308 LESSONS FROM NATURE. [CHAP. X. 



marked sexual characters found amongst mammals are those 

 which exist in apes. These are abundantly noticed by Mr. 

 Darwin, but his treatment of them seems to show his inability 

 to bring them within the scope of his theory. 



It is well known that certain apes are distinguished by the 

 lively colours or peculiarities as to hair possessed by the 

 males, while it is also notorious that their vastly superior 

 strength of body and length of fang would render resistance 

 on the part of the female difficult and perilous, even were we 

 to adopt the utterly gratuitous supposition, that at seasons of 

 sexual excitement the female shows any disposition to coyness. 

 Mr. Darwin has no argument to bring forward to prove the 

 exercise of any choice on the part of female apes, but gives 

 in support of his views the following remarkable passage : 



&quot;Must we attribute to mere purposeless variability in the male all 

 these appendages of hair and skin ? It cannot be denied that this is 

 possible ; for, with many domesticated quadrupeds, certain characters, 

 apparently not derived through reversion from any wild parent-form, 

 have appeared in, and are confined to, the males, or are more largely 

 developed in them than in the females, for instance, the hump in the 

 male zebu-cattle of India, the tail in fat- tailed rams, the arched outline 

 of the forehead in the males of several breeds of sheep, the mane in the 

 ram of an African breed, and, lastly, the mane, long hairs on the hinder 

 legs, and the dewlap in the male alone of the Berbura goat.&quot; vol. ii. 

 p. 284. 



If these are due, as is probable, to simple variability, then, 

 he adds 



&quot; It would appear reasonable to extend the same view to the many 

 analogous characters occurring in animals under a state of nature. 

 Nevertheless I cannot persuade myself that this view is applicable in 

 many cases, as in that of the extraordinary development of hair on the 

 throat and fore-legs of the male Ammotragus, or of the immense beard 

 of the Pithecia (monkey).&quot; vol. ii. p. 285. 



But one naturally asks, Why not? Mr. Darwin gives no 

 reason (if it may be called such) beyond that implied in the 

 gratuitous use of the epithet &quot; purposeless &quot; in the passage 

 cited, and to which we shall return. 



In the Rhesus monkey the female appears to be more 

 vividlv coloured than the male ; therefore Mr. Darwin infers 



