Back Aa

Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Part 2

<h2> CHAPTER XVII. SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS OF MAMMALS.</h2> The law of battle—Special weapons, confined to the males—Cause of absence of weapons in the female—Weapons common to both sexes, yet primarily acquired by the male—Other uses of such weapons—Their high importance—Greater size of the male—Means of defence—On the preference shown by either sex in the pairing of quadrupeds. With mammals the male appears to win the female much more through the law of battle than through the display of his charms. The most timid animals, not provided with any special weapons for fighting, engage in desperate conflicts during the season of love. Two male hares have been seen to fight together until one was killed; male moles often fight, and sometimes with fatal results; male squirrels engage in frequent contests, “and often wound each other severely”; as do male beavers, so that “hardly a skin is without scars.” (1. See Waterton’s account of two hares fighting, ‘Zoologist,’ vol. i. 1843, p. 211. On moles, Bell, ‘Hist. of British Quadrupeds,’ 1st ed., p. 100. On squirrels, Audubon and Bachman, Viviparous Quadrupeds of N. America, 1846, p. 269. On beavers, Mr. A.H. Green, in ‘Journal of Linnean Society, Zoology,’ vol. x. 1869, p. 362.) I observed the same fact with the hides of the guanacoes in Patagonia; and on one occasion several were so absorbed in fighting that they fearlessly rushed close by me. Livingstone speaks of the males of the many animals in Southern Africa as almost invariably shewing the scars received in former contests. The law of battle prevails with aquatic as with terrestrial mammals. It is notorious how desperately male seals fight, both with their teeth and claws, during the breeding-season; and their hides are likewise often covered with scars. Male sperm-whales are very jealous at this season; and in their battles “they often lock their jaws together, and turn on their sides and twist about”; so that their lower jaws often become distorted. (2. On the battles of seals, see Capt. C. Abbott in ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ 1868, p. 191; Mr. R. Brown, ibid. 1868, p. 436; also L. Lloyd, ‘Game Birds of Sweden,’ 1867, p. 412; also Pennant. On the sperm-whale see Mr. J.H. Thompson, in ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ 1867, p. 246.) All male animals which are furnished with special weapons for fighting, are well known to engage in fierce battles. The courage and the desperate conflicts of stags have often been described; their skeletons have been found in various parts of the world, with the horns inextricably locked together, shewing how miserably the victor and vanquished had perished. (3. See Scrope (‘Art of Deer-stalking,’ p. 17) on the locking of the horns with the Cervus elaphus. Richardson, in ‘Fauna Bor. Americana,’ 1829, p. 252, says that the wapiti, moose, and reindeer have been found thus locked together. Sir A. Smith found at the Cape of Good Hope the skeletons of two gnus in the same condition.) No animal in the world is so dangerous as an elephant in must. Lord Tankerville has given me a graphic description of the battles between the wild bulls in Chillingham Park, the descendants, degenerated in size but not in courage, of the gigantic Bos primigenius. In 1861 several contended for mastery; and it was observed that two of the younger bulls attacked in concert the old leader of the herd, overthrew and disabled him, so that he was believed by the keepers to be lying mortally wounded in a neighbouring wood. But a few days afterwards one of the young bulls approached the wood alone; and then the “monarch of the chase,” who had been lashing himself up for vengeance, came out and, in a short time, killed his antagonist. He then quietly joined the herd, and long held undisputed sway. Admiral Sir B.J. Sulivan informs me that, when he lived in the Falkland Islands, he imported a young English stallion, which frequented the hills near Port William with eight mares. On these hills there were two wild stallions, each with a small troop of mares; “and it is certain that these stallions would never have approached each other without fighting. Both had tried singly to fight the English horse and drive away his mares, but had failed. One day they came in TOGETHER and attacked him. This was seen by the capitan who had charge of the horses, and who, on riding to the spot, found one of the two stallions engaged with the English horse, whilst the other was driving away the mares, and had already separated four from the rest. The capitan settled the matter by driving the whole party into the corral, for the wild stallions would not leave the mares.” Male animals which are provided with efficient cutting or tearing teeth for the ordinary purposes of life, such as the carnivora, insectivora, and rodents, are seldom furnished with weapons especially adapted for fighting with their rivals. The case is very different with the males of many other animals. We see this in the horns of stags and of certain kinds of antelopes in which the females are hornless. With many animals the canine teeth in the upper or lower jaw, or in both, are much larger in the males than in the females, or are absent in the latter, with the exception sometimes of a hidden rudiment. Certain antelopes, the musk-deer, camel, horse, boar, various apes, seals, and the walrus, offer instances. In the females of the walrus the tusks are sometimes quite absent. (4. Mr. Lamont (‘Seasons with the Sea-Horses,’ 1861, p. 143) says that a good tusk of the male walrus weighs 4 pounds, and is longer than that of the female, which weighs about 3 pounds. The males are described as fighting ferociously. On the occasional absence of the tusks in the female, see Mr. R. Brown, ‘Proceedings, Zoological Society,’ 1868, p. 429.) In the male elephant of India and in the male dugong (5. Owen, ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. p. 283.) the upper incisors form offensive weapons. In the male narwhal the left canine alone is developed into the well-known, spirally-twisted, so-called horn, which is sometimes from nine to ten feet in length. It is believed that the males use these horns for fighting together; for “an unbroken one can rarely be got, and occasionally one may be found with the point of another jammed into the broken place.” (6. Mr. R. Brown, in ‘Proc. Zool. Soc.’ 1869, p. 553. See Prof. Turner, in ‘Journal of Anat. and Phys.’ 1872, p. 76, on the homological nature of these tusks. Also Mr. J.W. Clarke on two tusks being developed in the males, in ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society,’ 1871, p. 42.) The tooth on the opposite side of the head in the male consists of a rudiment about ten inches in length, which is embedded in the jaw; but sometimes, though rarely, both are equally developed on the two sides. In the female both are always rudimentary. The male cachalot has a larger head than that of the female, and it no doubt aids him in his aquatic battles. Lastly, the adult male ornithorhynchus is provided with a remarkable apparatus, namely a spur on the foreleg, closely resembling the poison-fang of a venomous snake; but according to Harting, the secretion from the gland is not poisonous; and on the leg of the female there is a hollow, apparently for the reception of the spur. (7. Owen on the cachalot and Ornithorhynchus, ibid. vol. iii. pp. 638, 641. Harting is quoted by Dr. Zouteveen in the Dutch translation of this work, vol. ii. p. 292.) When the males are provided with weapons which in the females are absent, there can be hardly a doubt that these serve for fighting with other males; and that they were acquired through sexual selection, and were transmitted to the male sex alone. It is not probable, at least in most cases, that the females have been prevented from acquiring such weapons, on account of their being useless, superfluous, or in some way injurious. On the contrary, as they are often used by the males for various purposes, more especially as a defence against their enemies, it is a surprising fact that they are so poorly developed, or quite absent, in the females of so many animals. With female deer the development during each recurrent season of great branching horns, and with female elephants the development of immense tusks, would be a great waste of vital power, supposing that they were of no use to the females. Consequently, they would have tended to be eliminated in the female through natural selection; that is, if the successive variations were limited in their transmission to the female sex, for otherwise the weapons of the males would have been injuriously affected, and this would have been a greater evil. On the whole, and from the consideration of the following facts, it seems probable that when the various weapons differ in the two sexes, this has generally depended on the kind of transmission which has prevailed. As the reindeer is the one species in the whole family of Deer, in which the female is furnished with horns, though they are somewhat smaller, thinner, and less branched than in the male, it might naturally be thought that, at least in this case, they must be of some special service to her. The female retains her horns from the time when they are fully developed, namely, in September, throughout the winter until April or May, when she brings forth her young. Mr. Crotch made particular enquiries for me in Norway, and it appears that the females at this season conceal themselves for about a fortnight in order to bring forth their young, and then reappear, generally hornless. In Nova Scotia, however, as I hear from Mr. H. Reeks, the female sometimes retains her horns longer. The male on the other hand casts his horns much earlier, towards the end of November. As both sexes have the same requirements and follow the same habits of life, and as the male is destitute of horns during the winter, it is improbable that they can be of any special service to the female during this season, which includes the larger part of the time during which she is horned. Nor is it probable that she can have inherited horns from some ancient progenitor of the family of deer, for, from the fact of the females of so many species in all quarters of the globe not having horns, we may conclude that this was the primordial character of the group. (8. On the structure and shedding of the horns of the reindeer, Hoffberg, ‘Amoenitates Acad.’ vol. iv. 1788, p. 149. See Richardson, ‘Fauna Bor. Americana,’ p. 241, in regard to the American variety or species: also Major W. Ross King, ‘The Sportsman in Canada,’ 1866, p. 80. The horns of the reindeer are developed at a most unusually early age; but what the cause of this may be is not known. The effect has apparently been the transference of the horns to both sexes. We should bear in mind that horns are always transmitted through the female, and that she has a latent capacity for their development, as we see in old or diseased females. (9. Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Essais de Zoolog. Générale,’ 1841, p. 513. Other masculine characters, besides the horns, are sometimes similarly transferred to the female; thus Mr. Boner, in speaking of an old female chamois (‘Chamois Hunting in the Mountains of Bavaria,’ 1860, 2nd ed., p. 363), says, “not only was the head very male-looking, but along the back there was a ridge of long hair, usually to be found only in bucks.”) Moreover the females of some other species of deer exhibit, either normally or occasionally, rudiments of horns; thus the female of Cervulus moschatus has “bristly tufts, ending in a knob, instead of a horn”; and “in most specimens of the female wapiti (Cervus canadensis) there is a sharp bony protuberance in the place of the horn.” (10. On the Cervulus, Dr. Gray, ‘Catalogue of Mammalia in the British Museum,’ part iii. p. 220. On the Cervus canadensis or wapiti, see Hon. J.D. Caton, ‘Ottawa Academy of Nat. Sciences,’ May 1868, p. 9.) From these several considerations we may conclude that the possession of fairly well-developed horns by the female reindeer, is due to the males having first acquired them as weapons for fighting with other males; and secondarily to their development from some unknown cause at an unusually early age in the males, and their consequent transference to both sexes. Turning to the sheath-horned ruminants: with antelopes a graduated series can be formed, beginning with species, the females of which are completely destitute of horns—passing on to those which have horns so small as to be almost rudimentary (as with the Antilocapra americana, in which species they are present in only one out of four or five females (11. I am indebted to Dr. Canfield for this information; see also his paper in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society,’ 1866, p. 105.))—to those which have fairly developed horns, but manifestly smaller and thinner than in the male and sometimes of a different shape (12. For instance the horns of the female Ant. euchore resemble those of a distinct species, viz. the Ant. dorcas var. Corine, see Desmarest, ‘Mammalogie,’ p. 455.),—and ending with those in which both sexes have horns of equal size. As with the reindeer, so with antelopes, there exists, as previously shewn, 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, depends, not on their being of any special use, but simply on inheritance. It accords with this view that even in the same restricted genus both sexes of some species, and the males alone of others, are thus provided. It is also 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. 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. (13. Gray, ‘Catalogue of Mammalia, the British Museum,’ part iii. 1852, p. 160.) In several domestic breeds of these two animals, the males alone are furnished with horns; and in some breeds, for instance, in the sheep of North Wales, though both sexes are properly horned, the ewes are very liable to be hornless. I have been informed by a trustworthy witness, who purposely inspected a flock of these same sheep during the lambing season, that the horns at birth are generally more fully developed in the male than in the female. Mr. J. Peel crossed his Lonk sheep, both sexes of which always bear horns, with hornless Leicesters and hornless Shropshire Downs; and the result was that the male offspring had their horns considerably reduced, whilst the females were wholly destitute of them. These several facts indicate that, with sheep, the horns are a much less firmly fixed character in the females than in the males; and this leads us to look at the horns as properly of masculine origin. 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. (14. Richardson, ‘Fauna Bor. Americana,’ p. 278.) 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.” (15. ‘Land and Water,’ 1867, p. 346.) Dr. Forsyth Major also informs me that a fossil skull, believed to be that of the female Bos etruscus, has been found in Val d’Arno, which is wholly without horns. In the Rhinoceros simus, as I may 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. (16. Sir Andrew Smith, ‘Zoology of S. Africa,’ pl. xix. Owen, ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. p. 624.) From these various facts we may infer as probable that horns of all kinds, even when they are equally developed in the two sexes, were primarily acquired by the male in order to conquer other males, and have been transferred more or less completely to the female. The effects of castration deserve notice, as throwing light on this same point. Stags after the operation never renew their horns. The male reindeer, however, must be excepted, as after castration he does renew them. This fact, as well as the possession of horns by both sexes, seems at first to prove that the horns in this species do not constitute a sexual character (17. This is the conclusion of Seidlitz, ‘Die Darwinsche Theorie,’ 1871, p. 47.); but as they are developed at a very early age, before the sexes differ in constitution, it is not surprising that they should be unaffected by castration, even if they were aboriginally acquired by the male. With sheep both sexes properly bear horns; and I am informed that with Welch sheep the horns of the males are considerably reduced by castration; but the degree depends much on the age at which the operation is performed, as is likewise the case with other animals. Merino rams have large horns, whilst the ewes “generally speaking are without horns”; and in this breed castration seems to produce a somewhat greater effect, so that if performed at an early age the horns “remain almost undeveloped.” (18. I am much obliged to Prof. Victor Carus, for having made enquiries for me in Saxony on this subject. H. von Nathusius (‘Viehzucht,’ 1872, p. 64) says that the horns of sheep castrated at an early period, either altogether disappear or remain as mere rudiments; but I do not know whether he refers to merinos or to ordinary breeds.) On the Guinea coast there is a breed in which the females never bear horns, and, as Mr. Winwood Reade informs me, the rams after castration are quite destitute of them. With cattle, the horns of the males are much altered by castration; for instead of being short and thick, they become longer than those of the cow, but otherwise resemble them. The Antilope bezoartica offers a somewhat analogous case: the males have long straight spiral horns, nearly parallel to each other, and directed backwards; the females occasionally bear horns, but these when present are of a very different shape, for they are not spiral, and spreading widely, bend round with the points forwards. Now it is a 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. If we may judge from analogy, the female probably shews us, in these two cases of cattle and the antelope, the former condition of the horns in some early progenitor of each species. But why castration should lead to the reappearance of an early condition of the horns cannot be explained with any certainty. Nevertheless, it seems probable, that in nearly the same manner as the constitutional disturbance in the offspring, caused by a cross between two distinct species or races, often leads to the reappearance of long-lost characters (19. I have given various experiments and other evidence proving that this is the case, in my ‘Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ vol. ii. 1868, pp. 39-47.); so here, the disturbance in the constitution of the individual, resulting from castration, produces the same effect. The tusks of the elephant, in the different species or races, differ according to sex, nearly as do 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.” (20. Sir J. Emerson Tennent, ‘Ceylon,’ 1859, vol. ii. p. 274. For Malacca, ‘Journal of Indian Archipelago,’ vol. iv. p. 357.) 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, and their frequent absence in the female of Antilocapra americana—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 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 other purposes. The elephant uses his tusks in attacking the tiger; according to Bruce, he scores the trunks of trees until they can be thrown down easily, and he likewise thus extracts the farinaceous cores of palms; in Africa he often uses one tusk, always the same, to probe the ground and thus 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 an animal may be occasionally put is that observed by Captain Hutton (21. ‘Calcutta Journal of Natural History,’ vol. ii, 1843, p. 526.) with the wild goat (Capra aegagrus) of the Himalayas and, as it is also 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 need this strange kind of shield so much. 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 like a child. Goats and certain species of sheep, for instance the Ovis cycloceros of Afghanistan (22. Mr. Blyth, in ‘Land and Water,’ March, 1867, p. 134, on the authority of Capt. Hutton and others. For the wild Pembrokeshire goats, see the ‘Field,’ 1869, p. 150.), 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 the 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 males in single combat; this goat possessed enormous horns, measuring thirty-nine 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. (23. M. E.M. Bailly, “Sur l’usage des cornes,” etc., .Annal des Sciences Nat.’ tom. ii. 1824, p. 369.) Hence a dog who pins a buffalo by the nose is immediately crushed. We must, however, remember that the Italian buffalo has been long domesticated, and it is by no means certain that the wild parent-form had similar 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. 63. 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 springboc (Ant. euchore) has rather short upright horns, with the sharp points bent inwards almost at right angles, 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. 63) are directed backwards, and are of such length that their points reach beyond the middle of the back, over which they extend in almost parallel lines. 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 fore 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 each endeavours to get the upturned points under the body of the other; 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 manoeuvre. It has been recorded that one of these antelopes has used his horn 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 branches of the horns offer a curious case of difficulty; for certainly a single straight point would inflict a much more serious wound than several diverging ones. 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., one of which bears the astonishing number of thirty-three branches and the other twenty-seven, making altogether sixty branches. Richardson figures a pair of antlers of the wild reindeer with twenty-nine points. (24. On the horns of red-deer, Owen, ‘British Fossil Mammals,’ 1846, p. 478; Richardson on the horns of the reindeer, ‘Fauna Bor. Americana,’ 1829, p. 240. I am indebted to Prof. Victor Carus, for the Moritzburg case.) 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 (25. Hon. J.D. Caton (‘Ottawa Acad. of Nat. Science,’ May 1868, p. 9) says that the American deer fight with their fore-feet, after “the question of superiority has been once settled and acknowledged in the herd.” Bailly, ‘Sur l’Usage des cornes,’ ‘Annales des Sciences Nat.’ tom. ii. 1824, p. 371.), M. Bailly actually comes to the conclusion that their horns are 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 Colonsay, 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 use, 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 both as to red-deer and fallow-deer that, in fighting, 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 in 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 ends 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. (26. See a most interesting account in the Appendix to Hon. J.D. Caton’s paper, as above quoted.) [Fig. 64. Strepsiceros Kudu (from Sir Andrew Smith’s ‘Zoology of South Africa.’] Although the horns of stags are efficient weapons, there can, I think, be no doubt that a single point would have been much more dangerous than a branched antler; and Judge Caton, who has had large experience with deer, fully concurs in this conclusion. Nor do the branching horns, though highly important as a means of defence against rival stags, appear perfectly well adapted for this purpose, as they are liable to become interlocked. The suspicion has therefore crossed my mind that they may serve in part as ornaments. That the branched antlers of stags as well as the elegant lyrated horns of certain antelopes, with their graceful double curvature (Fig. 64), are ornamental in our eyes, no one will dispute. If, then, the horns, like the splendid accoutrements of the knights of old, add to the noble appearance of stags and antelopes, they may have been modified partly for this purpose, though mainly for actual service in battle; but I have no evidence in favour of this belief. An interesting case has lately been published, from which it appears that the horns of a deer in one district in the United States are now being modified through sexual and natural selection. A writer in an excellent American Journal (27. The ‘American Naturalist,’ Dec. 1869, p. 552.) says, that he has hunted for the last twenty-one years in the Adirondacks, where the Cervus virginianus abounds. About fourteen years ago he first heard of SPIKE-HORN BUCKS. These became from year to year more common; about five years ago he shot one, and afterwards another, and now they are frequently killed. “The spike-horn differs greatly from the common antler of the C. virginianus. It consists of a single spike, more slender than the antler, and scarcely half so long, projecting forward from the brow, and terminating in a very sharp point. It gives a considerable advantage to its possessor over the common buck. Besides enabling him to run more swiftly through the thick woods and underbrush (every hunter knows that does and yearling bucks run much more rapidly than the large bucks when armed with their cumbrous antlers), the spike-horn is a more effective weapon than the common antler. With this advantage the spike-horn bucks are gaining upon the common bucks, and may, in time, entirely supersede them in the Adirondacks. Undoubtedly, the first spike-horn buck was merely an accidental freak of nature. But his spike-horns gave him an advantage, and enabled him to propagate his peculiarity. His descendants having a like advantage, have propagated the peculiarity in a constantly increasing ratio, till they are slowly crowding the antlered deer from the region they inhabit.” A critic has well objected to this account by asking, why, if the simple horns are now so advantageous, were the branched antlers of the parent-form ever developed? To this I can only answer by remarking, that a new mode of attack with new weapons might be a great advantage, as shewn by the case of the Ovis cycloceros, who thus conquered a domestic ram famous for his fighting power. Though the branched antlers of a stag are well adapted for fighting with his rivals, and though it might be an advantage to the prong-horned variety slowly to acquire long and branched horns, if he had to fight only with others of the same kind, yet it by no means follows that branched horns would be the best fitted for conquering a foe differently armed. In the foregoing case of the Oryx leucoryx, it is almost certain that the victory would rest with an antelope having short horns, and who therefore did not need to kneel down, though an oryx might profit by having still longer horns, if he fought only with his proper rivals. <div style="break-after:column;"></div>

1 of 2

2 of 2

Update Required To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.