I
shall leave most of the Natural History generalisation, etc., for
another work, as if I wait to incorporate all, I may wait for
years.--Hoping you are quite well, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_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.
Pages:
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305