The males of many fish fight for the possession of the females. Thus the male stickleback (Gasterosteus leiurus) has been described as “mad with delight,” when the female comes out of her hiding-place and surveys the nest which he has made for her. “He darts round her in every direction, then to his accumulated materials for the nest, then back again in an instant; and as she does not advance he endeavours to push her with his snout, and then tries to pull her by the tail and side-spine to the nest.” (3. See Mr. R. Warington’s interesting articles in ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural History,’ October 1852, and November 1855.) The males are said to be polygamists (4. Noel Humphreys, ‘River Gardens,’ 1857.); they are extraordinarily bold and pugnacious, whilst “the females are quite pacific.” Their battles are at times desperate; “for these puny combatants fasten tight on each other for several seconds, tumbling over and over again until their strength appears completely exhausted.” With the rough-tailed stickleback (G. trachurus) the males whilst fighting swim round and round each other, biting and endeavouring to pierce each other with their raised lateral spines. The same writer adds (5. Loudon’s ‘Magazine of Natural History,’ vol. iii. 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. Buist, Superintendent of Fisheries, informs me that he has often watched from the bridge at Perth the males driving away their rivals, whilst the females were spawning. The males “are constantly fighting and tearing each other on the spawning-beds, and many so injure each other as to cause the death of numbers, many being seen swimming near the banks of the river in a state of exhaustion, and apparently in a dying state.” (6. The ‘Field,’ June 29, 1867. For Mr. Shaw’s Statement, see ‘Edinburgh Review,’ 1843. Another experienced observer (Scrope’s ‘Days of Salmon Fishing,’ p. 60) remarks that like the stag, the male would, if he could, keep all other males away.) Mr. Buist informs me, that in June 1868, the keeper of the Stormontfield breeding-ponds visited the northern Tyne and found about 300 dead salmon, all of which with one exception were males; and he was convinced that they had lost their lives by fighting.
[Fig. 27. Head of male common salmon (Salmo salar) during the breeding-season. [This drawing, as well as all the others in the present chapter, have been executed by the well-known artist, Mr. G. Ford, from specimens in the British Museum, under the kind superintendence of Dr. Gunther.]
Fig. 28. Head of female salmon.]
The most curious point about the male salmon is that during the breeding-season, besides a slight change in colour, “the lower jaw elongates, and a cartilaginous projection turns upwards from the point, which, when the jaws are closed, occupies a deep cavity between the intermaxillary bones of the upper jaw.” (7. Yarrell, ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, p. 10.) (Figs. 27 and 28.) In our salmon this change of structure lasts only during the breeding-season; but in the Salmo lycaodon of N.W. America the change, as Mr. J.K. Lord (8. ‘The Naturalist in Vancouver’s Island,’ vol. i. 1866, p. 54.) believes, is permanent, and best marked in the older males which have previously ascended the rivers. In these old males the jaw becomes developed into an immense hook-like projection, and the teeth grow into regular fangs, often more than half an inch in length. With the European salmon, according to Mr. Lloyd (9. ‘Scandinavian Adventures,’ vol. i. 1854, pp. 100, 104.), the temporary hook-like structure serves to strengthen and protect the jaws, when one male charges another with wonderful violence; but the greatly developed teeth of the male American salmon may be compared with the tusks of many male mammals, and they indicate an offensive rather than a protective purpose.
The salmon is not the only fish in which the teeth differ in the two sexes; as this is the case with many rays. In the thornback (Raia clavata) the adult male has sharp, pointed teeth, directed backwards, whilst those of the female are broad and flat, and form a pavement; so that these teeth differ in the two sexes of the same species more than is usual in distinct genera of the same family. The teeth of the male become sharp only when he is adult: whilst young they are broad and flat like those of the female. As so frequently occurs with secondary sexual characters, both sexes of some species of rays (for instance R. batis), when adult, possess sharp pointed teeth; and here a character, proper to and primarily gained by the male, appears to have been transmitted to the offspring of both sexes. The teeth are likewise pointed in both sexes of R. maculata, but only when quite adult; the males acquiring them at an earlier age than the females. We shall hereafter meet with analogous cases in certain birds, in which the male acquires the plumage common to both sexes when adult, at a somewhat earlier age than does the female. With other species of rays the males even when old never possess sharp teeth, and consequently the adults of both sexes are provided with broad, flat teeth like those of the young, and like those of the mature females of the above-mentioned species. (10. See Yarrell’s account of the rays in his ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, p. 416, with an excellent figure, and pp. 422, 432.) As the rays are bold, strong and voracious fish, we may suspect that the males require their sharp teeth for fighting with their rivals; but as they possess many parts modified and adapted for the prehension of the female, it is possible that their teeth may be used for this purpose.
In regard to size, M. Carbonnier (11. As quoted in ‘The Farmer,’ 1868, p. 369.) maintains that the female of almost all fishes is larger than the male; and Dr. Gunther does not know of a single instance in which the male is actually larger than the female. With some Cyprinodonts the male is not even half as large. As in many kinds of fishes the males habitually fight together, it is surprising that they have not generally become larger and stronger than the females through the effects of sexual selection. The males suffer from their small size, for according to M. Carbonnier, they are liable to be devoured by the females of their own species when carnivorous, and no doubt by other species. Increased size must be in some manner of more importance to the females, than strength and size are to the males for fighting with other males; and this perhaps is to allow of the production of a vast number of ova.
[Fig. 29. Callionymus lyra. Upper figure, male; lower figure, female. N.B. The lower figure is more reduced than the upper.]
In many species the male alone is ornamented with bright colours; or these are much brighter in the male than the female. The male, also, is sometimes provided with appendages which appear to be of no more use to him for the ordinary purposes of life, than are the tail feathers to the peacock. I am indebted for most of the following facts to the kindness of Dr. Gunther. There is reason to suspect that many tropical fishes differ sexually in colour and structure; and there are some striking cases with our British fishes. The male Callionymus lyra has been called the gemmeous dragonet “from its brilliant gem-like colours.” When fresh caught from the sea the body is yellow of various shades, striped and spotted with vivid blue on the head; the dorsal fins are pale brown with dark longitudinal bands; the ventral, caudal, and anal fins being bluish-black. The female, or sordid dragonet, was considered by Linnaeus, and by many subsequent naturalists, as a distinct species; it is of a dingy reddish-brown, with the dorsal fin brown and the other fins white. The sexes differ also in the proportional size of the head and mouth, and in the position of the eyes (12. I have drawn up this description from Yarrell’s ‘British Fishes,’ vol. i. 1836, pp. 261 and 266.); but the most striking difference is the extraordinary elongation in the male (Fig. 29) of the dorsal fin. Mr. W. Saville Kent remarks that this “singular appendage appears from my observations of the species in confinement, to be subservient to the same end as the wattles, crests, and other abnormal adjuncts of the male in gallinaceous birds, for the purpose of fascinating their mates.” (13. ‘Nature,’ July 1873, p. 264.) The young males resemble the adult females in structure and colour. Throughout the genus Callionymus (14. ‘Catalogue of Acanth. Fishes in the British Museum,’ by Dr. Gunther, 1861, pp. 138-151.), the male is generally much more brightly spotted than the female, and in several species, not only the dorsal, but the anal fin is much elongated in the males.
The male of the Cottus scorpius, or sea-scorpion, is slenderer and smaller than the female. There is also a great difference in colour between them. It is difficult, as Mr. Lloyd (15. ‘Game Birds of Sweden,’ etc., 1867, p. 466.) remarks, “for any one, who has not seen this fish during the spawning-season, when its hues are brightest, to conceive the admixture of brilliant colours with which it, in other respects so ill-favoured, is at that time adorned.” Both sexes of the Labrus mixtus, although very different in colour, are beautiful; the male being orange with bright blue stripes, and the female bright red with some black spots on the back.