It will be conceded, I think, that such pleading does not help the argument, but exposes rather its inherent weaknesses. There is, however, a line of defense that is permissible. If monogamy is not the rule, if the male captures or attracts several females and keeps a harem, as do the fur seals and walruses, or rules a herd as does the bull, or has a flock as does the cock, or mates more frequently with random females than do some other males, then the advantage of his more developed weapon might lead to more offspring. If it could be shown that such intraspecific weapons prevail more frequently within polygamous species, a fair argument for natural selection might be made. I do not know whether such a census has been taken as yet, but it is true, I think, that in most polygamous groups we find weapons of offense very highly developed. The fur seal has a harem and the male is greater in size, in strength, and in the development of his tusks than is the female. Similarly for the walrus. The bull drives away rival bulls from the herd until through age or injury, or through the development of a better fighter, he is replaced. If the better endowment is due to a genetic factor, we should expect natural selection to keep the race at the highest possible level that variation supplies material for. If, then, we confine the application of natural selection to cases of this sort, the explanation is as valid as is the theory in other fields. Such a conclusion becomes weakened when an attempt is made to apply it to other groups of animals in which it appears improbable that the secondary sexual characters of the male have any obvious value as organs of offense. There are families of beetles, for example, in which the development of the horns of the male are as striking as are those of the ram or the stag. The males of these beetles are not known to fight with each other, nor are they polygamous. It may seem that we must look here for some other explanation, which, if found, might suffice to cover also the case of birds and mammals. In answer to this criticism it may be argued that it is also possible that the other explanation when found need not necessarily apply to the higher animals, where the laws of combat may still give the true explanation. On the whole, I think that, for our present purpose, it will suffice to state it is consistent with the theory of natural selection to accept _provisionally_ this part of Darwin’s theory for those species in the higher groups in which polygamy holds, conceding, however, that even here it may have to be altered when fuller knowledge is gained.