href="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@36520@[email protected]#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor pginternal" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">22 Another striking instance out of many is afforded by the male stickleback (Gasterosteus leiurus), which is described by Mr. Warington,23 as being then “beautiful beyond description.” The back and eyes of the female are simply brown, and the belly white. The eyes of the male, on the other hand, are “of the most splendid green, having a metallic lustre like the green feathers of some humming-birds. The throat and belly are of a bright crimson, the back of an ashy-green, and the whole fish appears as though it were somewhat translucent and glowed with an internal incandescence.” After the breeding-season these colours all change, the throat and belly become of a paler red, the back more green, and the glowing tints subside.

That with fishes there exists some close relation between their colours and their sexual functions we can clearly see;—firstly, from the adult males of certain species being differently coloured from the females, and often much more brilliantly;—secondly, from these same males, whilst immature, resembling the mature females;—and, lastly, from the males, even of those species which at all other times of the year are identical in colour with the females, often acquiring brilliant tints during the spawning-season. We know that the males are ardent in their courtship and sometimes fight desperately together. If we may assume that the females have the power of exerting a choice and of selecting the more highly-ornamented males, all the above facts become intelligible through the principle of sexual selection. On the other hand, if the females habitually deposited and left their ova to be fertilised by the first male which chanced to approach, this fact would be fatal to the efficiency of sexual selection; for there could be no choice of a partner. But, as far as is known, the female never willingly spawns except in the close presence of a male, and the male never fertilises the ova except in the close presence of a female. It is obviously difficult to obtain direct evidence with respect to female fishes selecting their partners. An excellent observer,24 who carefully watched the spawning of minnows (Cyprinus phoxinus), remarks that owing to the males, which were ten times as numerous as the females, crowding closely round them, he could “speak only doubtfully on their operations. When a female came among a number of males they immediately pursued her; if she was not ready for shedding her spawn, she made a precipitate retreat; but if she was ready, she came boldly in among them, and was immediately pressed closely by a male on each side; and when they had been in that situation a short time, were superseded by other two, who wedged themselves in between them and the female, who appeared to treat all her lovers with the same kindness.” Notwithstanding this last statement, I cannot, from the several previous considerations, give up the belief that the males which are the most attractive to the females, from their brighter colours or other ornaments, are commonly preferred by them; and that the males have thus been rendered more beautiful in the course of ages.

We have next to inquire whether this view can be extended, through the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes, to those groups in which the males and females are brilliant in the same or nearly the same degree and manner. In such a genus as Labrus, which includes some of the most splendid fishes in the world, for instance, the Peacock Labrus (L. pavo), described,25 with pardonable exaggeration, as formed of polished scales of gold encrusting lapis-lazuli, rubies, sapphires, emeralds and amethysts, we may, with much probability, accept this belief; for we have seen that the sexes in at least one species differ greatly in colour. With some fishes, as with many of the lowest animals, splendid colours may be the direct result of the nature of their tissues and of the surrounding conditions, without any aid from selection. The goldfish (Cyprinus auratus), judging from the analogy of the golden variety of the common carp, is, perhaps, a case in point, as it may owe its splendid colours to a single abrupt variation, due to the conditions to which this fish has been subjected under confinement. It is, however, more probable that these colours have been intensified through artificial selection, as this species has been carefully bred in China from a remote period.26 Under natural conditions it does not seem probable that beings so highly organised as fishes, and which live under such complex relations, should become brilliantly coloured without suffering some evil or receiving some benefit from so great a change, and consequently without the intervention of natural selection.

What, then, must we conclude in regard to the many fishes, both sexes of which are splendidly coloured? Mr. Wallace27 believes that the species which frequent reefs, where corals and other brightly-coloured organisms abound, are brightly coloured in order to escape detection by their enemies; but according to my recollection they were thus rendered highly conspicuous. In the freshwaters of the Tropics there are no brilliantly-coloured corals or other organisms for the fishes to resemble; yet many species in the Amazons are beautifully coloured, and many of the carnivorous Cyprinidæ in India are ornamented with “bright longitudinal lines of various tints.”28 Mr. M’Clelland, in describing these fishes goes so far as to suppose that “the peculiar brilliancy of their colours” serves as “a better mark for kingfishers, terns, and other birds which are destined to keep the number of these fishes in check;” but at the present day few naturalists will admit that any animal has been made conspicuous as an aid to its own destruction. It is possible that certain fishes may have been rendered conspicuous in order to warn birds and beasts of prey (as explained when treating of caterpillars) that they were unpalatable; but it is not, I believe, known that any fish, at least any freshwater fish, is rejected from being distasteful to fish-devouring animals. On the whole, the most probable view in regard to the fishes, of which both sexes are brilliantly coloured, is that their colours have been acquired by the males as a sexual ornament, and have been transferred in an equal or nearly equal degree to the other sex.

We have now to consider whether, when the male differs in a marked manner from the female in colour or in other ornaments, he alone has been modified, with the variations inherited only by his male offspring; or whether the female