SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS OF INSECTS. Diversified Structures possessed by the Males for seizing the Females.- Differences between the Sexes, of which the Meaning is not under- stood.-Difference in Size between the Sexes.-Thysanura.-Diptera. -Hemiptera.-Homoptera, Musical Powers possessed by the Males alone.-Orthoptera, Musical Instruments of the Males, much diversi- fied in Structure; Pugnacity; Colors.-Neuroptera, Sexual Differences in Color.-Hymenoptera, Pugnacity and Colors.-Coleoptera, Colors; furnished with Great Horns, apparently as an Ornament; Battles; INSECTS, continued.-ORDER LEPIDOPTERA. Courtship of Butterflies.-Battles.—Ticking Noise.-Colors common to Both Sexes, or more brilliant in the Males.-Examples.-Not due to the Direct Action of the Conditions of Life.-Colors adapted for Pro- tection.-Colors of Moths.-Display.-Perceptive Powers of the Lepi- doptera. Variability.-Causes of the Difference in Color between the Males and Females.-Mimicry, Female Butterflies more brilliantly colored than the Males.-Bright Colors of Caterpillars.-Summary and Concluding Remarks on the Secondary Sexual Characters of In- INTRODUCTION. THE nature of the following work will be best under. stood by a brief account of how it came to be written. During many years I collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work "light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history;" and this implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva (1869), "personne, en Europe au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la création indépendante et de toutes pièces, des espèces," it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. The greater number accept the agency of natural selection; though some urge, whether with justice the future must decide, that I have greatly overrated its importance. Of the older and honored chiefs in natural science, many unfortunately are still opposed to evolution in every form. In consequence of the views now adopted by most naturalists, and which will ultimately, as in every other case, be followed by other men, I have been led to put together my notes, so as to see how far the general conclusions arrived at in my former works were applicable to man. This seemed all the more desirable as I had never deliberately applied these views to a species taken singly. When we confine our attention to any one form, we are deprived of the weighty arguments derived from the nature of the affinities which connect together whole groups of organisms-their geographical distribution in past and present times, and their geological succession. The homological structure, embryological development, and rudimentary organs of a species, whether it be man or any other animal, to which our attention may be directed, remain to be considered; but these great classes of facts afford, as it appears to me, ample and conclusive evidence in favor of the principle of gradual evolution. The strong sup port derived from the other arguments should, however, always be kept before the mind. The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some preëxisting form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man. As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races—an enormous subject, which has been fully discussed in many valuable works. The high antiquity of man has recently been demonstrated by the labors of a host of eminent men, beginning with M. Boucher de Perthes; and this is the indispensable basis for understanding his origin. I shall, therefore, take this conclusion for granted, and may refer my readers to the admirable treatises of Sir Charles Lyell, Sir John Lubbock, and others. Nor shall I have occasion to do more than to allude to the amount of difference between man and the anthropomorphous apes; for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shown that in every single visible character man differs less from the higher apes than these do from the lower members of the same order of Primates. This work contains hardly any original facts in regard to man; but, as the conclusions at which I arrived, after drawing up a rough draft, appeared to me interesting, I thought that they might interest others. It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Büchner, Rolle, etc.,1 and especially by Häckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work, 'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. 1870) published his 'Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before 1 As the works of the first-named authors are so well known, I need not give the titles; but, as those of the latter are less well known in England, I will give them: 'Sechs Vorlesungen über die Darwin'sche Theorie:' zwiete Auflage, 1868, von Dr. L. Büchner; translated into French under the title 'Conférences sur la Théorie Darwinienne,' 1869. 'Der Mensch, im Lichte der Darwin'sche Lehre,' 1865, von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the authors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G. Canestrini has published ('Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.,' Modena, 1867, p. 81) a very curious paper on rudimentary characters, as bearing on the origin of man. Another work has (1869) been published by Dr. Barrago Francesco, bearing in Italian the title of "Man, made in the image of God, was also made in the image of the ape." |