e tendency which there is in
offspring to reproduce parental features.
[32] Loc. cit. p. 64.
[33] Loc. cit. p. 60.
[34] The term "Vertebrata" denotes that large group of animals which are
characterized by the possession of a spinal column, commonly known as the
"backbone." Such animals are ourselves, together with all beasts, birds,
reptiles, frogs, toads, and efts, and also fishes.
[35] It is hardly necessary to observe that these "sea-snakes" have no
relation to the often-talked-of "sea-serpent." They are small, venomous
reptiles, which abound in the Indian seas.
[36] "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 1869, p. 179.
[37] "Origin of Species," 5th edit., p. 532.
[38] Mr. A. D. Bartlett, of the Zoological Society, informs me that at
these periods female apes admit with perfect readiness the access of any
males of different species. To be sure this is in confinement; but the fact
is, I think, quite conclusive against any such sexual selection in a state
of nature as would account for the local coloration referred to.
[39] Mr. Darwin, in the last (fifth) edition of "Natural Selection," 1869,
p. 102, admits that all sexual differences are not to be attributed to the
agency of sexual selection, mentioning the wattle of carrier pigeons, tuft
of turkey-cock, &c. These characters, however, seem less inexplicable by
sexual selection than those given in the text.
[40] I am again indebted to the kindness of Mr. A. D. Bartlett, amongst
others. That gentleman informs me that, so far from any mental emotion
being produced in rabbits by the presence and movements of snakes, that he
has actually seen a male and female rabbit satisfy the sexual instinct in
that presence, a rabbit being seized by a snake when _in coitu_.
[41] "Habit and Intelligence," vol. i. p. 319.
[42] The reader may consult Huxley's "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," p.
204.
[43] "Natural Selection," p. 350.
[44] Bivalve shell-fish are creatures belonging to the oyster, scallop, and
cockle group, _i.e._ to the class Lamellibranchiata.
[45] The attempt has been made to explain these facts as owing to "manner
and symmetry of growth, and to colour being incidental on the chemical
nature of the constituents of the shell." But surely beauty depends on some
such matters in _all_ cases!
[46] It has been suggested in opposition to what is here said, that there
is no real resemblance, but that the likeness is "_fanciful!_" The denial,
however, o
|