Man himself possesses to a marked degree this impulse to keep quiet in danger. The man from the country who is visiting the large city, suddenly startled by the "honk" of the auto horn, finds his power of movement promptly arrested, and he is not unlikely to be struck and injured by the machine from which the city dweller would easily escape. This is not particularly to the credit of the city dweller, who, when in the country, may find himself similarly startled by the sudden appearance of the calf, the pig, or the sheep. The bull, which a country boy, accustomed to him from childhood, will drive with a willow switch, is a source of terrified concern to the city man. While the trick of keeping quiet serves many an animal in time of danger, there is another device for escaping attention, far more common and widespread throughout the animal world. The eye does not easily see an object if it is colored like the background against which it stands. A host of animals find their main safety in being indistinguishable in color from the surface on which they live. There are many biologists who seriously question whether protective coloration, as Darwin called it, is as effective as he believed it. In some quarters it is the present fashion to doubt protective coloration entirely. No one has yet shown any principles which will better explain the great color scheme of the animal world, and until such explanation is forthcoming I believe it will not be wise for us to discard the idea of protective coloration. No doubt it has been overworked by enthusiastic believers in its efficiency. At the same time, to overlook it completely, is, I believe, to make a greater error. I have little doubt that when the broader explanation comes, which will satisfactorily explain the color scheme of the animal world, the idea of protective coloration will be found, not so much to have been wrong, as to have been but partial. It will be included under the broader principle which takes its place and will not be supplanted by it.