The Truth About Woman

Here, indeed, is a knock-down blow to the theory of the natural superiority of the male. These cases we have examined are certainly extreme, the difference between the sexes is, as we shall see, less marked in many early types. But the existence of these helpless little husbands serves to show the true origin of the male. How often he lived parasitically on the female, his work to aid her in the reproductive process, useful to secure greater variation than could be had by the single-celled process. In other words, the male is of use to the life-scheme in assisting the female to produce progressively fitter forms. She, indeed, created him, his sole function being her impregnation.

Corroborative evidence appears in the contrast which persists in all the higher forms between the relatively large female-cell or germ and the microscopical male-cell or sperm, as also in the absorption of the male cellule by the female cellule. In the sexual cells there is no character in which differentiation goes so far as that of size.[24] The female cell is always much larger than the male; where the former is swollen with the reserve food, the spermatozoa may be less than a millionth of its volume. In the human species an ovum is about 3000 times as large as spermatozoa.[25] The male cellule, differentiated to enable it to reach the female, impregnates and becomes fused within her cellule, which, unlike hers, preserves its individuality and continues as the main source of life.

It is true that exceptions occur, sex-parasitism appearing in both sex forms, and in some cases it is the female who degenerates and becomes wholly passive and dependent, but this is usually under conditions which afford in themselves an explanation. Thus, in the troublesome thread-worm (Heterodera schachtii), which infests the turnip plant, the sexes are at first alike, then both become parasitic, but the adult male recovers himself, is agile and like other thread-worms, while the female remains a parasitic victim without power of function—a mere passive, distended bag of eggs. Another extreme but well-known example is that of the cochineal insect, where the female, laden with reserve products in the form of the well-known pigment, spends much of its life like a mere quiescent gall on the cactus plant; the male, on the other hand, is active, though short-lived. Among other insects—such, for example, as certain ticks—a very complete form of female parasitism prevails; and while the male remains a complex, highly active, winged creature, the female, fastening itself into the flesh of some living animal and sucking its blood, has lost wings and all activity and power of locomotion, having become a mere distended bladder, which, when filled with eggs, bursts and ends a parasitic existence that has hardly been life.[26] In many crustaceans, again, the females are parasitic, but this also is explained by their habit of seeking shelter for egg-laying purposes.[27]

The whole question of sex-parasitism as it appears in these first pages of the life-histories of sexes is one of deep suggestion; and one, moreover, that casts forward sharp side-lights on modern sex problems. In some early forms, where the conditions of life are similar for the two sexes, the male and the female are often like one another. Thus it is very difficult to distinguish a male starfish from a female starfish, or a male sea-urchin from a female sea-urchin. It becomes abundantly clear that degeneration in active function, whether it be that of the male or the female, is the inevitable nemesis of parasitism. The males and females in the cases we have examined may be said to be martyrs to their respective sexes.

A further truth of the utmost importance becomes manifest. Many differences between the relative position of the sexes, which we are apt to suppose are inherent in the female or male, are not inherent, in light of these early and varying types. We see that the sex-relationship and the character of the female and male assume different forms, changing as the conditions of life vary. Again and again when we come to examine the position of women in different periods of civilisation, we shall find that whenever the conditions of life have tended to withdraw them from the social activities of labour, restricting them, like these early sex-victims, to the passive exercise of their reproductive functions alone, that such parasitism has resulted invariably in the degeneration of woman, and through her passing on such deterioration to her sons, there has followed, after a longer or shorter period, the degeneration of society. But these questions belong to the later part of our inquiry, and cannot be entered on here. Yet it were well to fix in our minds at once the dangers, without escape, that follow sex-parasitism.

It may be thought that these cases of sex-victims are exceptions, and that, therefore, it is unsafe to draw conclusions from them. The truth would rather seem to be that they are extreme examples of conditions that were common at one stage of life. There is no doubt that up to the level of the amphibians female superiority in size, and often in power of function, prevails.[28] If, for example, we look at insects generally, the males are smaller than the females, especially in the imago state. There are many species, belonging to different orders—as, for instance, certain moths and butterflies—in which this superiority is very marked. The males are either not provided with any functional organs for eating, or have these imperfectly developed. It seems evident that their sole function is to fertilise the female. A familiar and interesting example is furnished by the common mosquitoes, among whom the female alone, with its harmful sting, is known to the unscientific world. The males, frail and weaponless little creatures, swarm with the females in the early summer, and then pass away, their work being done.

Dr. Howard, writing of the mosquito in America, says—

We find many examples of such structural modifications acquired for the purpose of adapting the sexes to different modes of life. Darwin notes that the females of certain flies are blood-suckers, whilst the males, living on flowers, have mouths destitute of mandibles.[30] The females are carnivorous, the males herbivorous. It would be easy to bring forward many further examples among the invertebrates in which the differences between the sexes indicates very clearly the persistence of female superiority. But for these I must refer the reader to the works of Darwin and other entomologists, and to the many interesting cases given by Professor Lester Ward. There are, it is true, exceptions, but these may be explained by the conditions under which the species live.

Even when we ascend the scale to back-boned animals, cases are not wanting in which the early superiority in size of the female remains unaltered. The smallest known vertebrate, Heterandria formosa, has females very considerably larger than the males.[31] Among fishes the males are commonly smaller than the females, who are also, as a rule, considerably more numerous.[32] This is a fact that fishermen are well aware of. I may mention, as an example, that on one occasion when my husband and I caught twenty-five trout in a mountain lake in Wales there were only two males among them. It is curious to find that any care of offspring that is evident among fishes is usually paternal. This furnishes another instance of the truth so necessary to learn that the sex-relationships may assume almost any form to suit the varying conditions of life.

There are some mammals among whom the sexes do not differ appreciably in size and strength, and very little or not at all, in coloration and ornament. Such is the case with nearly all the great family of rodents. It is also the case with the Erinaceidæ, or at least with its typical sub-family of hedgehogs.[33] Even among birds, where the sex instincts have attained to their highest and most æsthetic expression, we find some large families—as, for example, the hawks—in which the female is usually the larger and finer bird.[34] Thus the adult male of the common sparrow-hawk is much smaller than the female, the length of the male being 13 ins., wing 7.7 ins., and that of the female 15.4 ins., wing 9 ins. The male peregrine, known to hawkers as the tiercel, is greatly inferior in size to his mate. The merlin, the osprey, the falcon, the spotted eagle, the golden eagle, the gos-hawk, the harrier, the buzzard, the eagle-owl, and other species of owls are further examples where the female bird is larger than the male. Among many of these families the female birds very closely resemble the males, and where differences in colour and ornament do occur, they are slight.

A further point of the greatest importance to us requires to be made. Wherever amongst the birds the sexes are alike the habits of their lives are also alike. The female as well as the male obtains food, the nest is built together, and the young are cared for by both parents. These beautiful examples of sex equality among the birds cannot be regarded as exceptions that have arisen by chance—a reversal of the usual rule of the sexes; rather they show the persistence of the earlier relations between the female and the male carried to a finer development under conditions of life favourable to the female. I will not here say more upon this subject, as I shall have to refer to it in greater detail when we come to consider the sexual and familial habits of birds. I will only add that in their delicacy and devotion to each other and to their offspring, birds in their unions have advanced to a much further stage than we have in our marriages. These associations of our ancestral lovers claim our attentive study.

II.—Two Examples—The Beehive and the Spider

For vividness of argument I wish in a brief section of this chapter to make a digression from our main inquiry to bring forward two examples—extreme cases of the imperious action of the sexual instincts—in which we see the sexes driven to the performance of their functions under peculiar conditions. Both occur among the invertebrates. I have left the consideration of them until now because of the instructive light they throw upon what we are trying to prove in this first attack on the validity of the common estimate of the true position of the sexes in Nature. Let us begin with the familiar case of the bees. As every one knows, these truly wonderful insects belong to a highly evolved and complex society, which may be said to represent a very perfected and extreme socialism. In this society the vast majority of the population—the workers—are sterile females, and of the drones, or males, only a very few at the most are ever functional. Reproduction is carried on by the queen-mother. The lesson to be drawn from the beehive is that such an organisation has evolved a quite extraordinary sacrifice of the individual members, notably in the submergence of the personal needs of sex-function, to its wider racial end. It is from this line of thought that I wish to consider it. We have (1) the drones, the fussing males, useless except for their one duty of fertilisation, and this function only a few actively perform; thus, if they become at all numerous they are killed off by the workers, so that the hives may be rid of them; (2) the queen, an imprisoned mother, specialised for maternity, her sole work the laying of the eggs, and incapable of any other function; her brain and mind of the humblest order, she being unable even to feed and care for her offspring; (3) the great body of unsexed workers, the busy sisters, whose duty is to rear the young and carry out all the social activities of the hive.

What a strange, perplexing life-history! What a sacrifice of the sexes to each other and to the life-force.[35] It seems probable that these active workers have even succeeded in getting rid of sexual needs. Yet the maternal instinct persists in them, and has survived the productive function; it may, indeed, be said to be enlarged and ennobled, for their affection is not confined to their own offspring, but goes out to all the young of the association. In this community one care takes precedence of all others, the care and rearing of the young. This is the workers' constant occupation; this is the great duty to which their lives are sacrificed. With them maternal love has expanded into social affection. The strength of this sentiment is abundantly proved. The queen-bee, the feeble mother, has the greatest possible care lavished upon her, and is publicly mourned when she dies. If through any ill-chance she happens to perish before the performance of her maternal duties, and then cannot be replaced, the sterile workers evince the most terrible grief, and in some cases themselves die. It would almost seem that they value motherhood more for being themselves deprived of it.

Now, how does this history from the bee-hive apply to us? Here you have before you, old as the world itself, one of the most urgent problems that has to be faced in our difficult modern society. I have little doubt that something which is at least analogous to the sterilisation of the female bees is present among ourselves. The complexity of our social conditions, resulting in the great disproportion between the number of the sexes, has tended to set aside a great number of women from the normal expression of their sex functions. Among these women a class appears to be arising who are turning away voluntarily from love and motherhood. Many of them are undoubtedly women of fine character. These "Intellectuals" suggest that women shall keep themselves free from the duties of maternity and devote their energies thus conserved, to their own emancipation and for work in the world which needs them so badly. But the biological objection to any such proposition is not far to seek. No one who thinks straight can countenance a plan which thus leaves maternity to the less intellectual woman—to a docile, domestic type, the parallel of the stupid parasitic queen-bee. Mind counts in the valuation of offspring as well as physical qualities. The splitting of one sex into two contrasted varieties, which we see in its completed development in the bee-hive, cannot be an ideal that can even be worth while for us. It means an end to all further progress.

There is another group of women who wish to bear children, but who seem to be anxious to reduce the father to the position of the drone-bee. He is to have no part in the child after its birth. The duty of caring for it and bringing it up is to be undertaken by the mother, aided, when necessary, by the State. This is a terrible injustice against the father and the child. It seems to me to be the great and insuperable difficulty against any scheme of State Endowment of Motherhood. I cannot enter into this question now, and will only state my belief that a child belongs by natural right to both its parents. The primitive form of the matriarchal family, which we shall study later, is realised in its most exaggerated form by the bees and ants. In human societies we find only imitations of this system. And here, again, there is a lesson necessary for us to remember. Any ideal that takes the father from the child, and the child from its father, giving it only to the mother, is a step backward and not forward.

And in case any woman is inclined still to admire the position of the female worker-bees, so free in labour, being liberated from sexual activity, it were well to consider the sacrifice at which such freedom is gained. These workers have highly-developed brains, but most of them die young. Nor must we forget that each one carries her poisoned sting—no new or strange weapon, but a transformation of a part of her very organ of maternity—the ovipositor, or egg-placer, with which the queen-mother lays each egg in its appointed place.[36]

Do "the Intellectuals" understand what they really want? Those women who are raising the cry increasingly for individual liberty, without considering the results which may follow from such a one-sided growth both to themselves and to the race—let them pause to remember the price paid by the sterile worker-bee. Is it unfair to suggest that any such shirking for the gains of personal freedom of their woman's right and need of love and child-bearing may lead in the psychical sphere to a result similar to the transformation of the sex-organ of the bee; and that, giving up the power of life, they will be left the possessor of the stinging weapon of death! Some such considerations may help women to decide whether it is better to be a mother or a sterile worker.

The second example I want to consider is that of the common spider, whose curious courtship customs are described by Darwin.[37] Here we find the relatively gigantic female seizing and devouring the tiny male fertiliser, as he seeks to perform the only duty for which he exists. This is a case of female superiority carried to a savage conclusion. The male in these courtships often has to risk his life many times, and it seems only to be by an accident that he ever escapes alive from the embraces of his infuriated partner. I will give an example, taken from the mantes, or praying insect, where, though the difference in size between the sexes is much less than among many spiders, the ferocity of the female is extraordinary. This case is quoted by Professor Lester Ward,[38] who gives it on the authority of Dr. L.O. Howard, one of the best-known entomologists—

You will think, perhaps, that this extreme case of female ferocity has little bearing upon our sexual passions. But consider. I have not quoted it, as is done by Professor Ward, to prove the existence of the superiority of the female in Nature. No, rather I want to suggest a lesson that may be wrested by us from these first courtships in the life histories of the sexes. I spoke at the beginning of this biological section of my book of the warnings that surely would come as we traced the evolution of our love-passions from those of our pre-human ancestors. We are too apt to ignore the tremendous force that the sex-impulse has gathered from its incalculably long history. As animals exhibit in their love-matings the analogies of the human virtue, it is not surprising to find the occurrence of parallel vices. Let us look for a moment at this in the light of the fierce love-contest of the female spider.

Of this habit there are various explanations; the prevalent one regards the spider as an anomalous exception; the ferocity and superiority of size in the female not easily to be explained. This is, I think, not so. Is it not rather a picture, with the details crudely emphasised, of the action of Life-Force of which the sexes are both the helpless victims? Whether we look backward to the beginning, where the exhausted male-cell seeks the female in incipient sexual union, or onwards through the long stages of sex-evolution to our own love-passions, this is surely true.

Let me try to make this clearer by an example. It would seem but a small step from the female spider, so ruthlessly eating up her lover, to the type of woman celebrated by Mr. Bernard Shaw's immortal Ann. I recall a woman friend saying to me once, "We may not like it, and, of course, we refuse to own to it, but there is something of Ann in every woman." I need not recall to you Ann's pursuit of her victim, Tanner, nor his futile efforts to escape. Here, as so often he has done, Mr. Shaw has presented us in comedy with a philosophy of life. You believe, perhaps, the fiction, still brought forward by many who ought to know better, that in love woman is passive and waits for man to woo her. I think no woman in her heart believes this. She knows, by instinct, that Nature has unmistakably made her the predominant partner in all that relates to the perpetuation of the race; she knows this in spite of all fictions set up by men. Have they done this, as Mr. Shaw suggests, to protect themselves against a too humiliating aggressiveness of the woman in following the driving of the Life-Force? This pretence of male superiority in the sexual relation is so shallow that it is strange how it can have imposed on any one.

I wish to state here quite definitely what I hold to be true; the condition of female superiority with which sexuality began has in this connection persisted. In every case the relation between woman and man is the same—she is the pursuer, he the pursued and disposed of. Nothing can or should alter this. The male from the very beginning has been of use from Nature's point of view by assisting the female to carry on life. It is the fierce hunger of the male, increasing in strength through the long course of time, which places him in woman's power. Man is the slave of woman, often when least he thinks so, and still woman uses her power, even like the spider, not infrequently, for his undoing.

Here, indeed, is a warning causing us to think. The touch of Nature that makes the whole world kin is nowhere more manifest than in sex; that absorption of the male by the female to which life owes its continuation, its ecstasy, and its pain. It has seemed to me it is here in the primitive relations of the sexes that we may find the clue to many of those wrongs which women have suffered at the hands of men. Man, acting instinctively, has rebelled, not so much, I think, against woman as against this driving hunger within himself, which forces him helpless into her power. Like the fish that cannot resist the fly of the fisherman, even when experience has taught him to fear the hidden barb, he struggles and fights for his life to escape as he realises too late the net into which his hunger has brought him.

But we may learn more than this; another truth of even deeper importance to us. It is because of this superiority of the female in the sexual relationship that women must be granted their claim for emancipation. Here is the reason stronger than all others. Nature has placed in women's hands so tremendous a power that the dangers are too great for such power to be left to the direction of untrained and unemancipated women. Above all it is necessary that each woman understands her own sexual nature, and also that of her lover, that she may realise in full knowledge the tremendous force of sexual-hunger which drives him to her, equalled, as I believe, by the desire within herself, which claims him to fulfil through her Nature's great central purpose of continuing the race. To women has been granted the guardianship of the Life-Force. It is time that each woman asks herself how she is fulfilling this trust.

It is the possession of this power in the sexual sphere which lends real importance to even the feeblest attempts of women to prepare themselves to meet the duties in the new paths that are being opened to them. Women have now entered into labour. They are claiming freedom to develop themselves by active participation in that struggle with life and its conditions whereby men have gained their development. From thousands of women to-day the cry is rising, "Give us free opportunity, and the training that will fit us for freedom." Not, as so many have mistakenly thought, that women may compete with men in a senseless struggle for mastery, but in order first to learn, and afterwards to perform, that work in society which they can do better than men. What such work is it must be women's purpose to find out. But before this is possible to be decided all fields of activity must be open for them to enter. And this women must claim, not for themselves chiefly; but because they are the bearers of race-life, and also to save men from any further misuse of their power. Then working together as lovers and comrades, women and men may come to understand and direct those deep-rooted forces of sex, which have for so long driven them helpless to the wastage of life and love.

I would ask all those who deny this modern claim of women to consider in all seriousness the two cases I have brought forward—that of the bee-hives, and even more the destruction by the female spider of her male lover. That they have their parallel in our society to-day is a fact that few will deny. I have tried to show the real danger that lurks in every form of sex-parasitism. It would lead us too far from our purpose to comment in further detail on the suggestions offered by these curious examples of sex-martyrs among our earliest ancestral lovers. Those whose eyes are not blinded will not fail to see.

FOOTNOTES:

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IV

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

CHAPTER IVToC

THE EARLY RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXES

What is the practical outcome to us of this early relation of the sexes in Nature's scheme?

In attempting to answer this question it will be necessary to take an apparently circuitous route, going back over some of the ground that already has been covered; to examine in further detail the process of sexual love as it presents itself among our pre-human ancestors. It is well worth while to do this. If we can find in this way an answer, we shall come very near to solving many of the most difficult of woman's problems. At the same time we shall have made clear how deep-rooted are the foundations of those passions of sex which agitate the human heart, and are still the most powerful force amongst us to-day.

In the light of the facts I have briefly summarised, we have been able in the former chapters to indicate how sexuality began, with the male element developed from the primary female organism, his sole function being her impregnation; how this was seized upon and continued through the advantage gained by the mixing of the two germ-plasms, which, on the whole, resembling one another somewhat closely, yet differ in details, and thus introduce new opportunities of progress into the life-elements; and how, in this way, differentiation of function between the male and the female was set up. We saw, further, how the development of the male, at first often living parasitically upon the female, continued; but how, under certain conditions of life, such parasitism was transferred to the female, so that it is she who is sacrificed to the sex function; and, lastly, taking the extreme cases of the bee-hive and the spider, we suggested certain warnings to be drawn from these early parasitic relations between the sexes. It is necessary now to penetrate deeper; to trace more fully the evolution of the sexual passion, which, from this line of thought, may be said to be the process which carried on the development and modification of the male, creating him—as surely we may believe—by the love-choice of the female. To do this we have once more to return to the consideration, under a somewhat new aspect, of the relative position of the female and the male in their love-courtships in some examples among the humbler types of animal life. After these have been considered, not only in themselves, but in the relation they bear to the higher forms which developed from them, we shall be in a surer position to re-ascend the ladder of life. We shall come to understand the biological significance of love—something of the complexity and beauty and force of the passions that we have inherited. We shall find also the causes, so important to us, which led to the reversal of the early superiority of the female in size and often in function, replacing it by the superiority of the male. Then, and then only, shall we be ready to approach the difficult problems of the sexual differences which have persisted, separating women from men among human races, and to estimate if these differences are to be considered as belonging essentially to the female and the male, or whether they have arisen through special environmental causes.

If we look back anew to the very start of sexuality, where two cells flow together, thereby to continue life, we find the very simplest expression of the sex-appetite. There is what may be called instinctive physical attraction, and the whole process is very much a satisfaction of protoplasmic hunger.[39] Now it was, of course, a long step from this incipient cell-union to the varied function of sex in animal life, and it was a long process from these to the yet more complex manifestation of the love-passion among men. But in reality the source of all love is the same; throughout the entire relations of the sexes we find this cell-hunger instinct; in every case, it matters not how fine and ennobling the love may be, the single, original, impelling motive is the union of two cells—the male element and the female driven to seek one another to continue life. I find it necessary to insist on this physical basis of all love. Women are so apt to go astray. It is one of the vicious tendencies of the female mind to think that the needs of sex are something to be resisted. Let us face the truth that this great force of love has its roots fastened in cell-hunger, and it dies when its roots are cut away.

It is evident that at first this sex-appetite cannot have been purposive, but acted subconsciously by a kind of interaction between the want of the organism and its power of function. Even in many complex multicellular organisms the liberation of the sex-elements continues very passive; and although the differentiation of the sexual-cells is already complete in plants and animals comparatively low in the scale, it at first makes little difference in the development of the other parts of the individual. Among many lower animals, and most plants, each individual develops within itself both kinds of cells—that is, female and male. This union of the two sex functions in one organism is known as hermaphroditism. There is little doubt that it was once common to all organisms, an intermediate stage in the sex-progress, after the differentiation of the sexes had been accomplished.

Hermaphroditism must be regarded as a temporary or transitional form.[40] It is found persisting in various degrees in many species—snails, earth-worms, and leeches, for example, can act alternately as what we call male and female. Other animals are hermaphrodite in their young stages, though the sexes are separate in adult life, as, for example, tadpoles, where the bisexuality of youth sometimes linger into adult life. Cases of partial hermaphroditism are very common, while in many species which are normally unisexual, a casual or abnormal hermaphroditism occurs—this may be seen in the common frog, and is frequent among certain fishes, when sometimes the fish is male on one side and female on the other, or male anteriorly and female posteriorly.[41]

There would seem to be a constant tendency to escape from these early and experimental methods of reproduction, and to secure true sexual union, with complete separation of the sexes and differences in the parents. We have noticed the many instances of tiny complemental males, in connection with hermaphrodite forms, which, as Darwin states, must have arisen from the advantage ensuring cross-fertilisation in the females who harbour them. Even among hermaphrodite slugs we find very definite evidence of the advance of love; and in certain species an elaborate process of courtship, taking the form of slow and beautiful movements, precedes the act of reproduction.[42] Some snails, again, are provided with a special organ, a slightly twisted limy dart, which is used to stimulate sexual excitement.[43] What do such marvellous manifestations, low down in the ladder of life, go to prove, if not that there must be the closest identity between the development of life and the evolution of love?

These examples of hermaphrodite love lead us forward to a further step, where no reproduction takes place without the special activity and conjugation of two kinds of specialised cells, and these two kinds are carried about by separate individuals. In some species—fishes, for example—the two kinds of special cells meet outside the bodies of the parents. At this humble level the sexes are in many cases very like one another, and there is, as we should expect, a good deal of haphazard in the production of offspring. Among fishes, for instance, the eggs and sperms are liberated into the sea, or the shallow bed of a river, and, if the sperms (the milt of the males) are placed near to the spot where the eggs (the spawn) have been laid, fertilisation occurs, for within a short distance the sperms are attracted—in a way that is imperfectly understood—to enter the eggs. By this method there is of necessity great waste in the production of offspring, many thousands of eggs are never fertilised. The union of the sexual cells must be something more than haphazard for further development. There must be some reason inherent in the female or male inducing to the act of reproduction. In other words, there must be a psychic interest preceding the sex act. In this way a higher grade is reached when the presence of one sex attracts the other. Gradually the female and the male begin to associate in pairs.

We may illustrate this important step in the evolution of love by reference to the familiar case of the salmon. The male courts the female and is her attendant during the breeding season, fertilising the deposited ova in her presence. He guards her from the attention of all other males, fighting all rivals fiercely, with a special weapon, developed at this time, in the form of a hooked lower jaw with teeth often more than half-an-inch long. Darwin records a case, told to him by a river-keeper, where he found three hundred dead male salmon, all killed through battle.[44] Thus even among cold-blooded fishes (though it may appear folly to use the word "love" in this connection) a very clear likeness with our human sex-passions can be traced.

Sex differences now become more frequent. The males are in some cases distinguished by bright colours and ornamental appendages. During their amours and duels certain male fishes flash with beautiful and glowing colours. Reptiles exhibit the same form of sexual-passion, and jealous combat of rival males. The rattle of certain snakes is supposed to act as a love-call. Snakes of different sexes appear to feel some affection for each other when confined together in cages. Romanes relates the interesting fact that when a cobra is killed, its mate is often found on the spot a day or two afterwards. Darwin cites an instance of the pairing in spring of a Chinese species of lizard, where the couples appear to have considerable fondness for one another. If one is captured, the other drops from the tree to the ground and allows itself to be caught, presumably from despair.[45]

A further development is reached by those animals among whom what has well been called "the note of physical fondness" is first sounded. We find the males playing with the female, wooing and caressing her, it may be dancing with her. The love-play is often extraordinary,[46] as, for instance, in the well-known case of the stickleback. Not only does the male woo the female with passionate dances, but by means of its own secretions it builds a nest in the river weeds. The males at this season are transformed, glowing with brilliant colours, and literally putting on a wedding garment of love. The stickleback is passionate, polygamous and very jealous of rivals. His guardianship of the nest and vigilance in protecting the young cannot be observed without admiration.

It is certainly significant to find one of the earliest instances of genuine parental affection exhibited by the male. This reversal of the usual rôle of the sexes is common among fishes, among whom care of offspring is very little developed. In some species the eggs are carried about by the father—the male sea-horse, for instance, has a pouch developed for this purpose; in other cases the male incubates, or cares for the ova. Sometimes, however, it is the female who performs this duty, but the known cases are few.[47] Some exceedingly curious examples of male parental care occur among the amphibians. One of the most interesting is that of the obstetric frog, where the male helps to remove the eggs from the female, then twists them in the coils around its hind legs and buries himself in the water, until the incubation period is over and the tadpoles escape and relieve him of his burden. In other species the croaking sacs of the males, which were previously used for amatory callings, become enlarged to form cradles for the young. There are also instances of the female co-operating with the male in this care of offspring. Thus in the Surinam toad the male spreads the ova on the back of the female, where skin cavities form in which the tadpoles develop. In other cases the eggs are carried in the dorsal pouches of the females. It would almost seem that in this early time Nature was making experiments as to which parent was the better fitted to rear and protect the young!

But let us return to our present examination of animal love-making. In many diverse forms there is a very remarkable courtship of touch, often prolonged and with beautiful refinements, before the climax is reached, when the two bodies unite. Racovitza[48] has beautifully described the courtship of the octopus, which is carried out with considerable delicacy, and not brutally as before had been believed.