294 
I cannot agree with Darwin’s method of accounting for 
the loss of the tail—that the monkey found it in the way when 
it sat down, that the tail became injured and abraided in 
consequence of its sitting-down habits; and that such mutila- 
tions were inherited, resulting in a shorter and shorter 
tail.* 
The effects of disuse, including what I may call non- 
requirement—the tail from some cause, not growing in full 
proportion to the rest of the body—possibly also economy of 
growth on account of the material being required elsewhere— 
would account, by the law of earlier inheritance, for the 
gradual shortening and final disappearance of the tail in the 
generations of ancestors preceding Man. 
Loss of hair I presume to have arisen, as I said before, 
as a correlation of growth on account of changed habits; + 
but the loss of hair might very likely have been accelerated by 
sexual selection. Iam also ready to admit that the tail may 
have come under the same influence. 
It must, however, be remembered particularly that in 
neither case would sexual selection be the first cause of failing 
hair or shortening tail. Sexual selection would certainly not 
come into operation until some other causes had reduced the 
hair and tail so as to render certain members of the community 
conspicuous in these respects. 
If sexual selection did come into play it would cause those 
who exhibited tail and hair in full vigour to be looked down 
upon by their less well-furnished companions. The compliment 
would, no doubt, be returned; and then contempt might 
become active in inducing hatred and feuds between the rival 
parties. In this connection it is curious to notice that beings 
for which Man wishes to express scorn, as well as those which 
he hates because he fears them, are represented as having tails. 
* Darwin, “ Descent of Man,” 2nd Ed., p. 59, 1888. 
+ Or from economy—the material which maintained hair being more 
urgently required elsewhere, as in adult Man’s scalp to-day. 
eT eee 
