WCP1886

Letter (WCP1886.1776)

[1]

Down.

Bromley.

Kent. S.E.

Feb. 22nd. [1868]1

My dear Wallace

I am hard at work on sexual selection & am driven half mad by the number of collateral points which enquire investigation, such as relative number of the two sexes, & especially on polygamy. Can you aid me with respect to birds which have strongly marked secondary [2] sexual characters, such as Birds of Paradise, Humming-birds, the Rupicola or Rock thrush, or any other such cases. Many Gallinaceous Birds certainly are polygamous. I suppose that a birds can be told said may be known not to be polygamous if they are seen during the whole breeding season to associate in pairs, or if the male incubates, or aid in feeding the young.

Will you have the kindness to turn this in your mind; but it is a shame to trouble you now that, as I am heartily glad [3] to hear, you are at work on your Malayan travels. I am fearfully puzzled how far to extend your protective views with respect to the females in various classes. The more I work the more important sexual selection apparently comes out.

Can butterflies be polygamous? ie will one male impregnate more than one female? Forgive me troubling you & I daresay I shall have to ask your forgiveness again, &

believe me, | My dear Wallace, | yours most sincerely | Ch. Darwin [signature]

[4]2 3 P.S. Bates4 has had the kindness to set the Entomol[o]g[ical]. soc[iety].5 discussing the relative numbers of the sexes in insects & has brought out some very curious results

_______________________________

Is Orang polygamous, but I daresay I shall find that in your papers in (I think Annals. & Mag[azine]. of Nat[ural]. Hist[ory].6—

_________________________

1
ARW adds '1869?' as a red crayon annotation at the upp centre of page 1. The correct date of 1868 has been established by the Darwin Correspondence Project see DCP-LETT-5912.
2
A pencil annotation by ARW in the left-hand margin of page 4 adds 'not known males [one illeg. word] alone | females & young in small parties'. ARW's annotations are notes for his reply to Darwin on the 24th of February 1868. See WCP1887_L4077.
3
A pencil annotation by ARW at the bottom of page 4 adds: '3 birds & 12 eggs in a Starling's nest — Hornbills — monogamous I think for life much sexual difference. Parrots — monogamous — often sex[ual]. diff[erence]. (Loriculus) Manucodia keraudreni ♂ convoluted trachea ♀. purple — Nectarinia [?] —- monogamous! Mr Mitten Butterflies — not polyg[amous]. not sex[ual]. selection.'
4
Bates, Henry Walter (1825-1892). British naturalist, explorer and close friend of ARW.
5
Bates served as the president of the Entomological Society of London from 1868 to 1869. On the request of Darwin, Bates proposed the question of the proportion of the sexes in insects to the meeting of the Entomological Society on 17 February 1868. (Crawforth, A. 2009. The Butterfly Hunter: The Life of Henry Walter Bates. Buckingham: The University of Buckingham Press. pp.212-213; Bates, H. W. 1868. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London: ix-xiv.)
6
See Wallace, A. R. 1856. Some Account of an Infant "Orang-utan." Annals and Magazine of Natural History 17 (2nd s.): 386-390 (May 1856: no. 101, 2nd s.); Wallace, A. R. 1856. On the Orang-utan or Mias of Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 17 (2nd s.): 471-476 (June 1856: no. 102, 2nd s.).

Editorial information

Status: Edited (but not proofed) transcription [Letter (WCP1886.1776)]

For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon

Revision history

Transcribed by Darwin Correspondence Project [2012-07-02] Transcription checked by Beros, Matt [2019-12-20]

Published letter (WCP1886.5973)

[1] [p. 194]

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 22, (1868 ?).

My dear Wallace, — I am hard at work on sexual selection and am driven half mad by the number of collateral points which require investigation, such as the relative numbers of the two sexes, and especially on polygamy. Can you aid me with respect to birds which have strongly marked secondary sexual characters, such as birds of paradise, humming-birds, the rupicola or rock thrush, or any other such cases? Many gallinaceous birds certainly are polygamous. I suppose that birds may be known not to be polygamous if they are seen during the whole breeding season to associate in pairs, or if the male incubates, or aids in feeding the young. Will you have the kindness to turn this in your mind? but it is a shame to trouble you now that, as I am heartily glad to hear, you are at work on your Malayan Travels. I am fearfully puzzled how far to extend your protective views with respect to the females in various classes. The more I work, the more important sexual selection apparently comes out.

Can butterflies be polygamous? — i.e. will one male impregnate more than one female?

Forgive me troubling you, and I daresay I shall have to ask your forgiveness again, and believe me, my dear Wallace, yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN.

P.S. — Baker has had the kindness to set the Entomological Society discussing the relative numbers of the sexes in insects, and has brought out some very curious results. [2] Is the orang polygamous? But I daresay I shall find that in your papers in (I think) the Annals and Magazine of Natural History.

Editorial information

Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP1886.5973)]

For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon

Revision history

Transcribed by Congerton, John [2019-12-17]

Please cite as “WCP1886,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 25 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP1886