Secondary Sexual Characters Of Fishes, Amphibians, And Reptiles

The lowest class of vertebrae are of fishes.

The males of Plagiostomous fishes (sharks, rays) and of Chimaeroid fishes have claspers to retain the female, like the various structures possessed by many of the lower animals.

The males of many rays also have clusters of strong sharp spines on their heads, and several rows along “the upper outer surface of their pectoral fins.”

These are present in the males of some species, which have other parts of their bodies smooth.

They are only temporarily developed during the breeding-season.

Dr. Gunther suspects that they are brought into action as prehensile organs by the doubling inwards and downwards of the two sides of the body.

The females and not the males of some species, as of Raia clavata, have their backs studded with large hook-formed spines.

The males alone of the capelin (Mallotus villosus, one of Salmonidae), are provided with a ridge of closely-set, brush-like scales, by the aid of which two males, one on each side, hold the female, whilst she runs with great swiftness on the sandy beach, and there deposits her spawn.

The widely distinct Monacanthus scopas presents a somewhat analogous structure. The male, as Dr. Gunther informs me, has a cluster of stiff, straight spines, like those of a comb, on the sides of the tail; and these in a specimen six inches long were nearly one and a half inches in length; the female has in the same place a cluster of bristles, which may be compared with those of a tooth-brush.

In another species, M. peronii, the male has a brush like that possessed by the female of the last species, whilst the sides of the tail in the female are smooth. In some other species of the same genus the tail can be perceived to be a little roughened in the male and perfectly smooth in the female; and lastly in others, both sexes have smooth sides.

The males of many fish fight for the possession of the females. Thus the male stickleback (Gasterosteus leiurus) has been described as “mad with delight,” when the female comes out of her hiding-place and surveys the nest which he has made for her. “He darts round her in every direction, then to his accumulated materials for the nest, then back again in an instant; and as she does not advance he endeavours to push her with his snout, and then tries to pull her by the tail and side-spine to the nest.”

The males are said to be polygamists.

They are extraordinarily bold and pugnacious, whilst “the females are quite pacific.” Their battles are at times desperate; “for these puny combatants fasten tight on each other for several seconds, tumbling over and over again until their strength appears completely exhausted.” With the rough-tailed stickleback (G. trachurus) the males whilst fighting swim round and round each other, biting and endeavouring to pierce each other with their raised lateral spines. The same writer adds (5. Loudon’s ‘Magazine of Natural History,’ vol. iii. 1830, p. 331.), “the bite of these little furies is very severe.

They also use their lateral spines with such fatal effect, that I have seen one during a battle absolutely rip his opponent quite open, so that he sank to the bottom and died.” When a fish is conquered, “his gallant bearing forsakes him; his gay colours fade away; and he hides his disgrace among his peaceable companions, but is for some time the constant object of his conqueror’s persecution.”

The male salmon is as pugnacious as the little stickleback.

And so is the male trout.

Shaw saw a violent contest between two male salmon which lasted the whole day; and Mr. R. Buist, Superintendent of Fisheries, informs me that he has often watched from the bridge at Perth the males driving away their rivals, whilst the females were spawning. The males “are constantly fighting and tearing each other on the spawning-beds, and many so injure each other as to cause the death of numbers, many being seen swimming near the banks of the river in a state of exhaustion, and apparently in a dying state.” (6. The ‘Field,’ June 29, 1867. For Mr. Shaw’s Statement, see ‘Edinburgh Review,’ 1843. Another experienced observer (Scrope’s ‘Days of Salmon Fishing,’ p. 60) remarks that like the stag, the male would, if he could, keep all other males away.) Mr. Buist informs me, that in June 1868, the keeper of the Stormontfield breeding-ponds visited the northern Tyne and found about 300 dead salmon, all of which with one exception were males; and he was convinced that they had lost their lives by fighting.

[Fig. 27. Head of male common salmon (Salmo salar) during the breeding-season. [This drawing, as well as all the others in the present chapter, have been executed by the well-known artist, Mr. G. Ford, from specimens in the British Museum, under the kind superintendence of Dr. Gunther.]

Fig. 28. Head of female salmon.]

The most curious point about the male salmon is that during the breeding-season, besides a slight change in colour, “the lower jaw elongates, and a cartilaginous projection turns upwards from the point, which, when the jaws are closed, occupies a deep cavity between the intermaxillary bones of the upper jaw.” (7. Yarrell, ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, p. 10.) (Figs. 27 and 28.) In our salmon this change of structure lasts only during the breeding-season; but in the Salmo lycaodon of N.W. America the change, as Mr. J.K. Lord (8. ‘The Naturalist in Vancouver’s Island,’ vol. i. 1866, p. 54.) believes, is permanent, and best marked in the older males which have previously ascended the rivers. In these old males the jaw becomes developed into an immense hook-like projection, and the teeth grow into regular fangs, often more than half an inch in length. With the European salmon, according to Mr. Lloyd (9. ‘Scandinavian Adventures,’ vol. i. 1854, pp. 100, 104.), the temporary hook-like structure serves to strengthen and protect the jaws, when one male charges another with wonderful violence; but the greatly developed teeth of the male American salmon may be compared with the tusks of many male mammals, and they indicate an offensive rather than a protective purpose.

The salmon is not the only fish in which the teeth differ in the two sexes; as this is the case with many rays. In the thornback (Raia clavata) the adult male has sharp, pointed teeth, directed backwards, whilst those of the female are broad and flat, and form a pavement; so that these teeth differ in the two sexes of the same species more than is usual in distinct genera of the same family. The teeth of the male become sharp only when he is adult: whilst young they are broad and flat like those of the female. As so frequently occurs with secondary sexual characters, both sexes of some species of rays (for instance R. batis), when adult, possess sharp pointed teeth; and here a character, proper to and primarily gained by the male, appears to have been transmitted to the offspring of both sexes. The teeth are likewise pointed in both sexes of R. maculata, but only when quite adult; the males acquiring them at an earlier age than the females. We shall hereafter meet with analogous cases in certain birds, in which the male acquires the plumage common to both sexes when adult, at a somewhat earlier age than does the female. With other species of rays the males even when old never possess sharp teeth, and consequently the adults of both sexes are provided with broad, flat teeth like those of the young, and like those of the mature females of the above-mentioned species. (10. See Yarrell’s account of the rays in his ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, p. 416, with an excellent figure, and pp. 422, 432.) As the rays are bold, strong and voracious fish, we may suspect that the males require their sharp teeth for fighting with their rivals; but as they possess many parts modified and adapted for the prehension of the female, it is possible that their teeth may be used for this purpose.

In regard to size, M. Carbonnier (11. As quoted in ‘The Farmer,’ 1868, p. 369.) maintains that the female of almost all fishes is larger than the male; and Dr. Gunther does not know of a single instance in which the male is actually larger than the female. With some Cyprinodonts the male is not even half as large. As in many kinds of fishes the males habitually fight together, it is surprising that they have not generally become larger and stronger than the females through the effects of sexual selection. The males suffer from their small size, for according to M. Carbonnier, they are liable to be devoured by the females of their own species when carnivorous, and no doubt by other species. Increased size must be in some manner of more importance to the females, than strength and size are to the males for fighting with other males; and this perhaps is to allow of the production of a vast number of ova.

[Fig. 29. Callionymus lyra. Upper figure, male; lower figure, female. N.B. The lower figure is more reduced than the upper.]

In many species the male alone is ornamented with bright colours; or these are much brighter in the male than the female. The male, also, is sometimes provided with appendages which appear to be of no more use to him for the ordinary purposes of life, than are the tail feathers to the peacock. I am indebted for most of the following facts to the kindness of Dr. Gunther. There is reason to suspect that many tropical fishes differ sexually in colour and structure; and there are some striking cases with our British fishes. The male Callionymus lyra has been called the gemmeous dragonet “from its brilliant gem-like colours.” When fresh caught from the sea the body is yellow of various shades, striped and spotted with vivid blue on the head; the dorsal fins are pale brown with dark longitudinal bands; the ventral, caudal, and anal fins being bluish-black. The female, or sordid dragonet, was considered by Linnaeus, and by many subsequent naturalists, as a distinct species; it is of a dingy reddish-brown, with the dorsal fin brown and the other fins white. The sexes differ also in the proportional size of the head and mouth, and in the position of the eyes (12. I have drawn up this description from Yarrell’s ‘British Fishes,’ vol. i. 1836, pp. 261 and 266.); but the most striking difference is the extraordinary elongation in the male (Fig. 29) of the dorsal fin. Mr. W. Saville Kent remarks that this “singular appendage appears from my observations of the species in confinement, to be subservient to the same end as the wattles, crests, and other abnormal adjuncts of the male in gallinaceous birds, for the purpose of fascinating their mates.” (13. ‘Nature,’ July 1873, p. 264.) The young males resemble the adult females in structure and colour. Throughout the genus Callionymus (14. ‘Catalogue of Acanth. Fishes in the British Museum,’ by Dr. Gunther, 1861, pp. 138-151.), the male is generally much more brightly spotted than the female, and in several species, not only the dorsal, but the anal fin is much elongated in the males.

The male of the Cottus scorpius, or sea-scorpion, is slenderer and smaller than the female. There is also a great difference in colour between them. It is difficult, as Mr. Lloyd (15. ‘Game Birds of Sweden,’ etc., 1867, p. 466.) remarks, “for any one, who has not seen this fish during the spawning-season, when its hues are brightest, to conceive the admixture of brilliant colours with which it, in other respects so ill-favoured, is at that time adorned.” Both sexes of the Labrus mixtus, although very different in colour, are beautiful; the male being orange with bright blue stripes, and the female bright red with some black spots on the back.

[Fig. 30. Xiphophorus Hellerii. Upper figure, male; lower figure, female.]

In the very distinct family of the Cyprinodontidae—inhabitants of the fresh waters of foreign lands—the sexes sometimes differ much in various characters. In the male of the Mollienesia petenensis (16. With respect to this and the following species I am indebted to Dr. Gunther for information: see also his paper on the ‘Fishes of Central America,’ in ‘Transact. Zoological Soc.’ vol. vi. 1868, p. 485.), the dorsal fin is greatly developed and is marked with a row of large, round, ocellated, bright-coloured spots; whilst the same fin in the female is smaller, of a different shape, and marked only with irregularly curved brown spots. In the male the basal margin of the anal fin is also a little produced and dark coloured. In the male of an allied form, the Xiphophorus Hellerii (Fig. 30), the inferior margin of the caudal fin is developed into a long filament, which, as I hear from Dr. Gunther, is striped with bright colours. This filament does not contain any muscles, and apparently cannot be of any direct use to the fish. As in the case of the Callionymus, the males whilst young resemble the adult females in colour and structure. Sexual differences such as these may be strictly compared with those which are so frequent with gallinaceous birds. (17. Dr. Gunther makes this remark; ‘Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum,’ vol. iii. 1861, p. 141.)

[Fig.31. Plecostomus barbatus. Upper figure, head of male; lower figure, female.]

In a siluroid fish, inhabiting the fresh waters of South America, the Plecostomus barbatus (18. See Dr. Gunther on this genus, in ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society,’ 1868, p. 232.) (Fig. 31), the male has its mouth and inter-operculum fringed with a beard of stiff hairs, of which the female shows hardly a trace. These hairs are of the nature of scales. In another species of the same genus, soft flexible tentacles project from the front part of the head of the male, which are absent in the female. These tentacles are prolongations of the true skin, and therefore are not homologous with the stiff hairs of the former species; but it can hardly be doubted that both serve the same purpose. What this purpose may be, it is difficult to conjecture; ornament does not here seem probable, but we can hardly suppose that stiff hairs and flexible filaments can be useful in any ordinary way to the males alone. In that strange monster, the Chimaera monstrosa, the male has a hook-shaped bone on the top of the head, directed forwards, with its end rounded and covered with sharp spines; in the female “this crown is altogether absent,” but what its use may be to the male is utterly unknown. (19. F. Buckland, in ‘Land and Water,’ July 1868, p. 377, with a figure. Many other cases could be added of structures peculiar to the male, of which the uses are not known.)

The structures as yet referred to are permanent in the male after he has arrived at maturity; but with some Blennies, and in another allied genus (20. Dr. Gunther, ‘Catalogue of Fishes,’ vol. iii. pp. 221 and 240.), a crest is developed on the head of the male only during the breeding-season, and the body at the same time becomes more brightly-coloured. There can be little doubt that this crest serves as a temporary sexual ornament, for the female does not exhibit a trace of it. In other species of the same genus both sexes possess a crest, and in at least one species neither sex is thus provided. In many of the Chromidae, for instance in Geophagus and especially in Cichla, the males, as I hear from Professor Agassiz (21. See also ‘A Journey in Brazil,’ by Prof. and Mrs. Agassiz, 1868, p. 220.), have a conspicuous protuberance on the forehead, which is wholly wanting in the females and in the young males. Professor Agassiz adds, “I have often observed these fishes at the time of spawning when the protuberance is largest, and at other seasons when it is totally wanting, and the two sexes shew no difference whatever in the outline of the profile of the head. I never could ascertain that it subserves any special function, and the Indians on the Amazon know nothing about its use.” These protuberances resemble, in their periodical appearance, the fleshy carbuncles on the heads of certain birds; but whether they serve as ornaments must remain at present doubtful.

I hear from Professor Agassiz and Dr. Gunther, that the males of those fishes, which differ permanently in colour from the females, often become more brilliant during the breeding-season. This is likewise the case with a multitude of fishes, the sexes of which are identical in colour at all other seasons of the year. The tench, roach, and perch may be given as instances. The male salmon at this season is “marked on the cheeks with orange-coloured stripes, which give it the appearance of a Labrus, and the body partakes of a golden orange tinge. The females are dark in colour, and are commonly called black-fish.” (22. Yarrell, ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, pp. 10, 12, 35.) An analogous and even greater change takes place with the Salmo eriox or bull trout; the males of the char (S. umbla) are likewise at this season rather brighter in colour than the females. (23. W. Thompson, in ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural History,’ vol. vi. 1841, p. 440.) The colours of the pike (Esox reticulatus) of the United States, especially of the male, become, during the breeding-season, exceedingly intense, brilliant, and iridescent. (24. ‘The American Agriculturalist,’ 1868, p. 100.) Another striking instance out of many is afforded by the male stickleback (Gasterosteus leiurus), which is described by Mr. Warington (25. ‘Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist.’ Oct. 1852.), 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.

With respect to the courtship of fishes, other cases have been observed since the first edition of this book appeared, besides that already given of the stickleback. Mr. W.S. Kent says that the male of the Labrus mixtus, which, as we have seen, differs in colour from the female, makes “a deep hollow in the sand of the tank, and then endeavours in the most persuasive manner to induce a female of the same species to share it with him, swimming backwards and forwards between her and the completed nest, and plainly exhibiting the greatest anxiety for her to follow.” The males of Cantharus lineatus become, during the breeding-season, of deep leaden-black; they then retire from the shoal, and excavate a hollow as a nest. “Each male now mounts vigilant guard over his respective hollow, and vigorously attacks and drives away any other fish of the same sex. Towards his companions of the opposite sex his conduct is far different; many of the latter are now distended with spawn, and these he endeavours by all the means in his power to lure singly to his prepared hollow, and there to deposit the myriad ova with which they are laden, which he then protects and guards with the greatest care.” (26. ‘Nature,’ May 1873, p. 25.)

A more striking case of courtship, as well as of display, by the males of a Chinese Macropus has been given by M. Carbonnier, who carefully observed these fishes under confinement. (27. ‘Bulletin de la Societé d’Acclimat.’ Paris, July 1869, and Jan. 1870.) The males are most beautifully coloured, more so than the females. During the breeding-season they contend for the possession of the females; and, in the act of courtship, expand their fins, which are spotted and ornamented with brightly coloured rays, in the same manner, according to M. Carbonnier, as the peacock. They then also bound about the females with much vivacity, and appear by “l’étalage de leurs vives couleurs chercher a attirer l’attention des femelles, lesquelles ne paraissaient indifférentes a ce manège, elles nageaient avec une molle lenteur vers les males et semblaient se complaire dans leur voisinage.” After the male has won his bride, he makes a little disc of froth by blowing air and mucus out of his mouth. He then collects the fertilised ova, dropped by the female, in his mouth; and this caused M. Carbonnier much alarm, as he thought that they were going to be devoured. But the male soon deposits them in the disc of froth, afterwards guarding them, repairing the froth, and taking care of the young when hatched. I mention these particulars because, as we shall presently see, there are fishes, the males of which hatch their eggs in their mouths; and those who do not believe in the principle of gradual evolution might ask how could such a habit have originated; but the difficulty is much diminished when we know that there are fishes which thus collect and carry the eggs; for if delayed by any cause in depositing them, the habit of hatching them in their mouths might have been acquired.

To return to our more immediate subject. The case stands thus: female fishes, as far as I can learn, never willingly spawn except in the presence of the males; and the males never fertilise the ova except in the presence of the females. The males fight for the possession of the females. In many species, the males whilst young resemble the females in colour; but when adult become much more brilliant, and retain their colours throughout life. In other species the males become brighter than the females and otherwise more highly ornamented, only during the season of love. The males sedulously court the females, and in one case, as we have seen, take pains in displaying their beauty before them. Can it be believed that they would thus act to no purpose during their courtship? And this would be the case, unless the females exert some choice and select those males which please or excite them most. If the female exerts such choice, all the above facts on the ornamentation of the males become at once intelligible by the aid of sexual selection.

We have next to inquire whether this view of the bright colours of certain male fishes having been acquired through sexual selection can, through the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes, be extended 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 (28. Bory Saint Vincent, in ‘Dict. Class. d’Hist. Nat.’ tom. ix. 1826, p. 151.), 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 of the genus 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 the aid of selection of any kind. The gold-fish (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. (29. Owing to some remarks on this subject, made in my work ‘On the Variation of Animals under Domestication,’ Mr. W.F. Mayers (‘Chinese Notes and Queries,’ Aug. 1868, p. 123) has searched the ancient Chinese encyclopedias. He finds that gold-fish were first reared in confinement during the Sung Dynasty, which commenced A.D. 960. In the year 1129 these fishes abounded. In another place it is said that since the year 1548 there has been “produced at Hangchow a variety called the fire-fish, from its intensely red colour. It is universally admired, and there is not a household where it is not cultivated, IN RIVALRY AS TO ITS COLOUR, and as a source of profit.”) 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, are we to conclude in regard to the many fishes, both sexes of which are splendidly coloured? Mr. Wallace (30. ‘Westminster Review,’ July 1867, p. 7.) 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 fresh-waters 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 Cyprinidae in India are ornamented with “bright longitudinal lines of various tints.” (31. ‘Indian Cyprinidae,’ by Mr. M’Clelland, ‘Asiatic Researches,’ vol. xix. part ii. 1839, p. 230.) 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 king-fishers, 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 that they were unpalatable, as explained when treating of caterpillars; but it is not, I believe, known that any fish, at least any fresh-water 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 were acquired by the males as a sexual ornament, and were transferred equally, or nearly so, 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, the variations being inherited by his male offspring alone; or whether the female has been specially modified and rendered inconspicuous for the sake of protection, such modifications being inherited only by the females. It is impossible to doubt that colour has been gained by many fishes as a protection: no one can examine the speckled upper surface of a flounder, and overlook its resemblance to the sandy bed of the sea on which it lives. Certain fishes, moreover, can through the action of the nervous system change their colours in adaptation to surrounding objects, and that within a short time. (32. G. Pouchet, ‘L’Institut.’ Nov. 1, 1871, p. 134.) One of the most striking instances ever recorded of an animal being protected by its colour (as far as it can be judged of in preserved specimens), as well as by its form, is that given by Dr. Gunther (33. ‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.’ 1865, p. 327, pl. xiv. and xv.) of a pipe-fish, which, with its reddish streaming filaments, is hardly distinguishable from the sea-weed to which it clings with its prehensile tail. But the question now under consideration is whether the females alone have been modified for this object. We can see that one sex will not be modified through natural selection for the sake of protection more than the other, supposing both to vary, unless one sex is exposed for a longer period to danger, or has less power of escaping from such danger than the other; and it does not appear that with fishes the sexes differ in these respects. As far as there is any difference, the males, from being generally smaller and from wandering more about, are exposed to greater danger than the females; and yet, when the sexes differ, the males are almost always the more conspicuously coloured. The ova are fertilised immediately after being deposited; and when this process lasts for several days, as in the case of the salmon (34. Yarrell, ‘British Fishes,’ vol. ii. p. 11.), the female, during the whole time, is attended by the male. After the ova are fertilised they are, in most cases, left unprotected by both parents, so that the males and females, as far as oviposition is concerned, are equally exposed to danger, and both are equally important for the production of fertile ova; consequently the more or less brightly-coloured individuals of either sex would be equally liable to be destroyed or preserved, and both would have an equal influence on the colours of their offspring.

Certain fishes, belonging to several families, make nests, and some of them take care of their young when hatched. Both sexes of the bright coloured Crenilabrus massa and melops work together in building their nests with sea-weed, shells, etc. (35. According to the observations of M. Gerbe; see Gunther’s ‘Record of Zoolog. Literature,’ 1865, p. 194.) But the males of certain fishes do all the work, and afterwards take exclusive charge of the young. This is the case with the dull-coloured gobies (36. Cuvier, ‘Regne Animal,’ vol. ii. 1829, p. 242.), in which the sexes are not known to differ in colour, and likewise with the sticklebacks (Gasterosteus), in which the males become brilliantly coloured during the spawning season. The male of the smooth-tailed stickleback (G. leiurus) performs the duties of a nurse with exemplary care and vigilance during a long time, and is continually employed in gently leading back the young to the nest, when they stray too far. He courageously drives away all enemies including the females of his own species. It would indeed be no small relief to the male, if the female, after depositing her eggs, were immediately devoured by some enemy, for he is forced incessantly to drive her from the nest. (37. See Mr. Warington’s most interesting description of the habits of the Gasterosteus leiurus in ‘Annals and Magazine of Nat. History,’ November 1855.)

The males of certain other fishes inhabiting South America and Ceylon, belonging to two distinct Orders, have the extraordinary habit of hatching within their mouths, or branchial cavities, the eggs laid by the females. (38. Prof. Wyman, in ‘Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist.’ Sept. 15, 1857. Also Prof. Turner, in ‘Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,’ Nov. 1, 1866, p. 78. Dr. Gunther has likewise described other cases.) I am informed by Professor Agassiz that the males of the Amazonian species which follow this habit, “not only are generally brighter than the females, but the difference is greater at the spawning-season than at any other time.” The species of Geophagus act in the same manner; and in this genus, a conspicuous protuberance becomes developed on the forehead of the males during the breeding-season. With the various species of Chromids, as Professor Agassiz likewise informs me, sexual differences in colour may be observed, “whether they lay their eggs in the water among aquatic plants, or deposit them in holes, leaving them to come out without further care, or build shallow nests in the river mud, over which they sit, as our Pomotis does. It ought also to be observed that these sitters are among the brightest species in their respective families; for instance, Hygrogonus is bright green, with large black ocelli, encircled with the most brilliant red.” Whether with all the species of Chromids it is the male alone which sits on the eggs is not known. It is, however, manifest that the fact of the eggs being protected or unprotected by the parents, has had little or no influence on the differences in colour between the sexes. It is further manifest, in all the cases in which the males take exclusive charge of the nests and young, that the destruction of the brighter-coloured males would be far more influential on the character of the race, than the destruction of the brighter-coloured females; for the death of the male during the period of incubation or nursing would entail the death of the young, so that they could not inherit his peculiarities; yet, in many of these very cases the males are more conspicuously coloured than the females.

In most of the Lophobranchii (Pipe-fish, Hippocampi, etc.) the males have either marsupial sacks or hemispherical depressions on the abdomen, in which the ova laid by the female are hatched. The males also shew great attachment to their young. (39. Yarrell, ‘History of British Fishes,’ vol. ii. 1836, pp. 329, 338.) The sexes do not commonly differ much in colour; but Dr. Gunther believes that the male Hippocampi are rather brighter than the females. The genus Solenostoma, however, offers a curious exceptional case (40. Dr. Gunther, since publishing an account of this species in ‘The Fishes of Zanzibar,’ by Col. Playfair, 1866, p. 137, has re-examined the specimens, and has given me the above information.), for the female is much more vividly-coloured and spotted than the male, and she alone has a marsupial sack and hatches the eggs; so that the female of Solenostoma differs from all the other Lophobranchii in this latter respect, and from almost all other fishes, in being more brightly-coloured than the male. It is improbable that this remarkable double inversion of character in the female should be an accidental coincidence. As the males of several fishes, which take exclusive charge of the eggs and young, are more brightly coloured than the females, and as here the female Solenostoma takes the same charge and is brighter than the male, it might be argued that the conspicuous colours of that sex which is the more important of the two for the welfare of the offspring, must be in some manner protective. But from the large number of fishes, of which the males are either permanently or periodically brighter than the females, but whose life is not at all more important for the welfare of the species than that of the female, this view can hardly be maintained. When we treat of birds we shall meet with analogous cases, where there has been a complete inversion of the usual attributes of the two sexes, and we shall then give what appears to be the probable explanation, namely, that the males have selected the more attractive females, instead of the latter having selected, in accordance with the usual rule throughout the animal kingdom, the more attractive males.

On the whole we may conclude, that with most fishes, in which the sexes differ in colour or in other ornamental characters, the males originally varied, with their variations transmitted to the same sex, and accumulated through sexual selection by attracting or exciting the females. In many cases, however, such characters have been transferred, either partially or completely, to the females. In other cases, again, both sexes have been coloured alike for the sake of protection; but in no instance does it appear that the female alone has had her colours or other characters specially modified for this latter purpose.

The last point which need be noticed is that fishes are known to make various noises, some of which are described as being musical. Dr. Dufosse, who has especially attended to this subject, says that the sounds are voluntarily produced in several ways by different fishes: by the friction of the pharyngeal bones—by the vibration of certain muscles attached to the swim bladder, which serves as a resounding board—and by the vibration of the intrinsic muscles of the swim bladder. By this latter means the Trigla produces pure and long-drawn sounds which range over nearly an octave. But the most interesting case for us is that of two species of Ophidium, in which the males alone are provided with a sound-producing apparatus, consisting of small movable bones, with proper muscles, in connection with the swim bladder. (41. ‘Comptes-Rendus,’ tom. xlvi. 1858, p. 353; tom. xlvii. 1858, p. 916; tom. liv. 1862, p. 393. The noise made by the Umbrinas (Sciaena aquila), is said by some authors to be more like that of a flute or organ, than drumming: Dr. Zouteveen, in the Dutch translation of this work (vol. ii. p. 36), gives some further particulars on the sounds made by fishes.) The drumming of the Umbrinas in the European seas is said to be audible from a depth of twenty fathoms; and the fishermen of Rochelle assert “that the males alone make the noise during the spawning-time; and that it is possible by imitating it, to take them without bait.” (42. The Rev. C. Kingsley, in ‘Nature,’ May 1870, p. 40.) From this statement, and more especially from the case of Ophidium, it is almost certain that in this, the lowest class of the Vertebrata, as with so many insects and spiders, sound-producing instruments have, at least in some cases, been developed through sexual selection, as a means for bringing the sexes together.