[18]

p (1

It must be deeply considered how the instincts peculiar to the sexes & the structures of such. Horns to fight (peculiarly used according to Langton) Spurs of cock plumage - vast difference in forms & instincts in Bees & Ants even senses in Aphides - Glow-worms &c &c maternal instinct of female - fighting instincts of cock come to arise.

In first place each individual (as far as we are now considering) is of both sexes & the peculiarities of each may be developed in every individual, under contingency of sexual development. Thus Capon has not spurs- castration no stags horns - capons even sit on eggs & take care of chickens- old hens

[in margin:] I am sure I have read of female peacock assuming male plumage

[19]

"Peculiarities contingent on Sex, are transmissible & they may be modified (Herefordshire Bull - Big-whiskered hare? Hydrocele) How any peculiarity becomes contingent I can hardly understand but does not greatly affect my theory" - Did not same farm Bull transmit peculiarity of shoulder to other bull.  Was it not Shakespeare Bull??

[20]

(p 3

Can it be also said, "that each individual has tendency to beget another like it of corresponding sexes"? I think not else it would have been observed in Man. Many son very like mother. (It would be good to note in fertile crosses whether male offspring resemble male & female & female - in infertile crosses confusion of sexes? would render this less easy It is generally said that male sends external appearance to all in crosses)

The question is why certain peculiarities of form & instincts shall become contingently developed in sexual organs being latent in other sex with which

[in margin:] a tendency to disease latent

[20v]

No secondary characters in Fish (Yes) or Cats except Lion - little in some races of men.

Mr. Blyth fact of breeding female taking male plumage - in Shells I believe males sometimes distinguishable in Diœcious plants??

[21]

(p 4

they appear no ways connected.

When any structure is once made contingent on sex, it may be modified to any degree (&c all male & female the offspring will virtually have it)

Thus a big-horned bull would naturally beget big horned offspring & a big-horned bull, or gaudiest-coloured bird would ultimately beget more offspring, than less ones & thus sexually adapted characters may be modified & so variations in instinct of female & occasionally plumage.

But how such characters are to commence in an animal where both sexes similar, as Puma. hard to say. May it not be that every male secondary character is in rudiment in female - but why does not big-horned bull make his young cows & bulls big-horned why is

[21v]

effect confined to bulls. According to my notions all animals are hermaphrodite & similar (xyz) (Herefordshire cattle bulls small horned in races of Men, some bushy beards Negro, Australian, American Beards). How connection originally established hard to say. Mother sends colour of hair expression &c to son. If fathers have smallest tendency to beget sons more like them than daughters; possibly these this fact might be explained. But Mongrel crosses would have shown this.-

Perhaps differences acquired late in life may go with sex (diseased livers do they go more to sons than men. Dr. Holland cannot say so for horns in one case character of Breed & in another of sex.)

Nature of Hair hereditary in all cases, but why shd particular hairs as whiskers come to be associated with sex in baldness?