Page:The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 6 (1902).djvu/216

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
174
THE ZOOLOGIST

observer, Mr. Belt, in his 'Naturalist in Nicaragua,' wherein he described that animal as going "leisurely along, holding up his white tail as a danger flag for none to come within range of his nauseous artillery." A similar observation was subsequently made by Mr. Wallace in North America, who reaffirmed the theory, and explained its cogency by the argument that for such animals it was "important that they should not be mistaken for defenceless or eatable species of the same class or order, since in that case they might suffer injury or even death before their enemies discovered the danger or the uselessness of the attack."[1] But the American Mink (Mustela vison)—as is the case with Minks generally—is described by Dr. Coues as second only to the Skunk in the possession of an extremely offensive effluvium, and yet it is of a more or less uniform coloration, and certainly is provided with nothing that can be described as "warning colours." And although the Malayan Badger (Mydaus meliceps), which possesses an extremely evil odour, is somewhat similarly marked as the Skunk, and with the tip of its short stumpy tail whitish, it is described as a purely nocturnal animal. Gymnura rafflesi is another animal generally considered as nocturnal in its habits, and with the terminal third of its rat-like tail usually white. According to Mrs. W.P. Pryer, in Borneo, the smell which this animal emits is insufferable, and hangs about for a long time; it is so overpowering, "that I have once or twice awakened from a sound sleep owing to one of these animals having simply passed below the house."[2] If the colour of the Skunk is a product of Natural Selection, slowly acquired for protective—i.e. in this case, warning—purposes, it is at least surprising that other nauseous animals are not similarly protected. An equally probable suggestion, that of inherited intelligence on the part of its enemies is as likely to be the explanation. In fact, there is nothing to prove that its scent alone is not the

    Crowned Harpy Eagle; but, although D'Orbigny's statement is, according to Mr. Hudson, "pure conjecture," Mr. Hudson admits that most of the Eagles shot by himself in Patagonia, including a dozen Chilian Eagles and one Crowned Harpy, smelt of Skunk. Pumas also sometimes commit the same mistake, for their fur in some cases smells strongly of Skunk (Beddard, 'Animal Coloration,' 2nd ed. p. 178).

  1. 'Darwinism,' p. 232.
  2. 'A Decade in Borneo,' p. 75.