« EelmineJätka »
of his theory of conscious sexual selection is, that throughout the whole animal kingdom the males are usually so ardlent that they will accept any female, while the females are coy, and choose the handsomest males, whence it is believed the general brilliancy of males as compared with females has arisen.
Perhaps the most curious cases of sexual difference of colour are those in which the female is very much more gaily coloured than the male. This occurs most strikingly in some species of Pieris in South America, and of Dialemce in the Malay islands; and in both cases the females resemble species of the uncatable Danaidæ and IIeliconila, and thus gain a protection. In the case of Pieris wrrha, P. mulenka, and P. lorena, the males are plain white and black, while the females are orange, yellow, and black, and so banded and spotted as exactly to resemble species of Heliconidæ. Mr. Darwin admits that these bright colours have been acquired for protection; but as there is no apparent cause for the strict limitation of the colour to the female, he believes that it has been kept down in the male by its being unattractive to her. This appears to me to be a supposition opposed to the whole theory of sexual selection itself. For this theory is, that minute variations of colour in the male are attractive to the female, have always been selected, and that thus the brilliant male colours have been produced. But in this case he thinks that the female butterfly had a constant aversion to every trace of colour, cven when we must suppose it was constantly recurring during the successive variations which resulted in such a marvellous change in herself. But the case admits of a
much more simple interpretation. For if we consider the fact that the females frequent the forests where the Ileli. conidæ abound, while the males fly much in the open and assemble in great numbers with other white and yellow butterflies on the banks of rivers ; may it not be possible that the appearance of orange stripes or patches would be as injurious to the male as it is useful to the female, by making him a more casy mark for insectivorous birils among bis white companions ? This seems a more probable supposition, than the altogether bypothetical choice of the female, sometimes cxercised in favour of and sometimes against every new variety of colour in her partner.
A strictly analogous case is that of the glow-worm, whose light, as origin:lly suggested by Mr. Belt, is admitted to be a warning of its uneatability to insectivorous nocturnal animals. The male, having wings, does not require this protection. In the tropics the number of nocturnal insectivorous birds and bats is very much greater, hence winged species possess the light, as they would otherwise be eaten by mistake for more savoury insects; and it may be that the luminous Elateridae of the tropies really mimic the true fireflies (Lampridae), which are uncatable. This is the more probable as the Elateridla, in the great majority of species, have brown or protective colours, and are therefore certainly palatable to insectivorous animals.
Origin of the Orucomentul Plumage of Jule Birds.We now come to such wonderful developments of plumage and colour as are exhibited by the peacock and the Argus-pheasant; and I may here mention that it was the case of the latter bird, as fully discussed by
Mr. Darwin, which first shook my belief in “sexual," or more properly “female” selection. The long series of gradations, by which the beautifully shaded ocelli on the secondary wing-feathers of this bird, have been produceil, are clearly traced out; the result being a set of markings, so exquisitely shaded as to represent “balls lying loose within sockets"-purely artificial objects of which these birds could have no possible experience. That this result should have been attained through thousands and tens of thousands of female birds all preferring those males whose markings varied slightly in this one direction, this uniformity of choice continuing through thousands and tens of thousands of generations, is to me absolutely incredible. And when, further, we remember that those which did not so vary, would also, accoriling to all the evidence, find mates and leave offspring, the actual result seems quite impossible of attainment by such means.
Without pretending to solve completely so difficult a problem as that of the origin and uses of the variously coloured plumes and ornaments so often possessed by male birds, I would point out a few facts which seem to afford a clue. And first, the most highly-coloured and most richly-varied markings occur on those parts of the plumage which have undergone the greatest modification, or have acquired the most abnormal development. In the peacock, the tail-coverts are enormously developed, and the "eyes” are situated on the greatly dilated ends. In the birds-of-paradise, breast, or neck, or head, or tail-feathers, are greatly developed and highly coloured. The backles of the cock, and the scaly breasts of humming-birds are similar developments;
while in the Argus-pheasant the secondary quills are so enormously lengthened and broadened as to have become almost useless for flight. Now it is easily conceivable, that during this process of development, inequalities in the distribution of colour may have arisen in different parts of the same feather; and that spots and bands may thus have become broadened out into shaded spots or ocelli, in the way indicated by Mr. Darwin, much as the spots and rings on a soap-bubble increase with increasing tenuity. This is the more probable, because in domestic fowls varieties of colour tend to become symmetrical, quite independently of sexual selection. (Descent of Man, p. 424.)
If now we accept the evidence of Mr. Darwin's most trustworthy correspondents, that the choice of the female, so far as she exerts any, falls upon the “most vigorous, defiant, and mettlesome male ;” and if we further believe, what is certainly the case, that these are as a rule the most brightly coloured and adorned with the finest developments of plumage, we have a real and not a hypothetical cause at work. For these most healthy, vigorous, and beautiful males will have the choice of the finest and most healthy females; will have the most numerous and healthy families; and will be able best to protect and rear those families. Natural selection, and what may be termed male selection, will tend to give them the advantage in the struggle for existence; and thus the fullest plumage and the finest colours will be transmitted, and tend to advance in cach succeeding generation.
Theory of Display of Ornaments by Males.—The full and interesting account given by Mr. Darwin of the
colours and habits of male and female birds (Descent of Man, Chapters xiii. and xiv.), proves that in most, if not in all cases, the male birds fully display their ornamental plumage before the females or in rivalry with cach other; but on the essential point of whether the female's choice is determined by minute differences in these ornaments or in their colours, there appears to be an entire absence of evidence. In the section on “Preference for particular Jules by the Females," the facts quotel show indifference to colour, except that some colour similar to their own scems to be preferred. But in the case of the hen canary, who chose a greenfinch in preference to either chaffinch or goldfinch, gay colours had evidently no preponderating attraction. There is some evidence ailducel that female birls may, and probably do, choose their mates ; but none whatever that the choice is determined by difference of colour; and no less than three eminent breeders informed Mr. Darwin that they “did not believe that the females prefer certain males on account of the beauty of their plumage." Again, Mr. Darwin himself says: “As a general rule colour appears to have little influence on the pairing of pigeons." The oft-quoted case of Sir R. Heron's pea-hens which preferred an “old pied cock” to those normally coloured, is a very unfortunate one; because pied birds are just those that are not favoured in a state of nature, or the breeds of wild animals woulıl become as varied and mottled as our domestic varieties. If such irregular fancies were not rare exceptions, the produc. tion of definite colours and patterns by the choice of the female birds, or in any other way, would be impossible.
There remains, however, to be accounted for, the