ear of
contradiction. If a man does arise and declines to accept the fiats
of this league, it is not difficult for the members to combine and
tell the general public that that man is a foolish crank, who does
not know what he is talking about; and the public naturally accepts
this dictum.

The only scientific men who, as a class, are characterised by humility
are the meteorologists. I always feel sorry for the meteorologist.
He has to predict the weather, and every man is able to test the value
of these predictions. The zoologist, on the other hand, does not
predict anything. He merely lays down the law to people who know
nothing of law. He assures the world that he can explain all organic
phenomena, and the world believes him.

As a matter of fact, zoology is quite as backward as meteorology.
Those who do not wish to be deceived will do well to receive with
caution all the zoological theories which at present hold the field.
Before many years have passed all of them will have been modified
beyond recognition. Most of them are already out of date.

There are doubtless good reasons for the colouring of both the
grosbeak and the oriole; what these reasons are we know not. But as
neither derives any benefit from the resemblance to the other, this
_resemblance_ cannot have been effected by natural selection. Now,
if the unknown forces, which cause the various organisms to take their
varied colours and forms, sometimes produce two organisms of
different families which closely resemble one another, and the
organisms in question are so distributed that neither can derive the
slightest advantage in the struggle for existence from the
resemblance, there is no reason why similar resemblances should not
be produced in the case of organisms which occupy the same areas of
the earth. Thus it is quite possible that many so-called cases of
mimicry are nothing of the kind.

The mere fact that one of the organisms in question may profit by
the likeness is not sufficient to demonstrate that natural selection
is responsible for the resemblance.

In this connection we must bear in mind that, according to the orthodox
Darwinian theory, the resemblance must have come about gradually,
and in its beginnings it cannot have profited the mimic _as a
resemblance_.

So plastic are organisms, and so great is the number of living things
in the earth, that it is not surprising that very similar forms should
sometimes arise independently and in