ANIMALS ANIMALS
adapt itself to its new surroundings that it can hold its
own far better than formerly. When white men take up
a new country, the game, and especially the big game,
being entirely unused to contend with the new foe,
succumb easily, and are almost completely killed out. If
any individuals survive at all, however, the succeeding
generations are far more difficult to exterminate than
were their ancestors, and they cling much more
tenaciously to their old homes. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III,
115; Nat. Ed. II, 489.
ANIMALS—DISAPPEARANCE OF. All species of
animals of course ultimately disappear, some because
their kind entirely dies out, and some because the
species is transformed into a wholly different species,
degenerate or not; but in our nomenclature we make no
distinction between the two utterly different kinds of
"disappearance." (To A. J. Balfour, March 5, 1908.)
Mem. Ed. XXIV, 127; Bishop II, 109.
ANIMALS—NOMENCLATURE OF. The
nomenclature and exact specific relationships of
American sheep, deer, and antelope offer difficulties
not only to the hunter but to the naturalist. As regards
the nomenclature, we share the trouble encountered by
all peoples of European descent who have gone into
strange lands. The incomers are almost invariably men
who are not accustomed to scientific precision of
expression. Like other people, they do not like to invent
names if they can by any possibility make use of those
already in existence, and so in a large number of cases
they call the new birds and animals by names applied to
entirely different birds and animals of the Old World to
which, in the eyes of the settlers, they bear some
resemblance. In South America the Spaniards, for
instance, christened "lion" and "tiger" the great cats
which are properly known as cougar and jaguar. In
South Africa the Dutch settlers, who came from a land
where all big game had long been exterminated, gave
fairly grotesque names to the great antelopes, calling
them after the European elk, stag, and chamois. . . . Our
own pioneers behaved in the same way. Hence it is that
we have no distinctive name at all for the group of
peculiarly American game-birds of which the bob-white
is the typical representative; and that, when we could
not use the words quail, partridge, or pheasant, we went
for our terminology to the barnyard, and called our fine
grouse, fool-hens, sage-hens, and prairie-chickens. The
bear and wolf our people recognized at once. The bison
they called a buffalo, which was no worse than the way
in which in Europe the Old World bison was called an
aurochs. The American true elk and reindeer were
rechristened moose and caribou—excellent names, by
the way, derived from the Indian. (1905.) Mem. Ed. III,
171, 172; Nat. Ed. III, 6, 7.
ANIMALS—PROTECTIVE COLORATION OF.
Very much of what is commonly said about "protective
coloration" has no basis whatever in fact. Black and
white are normally the most conspicuous colors in
nature (and yet are borne by numerous creatures who
have succeeded well in the struggle for life); but almost
any tint, or combination of tints, among the grays,
browns and duns, harmonizes fairly well with at least
some surroundings, in most landscapes; and in but a
few instances among the larger mammals, and in almost
none among those frequenting the open plains, is there
the slightest reason for supposing that the creature gains
any benefit whatever from what is loosely called its
"protective coloration." Giraffes, leopards, and zebras,
for instance, have actually been held up as instances of
creatures that are "protectingly" colored and are
benefited thereby. The giraffe is one of the most
conspicuous objects in nature, and never makes the
slightest effort to hide; near by its mottled hide is very
noticeable, but as a matter of fact, under any ordinary
circumstances any possible foe trusting to eyesight
would discover the giraffe so far away that its coloring
would seem uniform, that is, would because of the
distance be indistinguishable from a general tint which
really might have a slight protective value. In other
words, while it is possible that the giraffe's beautifully
waved coloring may under certain circumstances, and
in an infinitesimally small number of cases, put it at a
slight disadvantage in the struggle for life, in the
enormous majority of cases—a majority so great as to
make the remaining cases negligible—it has no effect
whatever, one way or the other; and it is safe to say that
under no conditions is its coloring of the slightest value
to it as affording it "protection" from foes trusting to
their eyesight. (1910.) Mem. Ed. V, 44-45; Nat. Ed. IV,
38-39.
____________. The truth is that no game of the plains
is helped in any way by its coloration in evading its
foes, and none seeks to escape the vision of its foes.
The larger game animals of the plains are always
walking and standing in conspicuous places, and never
seek to hide or take advantage of cover; while, on the
contrary, the little grass and bush antelopes, like the
duiker and steinbuck, trust very much to their power of
hiding, and endeavor to escape the sight of their foes by
lying absolutely still, in
[18]