CHAPTER IV.

COLOUR, ITS NATURE AND RECOGNITION.

This chapter will be devoted to a slight sketch of the nature of light and colour, and to proofs that niceties of colour are distinguished by animals.

First, as to the nature of light and colour. Colour is essentially the effect of different kinds of vibrations upon certain nerves. Without such nerves, light can produce no luminous effect whatever; and to a world of blind creatures, there would be neither light nor colour, for as we have said, light and colour are not material things, but are the peculiar results or effects of vibrations of different size and velocity.

These effects are due to the impact of minute undulations or waves, which stream from luminous objects, the chief of which is the sun. These waves are of extreme smallness, the longest being only 226 _ten-millionths_ of an inch from crest to crest. The tiny billows roll outwards and onwards from their source at inconceivable velocities, their mean speed being 185,000 miles in a second. Could we see these light billows themselves and count them as they rolled by, 450 billions (450,000,000,000,000) would pass in a single second, and as the last ranged alongside us, the first would be 185,000 miles away. We are not able, however, to see the waves themselves, for the ocean whose vibrations they are, is composed of matter infinitely more transparent than air, and infinitely less dense. Light, then, be it clearly understood, is not the ethereal billows or waves themselves, but only the effect they produce on falling upon a peculiar kind of matter called the optic nerve. When the same vibrations fall upon a photographic sensitive film, another effect--chemical action--is produced: when they fall upon other matter, heat is the result. Thus heat, light and chemical action are but phases, expressions, effects or results of the different influences of waves upon different kinds of matter. The same waves or billows will affect the eye itself as light, the ordinary nerves as warmth, and the skin as chemical action, in tanning it.

Though we cannot see these waves with the material eye, they are visible indeed to the mental eye; and are as amenable to experimental research as the mightiest waves of the sea. Still, to render this subject clearer, we will use the analogy of sound. A musical note, we all know, is the effect upon our ears of regularly recurring vibrations. A pianoforte wire emits a given note, or in other words, vibrates at a certain and constant rate. These vibrations are taken up by the air, and by it communicated to the ear, and the sensation of sound is produced. Here we see the wire impressing its motion on the air, and the air communicating its motion to the ear; but if another wire similar in all respects is near, it will also be set in motion, and emit its note; and so will any other body that can vibrate in unison. Further, the note of the pianoforte string is not a simple tone, but superposed, as it were, upon the fundamental note, are a series of higher tones, called harmonics, which give richness. Now, a ray of sun-light may be likened to such a note; it consists not of waves all of a certain length or velocity, but of numbers of waves of different lengths and speed. When all these fall upon the eye, the sensation of white light is produced, white light being the compound effect, like the richness of the tone of the wire and its harmonies; or we may look upon it as a luminous chord. When light strikes on any body, part or all is reflected to the eye. If all the waves are thus reflected equally, the result is whiteness. If only a part is reflected, the effect is colour, the tint depending upon the particular waves reflected. If none of the waves are reflected, the result is blackness.

Colour, then, depends upon the nature of the body reflecting light. The exact nature of the action of the body upon the light is not known, but depends most probably upon the molecular condition of the surface. Bodies which allow the light to pass through them, are in like manner coloured according to the waves they allow to pass.

We find in nature, however, a somewhat different class of colour, namely, the iridescent tints, like mother of pearl or shot silk, which give splendour to such butterflies, as some Morphos and the Purple Emperor. These are called diffraction colours, and are caused by minute lines upon the reflecting surface, or by thin transparent films. These lines or films must be so minute that the tiny light waves are broken up among them, and are hence reflected irregularly to the eye.

Dr. Hagen has divided the colours of insects into two classes, the epidermal and hypodermal. The epidermal colours are produced in the external layer or epidermis which is comparatively dry, and are persistent, and do not alter after death. Of this nature are the metallic tints of blue, green, bronze, gold and silver, and the dead blacks and browns, and some of the reds. The hypodermal colours are formed in the moister cells underlying the epidermis, and on the drying up of the specimen fade, as might be expected. They show through the epidermis, which is more or less transparent. These colours are often brighter and lighter in hue than the epidermal; and such are most of the blues, and greens, and yellow, milk white, orange, and the numerous intermediate shades. These colours are sometimes changeable by voluntary act, and the varying tints of the chameleon and many fishes are of this character.

In this connection, Dr. Hagen remarks, that probably all mimetic colours are hypodermal. The importance of this suggestion will be seen at once, for it necessitates a certain consciousness or knowledge on the part of the mimicker, which we have shown, seems to be an essential factor in the theory of colouration.

This author further says, that "the pattern is not the product of an accidental circumstance, but apparently the product of a certain law, or rather the consequence of certain actions or wants in the interior of the animal and in its development."

This remarkable paper, to which our attention was called after our work was nearly completed, is the only record we have been able to find which recognises a law of colouration.

From what has been said of the nature of light, and the physical origin of colour, we see that to produce any distinct tint such as red, yellow, green, or blue, a definite physical structure must be formed, capable of reflecting certain rays of the same nature and absorbing others. Hence, whenever we see any distinct colour, we may be sure that a very considerable development in a certain direction has taken place. This is a most important conclusion, though not very obvious at first sight. Still, when we bear in mind the numbers of light waves of different lengths, and know that if these are reflected irregularly, we get only mixed tints such as indefinite browns; we can at once see how, in the case of such objects as tree trunks, and, still more, in inanimate things like rocks and soils, these, so-to-say, undifferentiated hues are just what we might expect to prevail, and that when definite colours are produced, it of necessity implies an effort of some sort. Now, if this be true of such tints as red and blue, how much more must it be the case with black and white, in which all the rays are absorbed or all reflected? These imply an even stronger effort, and _a priori_ reasoning would suggest that where they occur, they have been developed for important purposes by what may be termed a supreme effort. Consequently, we find them far less common than the others; and it is a most singular fact that in mimetic insects, these are the colours that are most frequently made use of. It would almost seem as if a double struggle had gone on: first, the efforts which resulted in the protective colouring of the mimicked species, and then a more severe, because necessarily more rapid, struggle on the part of the mimicker.

Yet another point in this connection. If this idea be correct, it follows that a uniformly coloured flower or animal must be of extreme rarity, since it necessitates not merely the entire suppression of the tendency to emphasize important regions in colour, but also the adjustment of all the varying parts of the organism to one uniform molecular condition, which enables it to absorb all but a certain closely related series of light waves no matter how varied the functions of the parts. Now, such "self-coloured" species, as florists would call them, are not only rare, but, as all horticulturists know, are extremely difficult to produce. When a pansy grower, for instance, sets to work to produce a self-coloured flower--say a white pansy without a dark eye--his difficulties seem insurmountable. And, in truth, this result has never been quite obtained; for he has to fight against every natural tendency of the plant to mark out its corolla-tube in colour, and when this is overcome, to still restrain it, so as to keep it within those limits which alone allow it to reflect the proper waves of light.

The production of black and white, then, being the acme of colour production, we should expect to find these tints largely used for very special purposes. Such is actually the case. The sense organs are frequently picked out with black, as witness the noses of dogs, the tips of their ears, the insertion of their vibrissæ, or whiskers, and so on; and white is the most usual warning or distinctive colour, as we see in the white stripes of the badger and skunk, the white spots of deer, and the white tail of the rabbit.

Colour, then, as expressed in definite tints and patterns, is no accident; for although, as Wallace has well said, "colour is the normal character," yet we think that this colour would, if unrestrained and undirected, be indefinite, and could not produce definite tints, nor the more complicated phenomenon of patterns, in which definite hues are not merely confined to definite tracts, but so frequently contrasted in the most exquisite manner. As we write, the beautiful Red Admiral (_V. atalanta_) is sporting in the garden; and who can view its glossy black velvet coat, barred with vividest crimson, and picked out with purest snow white, and doubt for an instant that its robe is not merely the product of law, but the supreme effort of an important law? Mark the habits of this lovely insect. See how proudly it displays its rich decorations; sitting with expanded wings on the branch of a tree, gently vibrating them as it basks in the bright sunshine; and you know, once and for all, that the object of that colour is display. But softly--we have moved too rudely, and it is alarmed. The wings close, and where is its beauty now? Hidden by the sombre specklings of its under wings. See, it has pitched upon a slender twig, and notice how instinctively (shall we say?) it arranges itself in the line of the branch: if it sat athwart it would be prominent, but as it sits there motionless it is not only almost invisible, _but it knows it_; for you can pick it up in your hands, as we have done scores of times. It is not enough, if we would know nature, to study it in cabinets. There is too much of this dry-bone work in existence. The object of nature is _life_; and only in living beings can we learn how and why they fulfil their ends.

Here, in this common British butterfly, we have the whole problem set before us--vivid colour, the result of intense and long continued effort; grand display, the object of that colour; dusky, indefinite colour, for concealment; and the "instinctive" pose, to make that protective colour profitable. The insect _knows_ all this in some way. How it knows we must now endeavour to find out.

In attacking this problem we must ask ourselves, What are the purposes that colouration, and, especially, decoration, can alone subserve? We can only conceive it of use in three ways: first, as protection from its enemies; second, as concealment from its prey; third, as distinctive for its fellows. To the third class may be added a sub-class--attractiveness to the opposite sex.

The first necessity would seem to be distinctness of species; for, unless each species were separately marked, it would be difficult for the sexes to discriminate mates of their own kind, in many instances; and this is, doubtless, the reason why species _are_ differently coloured.

But protective resemblance, as in _Kallima_,[7] the Leaf-butterfly, and mimicry, as in _D. niavius_ and _P. merope_,[8] sometimes so hide the specific characters that this process seems antagonistic to the prime reason for colouration, by rendering species less distinct. Now, doubtless, protective colouring could not have been so wonderfully developed _if the organ of sight were the only means of recognition_. But it is not. Animals possess other organs of recognition, of which, as everyone knows, smell is one of the most potent. A dog may have forgotten a face after years of absence, but, once his cold nose has touched your hand, the pleased whine and tail-wagging of recognition, tells of awakened memories. Even with ourselves, dulled as our senses are, the odour of the first spring violet calls up the past; as words and scenes can never do. What country-bred child forgets the strange smell of the city he first visits? and how vividly the scene is recalled in after years by a repetition of that odour!

But insects, and, it may be, many other creatures, possess sense organs whose nature we know not. The functions of the antennæ and of various organs in the wings, are unknown; and none can explain the charm by which the female Kentish Glory, or Oak Egger moths lure their mates. You may collect assiduously, using every seduction in sugars and lanterns, only to find how rare are these insects; but if fortune grant you a virgin female, and you cage her up, though no eye can pierce her prison walls, and though she be silent as the oracles, she will, in some mysterious way, attract lovers; not singly, but by the dozen; not one now and another in an hour, but in eager flocks. Many butterflies possess peculiar scent-pouches on their wings, and one of these, a _Danais_, is mimicked by several species. It is the possession of these additional powers of recognition that leaves colouration free to run to the extreme of protective vagary, when the species is hard pressed in the struggle for life.

Nevertheless, though animals have other means of recognition, the distinctive markings are, without doubt, the prime means of knowledge. Who, that has seen a peacock spread his glorious plumes like a radiant glory, can doubt its fascination? Who, that has wandered in America, and watched a male humming-bird pirouetting and descending in graceful spirals, its whole body throbbing with ecstasy of love and jealousy, can doubt? Who can even read of the Australian bower-bird, lowliest and first of virtuosi, decorating his love-bower with shells and flowers, and shining stones, running in and out with evident delight, and re-arranging his treasures, as a collector does his gems, and not be certain that here, at least, we have the keenest appreciation, not only of colour, but of beauty--a far higher sense?

It has been said that butterflies must be nearly blind, because they seldom fly directly over a wall, but feel their way up with airy touches. Yet every fact of nature contradicts the supposition. Why have plants their tinted flowers, but to entice the insects there? Why are night-blooming flowers white, or pale yellows and pinks, but to render them conspicuous? Why are so many flowers striped in the direction of the nectary, but to point the painted way to the honey-treasures below? The whole scheme of evolution, the whole of the new revelation of the meanings of nature, becomes a dead letter if insects cannot appreciate the hues of flowers. The bee confines himself as much as possible to one species of flower at a time, and this, too, shows that it must be able to distinguish them with ease. We may, then, take it as proven that the power of discriminating colours is possessed by the lower animals.

[7] Pl. I., Figs 1-3. [8] Pl. II., Figs. 1-3.