[102] See “The Descent of Man,” 1st Edit., pp. 90 and 143, for drawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings.  The ocelli on the wing feathers were favourite objects of Darwin’s, and sometimes formed the subject of the little lectures which on rare occasions he would give to a visitor interested in Natural History.  In Wallace’s book, the meaning of the ocelli comes in by the way, in the explanation of Plate IX., “A Malayan Forest with some of its Peculiar Birds.”  The case is a “remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin’s views, that gaily coloured plumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose of attractive display.”

[103] “Geographical Distribution of Animals,” i. 286-7.

[104] “Geographical Distribution,” i. 76.  The name Lemuria was proposed by Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged continent extending from Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra.  Wallace points out that if we confine ourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to Madagascar, which he makes a subdivision of the Ethiopian Region.

[105] H.F.  Blandford, “On the Age and Correlations of the Plant-bearing Series of India and the Former Existence of an Indo-Oceanic Continent” (Quart.  Journ.  Geol.  Soc., 1875, xxxi. 519).

[106] In the Contemporary Review for August, 1873, Mr. George Darwin wrote an article “On Beneficial Restrictions to Liberty of Marriage.”  In the July number of the Quarterly Review, 1874, p. 70, in an article entitled “Primitive Man—­Tylor and Lubbock,” Mr. Mivart thus referred to Mr. Darwin’s article:  “Elsewhere (pp. 424-5) Mr. George Darwin speaks (1) in an approving strain of the most oppressive laws and of the encouragement of vice to check population. (2) There is no sexual criminality of Pagan days that might not be defended on the principles advocated by the school to which this writer belongs.”  In the Quarterly Review for October, 1874, p. 587, appeared a letter from Mr. George Darwin “absolutely denying” charge No. 1, and with respect to charge No. 2 he wrote:  “I deny that there is any thought or word in my essay which could in any way lend itself to the support of the nameless crimes here referred to.”  To the letter was appended a note from Mr. Mivart, in which he said:  “Nothing would have been further from our intention than to tax Mr. Darwin personally (as he seems to have supposed) with the advocacy of laws or acts which he saw to be oppressive or vicious.  We, therefore, most willingly accept his disclaimer, and are glad to find that he does not, in fact, apprehend the full tendency of the doctrines which he has helped to propagate.  Nevertheless, we cannot allow that we have enunciated a single proposition which is either ‘false’ or ‘groundless.’ ...  But when a writer, according to his own confession, comes before the public ‘to attack the institution of marriage’ ... he must expect searching criticism; and, without implying that Mr. Darwin has in ‘thought’ or ‘word’ approved of anything which he wishes to disclaim, we must still maintain that the doctrines which he advocates are most dangerous and pernicious.”—­EDITOR.