manner: “Let us for the purpose of illustration take three families as representing an average of the entire tribe; say that one mother gives birth to six daughters and no sons; a second mother has six sons only, while the third mother has three sons and three daughters. The first mother, following the tribal custom, destroys four daughters and preserves two. The second retains her six sons. The third kills two daughters and keeps one, as also her three sons. We have, then, from the three families, nine sons and three daughters with which to continue the breed. But while the males belong to families in which the tendency to produce sons is great, the females are of those of a converse inclination. Thus the bias strengthens with each generation, until, as we find, families grow to have habitually more sons than daughters. That this result would follow from the above form of infanticide seems almost certain; that is, if we assume that a sex-producing tendency is inherited. But as the above numbers are so extremely scanty, I have searched for additional evidence, but cannot decide whether what I have found is trustworthy; nevertheless the facts are, perhaps, worth giving. The Maories of New Zealand have long practiced infanticide; and Mr. Fenton" states that he "has met with instances of women who have destroyed four, six, and even seven children, mostly females. However, the universal testimony of those best qualified to judge is conclusive that this custom has for many years been almost extinct. Probably the year 1835 may be named as the period of its ceasing to exist." Now among the New Zealanders as with the Todas, male births are considerably in excess. Mr. Fenton remarks (p. 30): "One fact is certain, although the exact period of the commencement of this singular condition of the disproportion of the sexes cannot be demonstratively fixed, it is quite clear that this course of decrease was in full operation during the years 1830 to 1844, when 95 “Aborigina Inhabitants of New Zealand; Government Report,” 1859, p. 36. the non-adult population of 1844 was being produced, and has continued with great energy up to the present time."' The following statements are taken from Mr. Fenton (p. 26), but, as the numbers are not large, and as the census was not accurate, uniform results cannot be expected. It should be borne in mind in this and the following cases that the normal state of every population is an excess of women, at least in all civilized countries, chiefly owing to the greater mortality of the male sex during youth, and partly to accidents of all kinds later in life. In 1858 the native population of New Zealand was estimated as consisting of 31,667 males and 24,303 females of all ages, that is in the ratio of 130.3 males to 100 females. But during this same year, and in certain limited districts, the numbers were ascertained with much care, and the males of all ages were here 753 and the females 616; that is in the ratio of 122.2 males to 100 females. It is more important for us that during this same year of 1858 the non-adult males within the same district were found to be 178, and the non-adult females 142, that is in the ratio of 125.3 to 100. It may be added that in 1844, at which period female infanticide had only lately ceased, the non-adult males in one district were 281, and the non-adult females only 194, that is in the ratio of 144.8 males to 100 females. In the Sandwich Islands the males exceed the females in number. Infanticide was formerly practiced there to a frightful extent, but was by no means confined to female infants, as is shown by Mr. Ellis," and as I have been informed by Bishop Staley and the Rev. Mr. Coan. Nevertheless, another apparently trustworthy writer, Mr. Jarves,' whose observations apply to the whole archipelago, remarks: "Numbers of women are to be found who confess to the murder of from three to six or eight children"; and he adds, "females, from being considered less useful than males, were more often destroyed." From what is known to occur in other parts of the world, this statement is prob 96 "Narrative of a Tour through Hawaii," 1826, p. 298. able, but must be received with much caution. The practice of infanticide ceased about the year 1819, when idolatry was abolished and missionaries settled in the islands. A careful census in 1839, of the adult and taxable men and women in the island of Kauai and in one district of Oahu (Jarves, p. 404), gives 4,723 males and 3,776 females; that is in the ratio of 125.08 to 100. At the same time the number of males under fourteen years in Kauai and under eighteen in Oahu was 1,797, and of females of the same ages 1,429; and here we have the ratio of 125.75 males to 100 females. In a census of all the islands in 185098 the males of all ages amounted to 36,272, and the females to 33,128, or as 109.49 to 100. The males under seventeen years amounted to 10,773, and the females under the same age to 9,593, or as 112.3 to 100. From the census of 1872 the proportion of males of all ages (including half-castes) to females is as 125.36 to 100. It must be borne in mind that all these returns for the Sandwich Islands give the proportion of living males to living females, and not of the births; and, judging from all civilized countries, the proportion of males would have been considerably higher if the numbers had referred to births." 99 98 This is given in the Rev. H. T. Cheever's "Life in the Sandwich Islands," 1851, p. 277. 99 Dr. Coulter, in describing ("Journal R. Geograph. Soc.," vol. v., 1835, p. 67) the state of California about the year 1830, says that the natives, reclaimed by the Spanish missionaries, have nearly all perished, or are perishing, although well treated, not driven from their native land, and kept from the use of spirits. He attributes this, in great part, to the undoubted fact that the men greatly exceed the women in number; but he does not know whether this is due to a failure of female offspring, or to more females dying during early youth. The latter alternative, according to all analogy, is very improbable. He adds that “infanticide, properly so called, is not common, though very frequent recourse is had to abortion. If Dr. Coulter is correct about infanticide, this case cannot be advanced in support of Col. Marshall's view. From the rapid decrease of the reclaimed natives, we may suspect that, as in the cases lately given, their fertility has been diminished from changed habits of life. I had hoped to gain some light on this subject from the breeding of dogs; inasmuch as in most breeds, with the exception, perhaps, of greyhounds, many more female puppies are destroyed than males, just as with the Toda infants. Mr. Cupples assures me that this is usual with Scotch deer-hounds. Unfortu nately, I know nothing of the proportion of the sexes in any breed, excepting greyhounds, and there the male births are to the female as 110.1 to 100. Now From the several foregoing cases we have some reason to believe that infanticide practiced in the manner above explained tends to make a male-producing race; but I am far from supposing that this practice in the case of man, or some analogous process with other species, has been the sole determining cause of an excess of males. There may be some unknown law leading to this result in decreasing races which have already become somewhat infertile. Besides the several causes previously alluded to, the greater facility of parturition among savages, and the less consequent injury to their male infants, would tend to increase the proportion of live-born males to females. There does not, however, seem to be any necessary connection between savage life and a marked excess of males; that is, if we may judge by the character of the scanty offspring of the lately existing Tasmanians and of the crossed offspring of the Tahitians now inhabiting Norfolk Island. As the males and females of many animals differ somewhat in habits and are exposed in different degrees to danger, it is probable that in many cases more of one sex than of the other are habitually destroyed. But as far as I can trace out the complication of causes, an indiscriminate though large destruction of either sex would not tend to modify the sex-producing power of the species. With strictly social animals, such as bees or ants, which produce a vast number of sterile and fertile females in comparison with the males, and to whom this preponderance is of paramount importance, we can see that those communities would flourish best which contained females having a strong inherited tendency to produce more and more females; and from inquiries made from many breeders, it seems that the females are in some respects more esteemed, though otherwise troublesome; and it does not appear that the female puppies of the best-bred dogs are systematically destroyed more than the males, though this does sometimes take place to a limited extent. Therefore I am unable to decide whether we can, on the above principles, account for the preponderance of male births in greyhounds. On the other hand, we have seen that with horses, cattle, and sheep, which are too valuable for the young of either sex to be destroyed, if there is any difference, the females are slightly in excess. in such cases an unequal sex-producing tendency would be ultimately gained through natural selection. With animals living in herds or troops, in which the males come to the front and defend the herd, as with the bisons of North America and certain baboons, it is conceivable that a maleproducing tendency might be gained by natural selection; for the individuals of the better defended herds would leave more numerous descendants. In the case of mankind the advantage arising from having a preponderance of men in the tribe is supposed to be one chief cause of the practice of female infanticide. In no case, as far as we can see, would ca inherited tendency to produce both sexes in equal numbers, or to produce one sex in excess, be a direct advantage or disadvantage to certain individuals more than 10 others; for instance, an individual with a tendency to produce more males than females would not succeed better in the battle for life than an individual with an opposite tendency; and therefore a tendency of this kind could not be gained through natural selection. Nevertheless, there are certain animals (for instance, fishes and cirripeds) in which two or more males appear to be necessary for the fertilization of the female; and the males accordingly largely preponderate, but it is by no means obvious how this male-producing tendency could have been acquired. I formerly thought that when a tendency to produce the two sexes in equal numbers was advantageous to the species, it would follow from natural selection, but I now see that the whole prob. lem is so intricate that it is safer to leave its solution for the future. |