Robert Ardrey, in his book “The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder” makes the claim that lying is not simply a function of the complexity of language but that fraud exists everywhere in nature. Here are some examples, paraphrased, he offers from his book


1) Some of the most outrageous liars in the natural world are found among species of orchid. An Australian orchid names Cryptosylia [offers]…a perfect imitation of the smell of the female of a species of fly. The scent, acts as an aphrodisiac on the male. He is drawn to the flower. There he encounters as part of the orchid’s structure a perfect imitation of the female’s abdomen…in his efforts to copulate with the orchid he is dusted with pollen.



2) There are deep-sea fish prowling dark depths with lanterns on their snouts. Smaller fish are attracted to the light and promptly eaten.



3) The Ceylon snake resembling a viper with a brightly colored tail-tip which can be wriggled like a worm; lizards have been observed biting the tail and immediately being struck by the fangs at the other end of the living trap.



4) The Madagascar snake has a weird structure on its head resembling a finger that slowly moves as it approaches its victim



Not all wonders of natural fraud are on the property of villains.



5)The tropical fish Chactodon has spots resembling eyes on either side of its tail. It swims slowly backwards…but when a predator strikes at it, the fish is off at high speed.



Yet, are these natural scenarios really worthy of the term fraud? Can the term fraud even be extended beyond ones own species? As Butler Shafer points out, rights, property, boundaries are normally defined via the relationship of like species and thus, likewise, in this case, fraud should only be considered within the framework of like species. Yet, sidestepping this definition, let us grant Ardrey the possibility that fraud is not limited to like species. Let us consider the cases mentioned above.



1) That the male fly believes it is copulating with a willing female fly but is instead simply being dusted with Cryptosylia pollen is not fraud. It is simply mistaken intention. At which point did the male fly reserve a right, a claim, to a female fly simply by means of scent? At which point was force or theft of property initiated in this false copulation? Are we even certain that such counterfeit is not mutually beneficial?

2) That smaller fish are attracted to light and a larger fish posses such light is of no concern. Unless the author is claiming that property has been violated by the eating of another species there is no fraud in possessing light just as there is no fraud in a larger species possessing superior strength or speed. There are no rules, such as those used in a bass fishing tournament, that limit devices used for hunting. The same could be said of scenarios 3, 4, and 5.