Has looked through BDW's papers and finds heaps of facts on sexual differences. Asks questions on sexual differences in particular species.
Down. | Bromley. | Kent. S.E.
My dear Sir
I stupidly wrote to you a few days ago before I had looked
through your papers with reference to sexual differences. I now
find heaps of facts & reasoning,—the very dim recollection
of which made me write.— I write now simply, if in time, to
save you the trouble of answering my letter, for a week or two,
by which time I may have more questions to ask!— But I may
ask some now, & if you do not receive another letter in a week's
time, I sh
I do not know the genera Gomphus & Hæterina (see Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. Oct. 1863 p. 223, & p. 239): are these more allied to Ephemera or Libellula; but what I want to know most is whether the males & females differ conspicuously in colour, & whether males are more brilliant to our eyes than the females.
You say (p. 239) in the group vulgatissimus of Gomphus that the males are much more numerous than females; whilst in two closely allied species viz G. fluvialis & amnicola the females are 2 or 3 times as numerous as males. Now I want especially to hear how the sexes differ in these two last species, relatively to the sexual differences in the vulgatissimus group; & relatively to the general type of colouring of the genus. This will be of very great interest to me.— I have just been quoting long passage from you in Pract. Ent. on aids to seizing females chiefly in Coleoptera.
In Papilio machaon sexes alike, in many species of Papilio I believe, the sexes are very different in colour: now can you tell me anything about inequality in number of sexes in the cases in which the sexes differ & do not differ in colour: you will see at once at what I am driving.
In Papilio Turnus & Argynnis Diana, are the males or females the most abundant.?
Pray forgive me troubling you & begging all these favours—
Yours very truly | C. Darwin
I do not think I shall have anything more to write at present
- f1 5883.f1See letter to B. D. Walsh, 14 February 1868.
- f2 5883.f2Walsh noted the proportion of the sexes in Gomphus and Hetaerina in his article in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia for October 1863 (B. D. Walsh 1863b, p. 223); CD's annotated copy of the article is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection--CUL. Gomphus (family Gomphidae, clubtails) is now in the same suborder (Anisoptera, dragonflies) as Libellula (family Libellulidae, common skimmers). Hetaerina (family Calopterygidae, broad-winged damselflies) is now in the suborder Zygoptera (damselflies). Ephemera is now in the order Ephemeroptera (mayflies).
- f3 5883.f3Walsh considered Gomphus vulgatissimus to be a species `group' (B. D. Walsh 1863, p. 239).
- f4 5883.f4Gomphus fluvialis is now Stylurus notatus; G. amnicola is now Stylurus amnicola.
- f5 5883.f5CD cited Walsh's article in the Practical Entomologist (B. D. Walsh 1867a) in Descent 1: 341--2.
- f6 5883.f6Papilio turnus is now P. glaucus (the tiger swallowtail); Argynnis diana is now Speyeria diana (the Diana fritillary).