219 
But in answer to this view, we have already shown 
that a butterfly may be attacked and rejected with 
out being necessarily destroyed. On the other hand, 
Mr. Beddard cites the authority of Dr. Seitz for the 
assertion that “ in the Heliconius beskii, a species with 
a particularly evil odour, it was found that only a very 
few individuals were odoriferous ”; and then he goes 
on to say, “If the odour is as objectionable to birds 
and lizards as it is to us, it looks as if the majority 
traded on the unpleasant reputation of the few.”* In 
other words, the whole group would be avoided because 
some individuals were disagreeable, and in this case no 
Natural Selection would take place. 
I have already argued that the addition of a gaudy 
colour to an offensive taste is not needed for the preser 
vation of a species—cannot be a matter of life and death, 
i.e., cannot be brought about by Natural Selection. If that 
is so, still more difficult is it to believe that the gradual 
steps between the inconspicuous and the gaudy colour 
can have been brought about by that agency. It only 
remains to say that gaudy colour and disagreeable taste 
are sometimes conferred at the same time and by the 
same agency. 
Dr. Eisig points out that pigment in the skin has been 
actually proved in some cases to be excreted matter, and 
it may be so in other cases where no direct evidence is 
forthcoming. He is of opinion that this pigment is itself 
largely the cause of the distastefulness. “ I may remark,” 
says Mr. Beddard, “that a Cebus monkey sucked a magpie 
caterpillar and threw away the skin, as a boy sucks an 
orange and disposes of the peel.” This is, so far, evidence 
that the pigmented skin is the distasteful part. If so, we 
P■ *97'