It would even appear that mere novelty, or change for the sake of change, has sometimes acted like a charm on female birds, in the same manner as changes of fashion with us. The Duke of Argyll says,[284]—and I am glad to have the unusual satisfaction of following for even a short distance in his footsteps—“I am more and more convinced that variety, mere variety, must be admitted to be an object and an aim in Nature.” I wish the Duke had explained what he here means by Nature. Is it meant that the Creator of the universe ordained diversified results for His own satisfaction, or for that of man? The former notion seems to me as much wanting in due reverence as the latter in probability. Capriciousness of taste in the birds themselves appears a more fitting explanation. For example; the males of some parrots can hardly be said to be more beautiful, at least according to our taste, than the females, but they differ from them in such points, as the male having a rose-coloured collar instead of, as in the female, “a bright emeraldine narrow green collar;” or in the male having a black collar instead of “a yellow demi-collar in front,” with a pale roseate instead of a plum-blue head.[285] As so many male birds have for their chief ornament elongated tail-feathers or elongated crests, the shortened tail, formerly described in the male of a humming-bird, and the shortened crest of the male goosander almost seem like one of the many opposite changes of fashion which we admire in our own dresses.