with whom the principle of sexual selection must have been influential to at least the same degree as among the lower animals. It may be expected, indeed, to be more influential, as the esthetic taste with which it is associated becomes more highly developed with man than with any member of the animal kingdom. Even here it is not a question of mere coloration. The theory of sexual selection as framed by Darwin is concerned, as Romanes points out, not so much with color itself as with the particular disposition of color in the form of ornamental patterns. These have a kind of structural value, and certain birds, moreover, possess actual structural peculiarities, such as ornamental appendages to the beak, the only use of which would appear to be to charm the female during courtship. We may suppose, therefore, that sexual selection has affected not merely what may be termed the superficial characters of man, but to some extent, at least, those which have a structural value.

The principle of sexual selection is applicable primarily to the characteristics of the male; but Darwin supposes them to have been transferred to the other sex, and through them transmitted to the race generally. In his "Descent of Man," he remarks of the actual influence over the race of that principle: "The nervous system not only regulates most of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced the progressive development of various bodily structures and of certain mental qualities. Courage, pugnacity, perseverance, size and strength of body, weapons of all kinds, musical organs, both vocal and instrumental, bright colours and ornamental appendages have all been indirectly gained by the one sex or the other, through the exertion of choice, the influence of love and jealousy, and the appropriation of the beautiful in sound, colour or form; and these powers of the mind manifestly depend on the development of the brain."

That sexual selection has actually resulted in modification of human physical structure, Darwin thinks can be shown by reference to the ancient Persians, whose type was greatly improved by intermarriage with the beautiful Georgian and Circassian women. He refers to several similar cases, and particularly to the Jollofs of West Africa, whose handsome appearance is said to be due to their retaining for wives only their most beautiful slaves, the others being sold.

Sexual selection may be operative for the improvement of the race through the action of either man or woman, and the conditions of its activity are different in either case. As to the action of man, Darwin says in relation to primitive peoples: "The strongest and most vigorous men—those who could best defend and hunt for their families, who were provided with the best weapons and possessed the most property, such as a large number of dogs or other animals—would succeed in rearing a greater average number of offspring than the weaker and poorer members of the same tribe. There can, also, be no doubt that such men would generally be able to select the more attractive women. At present, the chiefs of nearly every tribe throughout the world succeed in obtaining more than one wife."

With reference to selection by the women, Darwin shows that among savages they have much more to say in their marriages than is usually supposed. He remarks: "They can tempt the men they prefer, and can sometimes reject those whom they dislike, either before or after their marriage. Preference on the part of the women, steadily acting in any one direction, would ultimately affect the character of the tribe, for the women would generally choose, not merely the handsomest men, according to their standard of taste, but those who were at the same time best able to defend and support them. Such well-endowed pairs would commonly rear a larger number of offspring than the less favored." Darwin adds: "The same result would obviously follow in a still more marked manner if there were selection on both sides, that is, if the more attractive, and at the same time more powerful men were to prefer, and were preferred by, the more attractive women. And this double form of selection seems actually to have occurred, especially during the earlier periods of our long history."

The investigations of Darwin as to the operation of sexual selection had reference chiefly to the modification of physical characters. He did not altogether lose sight, however, of its possible influence in affecting for the better the mental characteristics of the race. He concludes his enquiry by the remark that "Man might by selection do something, not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Every one does good service who aids towards this end."

It is in the application of the principle of sexual selection to the mental characteristics of man, that any real improvement of the race, viewed as consisting of human beings and not of mere animals, must be brought about. Beauty of physical form and feature is of importance in human relations only so far as it is associated with beauty of mind and character, that is, with high intellectual and moral attainments. That these often go together is true, but it is not always the case. Grant Allen says: "To be sound in wind and limb; to be healthy of body and mind; to be educated; to be emancipated; to be free, to be beautiful—these things are ends towards which all should strive, and by attaining which all are happier in themselves, and more useful to others." But physical and intellectual perfection are not always found together, as was observed by Darwin, when he mentioned among the causes which interfere with the physical action of sexual selection the fact that men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women. Professor Jowett affirms truly that "Many of the noblest specimens of the human race have been among the weakest physically. Tyrtæns or Æsop, or our own Newton, would have been destroyed at Sparta, and some of the fairest and strongest men and women have been among the wickedest and worst." Hence, he properly infers that "Not by the Platonic device of uniting the strong and the fair with the strong and the fair, regardless of sentiment and morality, nor yet by his other device of combining dissimilar natures, have mankind gradually passed from the brutality and licentiousness of primitive marriage to marriage Christian and civilized."

The truth of this inference cannot be denied, because to leave out of view considerations of sentiment and morality would fatally vitiate any scheme for the improvement of the human race. But Professor Jowett affirms that, "We do not know how by artificial means any improvement in the breed can be effected." The problem is no doubt a complex one. As he points out, a child has usually thirty progenitors only four steps back, and whatever truth there may be in the inheritance of special physical characters, "We have a difficulty in distinguishing what is a true inheritance of genius or other qualities, and what is mere imitation or the result of similar circumstances. Great men and great women have rarely had great fathers and mothers." Professor Jowett thinks, indeed, that too much importance may be ascribed to heredity. He says: "The doctrine of heredity may seem to take out of our hands the conduct of our lives, but it is the idea, not the fact, which is really terrible to us. For what we have received from our ancestors is only a fraction of what we are or may become. The knowledge that drunkenness or insanity has