Shrunk up Males. 159 



the weakest and least perfectly organised in the sense 

 Dr. Russel Wallace alone can mean. 



It is very remarkable that Professor Van Beneden 

 (see Animal Parasitism, p. 71), so far as we can 

 understand him, actually notes the fact that pro- 

 miscuous polyandry in certain parasitic worms and 

 insects leads to something of the same result : the 

 shrinking away of the males to a mere sexual organ, 

 which again shrinks away ; the multiplication of 

 males taken under special protection of the female, 

 which, if they become burdens to her, she only resorts 

 to more effective devices to maintain and aid them — 

 leading to wonderful development of the females. The 

 following passage certainly seems to point this way : 



"The whole family of the Abdominalia, a name 

 proposed by Darwin, if I am not mistaken," (but now 

 superseded and disused) " have the sejfes separate ; 

 and the males, comparatively very small, are attached 

 to the body of each female. It is a case of poly- 

 andria, which we see realised in the Scalpellmn. 

 Darwin made known the existence of supplementary 

 males, so small and so little developed, that they are 

 with difficulty discovered ; and so badly are they 

 provided with organs, that they have neither those 

 of motion, nor a stomach to digest." 



Is this then a case of survival of the fittest, or is it 

 not ? The males really reduced to shrunk up organs 

 — have they survived as t]\e, fittest ? 



