COURTSHIP

The foregoing illustrations, many of which show the gross injustice

lurking in our expression “animal passion,” will have prepared the

reader’s mind for the search after the elements of _romantic_ or

pre-nuptial Love in animals.

The development of romantic, as distinguished from conjugal love,

depends on the existence of _a more or less prolonged period of

courtship_. Where this is absent Love is absent, as among the ancient

nations and those of the moderns who lock up their women until they are

ready to be sold to a husband, at sight.

Among animals the young females are not locked up or chaperoned. They

are free to meet the young males and fall in love with the one that

pleases them most.

As a rule the preliminaries to animal marriages are doubtless brief. If

a healthy, vigorous male comes across a mature, healthy female, it is

usually a case of mutual _veni, vidi, vici_.

In other cases, however, courtship is a more prolonged affair, owing

partly to the coyness of the female, partly to the rivalries among the

male suitors.

Animal courtship is carried on either by single pairs in the romantic

shades of the forests, or else at special _nuptial mass meetings_,

resembling those held by some primitive tribes whose unmarried young

people assemble on certain days in the year to select partners. Of the

common magpie, for instance, Darwin relates that “Some years ago these

birds abounded in extraordinary numbers, so that a gamekeeper killed in

one morning nineteen males, and another killed by a single shot seven

birds roosting together. They then had the habit of assembling very

early in the spring at particular spots, where they could be seen in

flocks, chattering, sometimes fighting, bustling, and flying about the

trees. The whole affair was evidently considered by the birds as one of

the highest importance. Shortly after the meeting they all separated,

and were then observed by Mr. Fox and others to be paired for the

season.”

This was known as the “great magpie marriage.” In Germany and

Scandinavia similar assemblages of black game are so common that special

names have been given to them. “The bowers of the bower-birds are the

resort of both sexes during the breeding season; and here the males meet

and contend with each other for the favours of the females, and here the

latter assemble and coquet with the males.”

Two more cases may be cited: “With one of the vultures (_Cathartes

aura_) of the United States parties of eight, ten, or more males and

females assemble on fallen logs, ‘exhibiting the strongest _desire to

please_ mutually,’ and after many caresses each male leads off his

partner on the wing. Audubon likewise carefully observed the wild flocks

of Canada geese, and gives a graphic description of their love-antics;

he says that the birds which had been previously mated ‘renewed their

courtship as early as the month of January, while the others would be

contending or coquetting for hours every day, until all seemed satisfied

with the choice they had made, after which, although they remained

together, any person could easily perceive that they were careful to

keep in pairs. I have observed also that the older the birds the shorter

were the preliminaries of their courtship. The bachelors and old maids,

whether in regret or not caring to be disturbed by the bustle, quietly

moved aside and lay down at some distance from the rest.’”

_Separate courtship_ may be illustrated by the following cases, the

first of which is also interesting as showing that it is not among men

alone that the female occasionally becomes the wooer; and the second as

showing how early in the scale of animal life a primitive sort of

courtship may be found. Concerning a wild duck brought up in captivity

Mr. Hewitt says that “After breeding a couple of seasons with her own

mallard, it at once shook him off on my placing a male pintail on the

water. It was evidently a case of _love at first sight_, for she swam

about the newcomer caressingly, though he appeared evidently alarmed and

averse to her overtures of affection. From that hour she forgot her old

partner. Winter passed by, and the next spring the pintail seemed to

have become a convert to her blandishments, for they nested and produced

seven or eight young ones.”

The second case relates to the landsnail, concerning which Agassiz says:

“Quiconque a eu l’occasion d’observer les amours des limaçons ne saurait

mettre en doute la séduction déployée dans les mouvements et les allures

qui préparent et accomplissent le double embrassement de ces

hermaphrodites.”

The opportunities for prolonged Courtship being thus given, the question

arises, “Do animals, while a-wooing, experience the same feelings as a

human lover?” In other words, Are any of the overtones of Romantic Love

present in the amorous passion of animals?

Several of them no doubt are habitually absent. Animals have not

sufficient imagination to meditate consciously on their probable success

or failure in Courtship; and this lack of imaginative power excludes

those “overtones” which are chiefly dependent on that faculty; notably

Sympathy with the beloved’s feelings, Pride of Conquest and Possession,

Hyperbolic Adoration, Voluntary Self-Sacrifice for the other, and the

Woful Ecstasy of Mixed Moods. That Gallantry, or the Desire to Please,

_may_ be present is shown by the words I have italicised in the

quotation just made regarding the courtship of vultures, and is further

shown by the display of their ornamental plumage by male birds to excite

the attention of the female. Exclusiveness of affection is indicated by

the occasional indifference of the wooer to every rival; and when we

read of the German blackcock’s love-dances, during which, “the more

ardent he grows the more lively he becomes, until at last the bird

appears like a frantic creature”; and that “at such times the blackcocks

are so absorbed that they become almost _blind and deaf_, but less so

than the capercailzie,” so that “bird after bird may be shot on the

spot, or even caught by the hand”—when we read this, we feel tempted to

credit these birds even with those highest and most specialised forms of

lover’s madness which lead to oblivion—Self-Sacrifice and Ecstatic

Adoration.

The four traits of Romantic Love which are doubtless present in the

passion of animals are Jealousy, Coyness, Individual Preference, and

Admiration of Personal Beauty.

(_a_) _Jealousy._—Volumes might be filled with accounts of the tragedies

brought about through animal rivalry and jealousy during the season of

love. “The courage and the desperate conflicts of stags have often been

described,” says Darwin; “their skeletons have been found in various

parts of the world, with the horns inextricably locked together, showing

how miserably the victor and vanquished had perished.” “Male

sperm-whales are very jealous” at the season of love; “and in their

battles ‘they often lock their jaws together, and turn on their sides

and twist about’; so that their lower jaws often become distorted.”

When birds gaze at themselves in a looking-glass, as they often do, the

same authority inclines to the belief that they do it from jealousy of a

supposed rival; and Mr. Jenner Weir, he states, “is convinced that birds

pay particular attention to the colours of other birds, sometimes out of

jealousy, and sometimes as a sign of kinship;” while “many naturalists

believe that the singing of birds is almost exclusively ‘the effect of

rivalry and emulation,’ and not for the sake of charming their mates.”

Animal Jealousy is apparently dependent on the immediate presence of the

rival and the female; while the Jealousy of a human lover is also a

matter of the imagination, and smarts even more intensely during Her

absence; for his morbid fancy then loves to picture Her in the arms of

his victorious rival. He does not, however, except in some southern

countries, emulate the jealous lion by seeking to devour his rival, but

is contented if he can ward him off by stratagem, or make him appear in

a disadvantageous light in Her eyes.

(_b_) _Coyness._—Just as the Jealousy displayed by two animals fighting

for a female is a gross, primitive emotion, so the Coyness of female

animals is crude and clumsy compared with the delicious subtlety with

which a human maiden veils a Yes under an apparent No. Yet it plays a

prominent _rôle_ in the courtship of animals.

A human lover would often consider it a special privilege to be eaten

up, skin, bones, and all, by his mistress; but it is doubtful whether

spiders are ever madly enough in love to relish the conduct of their

females, as described by Darwin: “The male is generally much smaller

than the female, sometimes to an extraordinary degree, and he is forced

to be extremely cautious in making his advances, as the female often

carries her coyness to a dangerous pitch. De Geer saw a male that ‘in

the midst of his preparatory caresses was seized by the object of his

attentions, enveloped by her in a web, and then devoured’; a sight

which, as he adds, filled him with indignation and horror. Female fishes

also are apt to give a cannibal tinge to their coyness by eating up the

smaller males—actions to which remote human analogies may be found in

the coyness of mediæval dames, who sent their lovers to wars and into

lions’ dens as conditions of enjoying their favours; or, conversely, in

the habits of those Australians who eat their wives after they have

ceased to be either ornamental or useful.”

Indubitable evidences of Coyness are found as low down as among insects;

as, for example, in the species called _Smynthurnus luteus_, “wingless,

dull-coloured, minute insects, with ugly, almost misshapen heads and

bodies,” concerning which Sir John Lubbock remarks: “It is very amusing

to see these little creatures coquetting together. The male, which is

much smaller than the female, runs round her, and they butt one another

standing face to face and moving backward and forward like two playful

lambs. Then the female pretends to run away, and the male runs after her

with a queer appearance of anger, gets in front and stands facing her

again; then she turns coyly round, but he, quicker and more active,

scuttles round too, and seems to whip her with his antennæ; then for a

bit they stand face to face, play with their antennæ, and seem to be all

in all to one another.”

The Coyness of birds is illustrated by the following cases cited by

Büchner from Brehm and A. and K. Müller: “A genuine coquette is the

female cuckoo, who answers the call of the male with a peculiar

resonant, tittering or laughing love-call. ‘The call is seducing,

promising in advance, and its effect on the male simply enchanting.’ But

how long the lovers pursuing the siren have to wait before she accepts

one of them! A wild flight begins, among bushes and tree-tops, while the

female encourages the pursuers with repeated calls, and finally gets

them into a state of erotic excitement bordering on madness. At the same

time the female is no less excited than her frantic suitors. Her

favourite, no doubt, is the most eager of the lovers, and her apparent

resistance simply the desire to excite him still more!... The female of

the icebird (_Alcedo ispida_) often teases her lover half a day at a

time, by repeatedly approaching him, screaming at him, and flying away

again. At the same time she never loses sight of him, but in her flight

casts glances at him backwards and sidewise, moderates the rapidity of

her flight, and returns in a wide curve if the male suddenly ceases from

his pursuit.”

Could anything be more naïvely, more humanly, more exquisitely feminine?

If a lover, says a French philosopher, fails in his suit, let him desist

for a moment, and she will presently call him back.

No inquiry has ever been made by naturalists, so far as I am aware, as

to the origin of Coyness among animals. Two probable sources of this

feeling may therefore be here suggested. The first is a vague

instinctive presentiment (based on inherited cerebral impressions) that

with mating the labours of life will begin: the painful laying of eggs;

the loss of liberty during incubation—an incalculable loss to these most

active of all animals; and the care of the young, which, again, is not a

trifling matter, inasmuch as a family of starlings, for example, needs

for its daily food more than eight hundred snails, caterpillars, etc.;

and birds sometimes perish from exhaustion in the attempt to feed their

offspring.

The second source of Coyness is probably another instinctive feeling

(based on inherited experience) which induces the female to defer her

choice until the combats and manœuvres of the males have shown which

one is the most energetic, courageous, and persistent: for he will

obviously be best able to support her brood, and protect it as well as

herself against enemies. Hence, during the combats of rival males, the

female is commonly a passive spectator, and at the end quietly marches

or flies off with the victor. All of which, by the way, shows that among

animals already masculine love is deeper than feminine. Indirectly, it

is true, feminine Coyness is the cause of Love—but only of _masculine_

Love; for if the female animal always accepted the first male who asked

her—

“My pretty maiden, may I venture

To offer you my arm and escort?”

there would be no opportunity for the growth of pre-matrimonial passion.

(_c_) _Individual Preference._—Owing to our scant information concerning

the courtship of animals in a state of nature, Darwin did not succeed in

discovering any cases among mammals of decided preference shown by a

male for any particular female; and regarding domesticated quadrupeds,

“The general impression amongst breeders seems to be that the male

accepts any female; and this, owing to his eagerness, is, in most cases,

probably the truth.” A few cases of special preference or antipathy in

dogs, horses, bulls, and boars, were, however, communicated to him.

Concerning birds Darwin remarks that “In all ordinary cases the male is

so eager that he will accept any female, and does not, as far as we can

judge, prefer one to the other, but ... exceptions to this rule

apparently occur in some few groups. With domesticated birds, I have

heard of only one case of males showing any preference for certain

females, namely, that of the domestic cock, who, according to the high

authority of Mr. Hewitt, prefers the younger to the older hens.”

This, however, is at best only a polygamous sort of Preference, which,

after all, lacks the essential traits of Individualisation and

Exclusiveness. With the long-tailed duck (_Harelda glacialis_), M.

Ekström says, “It has been remarked that certain females are much more

courted than the rest. Frequently, indeed, one sees an individual

surrounded by six or eight amorous males.” Whether this statement is

credible Darwin does not know; but the Swedish sportsmen, he adds, shoot

these females and stuff them as decoys.

In female animals, on the other hand, the “overtone” of Individual

Preference appears to be more frequently present. Darwin even asserts

that “the exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law

almost as general as the eagerness of the male;” but this is not borne

out by the numerous illustrations given by himself, showing that when

two or more males are engaged in jealous combat, “the female looks on as

a passive spectator,” and finally goes off with the victor, whichever of

the rivals he may prove to be, without showing the slightest concern for

the vanquished. An Australian forest-maiden might behave similarly under

these circumstances, but a civilised maiden would cling to the one who

had made the deepest impression on her previous to the combat; and if

wounded, would adore him all the more; for in her Love pity is a

stronger ingredient than even the love of prowess.

That female birds, however, _sometimes_ exert a choice is admitted even

by Mr. A. R. Wallace (_Tropical Nature_, p. 199); and a few of the cases

referred to by Darwin may here be cited: “Audubon—and we must remember

that he spent a long life in prowling about the forests of the United

States and observing the birds—does not doubt that the female

deliberately chooses her mate; thus, speaking of a woodpecker, he says

the hen is followed by half a dozen gay suitors, who continue performing

strange antics ‘until a marked preference is shown for one.’ The female

of the red-winged starling (_Agelæus phœniceus_) is likewise pursued

by several males, ‘until, becoming fatigued, she alights, receives their

addresses, and soon makes a choice.’ He describes also how several male

nightjars repeatedly plunge through the air with astonishing rapidity,

suddenly turning, and thus making a singular noise; ‘but no sooner has

the female made her choice than the other males are driven away.’”

Concerning domesticated birds we have seen that that gallinaceous

sultan, the domestic cock, shows a decided preference for the younger

hens in his harem. But the female is not a bit less frivolous and

capricious; for, according to Mr. Hewitt, she almost invariably prefers

the most vigorous, defiant, and mettlesome male; hence it is almost

useless, he adds, “to attempt true breeding if a game-cock in good

health and condition runs the locality, for almost every hen on leaving

the roosting-place will resort to the game-cock, even though that bird

may not actually drive away the male of her own variety.”

(_d_) _Personal Beauty and Sexual Selection._—Mr. Wallace, who

discovered the law of Natural Selection independently of Darwin, admits,

as just stated, that “in birds the females do sometimes exert a choice”;

but he adds that “amid the copious mass of facts and opinions collected

by Mr. Darwin as to the display of colour and ornaments by the male

birds, there is _a total absence of any evidence that the females admire

or even notice this display_. The hen, the turkey, and the pea-fowl go

on feeding while the male is displaying his finery; and there is reason

to believe that it is his persistency and energy rather than his beauty

which wins the day.”

Briefly stated, the difference between the views of these two eminent

naturalists is this: Darwin believes that in those cases where the sexes

are not alike, the differences are due to the _males_, originally plain,

having become modified through _Sexual_ Selection for _ornamental_

purposes; while Mr. Wallace believes that colour is a normal product in

animal integuments, proportionate to their vitality, and that the sexual

differences in ornamentation are due to the _females_ having been

modified through _Natural_ Selection for the sake of _protection_.

Perhaps the best brief _résumé_ Darwin has made of his views on this

subject is given on page 421 of the _Descent of Man_ (London edition,

1885), which may therefore be here cited in full: "If an inhabitant of

another planet were to behold a number of young rustics at a fair

courting a pretty girl, and quarrelling about her like birds at one of

their places of assemblage, he would, by the eagerness of the wooers to

please her and to display their finery, infer that she had the power of

choice. Now with birds the evidence stands thus: they have acute powers

of observation, and they seem to have some taste for the beautiful both

in colour and sound. It is certain that the females occasionally

exhibit, from unknown causes, the strongest antipathies and preferences

for particular males. When the sexes differ in colour or in other

ornaments, the males with rare exceptions are the more decorated, either

permanently or during the breeding season. They sedulously display their

various ornaments, exert their voices, and perform strange antics in the

presence of the females. Even well-armed males who, it might be thought,

would altogether depend for success on the law of battle, are in most

cases highly ornamented; and their ornaments have been acquired at the

expense of some loss of power. In other cases ornaments have been

acquired at the cost of increased risk from birds and beasts of prey.

With various species many individuals of both sexes congregate at the

same spot, and their courtship is a prolonged affair. There is even

reason to suspect that the males and females within the same district do

not always succeed in pleasing each other and pairing.

“What then are we to conclude from these facts and considerations? Does

the male parade his charms with so much pomp and rivalry for no purpose?

Are we not justified in believing that the female exerts a choice, and

that she receives the addresses of the male who pleases her most? It is

not probable that she consciously deliberates; but she is most excited

or attracted by the most beautiful, or melodious, or gallant males. Nor

need it be supposed that the female studies each stripe or spot of

colour; that the peahen, for instance, admires each detail in the

gorgeous train of the peacock—she is probably struck only by the general

effect. Nevertheless, after hearing how carefully the male Argus

pheasant displays his elegant primary wing-feathers, and erects his

ocellated plumes in the right position for their full effect; or again,

how the male goldfinch alternately displays his gold-bespangled wings,

we ought not to feel too sure that the female does not attend to each

detail of beauty.”

Now it was this very case of the Argus pheasant that first shook Mr.

Wallace’s “belief in ‘sexual,’ or, more properly, ‘female’ selection.

The long series of gradations by which the beautifully-shaped ocelli on

the secondary wing-feathers of this bird have been produced 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 who

did not so vary would also, according to all evidence, find mates and

have offspring, the actual result seems quite impossible of attainment

by such means.”

According to Darwin’s own admission (_Descent of Man_, p. 211), he

advanced the theory of Sexual Selection because, in his opinion, Natural

Selection did not account for the various ornaments and attractions of

the males in question. Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, believes that

Sexual Selection does _not_, while Natural Selection _does_ account for

these ornaments; so, in place of Darwin’s view that the beauty of

certain male animals leads the females to prefer them to their less

ornamented rivals, he substitutes the theory that it is the superior

vitality, persistence, and vivacity of the favoured males that fascinate

the females, and that masculine beauty is simply a natural result of

superior vigour and superabundant health.

Darwin doubtless errs in claiming an æsthetic sense for animals so low

in the scale of life as butterflies and other insects, and in

attributing to it such extraordinary effects in the development of

personal beauty. What Mr. Wallace has done in _Tropical Nature_ is to

show simply that it is quite unnecessary to invoke the aid of so

questionable an agency as Sexual Selection in order to account for the

ornaments of animals; and that the fundamental principle of Darwinism,

_Natural_ Selection, accounts for everything.

He maintains that colour is a normal product of organisation, and that

not so much its presence as its absence needs accounting for. White and

black are comparatively rare and exceptional in nature, while the

various tints of red, blue, green, etc., are continually appearing

spontaneously and irregularly in the integuments of animals. These

irregular colours, if injurious to the species, will be at once

eliminated by Natural Selection; but if useful for purposes of

identification or protection, they will be preserved and intensified.

Now colour, Mr. Wallace continues, is proportionate to integumentary

development, and is most conspicuous in the wings of butterflies and the

feathers of birds, for the reason that, just as “the spots and rings on

a soap-bubble increase with increasing tenuity,” similarly the

delicately-organised surface of feathers and scales is highly favourable

to the production of varied colour-effects.

Colour being thus proportionate to integumentary development, we find

next that integumentary development is, in turn, proportionate to vigour

and vitality; the strongest animals having the largest feathers, scales,

horns, etc. Hence the most vigorous and healthy animals are also the

most beautiful, the most brilliantly coloured. And this correlation

between healthful vigour and beauty is still more strikingly shown in

this, that “The colours of an animal usually fade during disease or

weakness, while robust health and vigour adds to their intensity.... In

all quadrupeds a ‘dull coat’ is indicative of ill-health or low

condition; while a glossy coat and sparkling eye are the invariable

accompaniments of health and energy. The same rule applies to the

feathers of birds, whose colours are only seen in their purity during

perfect health; and a similar phenomenon occurs even among insects, for

the bright hues of caterpillars begin to fade as soon as they become

inactive preparatory to their undergoing transformation. Even in the

vegetable kingdom we see the same thing: for the tints of foliage are

deepest, and the colours of flowers and fruits richest, on those plants

which are in the most healthy and vigorous condition.”

Add to all these considerations that “this intensity of coloration

becomes most developed during the breeding season, when the vitality is

at a maximum,” and we shall be prepared for Mr. Wallace’s summing up of

his case:—

“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 highly-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; 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 and the finest colours will be

transmitted, and tend to advance in each succeeding generation.”

By this strong chain of reasoning (to which my brief _>résumé_ of course

cannot do justice) Mr. Wallace shows that Darwin needlessly introduced

the principle of Sexual Selection into animal courtship; and at the same

time furnishes a new confirmation of Darwin’s compliment that he has “an

innate genius for solving difficulties.”

What makes Mr. Wallace’s argument the more cogent is the fact that

Darwin himself, in speaking of the lowest classes of animals, explains

their beauty on the same principles as those which Mr. Wallace applies

to the higher animals. Thus he says: “We can, in our ignorance of most

of the lowest animals, only say that their bright tints result either

from the chemical nature or the minute structure of their tissues,

independently of any benefit thus derived.” “It is almost certain that

these animals have too imperfect senses, and much too low mental powers,

to appreciate each other’s beauty or other attractions, or to feel

rivalry.” “Nor is it at all obvious how the offspring from the more

beautiful pairs of hermaphrodites would have any advantage over the

offspring of the less beautiful, so as to increase in number, _unless

indeed vigour and beauty generally coincided_.” And once more, “The

sedentary annelids become duller-coloured, according to M. Quatrefages,

after the period of reproduction; and this I presume may be attributed

to their less vigorous condition at that time.”

So far we have only considered the origin of animal colours in general.

Mr. Wallace, however, has not only made clear the general connection

between beautiful and vivid colours and health, but, by utilising his

own researches and those of Mr. Bates and other naturalists, he has been

able to show to what a great extent we can explain even the _particular_

colours of the various classes of animals. He distinguishes four classes

of animal colours—Protective, Warning, Sexual, and Typical.

(1) _Protective Colours._—These “are exceedingly prevalent in nature,

comprising those of all the white arctic animals, the sandy-coloured

desert forms, and the green birds and insects of tropical forests. It

also comprises thousands of cases of special resemblance—of birds to the

surroundings of their nests, and especially of insects to the bark,

leaves, flowers, or soil on or amid which they dwell. Mammalia, fishes,

and reptiles, as well as mollusca, present similar phenomena; and the

more the habits of animals are investigated, the more numerous are found

to be the cases in which their colours tend to conceal them, either from

their enemies or from the creatures they prey upon.”

(2) _Warning Colours._—In this class, on the other hand, the object is

not to conceal the animal, but to make it conspicuous. Certain species

of gorgeously-coloured butterflies, _e.g._ are never eaten by birds,

spiders, lizards, or monkeys, who eagerly feed on other butterflies.

“The reason simply is that they are not fit to eat, their juices having

a powerful odour and taste that is absolutely disgusting to all these

animals. Now we see the reason of their showy colours and slow flight.

It is good for them to be seen and recognised, for then they are never

molested; but if they did not differ in form and colouring from other

butterflies, or if they flew so quickly that their peculiarities could

not be easily noticed, they would be captured, and though not eaten,

would be maimed or killed.”

Mimicry is the name given to a second and still more marvellous class of

Warning Colours. They belong to defenceless creatures which so closely

resemble other brightly-coloured but nauseous or dangerous animals that

they are mistaken for the latter, and therefore left alone. _E.G._

“Wasps are imitated by moths, and ants by beetles; and even poisonous

snakes are mimicked by harmless snakes, and dangerous hawks by

defenceless cuckoos.”

(3) _Typically_-coloured animals are those species which are brilliantly

coloured in both sexes, “and for whose particular colours we can assign

no function or use.” This group “comprises an immense number of showy

birds, such as Kingfishers, Barbets, Toucans, Lories, Tits, and

Starlings; among insects most of the largest and handsomest

butterflies,” etc. “It is a suggestive fact that all the

brightly-coloured birds mentioned above build in holes or form covered

nests, so that the females do not need that protection during the

breeding season which I believe to be one of the chief causes of the

dull colour of female birds when their partners are gaily coloured.”

(4) _Sexual Colours_, comprising those cases in which the sexes differ,

and with which Darwin’s theory of Sexual Selection is directly

concerned. Through no _direct_ fault of his own, Darwin leaves on his

readers the impression—which has become almost a commonplace of

conversation—that it is the general rule among animals for the males of

each species to be more ornamented than the females. The truth is,

however, that “with the exception of butterflies, the sexes are almost

alike in the great majority of insects. The same is the case in mammals

and reptiles; while the chief departure from the rule occurs in birds,

though even here in very many cases the law of sexual likeness

prevails.”

The reason why I have devoted so much space to Mr. Wallace’s colour

theories is to emphasise the truth contained in this last sentence; the

fact, namely, that even if Sexual Selection were accepted as an active

principle, it would account in only a very limited number of cases for

the personal beauty of animals, and the reader of Mr. Wallace’s

_Tropical Nature_ and his _Contributions to the Theory of Natural

Selection_ cannot fail to be convinced that Sexual Selection does not

even hold good in this limited number of cases, but that “the primary

cause of sexual diversity of colour is the need of protection,

repressing in the female those bright colours which are normally

produced in both sexes by general laws.”

Incidentally Mr. Wallace mentions as an additional function of colour

the fact that it may serve as a _means of recognition_ to the sexes.

“This view affords us an explanation of the curious fact that among

butterflies the females of closely-allied species in the same locality

sometimes differ considerably, while the males are much alike; for, as

the males are the swiftest, and by far the highest flyers, and seek out

the females, it would evidently be advantageous for them to be able to

recognise their true partners at some distance off.”

To me it seems that this function of colour is, next to Protection, its

most important object, and that Mr. Wallace does not give it sufficient

prominence. He says, in speaking of _Typical Colours_, that we can

assign “no function or use for them.” But why should they not serve the

sexes as a means of recognition at at a distance? especially as colours

can be recognised at a greater distance than forms. Many years before

Darwin and Mr. Wallace wrote on this subject, Schopenhauer’s genius

anticipated this view of the matter. “The extremely varied and vivid

colours of the feathers of tropical birds,” he wrote, “have been

explained in a very general way, with reference to their efficient

cause, as due to the strong effect of the tropical light. As their final

cause I would suggest that these brilliant plumes are the gala uniforms

by means of which the species, which are so numerous there and often

belonging to the same genus, recognise each other; so that every male

finds his female. The same is true of the butterflies of different zones

and latitudes” (_Welt als Wille u. V._, ii. 381).

Schopenhauer of course errs in attributing, in his ignorance of

Protective, Warning, and other colours, all the hues of birds and

butterflies to this agency. But it is probable that whenever colours and

other ornaments do not serve for purposes of protection (as _e.g._ the

lion’s mane and the horns of beetles, _vide_ _Tropical Nature_, p. 202),

they serve the purpose of sexual recognition of species. A case cited by

Darwin to prove that quadrupeds take notice of colour, is very

suggestive in this connection: “A female zebra would not admit the

addresses of a male ass until he was painted so as to resemble a zebra,

and then, as John Hunter remarks, she received him very readily.”

It is probable, therefore, that in many cases the unique spots and

stripes and colours of animals subserve the special use of facilitating

the finding of a partner; and in this way they relate directly to the

courtship and Romantic Love of animals. Thus we see how the Love affairs

of animals may indirectly affect their Personal Beauty in a way quite

different from that suggested by Darwin.