How then does the whole matter stand? If it were males only that engaged in serious conflict, and if they fought only in the presence of a female, the problem would resolve itself into one simply of obtaining mates. But the warfare extends in a variety of directions, it is not confined to one sex, nor to unpaired individuals, nor need the opponents necessarily be of the same sex; it involves both sexes alike singly or combined. Now the view that the biological end of battle is, in its primary aspect, related to the female, cannot, as we have seen, apply to the conflicts between different pairs, and only by much stretching of the imagination can it be held responsible for the hostility that males frequently display towards females or _vice versa_. It is valid only for a certain form of warfare. But that form represents, you will say, a large proportion of the whole, which is true; and so long as we ignore the remainder, we might rest content in the belief that we had solved the major part of the problem. But can we ignore the remainder? Can we say that the conflicts between paired males, for example, are simply offshoots of the pugnacious disposition, and have no part to play in the process of reproduction? They recur with marked persistency season after season and generation after generation; they are to be found in species widely remote; they are frequent in occurrence; and no one who had observed them and noted the vigour with which they are conducted, could, I think, conclude that they were meaningless--and be satisfied. They must somehow be explained. So that if anyone thinks fit to maintain that possession of a mate is an adequate explanation of part of the hostilities, it is clearly impossible to regard all the fighting as a manifestation of one principle directed towards a common biological end.