COMPABATIVE VIEWS OP VARIOUS MATING HABITS. 67 



to the latter point, however, I must say, as a result of many observations, 

 that I have not been at all impressed with the ingenuity of the male sex of 

 Argiopo in approacliing liis lady's premises. On the other hand, I have 

 rather acquired the impression that he sliows a remarkable degree of stu- 

 pidity or, at least, stolidity. 



Moreover, Mr. Cambridge's argument implies the fact that at one time 

 the sexes were of equal size, and that natural selection operated in the way 



of producing a diminution of size in the male, to his advantage. 

 Na ura j^^^ ^j^j^ hypothesis, in its first particular, is not admissible, bv 

 Selection. -'/ ' • , • , ■ , . , , . ,. 



the very nature oi the rcasonmg, which implies the necessity for 



a reduction in size in order to preserve the male, and thus facilitate the 

 preservation of the species. It .seems difficult to convince one that Nature, 

 liaving at the outset provided a comparative equality between the species, 

 or wrought the sexes up to such an equality, should have felt compelled 

 to reverse her decision and her processes, and reduce the size of one of the 

 sexes to such ridiculously small proportions. In other words, if Mr. Cam- 

 bridge's theory starts out, as it seems to do, with a comparative equality of 

 the sexes, there appears to be no reason why that equality, having once 

 obtained, should not have continued ; for the fact that it had once ob- 

 tained forbids the hypothesis that any necessity existed, or would be likely 

 to arise, for reducing the original equality of size. 



Still further, it is a very common thing to find Orbweaving species 

 whose sexes are of nearly equal size and vigor. Such, for example, are 



Epeira strix, Epeira sclopetaria, and Epeira labyrinthea, which 

 Eaual ^"^"^ among our most common indigenous species. The same is 

 Size. ^^^^ °^ many Lineweavers, as, for example, Theridium tepidari- 



• orum, Steatoda borealis, Linyphia marginata, and Linyphia com- 

 munis. The reasons for difference in size between the two sexes would 

 seem to be equally potent in the case of the above species, and all others 

 of like habit. Yet we see that natural selection has not operated along 

 the line of action supposed in the case of Nephila and Argiope. Cer- 

 tainly these exceptions are too numerous not to be regarded as throwing 

 much discredit upon the theory or, at least, laying upon its supporters the 

 burden of further proof. 



It is pertinent to ask, do those Orbweaving species which habitually oc- 

 cupy nests or tents, in which the pairing occurs, at least occasionally, show 



a disproportion of size on the part of the sexes? One would 

 Snecies ^^^^on that in such cases a substantial equality of size, or even 



the superior strength of the male, would work to his advantage, 

 and so to the propagation of the species. That is to say, it has been 

 found that among the Tubeweavers and Wanderers, and all other species 

 where courtship and mating are conducted by direct contact, and not by 

 the act of suspension within the snare, as is habitual with Lineweavers 

 and Orbweavers, the male is of equal, or even superior, size. In the case 



