From Octavius Pickard-Cambridge 17 February 1874
Bloxworth Rectory | Blandford
Febry 17. 1874
My dear Sir
I am most pleased to give you the information you ask—1 The subject of the small size of some male spiders was first spoken of by myself in a paper on “The numerical proportion of sexes among spiders” Zoologist, June 1868. p. 1240.2
It is again referred to (and figures given of the sexes of two species) in “Proceedgs. Zool: Socy 1871. pp. 620–21. pl. 49”, in a paper on “Some Arachnida collected by C. Collingwood MD. in the China Sea”—3
There is a point worth noting (in connection with the subject of the males of spiders) benoted in the latter paper p. 619. I allude to the form of the palpal Crochet, or Conjoncteur of French Araneologists shewing the danger the male may run in fulfulling his office.4
May I take this opportunity of mentioning to you a doubt I have felt in regard to the theory of “Sexual Selection”—? If I am right in my apprehension of this, it is “that male peculiarities of structure are attributable to female appetency or predilection”!5 It has occurred to me that, curious male structures might better be accounted for by “Natural Selection” simply.
It seems to me that there is undoubtedly something in the male organization of a special & sexual nature, which of its own vital force developes the remarkable male peculiarities so commonly seen, and of no imaginable use to that sex. In as far as these peculiarities shew a great vital power, they point out to us the finest and strongest of the sex, and thus shew us which of them would appropriate to themselves the best, and greatest number of females, and leave behind them the most numerous progeny; and here would come in the application of “Natural Selection”. for the possessors of the greatest vital power being those most frequently produced and re-produced, the external signs of it would go on with a constantly increasing exaggeration; only to be checked when they became really detrimental to the individual.
I do not know if I have made myself intellegible, but I have fancied that looking at it as above, there would be no reason to resort to “Sexual Selection” to account for male sexual peculiarities of structure whether of the nature of what we usually term ‘ornamental” or not. Of course what I have said presupposes an unexplained, and perhaps unaccountable, element in the sexual nature of the male, more powerful than that of the female— if this be granted the rest would seem to follow.
If the many calls upon your time might allow you to give me your ideas on the above I shd esteem myself much honoured.
I am faithfully & truly | your’s O. P. Cambridge
Chas. Darwin Esqre
CD annotations
Footnotes
Bibliography
Descent 2d ed.: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition. London: John Murray. 1874.
Descent: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1871.
ODNB: Oxford dictionary of national biography: from the earliest times to the year 2000. (Revised edition.) Edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. 60 vols. and index. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004.
Pickard-Cambridge, Octavius. 1868. Numerical proportion of sexes among spiders. Zoologist 2d ser. 3: 1240–2.
Pickard-Cambridge, Octavius. 1871. Notes on some Arachnida collected by Cuthbert Collingwood, Esq., M.D., during rambles in the China Sea, &c. [Read 20 June 1871.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1871): 617–22.
Summary
Criticises sexual selection theory. Supports natural selection.
Gives CD references on proportion of sexes in spiders.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-9299
- From
- Octavius Pickard-Cambridge
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- Blandford
- Source of text
- DAR 161: 7
- Physical description
- ALS 5pp †
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 9299,” accessed on 28 March 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-9299.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 22