235



on the Display of the Peacock-pheasant.



uprightness of the pose and the drooping of the forepart of the

body to the ground, it differs from the display of the Peacock and

Turkey merely in the uplifting of the wings so that their orna¬

mentation is shown to the best advantage.


There can be no question that the two courtship-attitudes-

just described must be regarded as full display, but I am not sure

that the pose described by Darwin on Bartlett’s authority can be

deemed otherwise than as partial. It does not, however, lose in

interest on that account; for if we may trust the accuracy of the

record—and I see no justifiable grounds for disputing it—it is

evident that in the raising and spreading of the two wings and

tail in the same plane, combined with their exhibition from the

lateral aspect, this display is to all intents and purposes inter¬

mediate between the full lateral and full frontal methods shown

in Mr. Goodcliild’s drawings.


Perhaps, however, the chief interest in the display of the

Peacock-pheasant lies in the circumstance that the habit of

elevating and exposing the upper side of the wings in the frontal

attitude associates this bird closely with the Argus Pheasant. I

am unable indeed to find any fundamental distinction between

the methods of self-exhibition practised by these two species.

The apparent difference depends merely upon a difference in the

size of the wings. Like the Peacock-pheasant the Argus faces

the hen and raises and expands the tail and wings. The wings,

however, are lifted higher and are thrust more forward. The

feathers, which are of extraordinary length, meet in the middle

line over the head in front and over the back behind, forming an

enormous subcircular lineally ocellated shield which conceals

the entire head, body and tail, with the exception of the ends of

the two long tail feathers.* Despite this difference, the attitude of

the Argus in display is in all important respects the same as the

attitude of the frontal display of the Peacock-pheasant; audit is

not difficult to trace, in imagination, the special features con¬

tributing to the display of both from the features possessed by a

common ancestral type differing from the Turkey in its method

of self-exhibition only in lifting instead of depressing its spread



* In addition to the above-quoted figure in the 1883 edition of “ The Descent of Man,”

there is a good illustration of the display of the Argus Pheasant on p. 430, Vol. IV. of the

Royal Natural History.



