From A. C. L. G. Günther 19 December 1867
British Museum
19.12.67.
My dear Sir
Many thanks for your photograph.1
The keeper in the Zoolog. Gardens is quite right with regard to the difference in color in the sexes of Rattlesnakes.2 This case is perfectly analogous to that of the common viper, which I mentioned to you the other day. I do not know of any sexual structural (external) difference in snakes, except that the tail of males is generally longer & more slender.
Male snakes are always smaller, & generally more brightly coloured, & with the markings more distinctly defined than females.3
As regards other Reptiles, I will mention some remarkable cases in Indian species, & thinking that you are a subscriber to the Ray Society, & have at hand my book on Indian Reptiles, I may refer you to the pages.4 If you have not the book, let me know it, & I will supply you with further details.
Page 130 & 131. Pl. 13. figs F & G. Ceratophora stoddartii & aspera. The rostral appendage is perfectly analogous to the comb of a cock, being but little developed in the female & young.5
Page 132. Cophotis The dorsal crest is much more developed in the male than in the female.6 This is one of numerous similar instances, all of which show that in Lizards with a dorsal crest, this is more developed in the male. Iguana is such an example.
p. 135. pl. 14. fig. A. Sitana is a lizard with a very large gular pouch, entirely absent in the female. There are other Lizards in which both sexes are equally provided with a gular pouch.7
p. 143 | Calotes nigrilabris offers a remarkable instance of sexual difference in coloration of the head & body.8
Sexual differences in coloration of snakes I have mentioned particularly in Tragops dispar p. 304, Dipsas cynodon p. 308, Trimeresurus erythrurus p. 386.9
As regards Frogs, the case of Megalophrys montana p. 413–414 is very striking; the male has a rostral appendage (skinny), absent in the female; it has a pointed appendage above the eye, much less developed in the female; & some tubercles on the back, also absent in the female.10
So much for today. If I come across other cases, I shall note them. I think, to appreciate fully the instances mentioned, you ought to look at the specimens when you come to the Museum.11
Many thanks for the promised book, on Variation; you underrate me when you say, that it will contain very little which can interest me.12
Yours sincerely | A Günther
CD annotations
Footnotes
Bibliography
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
Descent: The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1871.
Günther, Albert Charles Lewis Gotthilf. 1864. The reptiles of British India. London: Ray Society.
Marginalia: Charles Darwin’s marginalia. Edited by Mario A. Di Gregorio with the assistance of Nicholas W. Gill. Vol. 1. New York and London: Garland Publishing. 1990.
Summary
Sexual differences in reptiles, especially Indian [see A. Günther, The reptiles of British India (1864)].
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-5733
- From
- Albrecht Carl Ludwig Gotthilf (Albert) Günther
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- British Museum
- Source of text
- DAR 82: B72–4
- Physical description
- ALS 6pp †
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 5733,” accessed on 26 September 2022, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-5733.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 15