dominant but continue throughout the breeding season; bearing in mind that in at least one form of this promiscuous warfare the influence of the female can be definitely excluded, and that, in the remaining forms, the evidence which is required to link them up with the biological end of securing mates is lacking—can it be denied that the complexity of the strife makes against the view that the possession of a female is the proximate end for which the males are fighting?
We started with the most simple aspect of the whole problem, the fighting of two males in the presence of one female—the aspect upon which attention has usually been fixed. And if it remained at that, if observation failed to disclose any further development in the situation, then there would be no need to probe the matter deeper, there would be no reason to doubt the assertion that the quarrel had direct reference to the female. But assuredly no one can ponder over the diversity of battle and still believe that the possession of a mate furnishes an adequate solution of the mystery. Clearly such an hypothesis cannot cover all the known facts; there are conflicts between separate pairs, and there are conflicts between males when females are known to be absent and when their mates are even engaged in the work of incubation—these cannot be due to an impulse in a member of one sex to gain or keep possession of one of the other sex. So that taking all these facts into consideration, we are
