true protection ”— 
(although absolutely relevant to our subject, forming indeed 
an integral, even though collateral, part thereof)—is yet another 
story: it involves consideration of the whole psychology of the 
wilderness, a subject quite too extensive to enter upon in this 
place. Briefly, however. Nature’s protection may be stated to 
include, inter alia complurima , highly specialised development 
of the senses of Sight both by day and by night , of Scent and 
of Hearing, intensified beyond compare; and all these three 
combined with a patience and a ceaseless vigilance that passes 
human understanding. Take the sense of scent alone. We 
humans virtually possess no such sense—certainly none what¬ 
ever in protective sense. We are constrained to employ 
watch-dogs, setters, etc., to make good both that deficiency 
and equally that of our paltry powers in hearing! But is it 
known—or, if known, is any adequate weight attached to the 
1 A typical illustration of the arguments used by science as against 
Selous’ conclusions is afforded by the following extract from The Field of 
November 23rd, 1912 “If it be true, as Mr Selous says, that predatory 
animals are mainly dependent on scent, it must mean that a lion deprived of 
sight would have almost as good a chance of survival as another with vision 
unimpaired.” How can one deal with such special pleading ? It cannot 
be called argument, being neither logical, consequential, nor relevant, but 
apparently mere blind obsession to a preconceived formula. 
