本文之「生物誌異」不同於當代環境議題之概念。筆者將探究十九世紀末英帝國殖民下，吉卜林《野獸印記》中，英人Fleete因褻瀆印度當地猴神Hanuman，其行為舉止變得如野獸一般，眾人因而發現人類作為物種，無論是白人殖民者、亦或是被殖民之印度人，可能來自同源同種的祖先，彼此血脈相同，因而投射出深層之恐懼。早先研究，將《野獸印記》視為象徵十九世紀末英帝國霸權書寫、或是解構殖民者男性氣概之文本；然而，筆者主張，敘事者對於Fleete之性情、及行為之描寫，來自英帝國殖民者，相較被統治的印度，所投射出的「野蠻焦慮」，脫離不了「物種演化論」背後，其雙方人類祖先可能源自同源同種之深層焦慮。若英帝國殖民者的「野蠻焦慮」與「生物演化」有關，則《野獸印記》如何透過「生物誌異」而再現? 因而，本文將以拉馬克的「動物哲學」以及達爾文的「生物演化論」，作為理論框架，辯證並分析故事中所隱含的「生物誌異」。

Bio-Gothic differentiates from that in contemporary environmental issues. The author intends to investigate late nineteenth-century Rudyard Kipling’s "The Mark of the Beast" an imperial colonial writing. Fleete the British colonizer blasphemed India’s Hanuman a local monkey deity. From Fleete’s bizarre behaviors, the other Englishmen found that the colonizers and the colonized— both might share the same bloodline from mutual ancestry, the monkey deity. That projects out colonizers’ deep "savage anxiety." Previous studies mainly resort Kipling’s "The Mark of the Beast" to the late nineteenth-century imperial colonial writing, or the text that deconstructs colonizers’ masculinity. However, it is unclear enough about how Fleete’s transformation in terms of his characters and behaviors can be reinterpreted and understood through Lamarckian "zoological philosophy" and Darwinian "theory of evolution." Therefore, if the colonizers’ "savage anxiety" be closely related to "biological evolution," how can "The Mark of the Beast" be represented through "Bio-Gothic?"