[529] Wallace, “Notes on Eastern Butterflies,” ‘Transact. Ent. Soc.’ 1869, p. 287.
[530] Wallace, in ‘Westminster Review,’ July, 1867, p. 37; and in 'Journal of Travel and Nat. Hist.’ vol. i. 1868, p. 88.
[531] See remarks by Messrs. Bates and Wallace, in ‘Proc. Ent. Soc.’ Nov. 19, 1866, p. xxxix.
[532] See Mr. Wallace in ‘Westminster Review,’ July, 1867, p. 11 and 37. The male of no butterfly, as Mr. Wallace informs me, is known to differ in colour, as a protection, from the female; and he asks me how I can explain this fact on the principle that one sex alone has varied and has transmitted its variations exclusively to the same sex, without the aid of selection to check the variations being inherited by the other sex. No doubt if it could be shewn that the females of very many species had been rendered beautiful through protective mimickry, but that this has never occurred with the males, it would be a serious difficulty. But the number of cases as yet known hardly suffices for a fair judgment. We can see that the males, from having the power of flying more swiftly, and thus escaping danger, would not be so likely as the females to have had their colours modified for the sake of protection; but this would not in the least have interfered with their receiving protective colours through inheritance from the females. In the second place, it is probable that sexual selection would actually tend to prevent a beautiful male from becoming obscure, for the less brilliant individuals would be less attractive to the females. Supposing that the beauty of the male of any species had been mainly acquired through sexual selection, yet if this beauty likewise served as a protection, the acquisition would have been aided by natural selection. But it would be quite beyond our power to distinguish between the two processes of sexual and ordinary selection. Hence it is not likely that we should be able to adduce cases of the males having been rendered brilliant exclusively through protective mimickry, though this is comparatively easy with the females, which have rarely or never been rendered beautiful, as far as we can judge, for the sake of sexual attraction, although they have often received beauty through inheritance from their male parents.
[533] ‘Proc. Entomolog. Soc.’ Dec. 3rd, 1866, p. xlv., and March 4th, 1867, p. lxxx.
[534] See Mr. J. Jenner Weir’s paper on insects and insectivorous birds, in ‘Transact. Ent. Soc.’ 1869, p. 21; also Mr. Butler’s paper, ibid. p. 27.
END OF VOL. I.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, AND CHARING CROSS.
50a, Albemarle Street, London
January, 1871.