Sexual Dimorphism | Nature

ABSTRACT MR. CUNNINGHAM'S reply does not appear to me to shed any new light upon the subject of unisexual inheritance, and I can only adhere to the statement expressed in my review. Why

he credits me with the supposition “that all spontaneous variations are inherited only by offspring of the same sex as the parents in which they occurred” is beyond my comprehension. There

is nothing in my criticism of his views which warrants this, and I need hardly add that the facts which prove such a supposition to be erroneous are quite as familiar to me as they are to

Mr. Cunningham. The real point at issue is a comparatively simple one. The author of the book insists that the theory of sexual selection fails to account for unisexual inheritance, and that

his theory does account for this phenomenon. Again, it may be asked, why? The answer given above is simply a repetition of his opinion, as already published—the characters are so limited

“_because they were due to stimulations similarly limited_.” That is to say, that in every case where the male possesses distinctive secondary sexual characters, these have been produced by

direct stimulations acting on the male only, and are, therefore, limited by heredity to the male. Now Mr. Cunningham has just pointed put that transference of male characters to the female

does take place, that blending of characters may, and does, occur, and that male characters may, under certain circumstances, appear in the female—a series of facts which we have all been

familiar with ever since we became students of Darwin's writings. These facts are absolutely inexplicable on the “direct stimulation” theory. If the stimulations which produced a male

character necessitate the restriction of that character to the male, then the only way of escaping from the dilemma in which the author has placed himself is to make one of two additional

assumptions:—(1) The characters so blending are not secondary sexual characters, which would be simply resolving the question at issue into a verbal juggle; or (2) that in all cases where

there is blending or transference, the same “stimulations” have acted upon both sexes. This last assumption is, however, opposed to the entire spirit of Mr. Cunningham's book, the whole

burden of which is that there has been _dissimilarity_ of “stimulation” between the sexes. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe This is a preview of subscription content, access

via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 51 print issues and online access $199.00 per year only $3.90 per issue Learn more Buy

this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: *

Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS SEX-SPECIFIC MORPHS: THE GENETICS AND EVOLUTION OF

INTRA-SEXUAL VARIATION Article 15 August 2022 THE ROLES OF SEXUAL SELECTION AND SEXUAL CONFLICT IN SHAPING PATTERNS OF GENOME AND TRANSCRIPTOME VARIATION Article 23 March 2023 TRANSITIONS IN

SEX DETERMINATION MECHANISMS THROUGH PARENTAL AND SEXUAL ANTAGONISM Article 21 August 2024 Authors * R. MELDOLA View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE MELDOLA, R. Sexual Dimorphism. _Nature_ 63, 252 (1901). https://doi.org/10.1038/063252a0 Download

citation * Issue Date: 10 January 1901 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/063252a0 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable

link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative