The Descent of Man quotes

He has seen some of these animals, which he kept in confinement, in this state; and he gives a laughable account of their behaviour and strange grimaces.

On the following morning they were very cross and dismal; they held their aching heads with both hands, and wore a most pitiable expression

: when beer or wine was offered them, they turned away with disgust, but relished the juice of lemons. (7. Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ B. i. 1864, s. 75, 86. On the Ateles, s. 105. For other analogous statements, see s. 25, 107.)

when beer or wine was offered them, they turned away with disgust, but relished the juice of lemons. (7. Brehm, ‘Thierleben,’ B. i. 1864, s. 75, 86. On the Ateles, s. 105. For other analogous statements, see s. 25, 107.)

An American monkey, an Ateles, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus was wiser than many men.

These trifling facts prove how similar the nerves of taste must be in monkeys and man, and how similarly their whole nervous system is affected.

This conclusion is greatly strengthened, if we look to the members of the whole animal series, and consider the evidence derived from their affinities or classification, their geographical distribution and geological succession.

It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion.

But the time will before long come, when it will be thought wonderful that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man, and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation.

p. 217.), insists that the internal viscera are more variable than the external parts: Nulla particula est quae non aliter et aliter in aliis se habeat hominibus. He has even written a treatise on the choice of typical examples of the viscera for representation.

A discussion on the beau-ideal of the liver, lungs, kidneys, etc., as of the human face divine, sounds strange in our ears.

The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. So it is with the lower animals.

therefore the fact, of which I have been assured, that women sometimes have considerably projecting canines, is no serious objection to the belief that their occasional great development in man is a case of reversion to an ape-like progenitor.

He who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his own canines, and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our early forefathers having been provided with these formidable weapons, will probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his descent.

For though he no longer intends, nor has the power, to use these teeth as weapons, he will unconsciously retract his “snarling muscles” (thus named by Sir C. Bell) (46. The Anatomy of Expression, 1844, pp.

… two equal bodies, the one half which included all the individuals best adapted by their powers of movement for gaining subsistence, or for defending themselves, would on an average survive in greater numbers, and procreate more offspring than the other and less well endowed half.

Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth.

He has spread more widely than any other highly organised form: and all others have yielded before him.

thus the wonderfully diversified instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are notorious, yet their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small pin’s head.

Under this point of view, the brain of an ant is one of the most marvellous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more so than the brain of a man.

The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy …

To return to our immediate subject: the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.

Happiness is never better exhibited than by young animals, such as puppies, kittens, lambs, etc., when playing together, like our own children.

Even insects play together, as has been described by that excellent observer, P. Huber (7. ‘Recherches sur les Moeurs des Fourmis,’ 1810, p. 173.), who saw ants chasing and pretending to bite each other, like so many puppies.

The love of a dog for his master is notorious; as an old writer quaintly says (9. Quoted by Dr. Lauder Lindsay, in his ‘Physiology of Mind in the Lower Animals,’ ‘Journal of Mental Science,’ April 1871, p. 38.), “

A dog is the only thing on this earth that luvs you more than he luvs himself.

”

and his rage was so violent that, as I witnessed on one occasion, he bit his own leg till the blood flowed.

Dogs shew what may be fairly called a sense of humour, as distinct from mere play

; if a bit of stick or other such object be thrown to one, he will often carry it away for a short distance;

and a dog carrying a basket for his master exhibits in a high degree self-complacency or pride. There can, I think, be no doubt that a dog feels shame, as distinct from fear, and something very like modesty when begging too often for food.

A great dog scorns the snarling of a little dog, and this may be called magnanimity.

Several observers have stated that monkeys certainly dislike being laughed at; and they sometimes invent imaginary offences.

19, 220.), “who must reflect whether he shall make a character say yes or no—to the devil with him; he is only a stupid corpse.” Dreaming gives us the best notion of this power; as Jean Paul again says, “

The dream is an involuntary art of poetry.

” The value of the products of our imagination depends of course on the number, accuracy, and clearness of our impressions, on our judgment and taste in selecting or rejecting the involuntary combinations, and to a certain extent on our power of voluntarily combining them.

See his article, ‘Mr. Darwin’s Critics,’ in the ‘Contemporary Review,’ Nov. 1871, p. 462, and in his ‘Critiques and Essays,’ 1873, p. 279.) The same would apply to the elephant and the bear making currents in the air or water.

The savage would certainly neither know nor care by what law the desired movements were effected; yet his act would be guided by a rude process of reasoning, as surely as would a philosopher in his longest chain of deductions.

There would no doubt be this difference between him and one of the higher animals, that he would take notice of much slighter circumstances and conditions, and would observe any connection between them after much less experience, and this would be of paramount importance.

I will conclude by quoting a remark by the illustrious Humboldt. (28. ‘Personal Narrative,’ Eng. translat., vol. iii. p. 106.) “The muleteers in S. America say, ‘

I will not give you the mule whose step is easiest, but la mas racional,—the one that reasons best

’”; and; as, he adds, “this popular expression, dictated by long experience, combats the system of animated machines, better perhaps than all the arguments of speculative philosophy.” Nevertheless some writers even yet deny that the higher animals possess a trace of reason;

In the Zoological Gardens, a monkey, which had weak teeth, used to break open nuts with a stone; and I was assured by the keepers that after using the stone, he hid it in the straw, and would not let any other monkey touch it.

Here, then, we have the idea of property; but this idea is common to every dog with a bone, and to most or all birds with their nests.

The Duke of Argyll (42. ‘Primeval Man,’ 1869, pp. 145, 147.) remarks, that the fashioning of an implement for a special purpose is absolutely peculiar to man; and he considers that this forms an immeasurable gulf between him and the brutes.

The same remark may be extended to the more intelligent animals; as Mr. Leslie Stephen observes (64. ‘Essays on Free Thinking,’ etc., 1873, p. 82.), “

A dog frames a general concept of cats or sheep, and knows the corresponding words as well as a philosopher.

And the capacity to understand is as good a proof of vocal intelligence, though in an inferior degree, as the capacity to speak.”

and they can be classed either naturally according to descent, or artificially by other characters. Dominant languages and dialects spread widely, and lead to the gradual extinction of other tongues. A language, like a species, when once extinct, never, as Sir C. Lyell remarks, reappears.

The same language never has two birth-places.

Distinct languages may be crossed or blended together. (68. See remarks to this effect by the Rev. F.W. Farrar, in an interesting article, entitled ‘Philology and Darwinism,’ in ‘Nature,’ March 24th, 1870, p. 528.)

but as there is a limit to the powers of the memory, single words, like whole languages, gradually become extinct. As Max Muller (69. ‘Nature,’ January 6th, 1870, p. 257.) has well remarked:—“

A struggle for life is constantly going on amongst the words and grammatical forms in each language.

The better, the shorter, the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and they owe their success to their own inherent virtue.” To these more important causes of the survival of certain words, mere novelty and fashion may be added;

apparently, however, as Houzeau remarks, they feel no pity. That animals sometimes are far from feeling any sympathy is too certain; for they will expel a wounded animal from the herd, or gore or worry it to death.

This is almost the blackest fact in natural history

, unless, indeed, the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to follow the troop.

and why does he further feel that he ought to regret his conduct? Man in this respect differs profoundly from the lower animals. Nevertheless we can, I think, see with some degree of clearness the reason of this difference.

Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection: past impressions and images are incessantly and clearly passing through his mind.

Now with those animals which live permanently in a body, the social instincts are ever present and persistent. Such animals are always ready to utter the danger-signal, to defend the community, and to give aid to their fellows in accordance with their habits;

So it is with ourselves. Even when we are quite alone, how often do we think with pleasure or pain of what others think of us,—of their imagined approbation or disapprobation; and this all follows from sympathy, a fundamental element of the social instincts.

A man who possessed no trace of such instincts would be an unnatural monster.

On the other hand, the desire to satisfy hunger, or any passion such as vengeance, is in its nature temporary, and can for a time be fully satisfied.

But I can see little force in this objection. My critics do not define what they mean by remorse, and I can find no definition implying more than an overwhelming sense of repentance.

Remorse seems to bear the same relation to repentance, as rage does to anger, or agony to pain.

It is far from strange that an instinct so strong and so generally admired, as maternal love, should, if disobeyed, lead to the deepest misery, as soon as the impression of the past cause of disobedience is weakened.

(44. Tennyson, Idylls of the King, p. 244.) Whatever makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its performance by so much the easier. As Marcus Aurelius long ago said, “

Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.

” (45. ‘The Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,’ English translation, 2nd edit., 1869. p. 112. Marcus Aurelius was born A.D. 121.)

but they would be forced to acknowledge that disinterested love for all living creatures, the most noble attribute of man, was quite beyond their comprehension.

Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.

We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.

and this could hardly fail to have had a deteriorating influence on each successive generation. During this same period the Holy Inquisition selected with extreme care the freest and boldest men in order to burn or imprison them.

In Spain alone some of the best men—those who doubted and questioned, and without doubting there can be no progress—were eliminated during three centuries at the rate of a thousand a year.

The evil which the Catholic Church has thus effected is incalculable, though no doubt counterbalanced to a certain, perhaps to a large, extent in other ways; nevertheless, Europe has progressed at an unparalleled rate.

There is also indirect evidence of their former use by the Chinese and ancient Jews. Hence there can hardly be a doubt that the inhabitants of these countries, which include nearly the whole civilised world, were once in a barbarous condition.

To believe that man was aboriginally civilised and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions, is to take a pitiably low view of human nature.

It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view that progress has been much more general than retrogression;

yet in most systems, from that of Cuvier to the most recent one by Mr. Flower (4. ‘Proceedings Zoological Society,’ 1863, p. 4.), seals are ranked as a mere family in the Order of the Carnivora.

If man had not been his own classifier, he would never have thought of founding a separate order for his own reception.

It would be beyond my limits, and quite beyond my knowledge, even to name the innumerable points of structure in which man agrees with the other Primates. Our great anatomist and philosopher, Prof. Huxley, has fully discussed this subject (5.

and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.

Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality.

The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man: and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors.

and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is.

Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it.

The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiassed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties.

If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it.

The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiassed mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvellous structure and properties.

In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population of mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago a population of Polynesian and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many analogous cases could be added; for instance, in Africa.

Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to inhabit the same country without fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and best test of specific distinctness.

Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa.

35.) This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man

; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define.

But it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point, until some definition of the term “species” is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an indeterminate element such as an act of creation.

We might as well attempt without any definition to decide whether a certain number of houses should be called a village, town, or city.

We have a practical illustration of the difficulty in the never-ending doubts whether many closely-allied mammals, birds, insects, and plants, which represent each other respectively in North America and Europe, should be ranked as species or geographical races;

But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.

Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death.

One other question ought not to be passed over without notice, namely, whether, as is sometimes assumed, each sub-species or race of man has sprung from a single pair of progenitors.

The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known.

Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.

Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the world, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes, remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally mountainous districts.

(30. ‘Transactions, International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology’ 1868, pp. 172-175. See also Broca (tr.) in ‘Anthropological Review,’ Oct. 1868, p. 410.) It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the caverns of Belgium.

Man can long resist conditions which appear extremely unfavourable for his existence.

(31. Dr. Gerland, ‘Ueber das Aussterben der Naturvölker,’ 1868, s. 82.) He has long lived in the extreme regions of the North, with no wood for his canoes or implements, and with only blubber as fuel, and melted snow as drink.

Gratiolet opens his preface with the aphorism:

“Il est dangereux dans les sciences de conclure trop vite.”

I fear he must have forgotten this sound maxim by the time he had reached the discussion of the differences between men and apes, in the body of his work.

Hence it appears that amongst birds there often exists a close relation between polygamy and the development of strongly-marked sexual differences.

I asked Mr. Bartlett, of the Zoological Gardens, who has had very large experience with birds, whether the male tragopan (one of the Gallinaceae) was polygamous, and I was struck by his answering, “I do not know, but should think so from his splendid colours.”

It deserves notice that the instinct of pairing with a single female is easily lost under domestication. The wild-duck is strictly monogamous, the domestic-duck highly polygamous. The Rev. W.D.

Or she may accept, as appearances would sometimes lead us to believe, not the male which is the most attractive to her, but the one which is the least distasteful.

The exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law almost as general as the eagerness of the male.

We are naturally led to enquire why the male, in so many and such distinct classes, has become more eager than the female, so that he searches for her, and plays the more active part in courtship.

From this fact we learn that the advantages which favoured males derive from conquering other males in battle or courtship, and thus leaving a numerous progeny, are in the long run greater than those derived from rather more perfect adaptation to their conditions of life.

We shall further see, and it could never have been anticipated, that the power to charm the female has sometimes been more important than the power to conquer other males in battle.

In order to understand how sexual selection has acted on many animals of many classes, and in the course of ages has produced a conspicuous result, it is necessary to bear in mind the laws of inheritance, as far as they are known.

We can, in our ignorance of most of the lowest animals, only say that their bright tints result either from the chemical nature or the minute structure of their tissues, independently of any benefit thus derived.

Hardly any colour is finer than that of arterial blood; but there is no reason to suppose that the colour of the blood is in itself any advantage; and though it adds to the beauty of the maiden’s cheek, no one will pretend that it has been acquired for this purpose.

So again with many animals, especially the lower ones, the bile is richly coloured; thus, as I am informed by Mr.

thus, as I am informed by Mr. Hancock, the extreme beauty of the Eolidae (naked sea-slugs) is chiefly due to the biliary glands being seen through the translucent integuments—this beauty being probably of no service to these animals.

The tints of the decaying leaves in an American forest are described by every one as gorgeous; yet no one supposes that these tints are of the least advantage to the trees.

Bearing in mind how many substances closely analogous to natural organic compounds have been recently formed by chemists, and which exhibit the most splendid colours, it would have been a strange fact if substances similarly coloured had not often originated, independently of any useful end …

it then saw the three other shells lying near, and evidently thinking that they might likewise roll in, carried them to the spot where it had laid the first.

It would, I think, be difficult to distinguish this act from one performed by man by the aid of reason.

Mr. Bate does not know of any well-marked case of difference of colour in the two sexes of our British crustaceans, in which respect the sexes of the higher animals so often differ.

From these several considerations, we may admit with some confidence that the well-marked differences in colour between the sexes of certain species are the results of sexual selection; though we have not here the best kind of evidence,—the display by the male of his ornaments.

From the extreme variability of colour in the male of some species, for instance of Theridion lineatum, it would appear that these sexual characters of the males have not as yet become well fixed.

Canestrini draws the same conclusion from the fact that the males of certain species present two forms, differing from each other in the size and length of their jaws; and this reminds us of the above cases of dimorphic crustaceans.

Every one who has wandered in a tropical forest must have been astonished at the din made by the male Cicadae. The females are mute; as the Grecian poet Xenarchus says, “

Happy the Cicadas live, since they all have voiceless wives.

” The noise thus made could be plainly heard on board the “Beagle,” when anchored at a quarter of a mile from the shore of Brazil; and Captain Hancock says it can be heard at the distance of a mile.

Butler also informs me that he has several times watched a male courting a female for a full quarter of an hour; but she pertinaciously refused him, and at last settled on the ground and closed her wings, so as to escape from his addresses.

Although butterflies are weak and fragile creatures, they are pugnacious, and an emperor butterfly (1. Apatura Iris: ‘The Entomologist’s Weekly Intelligence,’ 1859, p. 139. For the Bornean Butterflies, see C. Collingwood, ‘Rambles of a Naturalist,’ 1868, p. 183.) has been captured with the tips of its wings broken from a conflict with another male.

Mr. Collingwood, in speaking of the frequent battles between the butterflies of Borneo, says, “They whirl round each other with the greatest rapidity, and appear to be incited by the greatest ferocity.”

But in certain other tropical groups, and in some of our English butterflies, as the purple emperor, orange-tip, etc. (Apatura Iris and Anthocharis cardamines), the sexes differ either greatly or slightly in colour.

No language suffices to describe the splendour of the males of some tropical species.

Even within the same genus we often find species presenting extraordinary differences between the sexes, whilst others have their sexes closely alike. Thus in the South American genus Epicalia, Mr.

Wallace and M. H. d’Orville; see ‘Zoological Record,’ 1869, p. 349.) Three conspicuous kinds of caterpillars and moths were also given to some lizards and frogs, by Mr. A. Butler, and were rejected, though other kinds were eagerly eaten.

Thus the probability of Mr. Wallace’s view is confirmed, namely, that certain caterpillars have been made conspicuous for their own good, so as to be easily recognised by their enemies, on nearly the same principle that poisons are sold in coloured bottles by druggists for the good of man.

We cannot, however, at present thus explain the elegant diversity in the colours of many caterpillars;

From the reasons assigned in the last chapter, it is probable that the great horns possessed by the males of many Lamellicorn, and some other beetles, have been acquired as ornaments. From the small size of insects, we are apt to undervalue their appearance.

If we could imagine a male Chalcosoma (Fig. 16), with its polished bronzed coat of mail, and its vast complex horns, magnified to the size of a horse, or even of a dog, it would be one of the most imposing animals in the world.

The colouring of insects is a complex and obscure subject.

1830, p. 331.), “the bite of these little furies is very severe. They also use their lateral spines with such fatal effect, that I have seen one during a battle absolutely rip his opponent quite open, so that he sank to the bottom and died.”

When a fish is conquered, “his gallant bearing forsakes him; his gay colours fade away; and he hides his disgrace among his peaceable companions, but is for some time the constant object of his conqueror’s persecution.”

The male salmon is as pugnacious as the little stickleback; and so is the male trout, as I hear from Dr. Gunther. Mr. Shaw saw a violent contest between two male salmon which lasted the whole day; and Mr. R.

He courageously drives away all enemies including the females of his own species.

It would indeed be no small relief to the male, if the female, after depositing her eggs, were immediately devoured by some enemy, for he is forced incessantly to drive her from the nest.

(37. See Mr. Warington’s most interesting description of the habits of the Gasterosteus leiurus in ‘Annals and Magazine of Nat. History,’ November 1855.)

As the males of most animals search for the females, these odoriferous glands probably serve to excite or charm the female, rather than to guide her to the spot where the male may be found.

Male snakes, though appearing so sluggish, are amorous; for many have been observed crowding round the same female, and even round her dead body.

They are not known to fight together from rivalry. Their intellectual powers are higher than might have been anticipated. In the Zoological Gardens they soon learn not to strike at the iron bar with which their cages are cleaned; and Dr.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to account in any other manner for the extreme beauty of certain species; for instance, of the coral-snakes of S. America, which are of a rich red with black and yellow transverse bands.

I well remember how much surprise I felt at the beauty of the first coral-snake which I saw gliding across a path in Brazil.

Snakes coloured in this peculiar manner, as Mr. Wallace states on the authority of Dr. Gunther (62. ‘Westminster Review,’ July 1st, 1867, p. 32.), are found nowhere else in the world except in S. America, and here no less than four genera occur.

Gunther himself, or from his magnificent work on the ‘Reptiles of British India,’ Ray Soc., 1864, pp. 122, 130, 135.)

A Chinese species is said to live in pairs during the spring; “and if one is caught, the other falls from the tree to the ground, and allows itself to be captured with impunity”—I presume from despair.

(68. Mr. Swinhoe, ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.’ 1870, p. 240.)

I have never, even in the breeding-season, shot a female which had any smell of musk.”

So powerful is this odour during the pairing-season, that it can be detected long before the bird can be seen.

(2. Gould, ‘Handbook of the Birds of Australia,’ 1865, vol. ii. p. 383.) On the whole, birds appear to be the most aesthetic of all animals, excepting of course man, and they have nearly the same taste for the beautiful as we have.

So powerful is this odour during the pairing-season, that it can be detected long before the bird can be seen. (2. Gould, ‘Handbook of the Birds of Australia,’ 1865, vol. ii. p. 383.)

On the whole, birds appear to be the most aesthetic of all animals, excepting of course man, and they have nearly the same taste for the beautiful as we have.

This is shewn by our enjoyment of the singing of birds, and by our women, both civilised and savage, decking their heads with borrowed plumes, and using gems which are hardly more brilliantly coloured than the naked skin and wattles of certain birds.

but the males of some birds, as of the game-fowl and ruff, and even the young males of the wild turkey and grouse (18. Audubon, ‘Ornithological Biography,’ vol. ii. p. 492; vol. i. pp. 4-13.), are ready to fight whenever they meet.

The presence of the female is the teterrima belli causa.

The Bengali baboos make the pretty little males of the amadavat (Estrelda amandava) fight together by placing three small cages in a row, with a female in the middle; after a little time the two males are turned loose, and immediately a desperate battle ensues.

nor must we judge by the standard of man’s taste. Even with man, we should remember what discordant noises, the beating of tom-toms and the shrill notes of reeds, please the ears of savages.

Sir S. Baker remarks (58. ‘The Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia,’ 1867, p. 203.), that “as the stomach of the Arab prefers the raw meat and reeking liver taken hot from the animal, so does his ear prefer his equally coarse and discordant music to all other.”

The curious love gestures of some birds have already been incidentally noticed; so that little need here be added.

The Argus pheasant does not possess brilliant colours, so that his success in love appears to depend on the great size of his plumes, and on the elaboration of the most elegant patterns.

Many will declare that it is utterly incredible that a female bird should be able to appreciate fine shading and exquisite patterns.

It is undoubtedly a marvellous fact that she should possess this almost human degree of taste. He who thinks that he can safely gauge the discrimination and taste of the lower animals may deny that the female Argus pheasant can appreciate such refined beauty;

But as all the males of the same species display themselves in exactly the same manner, it appears that actions, at first perhaps intentional, have become instinctive.

If so, we ought not to accuse birds of conscious vanity; yet when we see a peacock strutting about, with expanded and quivering tail-feathers, he seems the very emblem of pride and vanity.

The various ornaments possessed by the males are certainly of the highest importance to them, for in some cases they have been acquired at the expense of greatly impeded powers of flight or of running.

Nor can we doubt that the long train of the peacock and the long tail and wing-feathers of the Argus pheasant must render them an easier prey to any prowling tiger-cat than would otherwise be the case.

Even the bright colours of many male birds cannot fail to make them conspicuous to their enemies of all kinds.

Hence, as Mr.

and no one who has ever seen the splendid blue wattles of the male Tragopan pheasant distended in courtship can for a moment doubt that beauty is the object gained.

From the foregoing facts we clearly see that the plumes and other ornaments of the males must be of the highest importance to them; and we further see that beauty is even sometimes more important than success in battle.

What then are we to conclude from these facts and considerations?

Does the male parade his charms with so much pomp and rivalry for no purpose?

Are we not justified in believing that the female exerts a choice, and that she receives the addresses of the male who pleases her most? It is not probable that she consciously deliberates;

That these ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one of Raphael’s

Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint made by a long succession of young artists, not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.

In order to discover how the ocelli have been developed, we cannot look to a long line of progenitors, nor to many closely-allied forms, for such do not now exist.

We have, moreover, good evidence that humming-birds take especial pains in displaying their tail-feathers; Mr. Belt (54. ‘The Naturalist in Nicaragua,’ 1874, p. 112.), after describing the beauty of the Florisuga mellivora, says, “

I have seen the female sitting on a branch, and two males displaying their charms in front of her.

One would shoot up like a rocket, then suddenly expanding the snow-white tail, like an inverted parachute, slowly descend in front of her, turning round gradually to shew off back and front...The expanded white tail covered more space than all the rest of the bird, …

(23. See the excellent account of the habits of this bird under confinement, by Mr. A.W. Bennett, in ‘Land and Water,’ May 1868, p. 233.)

So that with this emu we have a complete reversal not only of the parental and incubating instincts, but of the usual moral qualities of the two sexes; the females being savage, quarrelsome, and noisy, the males gentle and good.

The case is very different with the African ostrich, for the male is somewhat larger than the female and has finer plumes with more strongly contrasted colours; nevertheless he undertakes the whole duty of incubation. (24. Mr. Sclater, on the incubation of the Struthiones, ‘Proc.

… is agreeable to birds, we may conclude by looking through any large collection, for the sexes often differ from each other in the male having the pale parts of a purer white, and the variously coloured dark parts of still darker tints than the female.

It would even appear that mere novelty, or slight changes for the sake of change, have sometimes acted on female birds as a charm, like changes of fashion with us.

Thus the males of some parrots can hardly be said to be more beautiful than the females, at least according to our taste, but they differ in such points, as in having a rose-coloured collar instead of “a bright emeraldine narrow green collar”;

The males display their charms with elaborate care and to the best effect; and this is done in the presence of the females. The courtship is sometimes a prolonged affair, and many males and females congregate at an appointed place.

To suppose that the females do not appreciate the beauty of the males, is to admit that their splendid decorations, all their pomp and display, are useless; and this is incredible.

Birds have fine powers of discrimination, and in some few instances it can be shewn that they have a taste for the beautiful. The females, moreover, are known occasionally to exhibit a marked preference or antipathy for certain individual males.

… weapons, confined to the males—Cause of absence of weapons in the female—Weapons common to both sexes, yet primarily acquired by the male—Other uses of such weapons—Their high importance—Greater size of the male—Means of defence—On the preference shown by either sex in the pairing of quadrupeds.

With mammals the male appears to win the female much more through the law of battle than through the display of his charms.

The most timid animals, not provided with any special weapons for fighting, engage in desperate conflicts during the season of love. Two male hares have been seen to fight together until one was killed; male moles often fight, and sometimes with fatal results;

The law of battle prevails with aquatic as with terrestrial mammals.

It is notorious how desperately male seals fight, both with their teeth and claws, during the breeding-season; and their hides are likewise often covered with scars.

Male sperm-whales are very jealous at this season; and in their battles “they often lock their jaws together, and turn on their sides and twist about”; so that their lower jaws often become distorted. (2. On the battles of seals, see Capt. C.

Richardson, in ‘Fauna Bor. Americana,’ 1829, p. 252, says that the wapiti, moose, and reindeer have been found thus locked together. Sir A. Smith found at the Cape of Good Hope the skeletons of two gnus in the same condition.)

No animal in the world is so dangerous as an elephant in must.

Lord Tankerville has given me a graphic description of the battles between the wild bulls in Chillingham Park, the descendants, degenerated in size but not in courage, of the gigantic Bos primigenius. In 1861 several contended for mastery;

Each male animal uses his weapons in his own peculiar fashion.

The common ram makes a charge and butts with such force with the bases of his horns, that I have seen a powerful man knocked over like a child.

Goats and certain species of sheep, for instance the Ovis cycloceros of Afghanistan (22. Mr. Blyth, in ‘Land and Water,’ March, 1867, p. 134, on the authority of Capt. Hutton and others. For the wild Pembrokeshire goats, see the ‘Field,’ 1869, p.

Nevertheless I cannot persuade myself that it generally holds good, as in the case of the extraordinary development of hair on the throat and fore-legs of the male Ammotragus, or in that of the immense beard of the male Pithecia.

Such study as I have been able to give to nature makes me believe that parts or organs which are highly developed, were acquired at some period for a special purpose.

With those antelopes in which the adult male is more strongly-coloured than the female, and with those monkeys in which the hair on the face is elegantly arranged and coloured in a diversified manner, it seems probable that the crests and tufts of hair were …

Maudsley, ‘Mind and Body,’ p. 31.), and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman.

It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

It must be borne in mind that the tendency in characters acquired by either sex late in life, to be transmitted to the same sex at the same age, and of early acquired characters to be transmitted to both sexes, are rules which, though general, …

(37. Winwood Reade, ‘The Martyrdom of Man,’ 1872, p. 441, and ‘African Sketch Book,’ 1873, vol. ii. p. 313.) Even monkeys express strong feelings in different tones—anger and impatience by low,—fear and pain by high notes. (38. Rengger, ‘Säugethiere von Paraguay,’ s. 49.)

The sensations and ideas thus excited in us by music, or expressed by the cadences of oratory, appear from their vagueness, yet depth, like mental reversions to the emotions and thoughts of a long-past age.

All these facts with respect to music and impassioned speech become intelligible to a certain extent, if we may assume that musical tones and rhythm were used by our half-human ancestors, during the season of courtship, when animals of all kinds are excited not only …

It likewise stirs up in us the sense of triumph and the glorious ardour for war. These powerful and mingled feelings may well give rise to the sense of sublimity.

We can concentrate, as Dr. Seemann observes, greater intensity of feeling in a single musical note than in pages of writing.

It is probable that nearly the same emotions, but much weaker and far less complex, are felt by birds when the male pours forth his full volume of song, in rivalry with other males, to captivate the female.

“This caused the lip in one case to project two inches beyond the tip of the nose; and when the lady smiled, the contraction of the muscles elevated it over the eyes. ‘Why do the women wear these things?’ the venerable chief, Chinsurdi, was asked.

Evidently surprised at such a stupid question, he replied, ‘For beauty! They are the only beautiful things women have; men have beards, women have none.

What kind of a person would she be without the pelele? She would not be a woman at all with a mouth like a man, but no beard.’” (49. Livingstone, ‘British Association,’ 1860; report given in the ‘Athenaeum,’ July 7, 1860, p. 29.)

But self-adornment, vanity, and the admiration of others, seem to be the commonest motives. In regard to tattooing, I was told by the missionaries in New Zealand that when they tried to persuade some girls to give up the practice, they answered, “

We must just have a few lines on our lips; else when we grow old we shall be so very ugly.

” With the men of New Zealand, a most capable judge (51. Rev. R. Taylor, ‘New Zealand and its Inhabitants,’ 1855, p. 152.)

Hearne (56. ‘A Journey from Prince of Wales Fort,’ 8vo. ed. 1796, p. 89.), an excellent observer, who lived many years with the American Indians, says, in speaking of the women, “

Ask a Northern Indian what is beauty, and he will answer, a broad flat face, small eyes, high cheek-bones, three or four broad black lines across each cheek, a low forehead, a large broad chin, a clumsy hook nose, a tawny hide, and breasts hanging down to the belt.

” Pallas, who visited the northern parts of the Chinese empire, says, “those women are preferred who have the Mandschu form; that is to say, a broad face, high cheek-bones, very broad noses, and enormous ears”(57. Quoted by Prichard, ‘Physical History of Mankind,’ 3rd ed.

No doubt characters of all kinds may be too much developed for beauty. Hence a perfect beauty, which implies many characters modified in a particular manner, will be in every race a prodigy.

As the great anatomist Bichat long ago said, if every one were cast in the same mould, there would be no such thing as beauty.

If all our women were to become as beautiful as the Venus de’ Medici, we should for a time be charmed; but we should soon wish for variety;

It seemed worth while to try how far the principle of evolution would throw light on some of the more complex problems in the natural history of man.

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.

The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organised form.

The great principle of evolution stands up clear and firm, when these groups or facts are considered in connection with others, such as the mutual affinities of the members of the same group, their geographical distribution in past and present times, and their geological succession.

It is incredible that all these facts should speak falsely.

He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation.

… to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.

The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance.

The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure,—the union of each pair in marriage, the dissemination of each seed,—and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.

The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians.

The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind—such were our ancestors.

These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch;

They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to every one not of their own small tribe.

He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.

For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young …

… carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future.

But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability.

… noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—

Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.

Reprinted from NATURE, November 2, 1876, p. 18.