The genetic and the operative evidence relating to secondary sexual charactersMorgan, Thomas Hunt
Science
The genetic and the operative evidence relating to secondary sexual characters
Morgan, Thomas Hunt
Genetics; Poultry; Sex (Biology)
We are more concerned with that special feature of Darwin’s theory of
sexual selection that is applied to those cases where the characters are
supposed to owe their special development to selection by the
individuals of the opposite sex. It is assumed that the female _chooses_
the better endowed males, _because_ of the strong appeal he makes to her
sense-organs. Here we must employ perforce or for brevity’s sake the
terms used in human psychology, and run the risk at every turn of
imputing to other animals the emotions and acquired associations which
man himself utilizes. Even granting that other animals possess somewhat
similar emotions to ours, there still remains always the danger, in the
absence of real evidence, of imputing to them the particular emotion
that we call “feeling for beauty”; and the greater danger of imputing an
esthetic sense so highly developed that the choice falls in the long run
on the suitor better ornamented than his rivals.
OTHER THEORIES TO ACCOUNT FOR SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS.
Wallace has always been an opponent of Darwin’s theory of sexual
selection in so far as it is based on female choice. As already stated,
he believes that the difference between the plumage of the male and
female in birds is due to natural selection keeping down the
ornamentation and high coloration in the female, because these would be
expected to expose the female while sitting on the nest to the attacks
of enemies, more especially of hawks. In support of this view he points
to a long series of species which build exposed nests and in them the
female is plainly and inconspicuously colored, while he also points out
that in such birds as parrots, toucans, woodpeckers, hangnests, and
starlings, which nest in holes or have covered nests, the female is
often as highly colored as the male. It can not be denied that he makes
out rather a strong case in support of this view, despite the fact that
there are other birds, like the Baltimore oriole, that have covered
nests and in which the sexes are very markedly different.
Wallace tries to meet cases like the last one by assuming that the
covering keeps off the rain; but, if so, why are the sexes still so
different? In the case of other highly colored birds, such as jays,
magpies, hawks, and crows, Wallace believes that these birds are all
aggressive, hence can protect their nests if attacked. As a further
support of his view, Wallace points out that in the few cases where the
female is more highly colored than the male (as the dotterel, species of
phalarope, an Australian creeper) the male incubates the eggs.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account