and much improved edition of this excellent Manual (1872), Prof. Giekie, the director of the Geological Survey of Scotland, has substituted the nomenclature of Murchison; with the important exception, however, that he follows Hicks and Salter in separating the Menevian from the Lingula-flags, and uniting it with the underlying Harlech rocks (as has been done in the table on page 312), giving to the two the name of Cambrian [loc. cit., pages 526-529], and thus, on good paleontological grounds, extending this name above the horizon admitted by Murchison. Barrande, on the contrary, in his recent essay on trilobites (1871, page 250), makes the Silurian to include not only the Lingulaflags proper (Maentwrog and Dolgelly), but the Menevian, and even a great part of the Harlech rocks themselves (the Cambrian of Murchison and the Geological Survey), for the reason that the primordial fauna has now been shown by Hicks to extend towards their base. This, although consistent with Barrande's previous views as to the extension of the name Silurian, is a still greater violation of historic truth. By thus making the Silurian system of Murchison to include successively the Upper Cambrian and the Middle Cambrian of Sedgwick, and finally his Lower Cambrian, (the Cambrian system of Murchison himself,) we seem to have arrived at a reductio ad absurdum of the Silurian nomenclature; and we may apply to Siluria, as Sedgwick has already done, the apt quotation once used by Conybeare, with reference to the Graywacke of the older geologists, which it replaces; "est Jupiter quodcunque vides."

It would be unjust to conclude this historical sketch of the names Cambrian and Silurian in Geology, without a passing tribute to the venerable Sedgwick, who to-day, at the age of eighty-seven years, still retains unimpaired his great powers of mind, and his interest in the progress of geological science. The labors of his successors in the study of British geology, up to the present time, have only served to confirm the exactitude of his early stratigraphical determinations; and the last results of investigations on both continents unite in showing that in the Cambrian series, as defined by him more than a generation since, he laid, on a sure foundation, the bases of paleozoic geology.

SEXUAL SELECTION IN MAN.

BY H. ALLEYNE NICHOLSON, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.E., Professor of Natural History and Botany in University College, Toronto. "Sexual selection" is the term employed by Darwin to denote a twofold winnowing, to which he believes that the individuals of many species of animals are subjected. On the one hand, certain males being stronger and more powerful than the others, succeed in leaving descendants behind them, whilst other weaker males do not get the opportunity of perpetuating their peculiarities, the female in this case remaining passive. On the other hand, it is believed that in some cases the females have the power of choosing their mates, and that they select such males as please them best, whether this be in consequence of some peculiarity of form, colour, or voice, or as a result of some undefinable attraction. In this process the selection lies with the female, and the male re mains passive, in any other sense than that he does what he can to secure that the choice of the female shall fall upon him instead of upon any other of his rivals. In either case Mr. Darwin believes that great modifications have been produced in this way, and that many animals owe to this cause some of their most striking peculiarities. Mr. Darwin, in fact, has so far abandoned his former belief in the efficacy of "natural selection" as an agent in producing the differences which separate different species of animals, as to admit that some supplementary cause must, in some cases at any rate, be looked for; and this he thinks is to be found in the action, through long periods, of "sexual selection."

Without entering into the question of the extent to which Mr. Darwin's views may be depended on as regards animals, we purpose here very briefly to survey his application of the theory of sexual selection to the case of man. In so doing we shall glance at the leading propositions laid down in Chapters XIX and XX of the "Descent of Man," examining in greater detail those which appear to be of the highest importance. It may as well be premised, however, that there are two distinct aspects to the question of sexual selection, in the case of all animals alike, but especially in the case of man. It is one thing to admit the existence of

VOL. VI.

V

No. 4.

what Mr. Darwin calls "sexual selection," as an actual fact; and in the case of man it is undeniable that such a kind of selection must have existed, whilst it is almost certain that it must have played some important part in the development of the species. It is one thing to admit this; but it is quite another thing to admit that any of the peculiarities which separate man from the brutes are due to this cause. Few will be disposed to deny the existence of selection, both natural and sexual, amongst mankind, but many will be disposed to doubt if any adequate ground has as yet been advanced for the belief that man's distinctive characters have been acquired in consequence of the action of either of these causes. In the case of sexual selection, with which alone we are dealing at present, Mr. Darwin himself admits the weakness of his case, as regards man; and does not hesitate to candidly confess that his views on this subject "want scientific precision." We shall endeavour to show, not only that this is the case, but that some important elements in settling this question have been altogether overlooked; whilst we must fully recognize the ability with which Mr. Darwin supports his views, and the vast research which characterises all his observations on this and kindred topics.

Mr. Darwin begins by pointing out the chief physical differences which distinguish the man from the woman; and he indicates that" as with animals of all classes, so with man, the distinctive characters of the male sex are not fully developed until he is nearly mature; and if emasculated they never appear." It follows from this-as, indeed every one will admit that some of the characters of the male, as his possession of a beard and his bass voice, are characters clearly connected with his relations with the other sex; so that if these relations be disturbed or abolished, they do not appear. A still more striking fact, pointing in the same direction, and showing how certain apparently trivial characters are in both sexes connected with the function of reproduction, is the not uncommon growth of hair to a greater or less extent upon the face of women in whom the reproductive functions have naturally ceased to be active.

A curious consideration, however, arises here. If we take the case of a male who has been emasculated in early life, we find that, more or less perfectly, he retains throughout life some of the characters of his boyhood, which are also common to the female, such as smoothness of skin, a beardless face, and a treble voice. Are we, however, on this account to conclude that we

are dealing with anything but a male? There are the strongest grounds for the belief that the characters which distinguish the two sexes lie far deeper than the mere physical structure. The difference between the male and female, in man at any rate, seems to be a fundamental one, in which the entire nature is involved; and the male, when artificially mutilated, no more ceases to be a male, than a man ceases to be a man when his leg has been amputated. It is true that the mutilation has rendered him imperfect in one very important aspect of his nature; but the difference is bodily, not mental, and he cannot do otherwise than remain a male as regards his essential nature. It is quite true, also, that as in the case of emasculated animals, the bodily incapacity is accompanied by a deficiency in certain mental attributes which minister to the corporeal function. Thus, the mutilated might very possibly be less courageous or pugnacious than the normal man. Still, we cannot believe that the deeper differences which fundamentally separate the man from the woman, are in any way affected by such a mutilation. We should, at any rate, require much more evidence than we hold at present before concluding that such mutilated males are not distinguished by just those mental characters (with the exception of the above) which are afterwards enumerated by Darwin as distinguishing the male from the female in the human species.

cases.

Having discussed the physical differences between the male and female, Mr. Darwin, under the head of "Law of Battle," next endeavours to show that man, in his earlier stages at any rate, must have had to fight for his wife, and that success in marriage must have been to the strongest, in most, if not in all No doubt if this could be shown, there would be a reasonable probability that the race might have been much improved in this way, the strongest and most powerful males leaving the largest number of children, and these inheriting the physical characters to which the success of their fathers was due. We cannot think, however, that Mr. Darwin sufficiently recognizes to what an extent even the lowest savage is something more than a mere animal, and how largely the spiritual element enters into his composition. Taking the savage races known to us and we have no right to speak dogmatically as to the supposed habits of a hypothetical and still more degraded race-Professor Huxley has recently admitted that the intellectual labour of a good hunter or warrior" considerably exceeds that of an ordinary English

man." A much smaller admission would answer our purpose, as all that is here contended for is that the struggle for any coveted object, amongst even the lowest savage races known to us, is in the main a spiritual contest and not a physical one.

Even if we

suppose the struggle to be decided by purely physical arguments, still success would by no means invariably attend the strongest, but would be more likely, in the long run, to fall to the cleverest. In the case of a contest between two male animals, such as two stags, we may believe that the strongest is sure to win; but this would by no means hold good amongst even the lowest savages. No races of men are known to us so degraded as to fight solely with the weapons nature has given. But the moment artificial weapons are employed, the contest becomes essentially one of skill and not of mere strength. In other words, the result of the contest would depend mainly upon the mental characters of the combatants, instead of on their relative physical strength. Take the only case Mr. Darwin adduces in support of his view, namely the case of the North American Indians, of whom Hearne says that the men wrestle for any woman to whom they are attached, and that "of course, the strongest party always carries off the prize." Any one, however, who has ever seen wrestling knows that this last statement does not express a fact. Success in wrestling depends only to a very limited extent upon actual strength or even weight, but almost entirely upon skill. Not only is this the case, but success in wrestling is largely influenced by the possession of certain mental peculiarities, wholly irrespective of mere mechanical adroitness.

Upon the whole, then, it is perhaps safe to conclude that even the actual physical contests between individual men or tribes of men, however savage, are ultimately decided by the mental characters of the competitors, as much as by anything else. We may, however, go further than this. Admitting that women are always likely amongst savage races to constitute a bone of contention for the men to fight over, still we need not admit that success in such a fight would always, or even generally, fall to the strongest. On the contrary, the man most skilful in the use of his weapon, most fertile in resource, with the most inventive genius, and with the most ready use of his tongue, would be at least as likely to win a wife as the biggest and strongest of his competitors. Mere brute strength is not always the ultima ratio even amongst the lowest savages. In some respects savages are