Evening star., 1932-07-31

- ATINC, according to ancient adage
is the proof of the pudding. 1t would
- also seem to be the proof of the many
devices used by all manner of creatures
to avoid being eaten.
If insect other animal is col
ored a scary red. or hidden beneath o. Leaf
colored camoufiage, if it is cased in armor or
bristles with sharp spines if it can bite or
scratch or sting and in spite Of these devices
still gets eaten, then obviously its protection"
has failed to protect The proof of the pro-
. lection is in the eating
The strange and often beautiful celebrations
and markings OF animals have excited the ad-
miration of naturalists from the very earliest
times. But until the coming of the Darwinian
evolutionary doctrines of struggle for existence
and the resulting survival OF the httest no
logical explanation was offered for them
The Darwin credo that the competition be-
tween animals is SO keen that everything they
do either helps them to survive sends them
toward ultimate extinction, offered an sttrac-
tive key to the whole puzzle.
All animal colorations and markings were
eagerly examined for ttsir survival value"
after Alfred Russell Wallace, Darwins con-
temporary and co-originator of the evolution
airy doctrine in its modern form, first sug-
gested the idea a few years after the publica-
tion of the Origin of Species
IF q poisonous spider or snake; or q sting
! armed insect, conspcuously celored
marked that was interpreted as a. warming to
possible enemies that here was hard guy
who wouldn't tand for any foolishness. If an
inodenstVe creature, really good to eat and
easy to capture, happened to look like one of
these evolutionary tough babieS," that was
set down as "ninIicry' the pacifist was dis
gui5ing himself in a warriors uniform
If on the other hand the helpless one were
brown and lean. like walking-stick insect. or
fiat and green, like a katydid or notified and
lumpy, like toad. that consdered cam
outage to disguise the wearer twig or
a leaf clod- of earth.
There are endless ranifications of this
theme, but from Wallaces day until now it
has been accepted almost gospel by ma
jority- of biologists. and is set forth in all
school and college text books.
Comes now a bold hereto, W. L. McAtee of
the United States Biological Survey who cf1al-
lenges the whole idea.
Animal protection, he says, does not protect.
No matter what concealng, warning. or
mimiGking devices creature adopts, no matter
what its armament or armour, it meets some
hungry enemy that cannot be either fooled or
frightened and down the red lane it goes.
THE protective devicess Mr.. McAtee insists, do
] not give even partial protection; all crea-
lures are eaten in approximate ratio to their
total abundance. whether they are protected"
not II there few of them few get eaten;
II many, many are devoured, no matter what
they look like or how they are armed Even
really dangerous or highly disagreeabie ones
like snakes scorpions or skunts are. no
exception
Twenty years ago Mr.. McAtee made a critical
examination of experiments supposed to estab-
hsh the efficacy of protective devices
The scientists who performed these expert
ments usually presented Gagged birds or animals
with insects Of various kinds and noted whether
they ate them rejected Them or merely ignored
them. such tests. Mr.. McAtee commended were
unfair Gagged animals and birds are NO more