Nov.. 1895. SEXUAL SELECTION. 327 



merely consult our own taste, which admires it. Surely an argument 

 on these lines exemplifies an unsatisfactory process of reasoning. 



These are, of course, primd facie objections, and it will naturally 

 be urged that sexual selection is not so much a speculation as an 

 induction from the observed fact that the females of many species 

 possess inexplicable sympathies and antipathies for particular males, 

 — in short, that the " members of either sex prefer those individuals 

 of the opposite sex which are to them most attractive." ' 



This is an observed fact, but not altogether fortunate as an 

 argument. It proves too much. Supposing the individuals among 

 the "higher animals" really differed and had differed from time 

 immemorial, however slightly, in their choice of partners, all one 

 can say of " likes and dislikes " is that the more they are exercised 

 by one sex the more they appear incapable of modifying the 

 colouring, structure, voice, etc., of the other. For, after all, the tail 

 feathers of two peacocks are pretty much alike even now, after 

 generations of capriciously-minded peahens have exercised their 

 fancies upon them. It would amount to a truism to add that the less 

 these individual tastes are exercised, the less evident becomes the 

 existence of any " selection " whatever. 



A special inconvenience arises in the case of polygamous animals. 

 Certain polygamists, such as the pheasants, do not hold nuptial 

 tournaments or resort to battles with other males. But wherever, 

 as in the majority of cases, such contests " for the possession of the 

 female " (Darwin) take place, it is impossible to speak of voluntary 

 selection on the part of the latter. The two things are mutually 

 exclusive. 



If, therefore, the exceptional ornaments of the males are the 

 result of female preference, they must have been acquired in 

 their present magnificence before the polygamous, or combative, 

 habits were contracted. Such a supposition is rendered improbable 

 by the very general correlation that exists between polygamous habits 

 and brilliancy of plumage. 



If the ornaments have been gained simultaneously with, or 

 subsetiuent to, the polygamous habits, they demonstrate that 

 processes other than sexual selection are equally capable of forming 

 some of the most highly-finished male ornaments among the " higher 

 animals." This is exactly what I think has taken place. 



It is difficult to estimate the objections which the phenomena of 

 analogous variability oppose to sexual selection. I will mention two 

 instances, (i) A curious style of "decoration" that hardly commends 

 itself to our aesthetic taste, namely, to render conspicuous by bright 

 colouring a particular region of the body, has been ascribed, in the 



1 Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," i., p. 3S0 ; Darwin, "Descent of 

 Man." pp. 414. 522. 



