Professor Poulton, being aware of this objection, sets forth, on pp. 283-292 of _Essays on Evolution_, the evidence he has gathered in favour of the view that birds are the chief enemies of butterflies and other lepidoptera. As the result of five years’ observation in S. Africa, Mr G. A. K. Marshall was able to record some eight cases of birds capturing butterflies. In three cases the butterfly seized was warningly coloured, or, at any rate, conspicuous! In two of these eight cases the bird failed to capture its quarry! Says Mr Marshall, “the fact that birds refrain from pursuing butterflies may be due rather to the difficulty in catching them than to any widespread distastefulness on the part of these insects.” During six years’ observation in India and Ceylon, Colonel Yerbury records some half dozen cases of birds capturing, or attempting to capture, insects. He writes: “In my opinion an all-sufficient reason for the rarity of the occurrence exists in the fact that in butterflies the edible matter is a minimum, while the inedible wings, etc., are a maximum.” Colonel C. T. Bingham in Burma states that between 1878 and 1891 he on two occasions witnessed the systematic hawking of butterflies by birds, although he observed on other occasions some isolated cases. This appears to be the sum total of the evidence adduced by Professor Poulton as regards the capture of butterflies by birds. This seems to us an altogether insufficient foundation upon which to build the theory that the cases of resemblance between unrelated species have been effected by natural selection. It is, however, to be noted that probably among birds the most dangerous enemies of butterflies are not those that habitually catch insect prey on the wing. Such are experts in the art of fly-catching, and would despise the comparatively meatless butterfly. One often comes across butterflies with an identical notch in each wing, which leaves little room for doubt that those particular butterflies had been snapped at, _while resting_, by a bird. Among birds the chief enemies of butterflies and moths are probably to be found in those that hunt for their food in bushes and trees. Thus, what we do know of the nature of the struggle for existence offers but poor support to the Neo-Darwinian explanations of the cases of so-called mimicry in nature. Observing-powers of Birds Professor Poulton’s idea of pitting the argument of Hypertely against that of the alleged supreme sharp-sightedness of birds is ingenious, but is not likely to satisfy very many people save those content to live in a fools’ paradise. If birds are supremely sharp-sighted, and pay attention to excessively minute detail, the difficulty of accounting for the _origin_ of protective mimicry on the natural selection hypothesis becomes all the greater.