colour-splashes of an 'impressionist' landscape the different splashes
must be exactly where they are, otherwise on stepping back from the
picture one would see, not a Haarlem hyacinth-field, or an avenue of
poplars with their golden autumn leaves, but a mere unintelligible
daub. It is the _type_ of the colour-pattern that must be attained,
and in nature this is attained very slowly, step by step, spot after
spot, and therefore, obviously, no correct stroke once attained will
be given up again, since, in combination with the rest, it secures
the proper type of colour-pattern. Only thus, it seems to me, can we
understand how apparently meaningless lines, like the figures 1840 on
the under surface of _Vanessa atalanta_, could have become a constant
characteristic of the species.
To sum up briefly, we may say that sexual selection is a much more
powerful factor in transformation than we should at first be inclined
to believe. It cannot, of course, have been operative in the case of
plants, nor can it be taken into consideration in regard to the lower
animals, for these, like the plants, do not pair, or, at any rate,
do so without any possibility of choice. Animals which live on the
sea-floor, or which are attached there, must simply liberate their
reproductive cells into the water, and cannot secure that they unite
with those of this or that individual. This is the case among sponges,
corals, and Hydroid polyps. In some other classes the sense organs are
too poorly developed, and the eyes in particular too imperfect to be
excited in different degrees by any peculiarities in the appearance
or behaviour of the males. This is what Darwin meant when he ascribed
to these animals 'too imperfect senses and much too low intelligence'
'to estimate the beauty or other attractive points of the opposite
sex, or to feel anything like rivalry.' Accordingly, in the Protozoa,
Echinoderms, Medusæ, and Ctenophores, secondary sexual characters are
entirely absent, as pairing also is.
In those worms that pair we first meet with secondary sexual
characters, and from this level upwards they are never quite absent
from any large group, and gradually play an increasingly important rôle.
But the significance of sexual selection lies, as we have seen,
not only in the fact that one sex of a species, usually the male,
is modified, but in the possibility of the transference of this
modification to the females, and further, in the fact that the process
of variation may start afresh at any time, and thus one variation may
be developed upon or alongside of another. In this way we can explain
certain complex and often fantastic forms and colourings which we could
not otherwise understand; thus the extraordinary number of nearly
related species in some animal groups, such as butterflies and birds,
in which the differences mainly concern the colour-patterns.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account