Turning to the sheath-horned ruminants: with antelopes a graduated series can be formed, beginning with the species, the females of which are completely destitute of horns—passing to those which have horns so small as to be almost rudimentary, as in Antilocapra Americana—to those which have fairly well-developed horns, but manifestly smaller and thinner than in the male, and sometimes of a different shape,[298] and ending with those in which both sexes have horns of equal size. As with the reindeer, so with antelopes there exists a relation between the period of the development of the horns and their transmission to one or both sexes; it is therefore probable that their presence or absence in the females of some species, and their more or less perfect condition in the females of other species, depend, not on their being of some special use, but simply on the form of inheritance which has prevailed. It accords with this view that even in the same restricted genus both sexes of some species, and the males alone of other species, are thus provided. It is a remarkable fact that, although the females of Antilope bezoartica are normally destitute of horns, Mr. Blyth has seen no less than three females thus furnished; and there was no reason to suppose that they were old or diseased. The males of this species have long straight spirated horns, nearly parallel to each other, and directed backwards. Those of the female, when present, are very different in shape, for they are not spirated, and spreading widely bend round, so that their points are directed forwards. It is a still more remarkable fact that in the castrated male, as Mr. Blyth informs me, the horns are of the same peculiar shape as in the female, but longer and thicker. In all cases the differences between the horns of the males and females, and of castrated and entire males, probably depend on various causes,—on the more or less complete transference of male characters to the females,—on the former state of the progenitors of the species,—and partly perhaps on the horns being differently nourished, in nearly the same manner as the spurs of the domestic cock, when inserted into the comb or other parts of the body, assume various abnormal forms from being differently nourished.
In all the wild species of goats and sheep the horns are larger in the male than in the female, and are sometimes quite absent in the latter.[299] In several domestic breeds of the sheep and goat, the males alone are furnished with horns; and it is a significant fact, that in one such breed of sheep on the Guinea coast, the horns are not developed, as Mr. Winwood Reade informs me, in the castrated male; so that they are affected in this respect like the horns of stags. In some breeds, as in that of N. Wales, in which both sexes are properly horned, the ewes are very liable to be hornless. In these same sheep, as I have been informed by a trustworthy witness who purposely inspected a flock during the lambing-season, the horns at birth are generally more fully developed in the male than in the female. With the adult musk-ox (Ovibos moschatus) the horns of the male are larger than those of the female, and in the latter the bases do not touch.[300] In regard to ordinary cattle Mr. Blyth remarks: “In most of the wild bovine animals the horns are both longer and thicker in the bull than in the cow, and in the cow-banteng (Bos sondaicus) the horns are remarkably small, and inclined much backwards. In the domestic races of cattle, both of the humped and humpless types, the horns are short and thick in the bull, longer and more slender in the cow and ox; and in the Indian buffalo, they are shorter and thicker in the bull, longer and more slender in the cow. In the wild gaour (B. gaurus) the horns are mostly both longer and thicker in the bull than in the cow.”[301] Hence with most sheath-horned ruminants the horns of the male are either longer or stronger than those of the female. With the Rhinoceros simus, as I may here add, the horns of the female are generally longer but less powerful than in the male; and in some other species of rhinoceros they are said to be shorter in the female.[302] From these various facts we may conclude that horns of all kinds, even when they are equally developed in both sexes, were primarily acquired by the males in order to conquer other males, and have been transferred more or less completely to the female, in relation to the force of the equal form of inheritance.
The tusks of the elephant, in the different species or races, differ according to sex, in nearly the same manner as the horns of ruminants. In India and Malacca the males alone are provided with well-developed tusks. The elephant of Ceylon is considered by most naturalists as a distinct race, but by some as a distinct species, and here “not one in a hundred is found with tusks, the few that possess them being exclusively males.”[303] The African elephant is undoubtedly distinct, and the female has large, well-developed tusks, though not so large as those of the male. These differences in the tusks of the several races and species of elephants—the great variability of the horns of deer, as notably in the wild reindeer—the occasional presence of horns in the female Antilope bezoartica—the presence of two tusks in some few male narwhals—the complete absence of tusks in some female walruses;—are all instances of the extreme variability of secondary sexual characters, and of their extreme liability to differ in closely-allied forms.
Although tusks and horns appear in all cases to have been primarily developed as sexual weapons, they often serve for other purposes. The elephant uses his tusks in attacking the tiger; according to Bruce, he scores the trunks of trees until they can be easily thrown down, and he likewise thus extracts the farinaceous cores of palms; in Africa he often uses one tusk, this being always the same, to probe the ground and thus to ascertain whether it will bear his weight. The common bull defends the herd with his horns; and the elk in Sweden has been known, according to Lloyd, to strike a wolf dead with a single blow of his great horns. Many similar facts could be given. One of the most curious secondary uses to which the horns of any animal are occasionally put, is that observed by Captain Hutton[304] with the wild goat (Capra ægagrus) of the Himalayas, and as it is said with the ibex, namely, that when the male accidentally falls from a height he bends inwards his head, and, by alighting on his massive horns, breaks the shock. The female cannot thus use her horns, which are smaller, but from her more quiet disposition she does not so much need this strange kind of shield.
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 as easily as a child. Goats and certain species of sheep, for instance the Ovis cycloceros of Afghanistan,[305] rear on their hind legs, and then not only butt, but “make a cut down and a jerk up, with the ribbed front of their scimitar-shaped horn, as with a sabre. When the O. cycloceros attacked a large domestic ram, who was a noted bruiser, he conquered him by the sheer novelty of his mode of fighting, always closing at once with his adversary, and catching him across the face and nose with a sharp drawing jerk of his head, and then bounding out of the way before the blow could be returned.” In Pembrokeshire a male goat, the master of a flock which during several generations had run wild, was known to have killed several other males in single combat; this goat possessed enormous horns, measuring 39 inches in a straight line from tip to tip. The common bull, as every one knows, gores and tosses his opponent; but the Italian buffalo is said never to use his horns, he gives a tremendous blow with his convex forehead, and then tramples on his fallen enemy with his knees—an instinct which the common bull does not possess.[306] Hence a dog who pins a buffalo by the nose is immediately crushed. We must, however, remember that the Italian buffalo has long been domesticated, and it is by no means certain that the wild parent-form had similarly shaped horns. Mr. Bartlett informs me that when a female Cape buffalo (Bubalus caffer) was turned into an enclosure with a bull of the same species, she attacked him, and he in return pushed her about with great violence. But it was manifest to Mr. Bartlett that had not the bull shewn dignified forbearance, he could easily have killed her by a single lateral thrust with his immense horns. The giraffe uses his short hair-covered horns, which are rather longer in the male than in the female, in a curious manner; for with his long neck he swings his head to either side, almost upside down, with such force, that I have seen a hard plank deeply indented by a single blow.
Fig. 61. Oryx leucoryx, male (from the Knowsley Menagerie).
With antelopes it is sometimes difficult to imagine how they can possibly use their curiously-shaped horns; thus the spring-boc (Ant. euchore) has rather short upright horns, with the sharp points bent inwards almost at a right angle, so as to face each other; Mr. Bartlett does not know how they are used, but suggests that they would inflict a fearful wound down each side of the face of an antagonist. The slightly-curved horns of the Oryx leucoryx (fig. [61]) are directed backwards, and are of such length that their points reach beyond the middle of the back, over which they stand in an almost parallel line. Thus they seem singularly ill-fitted for fighting; but Mr. Bartlett informs me that when two of these animals prepare for battle, they kneel down, with their heads between their front legs, and in this attitude the horns stand nearly parallel and close to the ground, with the points directed forwards and a little upwards. The combatants then gradually approach each other and endeavour to get the upturned points under each other’s bodies; if one succeeds in doing this, he suddenly springs up, throwing up his head at the same time, and can thus wound or perhaps even transfix his antagonist. Both animals always kneel down so as to guard as far as possible against this manœuvre. It has been recorded that one of these antelopes has used his horns with effect even against a lion; yet from being forced to place his head between the forelegs in order to bring the points of the horns forward, he would generally be under a great disadvantage when attacked by any other animal. It is, therefore, not probable that the horns have been modified into their present great length and peculiar position, as a protection against beasts of prey. We can, however, see that as soon as some ancient male progenitor of the Oryx acquired moderately long horns, directed a little backwards, he would be compelled in his battles with rival males to bend his head somewhat inwards or downwards, as is now done by certain stags; and it is not improbable that he might have acquired the habit of at first occasionally and afterwards of regularly kneeling down. In this case it is almost certain that the males which possessed the longest horns would have had a great advantage over others with shorter horns; and then the horns would gradually have been rendered longer and longer, through sexual selection, until they acquired their present extraordinary length and position.
With stags of many kinds the branching of the horns offers a curious case of difficulty; for certainly a single straight point would inflict a much more serious wound than several diverging points. In Sir Philip Egerton’s museum there is a horn of the red-deer (Cervus elaphus) thirty inches in length, with “not fewer than fifteen snags or branches;” and at Moritzburg there is still preserved a pair of antlers of a red-deer, shot in 1699 by Frederick I., each of which bears the astonishing number of thirty-three branches. Richardson figures a pair of antlers of the wild reindeer with twenty-nine points.[307] From the manner in which the horns are branched, and more especially from deer being known occasionally to fight together by kicking with their fore-feet,[308] M. Bailly actually came to the conclusion that their horns were more injurious than useful to them! But this author overlooks the pitched battles between rival males. As I felt much perplexed about the use or advantage of the branches, I applied to Mr. McNeill of Colinsay, who has long and carefully observed the habits of red-deer, and he informs me that he has never seen some of the branches brought into action, but that the brow-antlers, from inclining downwards, are a great protection to the forehead, and their points are likewise used in attack. Sir Philip Egerton also informs me in regard both to red-deer and fallow-deer, that when they fight they suddenly dash together, and getting their horns fixed against each other’s bodies a desperate struggle ensues. When one is at last forced to yield and turn round, the victor endeavours to plunge his brow-antlers into his defeated foe. It thus appears that the upper branches are used chiefly or exclusively for pushing and fencing. Nevertheless with some species the upper branches are used as weapons of offence; when a man was attacked by a Wapiti deer (Cervus Canadensis) in Judge Caton’s park in Ottawa, and several men tried to rescue him, the stag “never raised his head from the ground; in fact he kept his face almost flat on the ground, with his nose nearly between his fore-feet, except when he rolled his head to one side to take a new observation preparatory to a plunge.” In this position the terminal points of the horns were directed against his adversaries. “In rolling his head he necessarily raised it somewhat, because his antlers were so long that he could not roll his head without raising them on one side, while on the other side they touched the ground.” The stag by this procedure gradually drove the party of rescuers backwards, to a distance of 150 or 200 feet; and the attacked man was killed.[309]