28 JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, Vol. XVI. 



Darwin quotes Mr. Tegetmeier as saying " that a gamecock, though 

 disfigured by being dubbed, and with his hackles trimmed, would be 

 accepted as readily as a male retaining all his natural ornaments." 



There is some direct and, it seems to me, very conclusive, evidence 

 which tends to disprove the Darwinian theory of sexual selection. 



Take the case of the paradise flycatcher. It will be remembered 

 that the male of this species does not attain his full plumage until after 

 the moult of the fourth autumn. Nevertheless the male certainly finds 

 a mate in his second and third years. In the face of this foot, it seems 

 impossible to ascribe his subsequent white plumage to selection by the 

 female. 



Considering the great significance of the changes in the plumage of 

 the male paradise flycatcher, it is surprising that the bird has not 

 attracted a greater amount of attention. The life-history of the male 

 birds of paradise appears to exhibit a similar phenomenon. 



The life-history of these birds was not known when Darwin set forth 

 his theory of sexual colouration. It was, however, a matter of common 

 knowledge that the immature plumaged males of some species did breed. 

 On this subject Darwin writes : " The fact of birds breeding in their 

 immature plumage seems opposed to the belief that sexual selection has 

 played as important a part, as I believe it has, in giving ornamental 

 colours, plumes, &c, to the males, and by means of equal transmission, 

 to the females of many species. The objection would be a valid one, if 

 the younger and less ornamental males were as successful in winning 

 females and propagating their kind, as the older and more beautiful 

 males. But we have no reason to suppose that this is the case." Now, 

 I submit that considering the comparative paucity of the white plumaged 

 paradise flycatcher males, there is every reason to believe that in this 

 species the young males are very successful in finding mates. 



Wallace's theory is that the brilliant plumage and all the accessory 

 ornamentation of male birds are the expression of surplus energy ; that 

 in most instances these characters have not been transmitted to the 

 female, because it is important that she should be inconspicuous when 

 sitting on the nest. The origin of the ornamental appendages of birds, 

 writes Wallace, is to be found " in a surplus of vital energy, leading to 

 abnormal growths in those parts of the integument where muscular 

 and nervous energy are greatest. The continuous development of these 



