CHAPTER VIII.

PRINCIPLES OF SEXUAL SELECTION.

Secondary sexual characters--Sexual selection--Manner of action--Excess of males--Polygamy--The male alone generally modified through sexual selection--Eagerness of the male--Variability of the male--Choice exerted by the female--Sexual compared with natural selection--Inheritance, at corresponding periods of life, at corresponding seasons of the year, and as limited by sex--Relations between the several forms of inheritance--Causes why one sex and the young are not modified through sexual selection--Supplement on the proportional numbers of the two sexes throughout the animal kingdom--On the limitation of the numbers of the two sexes through natural selection.

With animals which have their sexes separated, the males necessarily differ from the females in their organs of reproduction; and these afford the primary sexual characters. But the sexes often differ in what Hunter has called secondary sexual characters, which are not directly connected with the act of reproduction; for instance, in the male possessing certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the female is quite destitute, or in having them more highly-developed, in order that he may readily find or reach her; or again, in the male having special organs of prehension so as to hold her securely. These latter organs of infinitely diversified kinds graduate into, and in some cases can hardly be distinguished from, those which are commonly ranked as primary, such as the complex appendages at the apex of the abdomen in male insects. Unless indeed we confine the term "primary" to the reproductive glands, it is scarcely possible to decide, as far as the organs of prehension are concerned, which ought to be called primary and which secondary.

The female often differs from the male in having organs for the nourishment or protection of her young, as the mammary glands of mammals, and the abdominal sacks of the marsupials. The male, also, in some few cases differs from the female in possessing analogous organs, as the receptacles for the ova possessed by the males of certain fishes, and those temporarily developed in certain male frogs. Female bees have a special apparatus for collecting and carrying pollen, and their ovipositor is modified into a sting for the defence of their larvae and the community. In the females of many insects the ovipositor is modified in the most complex manner for the safe placing of the eggs. Numerous similar cases could be given, but they do not here concern us. There are, however, other sexual differences quite disconnected with the primary organs with which we are more especially concerned--such as the greater size, strength, and pugnacity of the male, his weapons of offence or means of defence against rivals, his gaudy colouring and various ornaments, his power of song, and other such characters.

Besides the foregoing primary and secondary sexual differences, the male and female sometimes differ in structures connected with different habits of life, and not at all, or only indirectly, related to the reproductive functions. Thus the females of certain flies (Culicidae and Tabanidae) are blood-suckers, whilst the males live on flowers and have their mouths destitute of mandibles.[336] The males alone of certain moths and of some crustaceans (_e.g._ Tanais) have imperfect, closed mouths, and cannot feed. The Complemental males of certain cirripedes live like epiphytic plants either on the female or hermaphrodite form, and are destitute of a mouth and prehensile limbs. In these cases it is the male which has been modified and has lost certain important organs, which the other members of the same group possess. In other cases it is the female which has lost such parts; for instance, the female glow-worm is destitute of wings, as are many female moths, some of which never leave their cocoons. Many female parasitic crustaceans have lost their natatory legs. In some weevil-beetles (Curculionidae) there is a great difference between the male and female in the length of the rostrum or snout;[337] but the meaning of this and of many analogous differences, is not at all understood. Differences of structure between the two sexes in relation to different habits of life are generally confined to the lower animals; but with some few birds the beak of the male differs from that of the female. No doubt in most, but apparently not in all these cases, the differences are indirectly connected with the propagation of the species: thus a female which has to nourish a multitude of ova will require more food than the male, and consequently will require special means for procuring it. A male animal which lived for a very short time might without detriment lose through disuse its organs for procuring food; but he would retain his locomotive organs in a perfect state, so that he might reach the female. The female, on the other hand, might safely lose her organs for flying, swimming, or walking, if she gradually acquired habits which rendered such powers useless.

We are, however, here concerned only with that kind of selection, which I have called sexual selection. This depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species, in exclusive relation to reproduction. When the two sexes differ in structure in relation to different habits of life, as in the cases above mentioned, they have no doubt been modified through natural selection, accompanied by inheritance limited to one and the same sex. So again the primary sexual organs, and those for nourishing or protecting the young, come under this same head; for those individuals which generated or nourished their offspring best, would leave, _caeteris paribus_, the greatest number to inherit their superiority; whilst those which generated or nourished their offspring badly, would leave but few to inherit their weaker powers. As the male has to search for the female, he requires for this purpose organs of sense and locomotion, but if these organs are necessary for the other purposes of life, as is generally the case, they will have been developed through natural selection. When the male has found the female he sometimes absolutely requires prehensile organs to hold her; thus Dr. Wallace informs me that the males of certain moths cannot unite with the females if their tarsi or feet are broken. The males of many oceanic crustaceans have their legs and antennae modified in an extraordinary manner for the prehension of the female; hence we may suspect that owing to these animals being washed about by the waves of the open sea, they absolutely require these organs in order to propagate their kind, and if so their development will have been the result of ordinary or natural selection.

When the two sexes follow exactly the same habits of life, and the male has more highly developed sense or locomotive organs than the female, it may be that these in their perfected state are indispensable to the male for finding the female; but in the vast majority of cases, they serve only to give one male an advantage over another, for the less well-endowed males, if time were allowed them, would succeed in pairing with the females; and they would in all other respects, judging from the structure of the female, be equally well adapted for their ordinary habits of life. In such cases sexual selection must have come into action, for the males have acquired their present structure, not from being better fitted to survive in the struggle for existence, but from having gained an advantage over other males, and from having transmitted this advantage to their male offspring alone. It was the importance of this distinction which led me to designate this form of selection as sexual selection. So again, if the chief service rendered to the male by his prehensile organs is to prevent the escape of the female before the arrival of other males, or when assaulted by them, these organs will have been perfected through sexual selection, that is by the advantage acquired by certain males over their rivals. But in most cases it is scarcely possible to distinguish between the effects of natural and sexual selection. Whole chapters could easily be filled with details on the differences between the sexes in their sensory, locomotive, and prehensile organs. As, however, these structures are not more interesting than others adapted for the ordinary purposes of life, I shall almost pass them over, giving only a few instances under each class.

There are many other structures and instincts which must have been developed through sexual selection--such as the weapons of offence and the means of defence possessed by the males for fighting with and driving away their rivals--their courage and pugnacity--their ornaments of many kinds--their organs for producing vocal or instrumental music--and their glands for emitting odours; most of these latter structures serving only to allure or excite the female. That these characters are the result of sexual and not of ordinary selection is clear, as unarmed, unornamented, or unattractive males would succeed equally well in the battle for life and in leaving a numerous progeny, if better endowed males were not present. We may infer that this would be the case, for the females, which are unarmed and unornamented, are able to survive and procreate their kind. Secondary sexual characters of the kind just referred to, will be fully discussed in the following chapters, as they are in many respects interesting, but more especially as they depend on the will, choice, and rivalry of the individuals of either sex. When we behold two males fighting for the possession of the female, or several male birds displaying their gorgeous plumage, and performing the strangest antics before an assembled body of females, we cannot doubt that, though led by instinct, they know what they are about, and consciously exert their mental and bodily powers.

In the same manner as man can improve the breed of his game-cocks by the selection of those birds which are victorious in the cockpit, so it appears that the strongest and most vigorous males, or those provided with the best weapons, have prevailed under nature, and have led to the improvement of the natural breed or species. Through repeated deadly contests, a slight degree of variability, if it led to some advantage, however slight, would suffice for the work of sexual selection; and it is certain that secondary sexual characters are eminently variable. In the same manner as man can give beauty, according to his standard of taste, to his male poultry--can give to the Sebright bantam a new and elegant plumage, an erect and peculiar carriage--so it appears that in a state of nature female birds, by having long selected the more attractive males, have added to their beauty. No doubt this implies powers of discrimination and taste on the part of the female which will at first appear extremely improbable; but I hope hereafter to shew that this is not the case.

From our ignorance on several points, the precise manner in which sexual selection acts is to a certain extent uncertain. Nevertheless if those naturalists who already believe in the mutability of species, will read the following chapters, they will, I think, agree with me that sexual selection has played an important part in the history of the organic world. It is certain that with almost all animals there is a struggle between the males for the possession of the female. This fact is so notorious that it would be superfluous to give instances. Hence the females, supposing that their mental capacity sufficed for the exertion of a choice, could select one out of several males. But in numerous cases it appears as if it had been specially arranged that there should be a struggle between many males. Thus with migratory birds, the males generally arrive before the females at their place of breeding, so that many males are ready to contend for each female. The bird-catchers assert that this is invariably the case with the nightingale and blackcap, as I am informed by Mr. Jenner Weir, who confirms the statement with respect to the latter species.

Mr. Swaysland of Brighton, who has been in the habit, during the last forty years, of catching our migratory birds on their first arrival, writes to me that he has never known the females of any species to arrive before their males. During one spring he shot thirty-nine males of Ray's wagtail (_Budytes Raii_) before he saw a single female. Mr. Gould has ascertained by dissection, as he informs me, that male snipes arrive in this country before the females. In the case of fish, at the period when the salmon ascend our rivers, the males in large numbers are ready to breed before the females. So it apparently is with frogs and toads. Throughout the great class of insects the males almost always emerge from the pupal state before the other sex, so that they generally swarm for a time before any females can be seen.[338] The cause of this difference between the males and females in their periods of arrival and maturity is sufficiently obvious. Those males which annually first migrated into any country, or which in the spring were first ready to breed, or were the most eager, would leave the largest number of offspring; and these would tend to inherit similar instincts and constitutions. On the whole there can be no doubt that with almost all animals, in which the sexes are separate, there is a constantly recurrent struggle between the males for the possession of the females.

Our difficulty in regard to sexual selection lies in understanding how it is that the males which conquer other males, or those which prove the most attractive to the females, leave a greater number of offspring to inherit their superiority than the beaten and less attractive males. Unless this result followed, the characters which gave to certain males an advantage over others, could not be perfected and augmented through sexual selection. When the sexes exist in exactly equal numbers, the worst-endowed males will ultimately find females (excepting where polygamy prevails), and leave as many offspring, equally well fitted for their general habits of life, as the best-endowed males. From various facts and considerations, I formerly inferred that with most animals, in which secondary sexual characters were well developed, the males considerably exceeded the females in number; and this does hold good in some few cases. If the males were to the females as two to one, or as three to two, or even in a somewhat lower ratio, the whole affair would be simple; for the better-armed or more attractive males would leave the largest number of offspring. But after investigating, as far as possible, the numerical proportions of the sexes, I do not believe that any great inequality in number commonly exists. In most cases sexual selection appears to have been effective in the following manner.

Let us take any species, a bird for instance, and divide the females inhabiting a district into two equal bodies: the one consisting of the more vigorous and better-nourished individuals, and the other of the less vigorous and healthy. The former, there can be little doubt, would be ready to breed in the spring before the others; and this is the opinion of Mr. Jenner Weir, who has during many years carefully attended to the habits of birds. There can also be no doubt that the most vigorous, healthy, and best-nourished females would on an average succeed in rearing the largest number of offspring. The males, as we have seen, are generally ready to breed before the females; of the males the strongest, and with some species the best armed, drive away the weaker males; and the former would then unite with the more vigorous and best-nourished females, as these are the first to breed. Such vigorous pairs would surely rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which would be compelled, supposing the sexes to be numerically equal, to unite with the conquered and less powerful males; and this is all that is wanted to add, in the course of successive generations, to the size, strength and courage of the males, or to improve their weapons.

But in a multitude of cases the males which conquer other males, do not obtain possession of the females, independently of choice on the part of the latter. The courtship of animals is by no means so simple and short an affair as might be thought. The females are most excited by, or prefer pairing with, the more ornamented males, or those which are the best songsters, or play the best antics; but it is obviously probable, as has been actually observed in some cases, that they would at the same time prefer the more vigorous and lively males.[339] Thus the more vigorous females, which are the first to breed, will have the choice of many males; and though they may not always select the strongest or best armed, they will select those which are vigorous and well armed, and in other respects the most attractive. Such early pairs would have the same advantage in rearing offspring on the female side as above explained, and nearly the same advantage on the male side. And this apparently has sufficed during a long course of generations to add not only to the strength and fighting-powers of the males, but likewise to their various ornaments or other attractions.

In the converse and much rarer case of the males selecting particular females, it is plain that those which were the most vigorous and had conquered others, would have the freest choice; and it is almost certain that they would select vigorous as well as attractive females. Such pairs would have an advantage in rearing offspring, more especially if the male had the power to defend the female during the pairing-season, as occurs with some of the higher animals, or aided in providing for the young. The same principles would apply if both sexes mutually preferred and selected certain individuals of the opposite sex; supposing that they selected not only the more attractive, but likewise the more vigorous individuals.

_Numerical Proportion of the Two Sexes._--I have remarked that sexual selection would be a simple affair if the males considerably exceeded in number the females. Hence I was led to investigate, as far as I could, the proportions between the two sexes of as many animals as possible; but the materials are scanty. I will here give only a brief abstract of the results, retaining the details for a supplementary discussion, so as not to interfere with the course of my argument. Domesticated animals alone afford the opportunity of ascertaining the proportional numbers at birth; but no records have been specially kept for this purpose. By indirect means, however, I have collected a considerable body of statistical data, from which it appears that with most of our domestic animals the sexes are nearly equal at birth. Thus with race-horses, 25,560 births have been recorded during twenty-one years, and the male births have been to the female births as 99.7 to 100. With greyhounds the inequality is greater than with any other animal, for during twelve years, out of 6878 births, the male births have been as 110.1 to 100 female births. It is, however, in some degree doubtful whether it is safe to infer that the same proportional numbers would hold good under natural conditions as under domestication; for slight and unknown differences in the conditions affect to a certain extent the proportion of the sexes. Thus with mankind, the male births in England are as 104.5, in Russia as 108.9, and with the Jews of Livornia as 120 _to_ 100 females. The proportion is also mysteriously affected by the circumstance of the births being legitimate or illegitimate.

For our present purpose we are concerned with the proportion of the sexes, not at birth, but at maturity, and this adds another element of doubt; for it is a well ascertained fact that with man a considerably larger proportion of males than of females die before or during birth, and during the first few years of infancy. So it almost certainly is with male lambs, and so it may be with the males of other animals. The males of some animals kill each other by fighting; or they drive each other about until they become greatly emaciated. They must, also, whilst wandering about in eager search for the females, be often exposed to various dangers. With many kinds of fish the males are much smaller than the females, and they are believed often to be devoured by the latter or by other fishes. With some birds the females appear to die in larger proportion than the males: they are also liable to be destroyed on their nests, or whilst in charge of their young. With insects the female larvae are often larger than those of the males, and would consequently be more likely to be devoured: in some cases the mature females are less active and less rapid in their movements than the males, and would not be so well able to escape from danger. Hence, with animals in a state of nature, in order to judge of the proportions of the sexes at maturity, we must rely on mere estimation; and this, except perhaps when the inequality is strongly marked, is but little trustworthy. Nevertheless, as far as a judgment can be formed, we may conclude from the facts given in the supplement, that the males of some few mammals, of many birds, of some fish and insects, considerably exceed in number the females.

The proportion between the sexes fluctuates slightly during successive years: thus with race-horses, for every 100 females born, the males varied from 107.1 in one year to 92.6 in another year, and with greyhounds from 116.3 to 95.3. But had larger numbers been tabulated throughout a more extensive area than England, these fluctuations would probably have disappeared; and such as they are, they would hardly suffice to lead under a state of nature to the effective action of sexual selection. Nevertheless with some few wild animals, the proportions seem, as shewn in the supplement, to fluctuate either during different seasons or in different localities in a sufficient degree to lead to such action. For it should be observed that any advantage gained during certain years or in certain localities by those males which were able to conquer other males, or were the most attractive to the females, would probably be transmitted to the offspring and would not subsequently be eliminated. During the succeeding seasons, when from the equality of the sexes every male was everywhere able to procure a female, the stronger or more attractive males previously produced would still have at least as good a chance of leaving offspring as the less strong or less attractive.

_Polygamy._--The practice of polygamy leads to the same results as would follow from an actual inequality in the number of the sexes; for if each male secures two or more females, many males will not be able to pair; and the latter assuredly will be the weaker or less attractive individuals. Many mammals and some few birds are polygamous, but with animals belonging to the lower classes I have found no evidence of this habit. The intellectual powers of such animals are, perhaps, not sufficient to lead them to collect and guard a harem of females. That some relation exists between polygamy and the development of secondary sexual characters, appears nearly certain; and this supports the view that a numerical preponderance of males would be eminently favourable to the action of sexual selection. Nevertheless many animals, especially birds, which are strictly monogamous, display strongly-marked secondary sexual characters; whilst some few animals, which are polygamous, are not thus characterised.

We will first briefly run through the class of mammals, and then turn to birds. The gorilla seems to be a polygamist, and the male differs considerably from the female; so it is with some baboons which live in herds containing twice as many adult females as males. In South America the _Mycetes caraya_ presents well-marked sexual differences in colour, beard, and vocal organs, and the male generally lives with two or three wives: the male of the _Cebus capucinus_ differs somewhat from the female, and appears to be polygamous.[340] Little is known on this head with respect to most other monkeys, but some species are strictly monogamous. The ruminants are eminently polygamous, and they more frequently present sexual differences than almost any other group of mammals, especially in their weapons, but likewise in other characters. Most deer, cattle, and sheep are polygamous; as are most antelopes, though some of the latter are monogamous. Sir Andrew Smith, in speaking of the antelopes of South Africa, says that in herds of about a dozen there was rarely more than one mature male. The Asiatic _Antilope saiga_ appears to be the most inordinate polygamist in the world; for Pallas[341] states that the male drives away all rivals, and collects a herd of about a hundred, consisting of females and kids: the female is hornless and has softer hair, but does not otherwise differ much from the male. The horse is polygamous, but, except in his greater size and in the proportions of his body, differs but little from the mare. The wild boar, in his great tusks and some other characters, presents well-marked sexual characters; in Europe and in India he leads a solitary life, except during the breeding-season; but at this season he consorts in India with several females, as Sir W. Elliot, who has had large experience in observing this animal, believes: whether this holds good in Europe is doubtful, but is supported by some statements. The adult male Indian elephant, like the boar, passes much of his time in solitude; but when associating with others, "it is rare to find," as Dr. Campbell states, "more than one male with a whole herd of females." The larger males expel or kill the smaller and weaker ones. The male differs from the female by his immense tusks and greater size, strength, and endurance; so great is the difference in these latter respects, that the males when caught are valued at twenty per cent. above the females.[342] With other pachydermatous animals the sexes differ very little or not at all, and they are not, as far as known, polygamists. Hardly a single species amongst the Cheiroptera and Edentata, or in the great Orders of the Rodents and Insectivora, presents well-developed secondary sexual differences; and I can find no account of any species being polygamous, excepting, perhaps, the common rat, the males of which, as some rat-catchers affirm, live with several females.

The lion in South Africa, as I hear from Sir Andrew Smith, sometimes lives with a single female, but generally with more than one, and, in one case, was found with as many as five females, so that he is polygamous. He is, as far as I can discover, the sole polygamist in the whole group of the terrestrial Carnivora, and he alone presents well-marked sexual characters. If, however, we turn to the marine Carnivora, the case is widely different; for many species of seals offer, as we shall hereafter see, extraordinary sexual differences, and they are eminently polygamous. Thus the male sea-elephant of the Southern Ocean, always possesses, according to Peron, several females, and the sea-lion of Forster is said to be surrounded by from twenty to thirty females. In the North, the male sea-bear of Steller is accompanied by even a greater number of females.

With respect to birds, many species, the sexes of which differ greatly from each other, are certainly monogamous. In Great Britain we see well-marked sexual differences in, for instance, the wild-duck which pairs with a single female, with the common blackbird, and with the bullfinch which is said to pair for life. So it is, as I am informed by Mr. Wallace, with the Chatterers or Cotingidae of South America, and numerous other birds. In several groups I have not been able to discover whether the species are polygamous or monogamous. Lesson says that birds of paradise, so remarkable for their sexual differences, are polygamous, but Mr. Wallace doubts whether he had sufficient evidence. Mr. Salvin informs me that he has been led to believe that humming-birds are polygamous. The male widow-bird; remarkable for his caudal plumes, certainly seems to be a polygamist.[343] I have been assured by Mr. Jenner Weir and by others, that three starlings not rarely frequent the same nest; but whether this is a case of polygamy or polyandry has not been ascertained.

The Gallinaceae present almost as strongly marked sexual differences as birds of paradise or humming-birds, and many of the species are, as is well known, polygamous; others being strictly monogamous. What a contrast is presented between the sexes by the polygamous peacock or pheasant, and the monogamous guinea-fowl or partridge! Many similar cases could be given, as in the grouse tribe, in which the males of the polygamous capercailzie and black-cock differ greatly from the females; whilst the sexes of the monogamous red grouse and ptarmigan differ very little. Amongst the Cursores, no great number of species offer strongly-marked sexual differences, except the bustards, and the great bustard (_Otis tarda_), is said to be polygamous. With the Grallatores, extremely few species differ sexually, but the ruff (_Machetes pugnax_) affords a strong exception, and this species is believed by Montagu to be a polygamist. Hence it appears that with birds there often exists a close relation between polygamy and the development of strongly-marked sexual differences. On asking Mr. Bartlett, at the Zoological Gardens, who has had such large experience with birds, whether the male tragopan (one of the Gallinaceae) was polygamous, I was struck by his answering, "I do not know, but should think so from his splendid colours."

It deserves notice that the instinct of pairing with a single female is easily lost under domestication. The wild-duck is strictly monogamous, the domestic-duck highly polygamous. The Rev. W. D. Fox informs me that with some half-tamed wild-ducks, kept on a large pond in his neighbourhood, so many mallards were shot by the gamekeeper that only one was left for every seven or eight females; yet unusually large broods were reared. The guinea-fowl is strictly monogamous; but Mr. Fox finds that his birds succeed best when he keeps one cock to two or three hens.[344] Canary-birds pair in a state of nature, but the breeders in England successfully put one male to four or five females; nevertheless the first female, as Mr. Fox has been assured, is alone treated as the wife, she and her young ones being fed by him; the others are treated as concubines. I have noticed these cases, as it renders it in some degree probable that monogamous species, in a state of nature, might readily become either temporarily or permanently polygamous.

With respect to reptiles and fishes, too little is known of their habits to enable us to speak of their marriage arrangements. The stickle-back Gasterosteus, however, is said to be a polygamist;[345] and the male during the breeding-season differs conspicuously from the female.

To sum up on the means through which, as far as we can judge, sexual selection has led to the development of secondary sexual characters. It has been shewn that the largest number of vigorous offspring will be reared from the pairing of the strongest and best-armed males, which have conquered other males, with the most vigorous and best-nourished females, which are the first to breed in the spring. Such females, if they select the more attractive, and at the same time vigorous, males, will rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which must pair with the less vigorous and less attractive males. So it will be if the more vigorous males select the more attractive and at the same time healthy and vigorous females; and this will especially hold good if the male defends the female, and aids in providing food for the young. The advantage thus gained by the more vigorous pairs in rearing a larger number of offspring has apparently sufficed to render sexual selection efficient. But a large preponderance in number of the males over the females would be still more efficient; whether the preponderance was only occasional and local, or permanent; whether it occurred at birth, or subsequently from the greater destruction of the females; or whether it indirectly followed from the practice of polygamy.

_The Male generally more modified than the Female._--Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ from each other in external appearance, it is the male which, with rare exceptions, has been chiefly modified; for the female still remains more like the young of her own species, and more like the other members of the same group. The cause of this seems to lie in the males of almost all animals having stronger passions than the females. Hence it is the males that fight together and sedulously display their charms before the females; and those which are victorious transmit their superiority to their male offspring. Why the males do not transmit their characters to both sexes will hereafter be considered. That the males of all mammals eagerly pursue the females is notorious to every one. So it is with birds; but many male birds do not so much pursue the female, as display their plumage, perform strange antics, and pour forth their song, in her presence. With the few fish which have been observed, the male seems much more eager than the female; and so it is with alligators, and apparently with Batrachians. Throughout the enormous class of insects, as Kirby remarks,[346] "the law is, that the male shall seek the female." With spiders and crustaceans, as I hear from two great authorities, Mr. Blackwall and Mr. C. Spence Bate, the males are more active and more erratic in their habits than the females. With insects and crustaceans, when the organs of sense or locomotion are present in the one sex and absent in the other, or when, as is frequently the case, they are more highly developed in the one than the other, it is almost invariably the male, as far as I can discover, which retains such organs, or has them most developed; and this shews that the male is the more active member in the courtship of the sexes.[347]

The female, on the other hand, with the rarest exception, is less eager than the male. As the illustrious Hunter[348] long ago observed, she generally "requires to be courted;" she is coy, and may often be seen endeavouring for a long time to escape from the male. Every one who has attended to the habits of animals will be able to call to mind instances of this kind. Judging from various facts, hereafter to be given, and from the results which may fairly be attributed to sexual selection, the female, though comparatively passive, generally exerts some choice and accepts one male in preference to others. Or she may accept, as appearances would sometimes lead us to believe, not the male which is the most attractive to her, but the one which is the least distasteful. The exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems almost as general a law as the eagerness of the male.

We are naturally led to enquire why the male in so many and such widely distinct classes has been rendered more eager than the female, so that he searches for her and plays the more active part in courtship. It would be no advantage and some loss of power if both sexes were mutually to search for each other; but why should the male almost always be the seeker? With plants, the ovules after fertilisation have to be nourished for a time; hence the pollen is necessarily brought to the female organs--being placed on the stigma, through the agency of insects or of the wind, or by the spontaneous movements of the stamens; and with the Algae, &c., by the locomotive power of the antherozooids. With lowly-organised animals permanently affixed to the same spot and having their sexes separate, the male element is invariably brought to the female; and we can see the reason; for the ova, even if detached before being fertilised and not requiring subsequent nourishment or protection, would be, from their larger relative size, less easily transported than the male element. Hence plants[349] and many of the lower animals are, in this respect, analogous. In the case of animals not affixed to the same spot, but enclosed within a shell with no power of protruding any part of their bodies, and in the case of animals having little power of locomotion, the males must trust the fertilising element to the risk of at least a short transit through the waters of the sea. It would, therefore, be a great advantage to such animals, as their organisation became perfected, if the males when ready to emit the fertilising element, were to acquire the habit of approaching the female as closely as possible. The males of various lowly-organised animals having thus aboriginally acquired the habit of approaching and seeking the females, the same habit would naturally be transmitted to their more highly developed male descendants; and in order that they should become efficient seekers, they would have to be endowed with strong passions. The acquirement of such passions would naturally follow from the more eager males leaving a larger number of offspring than the less eager.

The great eagerness of the male has thus indirectly led to the much more frequent development of secondary sexual characters in the male than in the female. But the development of such characters will have been much aided, if the conclusion at which I arrived after studying domesticated animals, can be trusted, namely, that the male is more liable to vary than the female. I am aware how difficult it is to verify a conclusion of this kind. Some slight evidence, however, can be gained by comparing the two sexes in mankind, as man has been more carefully observed than any other animal. During the Novara Expedition[350] a vast number of measurements of various parts of the body in different races were made, and the men were found in almost every case to present a greater range of variation than the women; but I shall have to recur to this subject in a future chapter. Mr. J. Wood,[351] who has carefully attended to the variation of the muscles in man, puts in italics the conclusion that "the greatest number of abnormalities in each subject is found in the males." He had previously remarked that "altogether in 102 subjects the varieties of redundancy were found to be half as many again as in females, contrasting widely with the greater frequency of deficiency in females before described." Professor Macalister like wise remarks[352] that variations in the muscles "are probably more common in males than females." Certain muscles which are not normally present in mankind are also more frequently developed in the male than in the female sex, although exceptions to this rule are said to occur. Dr. Burt Wilder[353] has tabulated the cases of 152 individuals with supernumerary digits, of which 86 were males, and 39, or less than half, females; the remaining 27 being of unknown sex. It should not, however, be overlooked that women would more frequently endeavour to conceal a deformity of this kind than men. Whether the large proportional number of deaths of the male offspring of man and apparently of sheep, compared with the female offspring, before, during, and shortly after birth (see supplement), has any relation to a stronger tendency in the organs of the male to vary and thus to become abnormal in structure or function, I will not pretend to conjecture.

In various classes of animals a few exceptional cases occur, in which the female instead of the male has acquired well pronounced secondary sexual characters, such as brighter colours, greater size, strength, or pugnacity. With birds, as we shall hereafter see, there has sometimes been a complete transposition of the ordinary characters proper to each sex; the females having become the more eager in courtship, the males remaining comparatively passive, but apparently selecting, as we may infer from the results, the more attractive females. Certain female birds have thus been rendered more highly coloured or otherwise ornamented, as well as more powerful and pugnacious than the males, these characters being transmitted to the female offspring alone.

It may be suggested that in some cases a double process of selection has been carried on; the males having selected the more attractive females, and the latter the more attractive males. This process however, though it might lead to the modification of both sexes, would not make the one sex different from the other, unless indeed their taste for the beautiful differed; but this is a supposition too improbable in the case of any animal, excepting man, to be worth considering. There are, however, many animals, in which the sexes resemble each other, both being furnished with the same ornaments, which analogy would lead us to attribute to the agency of sexual selection. In such cases it may be suggested with more plausibility, that there has been a double or mutual process of sexual selection; the more vigorous and precocious females having selected the more attractive and vigorous males, the latter having rejected all except the more attractive females. But from what we know of the habits of animals, this view is hardly probable, the male being generally eager to pair with any female. It is more probable that the ornaments common to both sexes were acquired by one sex, generally the male, and then transmitted to the offspring of both sexes. If, indeed, during a lengthened period the males of any species were greatly to exceed the females in number, and then during another lengthened period under different conditions the reverse were to occur, a double, but not simultaneous, process of sexual selection might easily be carried on, by which the two sexes might be rendered widely different.

We shall hereafter see that many animals exist, of which neither sex is brilliantly coloured or provided with special ornaments, and yet the members of both sexes or of one alone have probably been modified through sexual selection. The absence of bright tints or other ornaments may be the result of variations of the right kind never having occurred, or of the animals themselves preferring simple colours, such as plain black or white. Obscure colours have often been acquired through natural selection for the sake of protection, and the acquirement through sexual selection of conspicuous colours, may have been checked from the danger thus incurred. But in other cases the males have probably struggled together during long ages, through brute force, or by the display of their charms, or by both means combined, and yet no effect will have been produced unless a larger number of offspring were left by the more successful males to inherit their superiority, than by the less successful males; and this, as previously shewn, depends on various complex contingencies.

Sexual selection acts in a less rigorous manner than natural selection. The latter produces its effects by the life or death at all ages of the more or less successful individuals. Death, indeed, not rarely ensues from the conflicts of rival males. But generally the less successful male merely fails to obtain a female, or obtains later in the season a retarded and less vigorous female, or, if polygamous, obtains fewer females; so that they leave fewer, or less vigorous, or no offspring. In regard to structures acquired through ordinary or natural selection, there is in most cases, as long as the conditions of life remain the same, a limit to the amount of advantageous modification in relation to certain special ends; but in regard to structures adapted to make one male victorious over another, either in fighting or in charming the female, there is no definite limit to the amount of advantageous modification; so that as long as the proper variations arise the work of sexual selection will go on. This circumstance may partly account for the frequent and extraordinary amount of variability presented by secondary sexual characters. Nevertheless, natural selection will determine that characters of this kind shall not be acquired by the victorious males, which would be injurious to them in any high degree, either by expending too much of their vital powers, or by exposing them to any great danger. The development, however, of certain structures--of the horns, for instance, in certain stags--has been carried to a wonderful extreme; and in some instances to an extreme which, as far as the general conditions of life are concerned, must be slightly injurious to the male. From this fact we learn that the advantages which favoured males have derived from conquering other males in battle or courtship, and thus leaving a numerous progeny, have been in the long run greater than those derived from rather more perfect adaptation to the external conditions of life. We shall further see, and this could never have been anticipated, that the power to charm the female has been in some few instances more important than the power to conquer other males in battle.

LAWS OF INHERITANCE.

In order to understand how sexual selection has acted, and in the course of ages has produced conspicuous results with many animals of many classes, it is necessary to bear in mind the laws of inheritance, as far as they are known. Two distinct elements are included under the term "inheritance," namely the transmission and the development of characters; but as these generally go together, the distinction is often overlooked. We see this distinction in those characters which are transmitted through the early years of life, but are developed only at maturity or during old age. We see the same distinction more clearly with secondary sexual characters, for these are transmitted through both sexes, though developed in one alone. That they are present in both sexes, is manifest when two species, having strongly-marked sexual characters, are crossed, for each transmits the characters proper to its own male and female sex to the hybrid offspring of both sexes. The same fact is likewise manifest, when characters proper to the male are occasionally developed in the female when she grows old or becomes diseased; and so conversely with the male. Again, characters occasionally appear, as if transferred from the male to the female, as when, in certain breeds of the fowl, spurs regularly appear in the young and healthy females; but in truth they are simply developed in the female; for in every breed each detail in the structure of the spur is transmitted through the female to her male offspring. In all cases of reversion, characters are transmitted through two, three, or many generations, and are then under certain unknown favourable conditions developed. This important distinction between transmission and development will be easiest kept in mind by the aid of the hypothesis of pangenesis, whether or not it be accepted as true. According to this hypothesis, every unit or cell of the body throws off gemmules or undeveloped atoms, which are transmitted to the offspring of both sexes, and are multiplied by self-division. They may remain undeveloped during the early years of life or during successive generations; their development into units or cells, like those from which they were derived, depending on their affinity for, and union with, other units or cells previously developed in the due order of growth.

_Inheritance at Corresponding Periods of Life._--This tendency is well established. If a new character appears in an animal whilst young, whether it endures throughout life or lasts only for a time, it will reappear, as a general rule, at the same age and in the same manner in the offspring. If, on the other hand, a new character appears at maturity, or even during old age, it tends to reappear in the offspring at the same advanced age. When deviations from this rule occur, the transmitted characters much oftener appear before than after the corresponding age. As I have discussed this subject at sufficient length in another work,[354] I will here merely give two or three instances, for the sake of recalling the subject to the reader's mind. In several breeds of the Fowl, the chickens whilst covered with down, in their first true plumage, and in their adult plumage, differ greatly from each other, as well as from their common parent-form, the _Gallus bankiva_; and these characters are faithfully transmitted by each breed to their offspring at the corresponding period of life. For instance, the chickens of spangled Hamburghs, whilst covered with down, have a few dark spots on the head and rump, but are not longitudinally striped, as in many other breeds; in their first true plumage, "they are beautifully pencilled," that is each feather is transversely marked by numerous dark bars; but in their second plumage the feathers all become spangled or tipped with a dark round spot.[355] Hence in this breed variations have occurred and have been transmitted at three distinct periods of life. The Pigeon offers a more remarkable case, because the aboriginal parent-species does not undergo with advancing age any change of plumage, excepting that at maturity the breast becomes more iridescent; yet there are breeds which do not acquire their characteristic colours until they have moulted two, three, or four times; and these modifications of plumage are regularly transmitted.

_Inheritance at Corresponding Seasons of the Year._--With animals in a state of nature innumerable instances occur of characters periodically appearing at different seasons. We see this with the horns of the stag, and with the fur of arctic animals which becomes thick and white during the winter. Numerous birds acquire bright colours and other decorations during the breeding-season alone. I can throw but little light on this form of inheritance from facts observed under domestication. Pallas states,[356] that in Siberia domestic cattle and horses periodically become lighter-coloured during the winter; and I have observed a similar marked change of colour in certain ponies in England. Although I do not know that this tendency to assume a differently coloured coat during different seasons of the year is transmitted, yet it probably is so, as all shades of colour are strongly inherited by the horse. Nor is this form of inheritance, as limited by season, more remarkable than inheritance as limited by age or sex.

_Inheritance as Limited by Sex._--The equal transmission of characters to both, sexes is the commonest form of inheritance, at least with those animals which do not present strongly-marked sexual differences, and indeed with many of these. But characters are not rarely transferred exclusively to that sex, in which they first appeared. Ample evidence on this head has been advanced in my work on Variation under Domestication; but a few instances may here be given. There are breeds of the sheep and goat, in which the horns of the male differ greatly in shape from those of the female; and these differences, acquired under domestication, are regularly transmitted to the same sex. With tortoise-shell cats the females alone, as a general rule, are thus coloured, the males being rusty-red. With most breeds of the fowl, the characters proper to each sex are transmitted to the same sex alone. So general is this form of transmission that it is an anomaly when we see in certain breeds variations transmitted equally to both sexes. There are also certain sub-breeds of the fowl in which the males can hardly be distinguished from each other, whilst the females differ considerably in colour. With the pigeon the sexes of the parent-species do not differ in any external character; nevertheless in certain domesticated breeds the male is differently coloured from the female.[357] The wattle in the English Carrier pigeon and the crop in the Pouter are more highly developed in the male than in the female; and although these characters have been gained through long-continued selection by man, the difference between the two sexes is wholly due to the form of inheritance which has prevailed; for it has arisen, not from, but rather in opposition to, the wishes of the breeder.

Most of our domestic races have been formed by the accumulation of many slight variations; and as some of the successive steps have been transmitted to one sex alone, and some to both sexes, we find in the different breeds of the same species all gradations between great sexual dissimilarity and complete similarity. Instances have already been given with the breeds of the fowl and pigeon; and under nature analogous cases are of frequent occurrence. With animals under domestication, but whether under nature I will not venture to say, one sex may lose characters proper to it, and may thus come to resemble to a certain extent the opposite sex; for instance, the males of some breeds of the fowl have lost their masculine plumes and hackles. On the other hand the differences between the sexes may be increased under domestication, as with merino sheep, in which the ewes have lost their horns. Again, characters proper to one sex may suddenly appear in the other sex; as with those sub-breeds of the fowl in which the hens whilst young acquire spurs; or, as in certain Polish sub-breeds, in which the females, as there is reason to believe, originally acquired a crest, and subsequently transferred it to the males. All these cases are intelligible on the hypothesis of pangenesis; for they depend on the gemmules of certain units of the body, although present in both sexes, becoming through the influence of domestication dormant in the one sex; or if naturally dormant, becoming developed.

There is one difficult question which it will be convenient to defer to a future chapter; namely, whether a character at first developed in both sexes, can be rendered through selection limited in its development to one sex alone. If, for instance, a breeder observed that some of his pigeons (in which species characters are usually transferred in an equal degree to both sexes) varied into pale blue; could he by long-continued selection make a breed, in which the males alone should be of this tint, whilst the females remained unchanged? I will here only say, that this, though perhaps not impossible, would be extremely difficult; for the natural result of breeding from the pale-blue males would be to change his whole stock, including both sexes, into this tint. If, however, variations of the desired tint appeared, which were from the first limited in their development to the male sex, there would not be the least difficulty in making a breed characterised by the two sexes being of a different colour, as indeed has been effected with a Belgian breed, in which the males alone are streaked with black. In a similar manner, if any variation appeared in a female pigeon, which was from the first sexually limited in its development, it would be easy to make a breed with the females alone thus characterised; but if the variation was not thus originally limited, the process would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible.

_On the Relation between the period of Development of a Character and its transmission to one sex or to both sexes._--Why certain characters should be inherited by both sexes, and other characters by one sex alone, namely by that sex in which the character first appeared, is in most cases quite unknown. We cannot even conjecture why with certain sub-breeds of the pigeon, black striae, though transmitted through the female, should be developed in the male alone, whilst every other character is equally transferred to both sexes. Why, again, with cats, the tortoise-shell colour should, with rare exceptions, be developed in the female alone. The very same characters, such as deficient or supernumerary digits, colour-blindness, &c., may with mankind be inherited by the males alone of one family, and in another family by the females alone, though in both cases transmitted through the opposite as well as the same sex.[358] Although we are thus ignorant, two rules often hold good, namely that variations which, first appear in either sex at a late period of life, tend to be developed in the same sex alone; whilst variations which first appear early in life in either sex tend to be developed in both sexes. I am, however, far from supposing that this is the sole determining cause. As I have not elsewhere discussed this subject, and as it has an important bearing on sexual selection, I must here enter into lengthy and somewhat intricate details.

It is in itself probable that any character appearing at an early age would tend to be inherited equally by both sexes, for the sexes do not differ much in constitution, before the power of reproduction is gained. On the other hand, after this power has been gained and the sexes have come to differ in constitution, the gemmules (if I may again use the language of pangenesis) which are cast off from each varying part in the one sex would be much more likely to possess the proper affinities for uniting with the tissues of the same sex, and thus becoming developed, than with those of the opposite sex.

I was first led to infer that a relation of this kind exists, from the fact that whenever and in whatever manner the adult male has come to differ from the adult female, he differs in the same manner from the young of both sexes. The generality of this fact is quite remarkable: it holds good with almost all mammals, birds, amphibians, and fishes; also with many crustaceans, spiders and some few insects, namely certain orthoptera and libellulae. In all these cases the variations, through the accumulation of which the male acquired his proper masculine characters, must have occurred at a somewhat late period of life; otherwise the young males would have been similarly characterised; and conformably with our rule, they are transmitted to and developed in the adult males alone. When, on the other hand, the adult male closely resembles the young of both sexes (these, with rare exceptions, being alike), he generally resembles the adult female; and in most of these cases the variations through which the young and old acquired their present characters, probably occurred in conformity with our rule during youth. But there is here room for doubt, as characters are sometimes transferred to the offspring at an earlier age than that at which they first appeared in the parents, so that the parents may have varied when adult, and have transferred their characters to their offspring whilst young. There are, moreover, many animals, in which the two sexes closely resemble each other, and yet both differ from their young; and here the characters of the adults must have been acquired late in life; nevertheless, these characters in apparent contradiction to our rule, are transferred to both sexes. We must not, however, overlook the possibility or even probability of successive variations of the same nature sometimes occurring, under exposure to similar conditions, simultaneously in both sexes at a rather late period of life; and in this case the variations would be transferred to the offspring of both sexes at a corresponding late age; and there would be no real contradiction to our rule of the variations which occur late in life being transferred exclusively to the sex in which they first appeared. This latter rule seems to hold true more generally than the second rule, namely, that variations which occur in either sex early in life tend to be transferred to both sexes. As it was obviously impossible even to estimate in how large a number of cases throughout the animal kingdom these two propositions hold good, it occurred to me to investigate some striking or crucial instances, and to rely on the result.

An excellent case for investigation is afforded by the Deer Family. In all the species, excepting one, the horns are developed in the male alone, though certainly transmitted through the female, and capable of occasional abnormal development in her. In the reindeer, on the other hand, the female is provided with horns; so that in this species, the horns ought, according to our rule, to appear early in life, long before the two sexes had arrived at maturity and had come to differ much in constitution. In all the other species of deer the horns ought to appear later in life, leading to their development in that sex alone, in which they first appeared in the progenitor of the whole Family. Now in seven species, belonging to distinct sections of the family and inhabiting different regions, in which the stags alone bear horns, I find that the horns first appear at periods varying from nine months after birth in the roebuck to ten or twelve or even more months in the stags of the six other larger species.[359] But with the reindeer the case is widely different, for as I hear from Prof. Nilsson, who kindly made special enquiries for me in Lapland, the horns appear in the young animals within four or five weeks after birth, and at the same time in both sexes. So that here we have a structure, developed at a most unusually early age in one species of the family, and common to both sexes in this one species.

In several kinds of antelopes the males alone are provided with horns, whilst in the greater number both sexes have horns. With respect to the period of development, Mr. Blyth informs me that there lived at one time in the Zoological Gardens a young koodoo (_Ant. strepsiceros_), in which species the males alone are horned, and the young of a closely-allied species, viz. the eland (_Ant. oreas_), in which both sexes are horned. Now in strict conformity with our rule, in the young male koodoo, although arrived at the age of ten months, the horns were remarkably small considering the size ultimately attained by them: whilst in the young male eland, although only three months old, the horns were already very much larger than in the koodoo. It is also worth notice that in the prong-horned antelope,[360] in which species the horns, though present in both sexes, are almost rudimentary in the female, they do not appear until about five or six months after birth. With sheep, goats, and cattle, in which the horns are well developed in both sexes, though not quite equal in size, they can be felt, or even seen, at birth or soon afterwards.[361] Our rule, however, fails in regard to some breeds of sheep, for instance merinos, in which the rams alone are horned; for I cannot find on enquiry,[362] that the horns are developed later in life in this breed than in ordinary sheep in which both sexes are horned. But with domesticated sheep the presence or absence of horns is not a firmly fixed character; a certain proportion of the merino ewes bearing small horns, and some of the rams being hornless; whilst with ordinary sheep hornless ewes are occasionally produced.

In most of the species of the splendid family of the Pheasants, the males differ conspicuously from the females, and they acquire their ornaments at a rather late period of life. The eared pheasant (_Crossoptilon auritum_), however, offers a remarkable exception, for both sexes possess the fine caudal plumes, the large ear-tufts and the crimson velvet about the head; and I find on enquiry in the Zoological Gardens that all these characters, in accordance with our rule, appear very early in life. The adult male can, however, be distinguished from the adult female by one character, namely by the presence of spurs; and conformably with our rule, these do not begin to be developed, as I am assured by Mr. Bartlett, before the age of six months, and even at this age, can hardly be distinguished in the two sexes.[363] The male and female Peacock differ conspicuously from each other in almost every part of their plumage, except in the elegant head-crest, which is common to both sexes; and this is developed very early in life, long before the other ornaments which are confined to the male. The wild-duck offers an analogous case, for the beautiful green speculum on the wings is common to both sexes, though duller and somewhat smaller in the female, and it is developed early in life, whilst the curled tail-feathers and other ornaments peculiar to the male are developed later.[364] Between such extreme cases of close sexual resemblance and wide dissimilarity, as those of the Crossoptilon and peacock, many intermediate ones could be given, in which the characters follow in their order of development our two rules.

As most insects emerge from their pupal state in a mature condition, it is doubtful whether the period of development determines the transference of their characters to one or both sexes. But we do not know that the coloured scales, for instance, in two species of butterflies, in one of which the sexes differ in colour, whilst in the other they are alike, are developed at the same relative age in the cocoon. Nor do we know whether all the scales are simultaneously developed on the wings of the same species of butterfly, in which certain coloured marks are confined to one sex, whilst other marks are common to both sexes. A difference of this kind in the period of development is not so improbable as it may at first appear; for with the Orthoptera, which assume their adult state, not by a single metamorphosis, but by a succession of moults, the young males of some species at first resemble the females, and acquire their distinctive masculine characters only during a later moult. Strictly analogous cases occur during the successive moults of certain male crustaceans.

We have as yet only considered the transference of characters, relatively to their period of development, with species in a natural state; we will now turn to domesticated animals; first touching on monstrosities and diseases. The presence of supernumerary digits, and the absence of certain phalanges, must be determined at an early embryonic period--the tendency to profuse bleeding is at least congenital, as is probably colour-blindness--yet these peculiarities, and other similar ones, are often limited in their transmission to one sex; so that the rule that characters which are developed at an early period tend to be transmitted to both sexes, here wholly fails. But this rule, as before remarked, does not appear to be nearly so generally true as the converse proposition, namely, that characters which appear late in life in one sex are transmitted exclusively to the same sex. From the fact of the above abnormal peculiarities becoming attached to one sex, long before the sexual functions are active, we may infer that there must be a difference of some kind between the sexes at an extremely early age. With respect to sexually-limited diseases, we know too little of the period at which they originate, to draw any fair conclusion. Gout, however, seems to fall under our rule; for it is generally caused by intemperance after early youth, and is transmitted from the father to his sons in a much more marked manner than to his daughters.

In the various domestic breeds of sheep, goats, and cattle, the males differ from their respective females in the shape or development of their horns, forehead, mane, dewlap, tail, and hump on the shoulders; and these peculiarities, in accordance with our rule, are not fully developed until rather late in life. With dogs, the sexes do not differ, except that in certain breeds, especially in the Scotch deer-hound, the male is much larger and heavier than the female; and as we shall see in a future chapter, the male goes on increasing in size to an unusually late period of life, which will account, according to our rule, for his increased size being transmitted to his male offspring alone. On the other hand, the tortoise-shell colour of the hair, which is confined to female cats, is quite distinct at birth, and this case violates our rule. There is a breed of pigeons in which the males alone are streaked with black, and the streaks can be detected even in the nestlings; but they become more conspicuous at each successive moult, so that this case partly opposes and partly supports the rule. With the English Carrier and Pouter pigeon the full development of the wattle and the crop occurs rather late in life, and these characters, conformably with our rule, are transmitted in full perfection to the males alone. The following cases perhaps come within the class previously alluded to, in which the two sexes have varied in the same manner at a rather late period of life, and have consequently transferred their new characters to both sexes at a corresponding late period; and if so, such cases are not opposed to our rule. Thus there are sub-breeds of the pigeon, described by Neumeister,[365] both sexes of which change colour after moulting twice or thrice, as does likewise the Almond Tumbler; nevertheless these changes, though occurring rather late in life, are common to both sexes. One variety of the Canary-bird, namely the London Prize, offers a nearly analogous case.

With the breeds of the Fowl the inheritance of various characters by one sex or by both sexes, seems generally determined by the period at which such characters are developed. Thus in all the many breeds in which the adult male differs greatly in colour from the female and from the adult male parent-species, he differs from the young male, so that the newly acquired characters must have appeared at a rather late period of life. On the other hand with most of the breeds in which the two sexes resemble each other, the young are coloured in nearly the same manner as their parents, and this renders it probable that their colours first appeared early in life. We have instances of this fact in all black and white breeds, in which the young and old of both sexes are alike; nor can it be maintained that there is something peculiar in a black or white plumage, leading to its transference to both sexes; for the males alone of many natural species are either black or white, the females being very differently coloured. With the so-called Cuckoo sub-breeds of the fowl, in which the feathers are transversely pencilled with dark stripes, both sexes and the chickens are coloured in nearly the same manner. The laced plumage of the Sebright bantam is the same in both sexes, and in the chickens the feathers are tipped with black, which makes a near approach to lacing. Spangled Hamburghs, however, offer a partial exception, for the two sexes, though not quite alike, resemble each other more closely than do the sexes of the aboriginal parent-species, yet they acquire their characteristic plumage late in life, for the chickens are distinctly pencilled. Turning to other characters besides colour: the males alone of the wild parent-species and of most domestic breeds possess a fairly well developed comb, but in the young of the Spanish fowl it is largely developed at a very early age, and apparently in consequence of this it is of unusual size in the adult females. In the Game breeds pugnacity is developed at a wonderfully early age, of which curious proofs could be given; and this character is transmitted to both sexes, so that the hens, from their extreme pugnacity, are now generally exhibited in separate pens. With the Polish breeds the bony protuberance of the skull which supports the crest is partially developed even before the chickens are hatched, and the crest itself soon begins to grow, though at first feebly;[366] and in this breed a great bony protuberance and an immense crest characterise the adults of both sexes.

Finally, from what we have now seen of the relation which exists in many natural species and domesticated races, between the period of the development of their characters and the manner of their transmission--for example the striking fact of the early growth of the horns in the reindeer, in which both sexes have horns, in comparison with their much later growth in the other species in which the male alone bears horns--we may conclude that one cause, though not the sole cause, of characters being exclusively inherited by one sex, is their development at a late age. And secondly, that one, though apparently a less efficient, cause of characters being inherited by both sexes is their development at an early age, whilst the sexes differ but little in constitution. It appears, however, that some difference must exist between the sexes even during an early embryonic period, for characters developed at this age not rarely become attached to one sex.

_Summary and concluding remarks._--From the foregoing discussion on the various laws of inheritance, we learn that characters often or even generally tend to become developed in the same sex, at the same age, and periodically at the same season of the year, in which they first appeared in the parents. But these laws, from unknown causes, are very liable to change. Hence the successive steps in the modification of a species might readily be transmitted in different ways; some of the steps being transmitted to one sex, and some to both; some to the offspring at one age, and some at all ages. Not only are the laws of inheritance extremely complex, but so are the causes which induce and govern variability. The variations thus caused are preserved and accumulated by sexual selection, which is in itself an extremely complex affair, depending, as it does, on ardour in love, courage, and the rivalry of the males, and on the powers of perception, taste, and will of the female. Sexual selection will also be dominated by natural selection for the general welfare of the species. Hence the manner in which the individuals of either sex or of both sexes are affected through sexual selection cannot fail to be complex in the highest degree.

When variations occur late in life in one sex, and are transmitted to the same sex at the same age, the other sex and the young are necessarily left unmodified. When they occur late in life, but are transmitted to both sexes at the same age, the young alone are left unmodified. Variations, however, may occur at any period of life in one sex or in both, and be transmitted to both sexes at all ages, and then all the individuals of the species will be similarly modified. In the following chapters it will be seen that all these cases frequently occur under nature.

Sexual selection can never act on any animal whilst young, before the age for reproduction has arrived. From the great eagerness of the male it has generally acted on this sex and not on the females. The males have thus become provided with weapons for fighting with their rivals, or with organs for discovering and securely holding the female, or for exciting and charming her. When the sexes differ in these respects, it is also, as we have seen, an extremely general law that the adult male differs more or less from the young male; and we may conclude from this fact that the successive variations, by which the adult male became modified, cannot have occurred much before the age for reproduction. How then are we to account for this general and remarkable coincidence between the period of variability and that of sexual selection,-- principles which are quite independent of each other? I think we can see the cause: it is not that the males have never varied at an early age, but that such variations have commonly been lost, whilst those occurring at a later age have been preserved.

All animals produce more offspring than can survive to maturity; and we have every reason to believe that death falls heavily on the weak and inexperienced young. If then a certain proportion of the offspring were to vary at birth or soon afterwards, in some manner which at this age was of no service to them, the chance of the preservation of such variations would be small. We have good evidence under domestication how soon variations of all kinds are lost, if not selected. But variations which occurred at or near maturity, and which were of immediate service to either sex, would probably be preserved; as would similar variations occurring at an earlier period in any individuals which happened to survive. As this principle has an important bearing on sexual selection, it may be advisable to give an imaginary illustration. We will take a pair of animals, neither very fertile nor the reverse, and assume that after arriving at maturity they live on an average for five years, producing each year five young. They would thus produce 25 offspring; and it would not, I think, be an unfair estimate to assume that 18 or 20 out of the 25 would perish before maturity, whilst still young and inexperienced; the remaining seven or five sufficing to keep up the stock of mature individuals. If so, we can see that variations which occurred during youth, for instance in brightness, and which were not of the least service to the young, would run a good chance of being utterly lost. Whilst similar variations, which occurring at or near maturity in the comparatively few individuals surviving to this age, and which immediately gave an advantage to certain males, by rendering them more attractive to the females, would be likely to be preserved. No doubt some of the variations in brightness which occurred at an earlier age would by chance be preserved, and eventually give to the male the same advantage as those which appeared later; and this will account for the young males commonly partaking to a certain extent (as may be observed with many birds) of the bright colours of their adult male parents. If only a few of the successive variations in brightness were to occur at a late age, the adult male would be only a little brighter than the young male; and such cases are common.

In this illustration I have assumed that the young varied in a manner which was of no service to them; but many characters proper to the adult male would be actually injurious to the young,--as bright colours from making them conspicuous, or horns of large size from expending much vital force. Such variations in the young would promptly be eliminated through natural selection. With the adult and experienced males, on the other hand, the advantage thus derived in their rivalry with other males would often more than counterbalance exposure to some degree of danger. Thus we can understand how it is that variations which must originally have appeared rather late in life have alone or in chief part been preserved for the development of secondary sexual characters; and the remarkable coincidence between the periods of variability and of sexual selection is intelligible.

As variations which give to the male an advantage in lighting with other males, or in finding, securing, or charming the female, would be of no use to the female, they will not have been preserved in this sex either during youth or maturity. Consequently such variations would be extremely liable to be lost; and the female, as far as these characters are concerned, would be left unmodified, excepting in so far as she may have received them by transference from the male. No doubt if the female varied and transferred serviceable characters to her male offspring, these would be favoured through sexual selection; and then both sexes would thus far be modified in the same manner. But I shall hereafter have to recur to these more intricate contingencies.

In the following chapters, I shall treat of the secondary sexual characters in animals of all classes, and shall endeavour in each case to apply the principles explained in the present chapter. The lowest classes will detain us for a very short time, but the higher animals, especially birds, must be treated at considerable length. It should be borne in mind that for reasons already assigned, I intend to give only a few illustrative instances of the innumerable structures by the aid of which the male finds the female, or, when found, holds her. On the other hand, all structures and instincts by which the male conquers other males, and by which he allures or excites the female, will be fully discussed, as these are in many ways the most interesting.

_Supplement on the proportional numbers of the two sexes in animals belonging to various classes._

As no one, as far as I can discover, has paid attention to the relative numbers of the two sexes throughout the animal kingdom, I will here give such materials as I have been able to collect, although they are extremely imperfect. They consist in only a few instances of actual enumeration, and the numbers are not very large. As the proportions are known with certainty on a large scale in the case of man alone, I will first give them, as a standard of comparison.

_Man._--In England during ten years (from 1857 to 1866) 707,120 children on an annual average have been born alive, in the proportion of 104.5 males to 100 females. But in 1857 the male births throughout England were as 105.2, and in 1865 as 104.0 to 100. Looking to separate districts, in Buckinghamshire (where on an average 5000 children are annually born) the _mean_ proportion of male to female births, during the whole period of the above ten years, was as 102.8 to 100; whilst in N. Wales (where the average annual births are 12,873) it was as high as 106.2 to 100. Taking a still smaller district, viz., Rutlandshire (where the annual births average only 739), in 1864 the male births were as 114.6, and in 1862 as 97.0 to 100; but even in this small district the average of the 7385 births during the whole ten years was as 104.5 to 100; that is in the same ratio as throughout England.[367] The proportions are sometimes slightly disturbed by unknown causes; thus Prof. Faye states "that in some districts of Norway there has been during a decennial period a steady deficiency of boys, whilst in others the opposite condition has existed." In France during forty-four years the male to the female births have been as 106.2 to 100; but during this period it has occurred five times in one department, and six times in another, that the female births have exceeded the males. In Russia the average proportion is as high as 108.9 to 100.[368] It is a singular fact that with Jews the proportion of male births is decidedly larger than with Christians: thus in Prussia the proportion is as 113, in Breslau as 114, and in Livonia as 120 to 100; the Christian births in these countries being the same as usual, for instance, in Livonia as 104 to 100.[369] It is a still more singular fact that in different nations, under different conditions and climates, in Naples, Prussia, Westphalia, France and England, the excess of male over female births is less when they are illegitimate than when legitimate.[370]

In various parts of Europe, according to Prof. Faye and other authors, "a still greater preponderance of males would be met with, if death struck both sexes in equal proportion in the womb and during birth. But the fact is, that for every 100 still-born females, we have in several countries from 134.6 to 144.9 still-born males." Moreover during the first four or five years of life more male children die than females; "for example in England, during the first year, 126 boys die for every 100 girls,--a proportion which in France is still more unfavourable."[371] As a consequence of this excess in the death-rate of male children, and of the exposure of men when adult to various dangers, and of their tendency to emigrate, the females in all old-settled countries, where statistical records have been kept,[372] are found to preponderate considerably over the males.

It has often been supposed that the relative ages of the parents determine the sex of the offspring; and Prof. Leuckart[373] has advanced what he considers sufficient evidence, with respect to man and certain domesticated animals, to shew that this is one important factor in the result. So again the period of impregnation has been thought to be the efficient cause; but recent observations discountenance this belief. Again, with mankind polygamy has been supposed to lead to the birth of a greater proportion of female infants; but Dr. J. Campbell[374] carefully attended to this subject in the harems of Siam, and he concludes that the proportion of male to female births is the same as from monogamous unions. Hardly any animal has been rendered so highly polygamous as our English race-horses, and we shall immediately see that their male and female offspring are almost exactly equal in number.

_Horses._--Mr. Tegetmeier has been so kind as to tabulate for me from the 'Racing Calendar' the births of race-horses during a period of twenty-one years, viz. from 1846 to 1867; 1849 being omitted, as no returns were that year published. The total births have been 25,560,[375] consisting of 12,763 males and 12,797 females, or in the proportion of 99.7 males to 100 females. As these numbers are tolerably large, and as they are drawn from all parts of England, during several years, we may with much confidence conclude that with the domestic horse, or at least with the race-horse, the two sexes are produced in almost equal numbers. The fluctuations in the proportions during successive years are closely like those which occur with mankind, when a small and thinly-populated area is considered: thus in 1856 the male horses were as 107.1, and in 1867 as only 92.6 to 100 females. In the tabulated returns the proportions vary in cycles, for the males exceeded the females during six successive years; and the females exceeded the males during two periods each of four years: this, however, may be accidental; at least I can detect nothing of the kind with man in the decennial table in the Registrar's Report for 1866. I may add that certain, mares, and this holds good with certain cows and with women, tend to produce more of one sex than of the other; Mr. Wright of Yeldersley House, informs me that one of his Arab mares, though put seven times to different horses, produced seven fillies.

_Dogs._--During a period of twelve years, from 1857 to 1868, the births of a large number of greyhounds, throughout England, have been sent to the 'Field' newspaper; and I am again indebted to Mr. Tegetmeier for carefully tabulating the results. The recorded, births have been 6878, consisting of 3605 males and 3273 females, that is, in the proportion of 110.1 males to 100 females. The greatest fluctuations occurred in 1864, when the proportion was as 95.3 males, and in 1867, as 116.3 males to 100 females. The above average proportion of 110.1 to 100 is probably nearly correct in the case of the greyhound, but whether it would hold with other domesticated breeds is in some degree doubtful. Mr. Cupples has enquired from several great breeders of dogs, and finds that all without exception believe that females are produced in excess; he suggests that this belief may have arisen from females being less valued and the consequent disappointment producing a stronger impression on the mind.

_Sheep._--The sexes of sheep are not ascertained by agriculturists until several months after birth, at the period when the males are castrated; so that the following returns do not give the proportions at birth. Moreover, I find that several great breeders in Scotland, who annually raise some thousand sheep, are firmly convinced that a larger proportion of males than of females die during the first one or two years; therefore the proportion of males would be somewhat greater at birth than at the age of castration. This is a remarkable coincidence with what occurs, as we have seen, with mankind, and both cases probably depend on some common cause. I have received returns from four gentlemen in England who have bred lowland sheep, chiefly Leicesters, during the last ten or sixteen years; they amount altogether to 8965 births, consisting of 4407 males and 4558 females; that is in the proportion of 96.7 males to 100 females. With respect to Cheviot and black-faced sheep bred in Scotland, I have received returns from six breeders, two of them on a large scale, chiefly for the years 1867-1869, but some of the returns extending back to 1862. The total number recorded amounts to 50,685, consisting of 25,071 males and 25,614 females, or in the proportion of 97.9 males to 100 females. If we take the English and Scotch returns together, the total number amounts to 59,650, consisting of 29,478 males and 30,172 females, or as 97.7 to 100. So that with sheep at the age of castration the females are certainly in excess of the males; but whether this would hold good at birth is doubtful, owing to the greater liability in the males to early death.[376]

Of _Cattle_ I have received returns from nine gentlemen of 982 births, too few to be trusted; these consisted of 477 bull-calves and 505 cow-calves; _i.e._ in the proportion of 94.4 males to 100 females. The Rev. W. D. Fox informs me that in 1867 out of 34 calves born on a farm in Derbyshire only one was a bull. Mr. Harrison Weir writes to me that he has enquired from several breeders of _Pigs_, and most of them estimate the male to the female births as about 7 to 6. This same gentleman has bred _Rabbits_ for many years, and has noticed that a far greater number of bucks are produced than does.

Of mammalia in a state of nature I have been able to learn very little. In regard to the common rat, I have received conflicting statements. Mr. R. Elliot of Laighwood, informs me that a rat-catcher assured him that he had always found the males in great excess, even with the young in the nest. In consequence of this, Mr. Elliot himself subsequently examined some hundred old ones, and found the statement true. Mr. F. Buckland has bred a large number of white rats, and he also believes that the males greatly exceed the females. In regard to Moles, it is said that "the males are much more numerous than the females;"[377] and as the catching of these animals is a special occupation, the statement may perhaps be trusted. Sir A. Smith, in describing an antelope of S. Africa[378] (_Kobus ellipsiprymnus_), remarks, that in the herds of this and other species, the males are few in number compared with the females: the natives believe that they are born in this proportion; others believe that the younger males are expelled from the herds, and Sir A. Smith says, that though he has himself never seen herds consisting of young males alone, others affirm that this does occur. It appears probable that the young males when expelled from the herd, would be likely to fell a prey to the many beasts of prey of the country.

BIRDS.

With respect to the _Fowl_, I have received only one account, namely, that out of 1001 chickens of a highly-bred stock of Cochins, reared during eight years by Mr. Stretch, 487 proved males and 514 females: _i.e._ as 94.7 to 100. In regard to domestic pigeons there is good evidence that the males are produced in excess, or that their lives are longer; for these birds invariably pair, and single males, as Mr. Tegetmeier informs me, can always be purchased cheaper than females. Usually the two birds reared from the two eggs laid in the same nest consist of a male and female; but Mr. Harrison Weir, who has been so large a breeder, says that he has often bred two cocks from the same nest, and seldom two hens; moreover the hen is generally the weaker of the two, and more liable to perish.

With respect to birds in a state of nature, Mr. Gould and others[379] are convinced that the males are generally the more numerous; and as the young males of many species resemble the females, the latter would naturally appear to be the most numerous. Large numbers of pheasants are reared by Mr. Baker of Leadenhall from eggs laid by wild birds, and he informs Mr. Jenner Weir that four or five males to one female are generally produced. An experienced observer remarks[380] that in Scandinavia the broods of the capercailzie and black-cock contain more males than females; and that with the Dal-ripa (a kind of ptarmigan) more males than females attend the _leks_ or places of courtship; but this latter circumstance is accounted for by some observers by a greater number of hen birds being killed by vermin. From various facts given by White of Selbourne,[381] it seems clear that the males of the partridge must be in considerable excess in the south of England; and I have been assured that this is the case in Scotland. Mr. Weir on enquiring from the dealers who receive at certain seasons large numbers of ruffs (_Machetes pugnax_) was told that the males are much the most numerous. This same naturalist has also enquired for me from the bird-catchers, who annually catch an astonishing number of various small species alive for the London market, and he was unhesitatingly answered by an old and trustworthy man, that with the chaffinch the males are in large excess; he thought as high as 2 males to 1 female, or at least as high as 5 to 3.[382] The males of the blackbird, he likewise maintained, were by far the most numerous, whether caught by traps or by netting at night. These statements may apparently be trusted, because the same man said that the sexes are about equal with the lark, the twite (_Linaria montana_), and goldfinch. On the other hand he is certain that with the common linnet, the females preponderate greatly, but unequally during different years; during some years he has found the females to the males as four to one. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the chief season for catching birds does not begin till September, so that with some species partial migrations may have begun, and the flocks at this period often consist of hens alone. Mr. Salvin paid particular attention to the sexes of the humming-birds in Central America, and he is convinced that with most of the species the males are in excess; thus one year he procured 204 specimens belonging to ten species, and these consisted of 166 males and of 38 females. With two other species the females were in excess: but the proportions apparently vary either during different seasons or in different localities; for on one occasion the males of _Campylopterus hemileucurus_ were to the females as five to two, and on another occasion[383] in exactly the reversed ratio. As bearing on this latter point, I may add, that Mr. Powys found in Corfu and Epirus the sexes of the chaffinch keeping apart, and "the females by far the most numerous;" whilst in Palestine Mr. Tristram found "the male flocks appearing greatly to exceed the female in number."[384] So again with the _Quiscalus major_, Mr. G. Taylor[385] says, that in Florida there were "very few females in proportion to the males," whilst in Honduras the proportion was the other way, the species there having the character of a polygamist.

FISH.

With Fish the proportional numbers of the sexes can be ascertained only by catching them in the adult or nearly adult state; and there are many difficulties in arriving at any just conclusion.[386] Infertile females might readily be mistaken for males, as Dr. Guenther has remarked to me in regard to trout. With some species the males are believed to die soon after fertilising the ova. With many species the males are of much smaller size than the females, so that a large number of males would escape from the same net by which the females were caught. M. Carbonnier,[387] who has especially attended to the natural history of the pike (_Esox lucius_) states that many males, owing to their small size, are devoured by the larger females; and he believes that the males of almost all fish are exposed from the same cause to greater danger than the females. Nevertheless in the few cases in which the proportional numbers have been actually observed, the males appear to be largely in excess. Thus Mr. R. Buist, the superintendent of the Stormontfield experiments, says that in 1865, out of 70 salmon first landed for the purpose of obtaining the ova, upwards of 60 were males. In 1867 he again "calls attention to the vast disproportion of the males to the females. We had at the outset at least ten males to one female." Afterwards sufficient females for obtaining ova were procured. He adds, "from the great proportion of the males, they are constantly fighting and tearing each other on the spawning-beds."[388] This disproportion, no doubt, can be accounted for in part, but whether wholly is very doubtful, by the males ascending the rivers before the females. Mr. F. Buckland remarks in regard to trout, that "it is a curious fact that the males preponderate very largely in number over the females. It _invariably_ happens that when the first rush of fish is made to the net, there will be at least seven or eight males to one female found captive. I cannot quite account for this; either the males are more numerous than the females, or the latter seek safety by concealment rather than flight." He then adds, that by carefully searching the banks, sufficient females for obtaining ova can be found.[389] Mr. H. Lee informs me that out of 212 trout, taken for this purpose in Lord Portsmouth's park, 150 were males and 62 females.

With the Cyprinidae the males likewise seem to be in excess; but several members of this Family, viz., the carp, tench, bream and minnow, appear regularly to follow the practice, rare in the animal kingdom, of polyandry; for the female whilst spawning is always attended by two males, one on each side, and in the case of the bream by three or four males. This fact is so well known, that it is always recommended to stock a pond with two male tenches to one female, or at least with three males to two females. With the minnow, an excellent observer states, that on the spawning-beds the males are ten times as numerous as the females; when a female comes amongst the males, "she is immediately pressed closely by a male on each side; and when they have been in that situation for a time, are superseded by other two males."[390]

INSECTS.

In this class, the Lepidoptera alone afford the means of judging of the proportional numbers of the sexes; for they have been collected with special care by many good observers, and have been largely bred from the egg or caterpillar state. I had hoped that some breeders of silk-moths might have kept an exact record, but after writing to France and Italy, and consulting various treatises, I cannot find that this has ever been done. The general opinion appears to be that the sexes are nearly equal, but in Italy as I hear from Professor Canestrini, many breeders are convinced that the females are produced in excess. The same naturalist, however, informs me, that in the two yearly broods of the Ailanthus silk-moth (_Bombyx cynthia_), the males greatly preponderate in the first, whilst in the second the two sexes are nearly equal, or the females rather in excess.

In regard to Butterflies in a state of nature, several observers have been much struck by the apparently enormous preponderance of the males.[391] Thus Mr. Bates,[392] in speaking of the species, no less than about a hundred in number, which inhabit the Upper Amazons, says that the males are much more numerous than the females, even in the proportion of a hundred to one. In North America, Edwards, who had great experience, estimates in the genus Papilio the males to the females as four to one; and Mr. Walsh, who informed me of this statement, says that with _P. turnus_ this is certainly the case. In South Africa, Mr. R. Trimen found the males in excess in 19 species;[393] and in one of these, which swarms in open places, he estimated the number of males as fifty to one female. With another species, in which the males are numerous in certain localities, he collected during seven years only five females. In the island of Bourbon, M. Maillard states that the males of one species of Papilio are twenty times as numerous as the females.[394] Mr. Trimen informs me that as far as he has himself seen, or heard from others, it is rare for the females of any butterfly to exceed in number the males; but this is perhaps the case with three South African species. Mr. Wallace[395] states that the females of _Ornithoptera croesus_, in the Malay archipelago, are more common and more easily caught than the males; but this is a rare butterfly. I may here add, that in Hyperythra, a genus of moths, Guenee says, that from four to five females are sent in collections from India for one male.

When this subject of the proportional numbers of the sexes of insects was brought before the Entomological Society,[396] it was generally admitted that the males of most Lepidoptera, in the adult or imago state, are caught in greater numbers than the females; but this fact was attributed by various observers to the more retiring habits of the females, and to the males emerging earlier from the cocoon. This latter circumstance is well known to occur with most Lepidoptera, as well as with other insects. So that, as M. Personnat remarks, the males of the domesticated _Bombyx yamamai_, are lost at the beginning of the season, and the females at the end, from the want of mates.[397] I cannot however persuade myself that these causes suffice to explain the great excess of males in the cases, above given, of butterflies which are extremely common in their native countries. Mr. Stainton, who has paid such close attention during many years to the smaller moths, informs me that when he collected them in the imago state, he thought that the males were ten times as numerous as the females, but that since he has reared them on a large scale from the caterpillar state, he is convinced that the females are the most numerous. Several entomologists concur in this view. Mr. Doubleday, however, and some others, take an opposite view, and are convinced that they have reared from the egg and caterpillar states a larger proportion of males than of females.

Besides the more active habits of the males, their earlier emergence from the cocoon, and their frequenting in some cases more open stations, other causes may be assigned for an apparent or real difference in the proportional numbers of the sexes of Lepidoptera, when captured in the imago state, and when reared from the egg or caterpillar state. It is believed by many breeders in Italy, as I hear from Professor Canestrini, that the female caterpillar of the silk-moth suffers more from the recent disease than the male; and Dr. Staudinger informs me that in rearing Lepidoptera more females die in the cocoon than males. With many species the female caterpillar is larger than the male, and a collector would naturally choose the finest specimens, and thus unintentionally collect a larger number of females. Three collectors have told me that this was their practice; but Dr. Wallace is sure that most collectors take all the specimens which they can find of the rarer kinds, which alone are worth the trouble of rearing. Birds when surrounded by caterpillars would probably devour the largest; and Professor Canestrini informs me that in Italy some breeders believe, though on insufficient evidence, that in the first brood of the Ailanthus silk-moth, the wasps destroy a larger number of the female than of the male caterpillars. Dr. Wallace further remarks that female caterpillars, from being larger than the males, require more time for their development and consume more food and moisture; and thus they would be exposed during a longer time to danger from ichneumons, birds, &c., and in times of scarcity would perish in greater numbers. Hence it appears quite possible that, in a state of nature, fewer female Lepidoptera may reach maturity than males; and for our special object we are concerned with the numbers at maturity, when the sexes are ready to propagate their kind.

The manner in which the males of certain moths congregate in extraordinary numbers round a single female, apparently indicates a great excess of males, though this fact may perhaps be accounted for by the earlier emergence of the males from their cocoons. Mr. Stainton informs me that from twelve to twenty males may often be seen congregated round a female _Elachista rufocinerea_. It is well known that if a virgin _Lasiocampa quercus_ or _Saturnia carpini_ be exposed in a cage, vast numbers of males collect round her, and if confined in a room will even come down the chimney to her. Mr. Doubleday believes that he has seen from fifty to a hundred males of both these species attracted in the course of a single day by a female under confinement. Mr. Trimen exposed in the Isle of Wight a box in which a female of the Lasiocampa had been confined on the previous day, and five males soon endeavoured to gain admittance. M. Verreaux, in Australia, having placed the female of a small Bombyx in a box in his pocket, was followed by a crowd of males, so that about 200 entered the house with him.[398]

Mr. Doubleday has called my attention to Dr. Staudinger's[399] list of Lepidoptera, which gives the prices of the males and females of 300 species or well-marked varieties of (Rhopalocera) butterflies. The prices for both sexes of the very common species are of course the same; but with 114 of the rarer species they differ; the males being in all cases, excepting one, the cheapest. On an average of the prices of the 113 species, the price of the male to that of the female is as 100 to 149; and this apparently indicates that inversely the males exceed the females in number in the same proportion. About 2000 species or varieties of moths (Heterocera) are catalogued, those with wingless females being here excluded on account of the difference in habits of the two sexes: of these 2000 species, 141 differ in price according to sex, the males of 130 being cheaper, and the males of only 11 being dearer than the females. The average price of the males of the 130 species, to that of the females, is as 100 to 143. With respect to the butterflies in this priced list, Mr. Doubleday thinks (and no man in England has had more experience), that there is nothing in the habits of the species which can account for the difference in the prices of the two sexes, and that it can be accounted for only by an excess in the numbers of the males. But I am bound to add that Dr. Staudinger himself, as he informs me, is of a different opinion. He thinks that the less active habits of the females and the earlier emergence of the males will account for his collectors securing a larger number of males than of females, and consequently for the lower prices of the former With respect to specimens reared from the caterpillar-state, Dr. Staudinger believes, as previously stated, that a greater number of females than of males die under confinement in the cocoons. He adds that with certain species one sex seems to preponderate over the other during certain years.

Of direct observations on the sexes of Lepidoptera, reared either from eggs or caterpillars, I have received only the few following cases:--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Males. | Females. The Rev. J. Hellins[400] of Exeter reared, during | 1868, imagos of 73 species, which consisted of 153 | 137 | Mr. Albert Jones of Eltham reared, during 1868, | imagos of 9 species, which, consisted of 159 | 126 | During 1869 he reared imagos from 4 species, | consisting of 114 | 112 | Mr. Buckler of Emsworth, Hants, during 1869, | reared imagos from 74 species, consisting of 180 | 169 | Dr. Wallace of Colchester reared from one brood | of Bombyx cynthia 52 | 48 | Dr. Wallace raised, from cocoons of Bombyx | Pernyi sent from China, during 1869 224 | 123 | Dr. Wallace raised, during 1868 and 1869, | from two lots of cocoons of Bombyx yamamai 52 | 46 --------------+------------ Total 934 | 761 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------------

So that in these eight lots of cocoons and eggs, males were produced in excess. Taken together the proportion of males is as 122.7 to 100 females. But the numbers are hardly large enough to be trustworthy.

On the whole, from the above various sources of evidence, all pointing to the same direction, I infer that with most species of Lepidoptera, the males in the imago state generally exceed the females in number, whatever the proportions may be at their first emergence from the egg.

With reference to the other Orders of insects, I have been able to collect very little reliable information. With the stag-beetle (_Lucanus cervus_) "the males appear to be much more numerous than the females;" but when, as Cornelius remarked during 1867, an unusual number of these beetles appeared in one part of Germany, the females appeared to exceed the males as six so one. With one of the Elateridae, the males are said to be much more numerous than the females, and "two or three are often found united with one female;"[401] so that here polyandry seems to prevail. With Siagonium (Staphylinidae), in which the males are furnished with horns, "the females are far more numerous than the opposite sex." Mr. Janson stated at the Entomological Society that the females of the bark-feeding _Tomicus villosus_ are so common as to be a plague, whilst the males are so rare as to be hardly known. In other Orders, from unknown causes, but apparently in some instances owing to parthenogenesis, the males of certain species have never been discovered or are excessively rare, as with several of the Cynipidae.[402] In all the gall-making Cynipidae known to Mr. Walsh, the females are four or five times as numerous as the males; and so it is, as he informs me, with the gall-making Cecidomyiiae (Diptera). With some common species of Saw-flies (Tenthredinae) Mr. F. Smith has reared hundreds of specimens from larvae of all sizes, but has never reared a single male: on the other hand Curtis says,[403] that with certain species (Athalia), bred by him, the males to the females were as six to one; whilst exactly the reverse occurred with the mature insects of the same species caught in the fields. With the Neuroptera, Mr. Walsh states that in many, but by no means in all, the species of the Odonatous groups (Ephemerina), there is a great overplus of males: in the genus Hetaerina, also, the males are generally at least four times as numerous as the females. In certain species in the genus Gomphus the males are equally numerous, whilst in two other species, the females are twice or thrice as numerous as the males. In some European species of Psocus thousands of females may be collected without a single male, whilst with other species of the same genus both sexes are common.[404] In England, Mr. MacLachlan has captured hundreds of the female _Apatania muliebris_, but has never seen the male; and of _Boreus hyemalis_ only four or five males have been here seen.[405] With most of these species (excepting, as I have heard, with the Tenthredinae) there is no reason to suppose that the females are subject to parthenogenesis; and thus we see how ignorant we are on the causes of the apparent discrepancy in the proportional numbers of the two sexes.

In the other Classes of the Articulata I have been able to collect still less information. With Spiders, Mr. Blackwall, who has carefully attended to this class during many years, writes to me that the males from their more erratic habits are more commonly seen, and therefore appear to be the more numerous. This is actually the case with a few species; but he mentions several species in six genera, in which the females appear to be much more numerous than the males.[406] The small size of the males in comparison with the females, which is sometimes carried to an extreme degree, and their widely different appearance, may account in some instances for their rarity in collections.[407]

Some of the lower Crustaceans are able to propagate their kind asexually, and this will account for the extreme rarity of the males. With some other forms (as with Tanais and Cypris) there is reason to believe, as Fritz Mueller informs me, that the male is much shorter-lived than the female, which, supposing the two sexes to be at first equal in number, would explain the scarcity of the males. On the other hand this same naturalist has invariably taken, on the shores of Brazil, far more males than females of the Diastylidae and of Cypridina; thus with a species in the latter genus, 63 specimens caught the same day, included 57 males; but he suggests that this preponderance may be due to some unknown difference in the habits of the two sexes. With one of the higher Brazilian crabs, namely a Gelasimus, Fritz Mueller found the males to be more numerous than the females. The reverse seems to be the case, according to the large experience of Mr. C. Spence Bate, with six common British crabs, the names of which he has given me.

_On the Power of Natural Selection to regulate the proportional Numbers of the Sexes, and General Fertility._--In some peculiar cases, an excess in the number of one sex over the other might be a great advantage to a species, as with the sterile females of social insects, or with those animals in which more than one male is requisite to fertilise the female, as with certain cirripedes and perhaps certain fishes. An inequality between the sexes in these cases might have been acquired through natural selection, but from their rarity they need not here be further considered. In all ordinary cases an inequality would be no advantage or disadvantage to certain individuals more than to others; and therefore it could hardly have resulted from natural selection. We must attribute the inequality to the direct action of those unknown conditions, which with mankind lead to the males being born in a somewhat larger excess in certain countries than in others, or which cause the proportion between the sexes to differ slightly in legitimate and illegitimate births.

Let us now take the case of a species producing from the unknown causes just alluded to, an excess of one sex--we will say of males--these being superfluous and useless, or nearly useless. Could the sexes be equalised through natural selection? We may feel sure, from all characters being variable, that certain pairs would produce a somewhat less excess of males over females than other pairs. The former, supposing the actual number of the offspring to remain constant, would necessarily produce more females, and would therefore be more productive. On the doctrine of chances a greater number of the offspring of the more productive pairs would survive; and these would inherit a tendency to procreate fewer males and more females. Thus a tendency towards the equalisation of the sexes would be brought about. But our supposed species would by this process be rendered, as just remarked, more productive; and this would in many cases be far from an advantage; for whenever the limit to the numbers which exist, depends, not on destruction by enemies, but on the amount of food, increased fertility will lead to severer competition and to most of the survivors being badly fed. In this case, if the sexes were equalised by an increase in the number of the females, a simultaneous decrease in the total number of the offspring would be beneficial, or even necessary, for the existence of the species; and this, I believe, could be effected through natural selection in the manner hereafter to be described. The same train of reasoning is applicable in the above, as well as in the following case, if we assume that females instead of males are produced in excess, for such females from not uniting with males would be superfluous and useless. So it would be with polygamous species, if we assume the excess of females to be inordinately great.

An excess of either sex, we will again say of the males, could, however, apparently be eliminated through natural selection in another and indirect manner, namely by an actual diminution of the males, without any increase of the females, and consequently without any increase in the productiveness of the species. From the variability of all characters, we may feel assured that some pairs, inhabiting any locality, would produce a rather smaller excess of superfluous males, but an equal number of productive females. When the offspring from the more and the less male-productive parents were all mingled together, none would have any direct advantage over the others; but those that produced few superfluous males would have one great indirect advantage, namely that their ova or embryos would probably be larger and finer, or their young better nurtured in the womb and afterwards. We see this principle illustrated with plants; as those which bear a vast number of seed produce small ones; whilst those which bear comparatively few seeds, often produce large ones well-stocked with nutriment for the use of the seedlings.[408] Hence the offspring of the parents which had wasted least force in producing superfluous males would be the most likely to survive, and would inherit the same tendency not to produce superfluous males, whilst retaining their full fertility in the production of females. So it would be with the converse case of the female sex. Any slight excess, however, of either sex could hardly be checked in so indirect a manner. Nor indeed has a considerable inequality between the sexes been always prevented, as we have seen in some of the cases given in the previous discussion. In these cases the unknown causes which determine the sex of the embryo, and which under certain conditions lead to the production of one sex in excess over the other, have not been mastered by the survival of those varieties which were subjected to the least waste of organised matter and force by the production of superfluous individuals of either sex. Nevertheless we may conclude that natural selection will always tend, though sometimes inefficiently, to equalise the relative numbers of the two sexes.

Having said this much on the equalisation of the sexes, it may be well to add a few remarks on the regulation through natural selection of the ordinary fertility of species. Mr. Herbert Spencer has shewn in an able discussion[409] that with all organisms a ratio exists between what he calls individuation and genesis; whence it follows that beings which consume much matter or force in their growth, complicated structure or activity, or which produce ova and embryos of large size, or which expend much energy in nurturing their young, cannot be so productive as beings of an opposite nature. Mr. Spencer further shews that minor differences in fertility will be regulated through natural selection. Thus the fertility of each species will tend to increase, from the more fertile pairs producing a larger number of offspring, and these from their mere number will have the best chance of surviving, and will transmit their tendency to greater fertility. The only check to a continued augmentation of fertility in each organism seems to be either the expenditure of more power and the greater risks run by the parents that produce a more numerous progeny, or the contingency of very numerous eggs and young being produced of smaller size, or less vigorous, or subsequently not so well nurtured. To strike a balance in any case between the disadvantages which follow from the production of a numerous progeny, and the advantages (such as the escape of at least some individuals from various dangers) is quite beyond our power of judgment.

When an organism has once been rendered extremely fertile, how its fertility can be reduced through natural selection is not so clear as how this capacity was first acquired. Yet it is obvious that if individuals of a species, from a decrease of their natural enemies, were habitually reared in larger numbers than could be supported, all the members would suffer. Nevertheless the offspring from the less fertile parents would have no direct advantage over the offspring from the more fertile parents, when all were mingled together in the same district. All the individuals would mutually tend to starve each other. The offspring indeed of the less fertile parents would lie under one great disadvantage, for from the simple fact of being produced in smaller numbers, they would be the most liable to extermination. Indirectly, however, they would partake of one great advantage; for under the supposed condition of severe competition, when all were pressed for food, it is extremely probable that those individuals which from some variation in their constitution produced fewer eggs or young, would produce them of greater size or vigour; and the adults reared from such eggs or young would manifestly have the best chance of surviving, and would inherit a tendency towards lessened fertility. The parents, moreover, which had to nourish or provide for fewer offspring would themselves be exposed to a less severe strain in the struggle for existence, and would have a better chance of surviving. By these steps, and by no others as far as I can see, natural selection under the above conditions of severe competition for food, would lead to the formation of a new race less fertile, but better adapted for survival, than the parent-race.