[657] Accepting Tylor's results in Coloration of Animals and Plants (London, 1886).
[658] Westermarck, op. cit., 252, 249. Wallace has also noted the use of colors as a means of recognition: Darwinism, 217 ff.; and admits that the sexual colors may become pleasing to the females, though they may be devoid of an æsthetic sense. This alleged inconsistency is criticised by Poulton, Colours of Animals, 286.
[659] Westermarck, op. cit., 240-52, especially 241, 244, 251, 252.
For a comparison of the different theories of sexual selection see Geddes and Thompson, Evolution of Sex, 3-30, who think the truth lies between the views of Darwin and Wallace; Poulton, op. cit., 284-335, who sustains Darwin's view; and Finck, Primitive Love, 229 ff., who attempts "to demolish the theory of sexual selection in reference to the lower races of man as Wallace demolished it in reference to animals." Cf. Espinas, Des sociétés animales, 290 ff.; Brooks, Law of Heredity (1883), 166-241; Groos, Die Spiele der Thiere, 230 ff., 267 ff., who takes a medial position between Darwin and Wallace; Weismann, Studies in the Theory of Descent (London, 1882), I, 161 ff.; Eimer, Die Entstehung der Arten (1888); and Geddes, articles "Reproduction," "Sex," "Variation and Selection," in Encycl. Brit.
[660] Westermarck, op. cit., 165; Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I, 71, 72. Cf. Darwin, op. cit., I, chap. xix, 573 ff., 556-85, for a general discussion of the "secondary sexual characters of man."
[661] Westermarck, op. cit., 168-82, holds that tattooing is primarily a means of sexual attraction. The same is true of circumcision, 201-6; and of clothing, 186-212. The facts "appear to prove that the feeling of shame, far from being the original cause of man's covering his body, is, on the contrary, a result of this custom." When not due to climate, it "owes its origin, at least in a great many cases, to the desire of men and women to make themselves mutually attractive," 211. But see Hellwald, Die mensch. Familie, 60-96, who ascribes clothing, not to shame, but the love of ornament; and Finck, Primitive Love, 247 ff., who entirely rejects Westermarck's view, alleging, as a matter of fact, that tattooing "has had from the earliest recorded times more than a dozen practical purposes, and that its use as a stimulant of the passion of the opposite sex probably never occurred to a savage until it was suggested to him by a philosophizing visitor." On circumcision see Kohler, in ZVR., XI, 429, 430; VI, 417-19, reviewing Wilken, De besnijdenis bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel (1885); Ploss, Das Kind, I, 342 ff., 367 ff.; Hellwald, op. cit., 362; Lippert, Kulturgeschichte, II, 317, who believes circumcision originated as a form of expiation. Crawley, Mystic Rose, 135 ff., regards tattooing, circumcision, and other mutilations, not as ornaments, but as "practically" amulets or charms to secure the safety of organs and functions.
[662] This conclusion of Westermarck is disputed by Finck, op. cit., 261 ff.
[663] Westermarck, op. cit., 173 ff., 182 ff. Cf. Darwin, op. cit., 577 ff., 597 ff., who thinks women among savages are fonder of ornament than men; but the context shows that he does not refer to our "progenitors."
[664] Westermarck, op. cit., 253. Darwin, op. cit., chap. xx, 596 ff., holds this view, in the case of the "secondary sexual characters," for our "progenitors."
[665] Spencer, op. cit., I, 747; cf. Westermarck, op. cit., 273, 277, 278.