In the brief sketches that follow I find occasion repeatedly to attack
the prevalent theories of protective colouration, because it is
impossible for the naturalist who uses his eyes to accept these
theories.
Most of these hypotheses were advanced by field naturalists, but they
have since been elaborated by cabinet zoologists and have become a
creed. Now, Huxley remarked with truth, “Science commits suicide when it
adopts a creed.” With equal truth he asserted, “‘Authorities,’
‘disciples,’ and ‘schools’ are the curse of science and do more to
interfere with the work of the scientific spirit than all its enemies.”
In England zoology is at present in the hands of ‘schools’ and
‘authorities’ of the kind to which Huxley objected.
The result is that where, in some of my previous books, I have exposed
the shallowness of the prevalent theories, I have been taken to task by
certain reviewers who are disciples of those ‘authorities.’ These
gentlemen term my criticisms superficial, but they have made no attempt
to show in what way my criticisms are superficial. There is a good
reason for this. It is that these journalists know well that any
attempts to rebut my statements will lead to a controversy in which they
cannot but be worsted because the facts are against them.
If what I say is incorrect my reviewers now have an excellent
opportunity to demonstrate this.
Lest these have recourse to the unfailing resort of the defeated
Darwinian or Wallaceian—the argument of ignorance, lest they say that it
is only owing to their insufficient knowledge of Indian birds that they
cannot answer me, let me assert that what I say of Indian birds is
equally true of British birds.
I assert with confidence that the colouring of nine out of ten birds has
some feature which the theories attacked by me cannot account for.
“Hypotheses,” wrote Huxley, “are not ends but means. . . . The most
useful of servants to the man of science, they are the worst of masters,
and when the establishment of the hypotheses comes the end, and fact is
attended to only so far as it suits the ‘Idee,’ science has no longer
anything to do with the business.”
The hypotheses which I decline to accept have become the masters of many
zoologists who are busily occupied in distorting facts which do not
coincide with theory.
It is not very long since an English scientific paper published an
article entitled “What have ornithologists done for Darwinism?” So long
as zoologists test the work of the naturalist by the amount of evidence
he collects for Darwinism or any other “ism,” it is hopeless to expect
zoological science to progress.