The immature plumage in relation to the character of the plumage in both sexes when adult--Six classes of cases--Sexual differences between the males of closely-allied or representative species--The female assuming the characters of the male--Plumage of the young in relation to the summer and winter plumage of the adults--On the increase of beauty in the birds of the world--Protective colouring--Conspicuously coloured birds-Novelty appreciated--Summary of the four chapters on Birds.
We must now consider the transmission of characters, as limited by age, in reference to sexual selection. The truth and importance of the principle of inheritance at corresponding ages need not here be discussed, as enough has already been said on the subject. Before giving the several rather complex rules or classes of cases, under which the differences in plumage between the young and the old, as far as known to me, may be included, it will be well to make a few preliminary remarks.
With animals of all kinds when the adults differ in colour from the young, and the colours of the latter are not, as far as we can see, of any special service, they may generally be attributed, like various embryological structures, to the retention of a former character. But this view can be maintained with confidence, only when the young of several species resemble each other closely, and likewise resemble other adult species belonging to the same group; for the latter are the living proofs that such a state of things was formerly possible. Young lions and pumas are marked with feeble stripes or rows of spots, and as many allied species both young and old are similarly marked, no believer in evolution will doubt that the progenitor of the lion and puma was a striped animal, and that the young have retained vestiges of the stripes, like the kittens of black cats, which are not in the least striped when grown up. Many species of deer, which when mature are not spotted, are whilst young covered with white spots, as are likewise some few species in the adult state. So again the young in the whole family of pigs (Suidae), and in certain rather distantly allied animals, such as the tapir, are marked with dark longitudinal stripes; but here we have a character apparently derived from an extinct progenitor, and now preserved by the young alone. In all such cases the old have had their colours changed in the course of time, whilst the young have remained but little altered, and this has been effected through the principle of inheritance at corresponding ages.
This same principle applies to many birds belonging to various groups, in which the young closely resemble each other, and differ much from their respective adult parents. The young of almost all the Gallinaceae, and of some distantly allied birds such as ostriches, are covered with longitudinally striped down; but this character points back to a state of things so remote that it hardly concerns us. Young cross-bills (Loxia) have at first straight beaks like those of other finches, and in their immature striated plumage they resemble the mature red-pole and female siskin, as well as the young of the goldfinch, greenfinch, and some other allied species. The young of many kinds of buntings (Emberiza) resemble one another, and likewise the adult state of the common bunting, E. miliaria. In almost the whole large group of thrushes the young have their breasts spotted
-a character which is retained throughout life by many species, but is quite lost by others, as by the Turdus migratorius. So again with many thrushes, the feathers on the back are mottled before they are moulted for the first time, and this character is retained for life by certain eastern species. The young of many species of shrikes (Lanius), of some woodpeckers, and of an Indian pigeon (Chalcophaps indicus), are transversely striped on the under surface; and certain allied species or whole genera are similarly marked when adult. In some closely-allied and resplendent Indian cuckoos (Chrysococcyx), the mature species differ considerably from one another in colour, but the young cannot be distinguished. The young of an Indian goose (Sarkidiornis melanonotus) closely resemble in plumage an allied genus, Dendrocygna, when mature. (1. In regard to thrushes, shrikes, and woodpeckers, see Mr. Blyth, in Charlesworth's 'Mag. of Nat. Hist.' vol. i. 1837, p. 304; also footnote to his translation of Cuvier's 'Regne Animal,' p. 159. I give the case of Loxia on Mr. Blyth's information. On thrushes, see also Audubon, 'Ornith. Biog.' vol. ii. p. 195. On Chrysococcyx and Chalcophaps, Blyth, as quoted in Jerdon's 'Birds of India,' vol. iii. p. 485. On Sarkidiornis, Blyth, in 'Ibis,' 1867, p. 175.) Similar facts will hereafter be given in regard to certain herons. Young black-grouse (Tetrao tetrix) resemble the young as well as the old of certain other species, for instance the red-grouse or T. scoticus. Finally, as Mr. Blyth, who has attended closely to this subject, has well remarked, the natural affinities of many species are best exhibited in their immature plumage; and as the true affinities of all organic beings depend on their descent from a common progenitor, this remark strongly confirms the belief that the immature plumage approximately shews us the former or ancestral condition of the species.
Although many young birds, belonging to various families, thus give us a glimpse of the plumage of their remote progenitors, yet there are many other birds, both dull-coloured and bright-coloured, in which the young closely resemble their parents. In such cases the young of the different species cannot resemble each other more closely than do the parents; nor can they strikingly resemble allied forms when adult. They give us but little insight into the plumage of their progenitors, excepting in so far that, when the young and the old are coloured in the same general manner throughout a whole group of species, it is probable that their progenitors were similarly coloured.
We may now consider the classes of cases, under which the differences and resemblances between the plumage of the young and the old, in both sexes or in one sex alone, may be grouped. Rules of this kind were first enounced by Cuvier; but with the progress of knowledge they require some modification and amplification. This I have attempted to do, as far as the extreme complexity of the subject permits, from information derived from various sources; but a full essay on this subject by some competent ornithologist is much needed. In order to ascertain to what extent each rule prevails, I have tabulated the facts given in four great works, namely, by Macgillivray on the birds of Britain, Audubon on those of North America, Jerdon on those of India, and Gould on those of Australia. I may here premise, first, that the several cases or rules graduate into each other; and secondly, that when the young are said to resemble their parents, it is not meant that they are identically alike, for their colours are almost always less vivid, and the feathers are softer and often of a different shape.
RULES OR CLASSES OF CASES.I. When the adult male is more beautiful or conspicuous than the adult female, the young of both sexes in their first plumage closely resemble the adult female, as with the common fowl and peacock; or, as occasionally occurs, they resemble her much more closely than they do the adult male.
II. When the adult female is more conspicuous than the adult male, as sometimes though rarely occurs, the young of both sexes in their first plumage resemble the adult male.
IV. When the adult male resembles the adult female, the young of both sexes in their first plumage resemble the adults, as with the kingfisher, many parrots, crows, hedgewarblers.
V. When the adults of both sexes have a distinct winter and summer plumage, whether or not the male differs from the female, the young resemble the adults of both sexes in their winter dress, or much more rarely in their summer dress, or they resemble the females alone. Or the young may have an intermediate character; or again they may differ greatly from the adults in both their seasonal plumages.
VI. In some few cases the young in their first plumage differ from each other according to sex; the young males resembling more or less closely the adult males, and the young females more or less closely the adult females.
CLASS I.In this class, the young of both sexes more or less closely resemble the adult female, whilst the adult male differs from the adult female, often in the most conspicuous manner. Innumerable instances in all Orders could be given; it will suffice to call to mind the common pheasant, duck, and house-sparrow. The cases under this class graduate into others. Thus the two sexes when adult may differ so slightly, and the young so slightly from the adults, that it is doubtful whether such cases ought to come under the present, or under the third or fourth classes. So again the young of the two sexes, instead of being quite alike, may differ in a slight degree from each other, as in our sixth class. These transitional cases, however, are few, or at least are not strongly pronounced, in comparison with those which come strictly under the present class.
The force of the present law is well shewn in those groups, in which, as a general rule, the two sexes and the young are all alike; for when in these groups the male does differ from the female, as with certain parrots, kingfishers, pigeons, etc., the young of both sexes resemble the adult female. (2. See, for instance, Mr. Gould's account ('Handbook to the Birds of Australia,' vol. i. p. 133) of Cyanalcyon (one of the Kingfishers), in which, however, the young male, though resembling the adult female, is less brilliantly coloured. In some species of Dacelo the males have blue tails, and the females brown ones; and Mr. R.B. Sharpe informs me that the tail of the young male of D. gaudichaudi is at first brown. Mr. Gould has described (ibid. vol. ii. pp. 14, 20, 37) the sexes and the young of certain black Cockatoos and of the King Lory, with which the same rule prevails. Also Jerdon ('Birds of India,' vol. i. p. 260) on the Palaeornis rosa, in which the young are more like the female than the male. See Audubon ('Ornithological Biography,' vol. ii. p. 475) on the two sexes and the young of Columba passerina.) We see the same fact exhibited still more clearly in certain anomalous cases; thus the male of Heliothrix auriculata (one of the humming-birds) differs conspicuously from the female in having a splendid gorget and fine ear-tufts, but the female is remarkable from having a much longer tail than that of the male; now the young of both sexes resemble (with the exception of the breast being spotted with bronze) the adult female in all other respects, including the length of her tail, so that the tail of the male actually becomes shorter as he reaches maturity, which is a most unusual circumstance. (3. I owe this information to Mr. Gould, who shewed me the specimens; see also his 'Introduction to the Trochilidae,' 1861, p. 120.) Again, the plumage of the male goosander (Mergus merganser) is more conspicuously coloured than that of the female, with the scapular and secondary wingfeathers much longer; but differently from what occurs, as far as I know, in any other bird, the crest of the adult male, though broader than that of the female, is considerably shorter, being only a little above an inch in length; the crest of the female being two and a half inches long. Now the young of both sexes entirely resemble the adult female, so that their crests are actually of greater length, though narrower, than in the adult male. (4. Macgillivray, 'Hist. Brit. Birds,' vol. v. pp. 207-214.)
When the young and the females closely resemble each other and both differ from the males, the most obvious conclusion is that the males alone have been modified. Even in the anomalous cases of the Heliothrix and Mergus, it is probable that originally both adult sexes were furnished--the one species with a much elongated tail, and the other with a much elongated crest--these characters having since been partially lost by the adult males from some unexplained cause, and transmitted in their diminished state to their male offspring alone, when arrived at the corresponding age of maturity. The belief that in the present class the male alone has been modified, as far as the differences between the male and the female together with her young are concerned, is strongly supported by some remarkable facts recorded by Mr. Blyth (5. See his admirable paper in the 'Journal of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal,' vol. xix. 1850, p. 223; see also Jerdon, 'Birds of India,' vol. i. introduction, p. xxix. In regard to Tanysiptera, Prof. Schlegel told Mr. Blyth that he could distinguish several distinct races, solely by comparing the adult males.), with respect to closely-allied species which represent each other in distinct countries. For with several of these representative species the adult males have undergone a certain amount of change and can be distinguished; the females and the young from the distinct countries being indistinguishable, and therefore absolutely unchanged. This is the case with certain Indian chats (Thamnobia), with certain honey-suckers (Nectarinia), shrikes (Tephrodornis), certain kingfishers (Tanysiptera), Kalij pheasants (Gallophasis), and treepartridges (Arboricola).
In some analogous cases, namely with birds having a different summer and winter plumage, but with the two sexes nearly alike, certain closely-allied species can easily be distinguished in their summer or nuptial plumage, yet are indistinguishable in their winter as well as in their immature plumage. This is the case with some of the closely-allied Indian wagtails or Motacillae. Mr. Swinhoe (6. See also Mr. Swinhoe, in 'Ibis,' July 1863, p. 131; and a previous paper, with an extract from a note by Mr. Blyth, in 'Ibis,' January, 1861, p. 25.) informs me that three species of Ardeola, a genus of herons, which represent one another on separate continents, are "most strikingly different" when ornamented with their summer plumes, but are hardly, if at all, distinguishable during the winter. The young also of these three species in their immature plumage closely resemble the adults in their winter dress. This case is all the more interesting, because with two other species of Ardeola both sexes retain, during the winter and summer, nearly the same plumage as that possessed by the three first species during the winter and in their immature state; and this plumage, which is common to several distinct species at different ages and seasons, probably shews us how the progenitors of the genus were coloured. In all these cases, the nuptial plumage which we may assume was originally acquired by the adult males during the breeding-season, and transmitted to the adults of both sexes at the corresponding season, has been modified, whilst the winter and immature plumages have been left unchanged.
The question naturally arises, how is it that in these latter cases the winter plumage of both sexes, and in the former cases the plumage of the adult females, as well as the immature plumage of the young, have not been at all affected? The species which represent each other in distinct countries will almost always have been exposed to somewhat different conditions, but we can hardly attribute to this action the modification of the plumage in the males alone, seeing that the females and the young, though similarly exposed, have not been affected. Hardly any fact shews us more clearly how subordinate in importance is the direct action of the conditions of life, in comparison with the accumulation through selection of indefinite variations, than the surprising difference between the sexes of many birds; for both will have consumed the same food, and have been exposed to the same climate. Nevertheless we are not precluded from believing that in the course of time new conditions may produce some direct effect either on both sexes, or from their constitutional differences chiefly on one sex. We see only that this is subordinate in importance to the accumulated results of selection. Judging, however, from a wide-spread analogy, when a species migrates into a new country (and this must precede the formation of representative species), the changed conditions to which they will almost always have been exposed will cause them to undergo a certain amount of fluctuating variability. In this case sexual selection, which depends on an element liable to change--the taste or admiration of the female--will have had new shades of colour or other differences to act on and accumulate; and as sexual selection is always at work, it would (from what we know of the results on domestic animals of man's unintentional selection), be surprising if animals inhabiting separate districts, which can never cross and thus blend their newly-acquired characters, were not, after a sufficient lapse of time, differently modified. These remarks likewise apply to the nuptial or summer plumage, whether confined to the males, or common to both sexes.
Although the females of the above closely-allied or representative species, together with their young, differ hardly at all from one another, so that the males alone can be distinguished, yet the females of most species within the same genus obviously differ from each other. The differences, however, are rarely as great as between the males. We see this clearly in the whole family of the Gallinaceae: the females, for instance, of the common and Japan pheasant, and especially of the gold and Amherst pheasant --of the silver pheasant and the wild fowl--resemble one another very closely in colour, whilst the males differ to an extraordinary degree. So it is with the females of most of the Cotingidae, Fringillidae, and many other families. There can indeed be no doubt that, as a general rule, the females have been less modified than the males. Some few birds, however, offer a singular and inexplicable exception; thus the females of Paradisea apoda and P. papuana differ from each other more than do their respective males (7. Wallace, 'The Malay Archipelago,' vol. ii. 1869, p. 394.); the female of the latter species having the under surface pure white, whilst the female P. apoda is deep brown beneath. So, again, as I hear from Professor Newton, the males of two species of Oxynotus (shrikes), which represent each other in the islands of Mauritius and Bourbon (8. These species are described with coloured figures, by M. F. Pollen, in 'Ibis,' 1866, p. 275.), differ but little in colour, whilst the females differ much. In the Bourbon species the female appears to have partially retained an immature condition of plumage, for at first sight she "might be taken for the young of the Mauritian species." These differences may be compared with those inexplicable ones, which occur independently of man's selection in certain subbreeds of the game-fowl, in which the females are very different, whilst the males can hardly be distinguished. (9. 'Variation of Animals,' etc., vol. i. p. 251.)
As I account so largely by sexual selection for the differences between the males of allied species, how can the differences between the females be accounted for in all ordinary cases? We need not here consider the species which belong to distinct genera; for with these, adaptation to different habits of life, and other agencies, will have come into play. In regard to the differences between the females within the same genus, it appears to me almost certain, after looking through various large groups, that the chief agent has been the greater or less transference to the female of the characters acquired by the males through sexual selection. In the several British finches, the two sexes differ either very slightly or considerably; and if we compare the females of the greenfinch, chaffinch, goldfinch, bullfinch, crossbill, sparrow, etc., we shall see that they differ from one another chiefly in the points in which they partially resemble their respective males; and the colours of the males may safely be attributed to sexual selection. With many gallinaceous species the sexes differ to an extreme degree, as with the peacock, pheasant, and fowl, whilst with other species there has been a partial or even complete transference of character from the male to the female. The females of the several species of Polyplectron exhibit in a dim condition, and chiefly on the tail, the splendid ocelli of their males. The female partridge differs from the male only in the red mark on her breast being smaller; and the female wild turkey only in her colours being much duller. In the guinea-fowl the two sexes are indistinguishable. There is no improbability in the plain, though peculiarly spotted plumage of this latter bird having been acquired through sexual selection by the males, and then transmitted to both sexes; for it is not essentially different from the much more beautifully spotted plumage, characteristic of the males alone of the Tragopan pheasants.
It should be observed that, in some instances, the transference of characters from the male to the female has been effected apparently at a remote period, the male having subsequently undergone great changes, without transferring to the female any of his latergained characters. For instance, the female and the young of the black-grouse (Tetrao tetrix) resemble pretty closely both sexes and the young of the red-grouse (T. scoticus); and we may consequently infer that the black-grouse is descended from some ancient species, of which both sexes were coloured in nearly the same manner as the red-grouse. As both sexes of this latter species are more distinctly barred during the breeding-season than at any other time, and as the male differs slightly from the female in his more strongly- pronounced red and brown tints (10. Macgillivray, 'History of British Birds,' vol. i. pp. 172-174.), we may conclude that his plumage has been influenced by sexual selection, at least to a certain extent. If so, we may further infer that nearly similar plumage of the female black-grouse was similarly produced at some former period. But since this period the male black-grouse has acquired his fine black plumage, with his forked and outwardly-curled tail-feathers; but of these characters there has hardly been any transference to the female, excepting that she shews in her tail a trace of the curved fork.
We may therefore conclude that the females of distinct though allied species have often had their plumage rendered more or less different by the transference in various degrees of characters acquired by the males through sexual selection, both during former and recent times. But it deserves especial attention that brilliant colours have been transferred much more rarely than other tints. For instance, the male of the red-throated blue- breast (Cyanecula suecica) has a rich blue breast, including a sub- triangular red mark; now marks of nearly the same shape have been transferred to the female, but the central space is fulvous instead of red, and is surrounded by mottled instead of blue feathers. The Gallinaceae offer many analogous cases; for none of the species, such as partridges, quails, guinea-fowls, etc., in which the colours of the plumage have been largely transferred from the male to the female, are brilliantly coloured. This is well exemplified with the pheasants, in which the male is generally so much more brilliant than the female; but with the Eared and Cheer pheasants (Crossoptilon auritum and Phasianus wallichii) the sexes closely resemble each other and their colours are dull. We may go so far as to believe that if any part of the plumage in the males of these two pheasants had been brilliantly coloured, it would not have been transferred to the females. These facts strongly support Mr. Wallace's view that with birds which are exposed to much danger during incubation, the transference of bright colours from the male to the female has been checked through natural selection. We must not, however, forget that another explanation, before given, is possible; namely, that the males which varied and became bright, whilst they were young and inexperienced, would have been exposed to much danger, and would generally have been destroyed; the older and more cautious males, on the other hand, if they varied in a like manner, would not only have been able to survive, but would have been favoured in their rivalry with other males. Now variations occurring late in life tend to be transmitted exclusively to the same sex, so that in this case extremely bright tints would not have been transmitted to the females. On the other hand, ornaments of a less conspicuous kind, such as those possessed by the Eared and Cheer pheasants, would not have been dangerous, and if they appeared during early youth, would generally have been transmitted to both sexes.
In addition to the effects of the partial transference of characters from the males to the females, some of the differences between the females of closely allied species may be attributed to the direct or definite action of the conditions of life. (11. See, on this subject, chap. xxiii. in the 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.') With the males, any such action would generally have been masked by the brilliant colours gained through sexual selection; but not so with the females. Each of the endless diversities in plumage which we see in our domesticated birds is, of course, the result of some definite cause; and under natural and more uniform conditions, some one tint, assuming that it was in no way injurious, would almost certainly sooner or later prevail. The free intercrossing of the many individuals belonging to the same species would ultimately tend to make any change of colour, thus induced, uniform in character.
No one doubts that both sexes of many birds have had their colours adapted for the sake of protection; and it is possible that the females alone of some species may have been modified for this end. Although it would be a difficult, perhaps an impossible process, as shewn in the last chapter, to convert one form of transmission into another through selection, there would not be the least difficulty in adapting the colours of the female, independently of those of the male, to surrounding objects, through the accumulation of variations which were from the first limited in their transmission to the female sex. If the variations were not thus limited, the bright tints of the male would be deteriorated or destroyed. Whether the females alone of many species have been thus specially modified, is at present very doubtful. I wish I could follow Mr. Wallace to the full extent; for the admission would remove some difficulties. Any variations which were of no service to the female as a protection would be at once obliterated, instead of being lost simply by not being selected, or from free intercrossing, or from being eliminated when transferred to the male and in any way injurious to him. Thus the plumage of the female would be kept constant in character. It would also be a relief if we could admit that the obscure tints of both sexes of many birds had been acquired and preserved for the sake of protection,--for example, of the hedge-warbler or kitty-wren (Accentor modularis and Troglodytes vulgaris), with respect to which we have no sufficient evidence of the action of sexual selection. We ought, however, to be cautious in concluding that colours which appear to us dull, are not attractive to the females of certain species; we should bear in mind such cases as that of the common house-sparrow, in which the male differs much from the female, but does not exhibit any bright tints. No one probably will dispute that many gallinaceous birds which live on the open ground, have acquired their present colours, at least in part, for the sake of protection. We know how well they are thus concealed; we know that ptarmigans, whilst changing from their winter to their summer plumage, both of which are protective, suffer greatly from birds of prey. But can we believe that the very slight differences in tints and markings between, for instance, the female black-grouse and red-grouse serve as a protection? Are partridges, as they are now coloured, better protected than if they had resembled quails? Do the slight differences between the females of the common pheasant, the Japan and gold pheasants, serve as a protection, or might not their plumages have been interchanged with impunity? From what Mr. Wallace has observed of the habits of certain gallinaceous birds in the East, he thinks that such slight differences are beneficial. For myself, I will only say that I am not convinced.
Formerly when I was inclined to lay much stress on protection as accounting for the duller colours of female birds, it occurred to me that possibly both sexes and the young might aboriginally have been equally bright coloured; but that subsequently, the females from the danger incurred during incubation, and the young from being inexperienced, had been rendered dull as a protection. But this view is not supported by any evidence, and is not probable; for we thus in imagination expose during past times the females and the young to danger, from which it has subsequently been necessary to shield their modified descendants. We have, also, to reduce, through a gradual process of selection, the females and the young to almost exactly the same tints and markings, and to transmit them to the corresponding sex and period of life. On the supposition that the females and the young have partaken during each stage of the process of modification of a tendency to be as brightly coloured as the males, it is also a somewhat strange fact that the females have never been rendered dull-coloured without the young participating in the same change; for there are no instances, as far as I can discover, of species with the females dull and the young bright coloured. A partial exception, however, is offered by the young of certain woodpeckers, for they have "the whole upper part of the head tinged with red," which afterwards either decreases into a mere circular red line in the adults of both sexes, or quite disappears in the adult females. (12. Audubon, 'Ornith. Biography,' vol. i. p. 193. Macgillivray, 'History of British Birds,' vol. iii. p. 85. See also the case before given of Indopicus carlotta.)
Finally, with respect to our present class of cases, the most probable view appears to be that successive variations in brightness or in other ornamental characters, occurring in the males at a rather late period of life have alone been preserved; and that most or all of these variations, owing to the late period of life at which they appeared, have been from the first transmitted only to the adult male offspring. Any variations in brightness occurring in the females or in the young, would have been of no service to them, and would not have been selected; and moreover, if dangerous, would have been eliminated. Thus the females and the young will either have been left unmodified, or (as is much more common) will have been partially modified by receiving through transference from the males some of his successive variations. Both sexes have perhaps been directly acted on by the conditions of life to which they have long been exposed: but the females from not being otherwise much modified, will best exhibit any such effects. These changes and all others will have been kept uniform by the free intercrossing of many individuals. In some cases, especially with ground birds, the females and the young may possibly have been mo