inclined to think that the dances and parades of the male are solely
intended to excite the female, not perceiving, however, that they at the
same time serve to further excite the male also.[24]

A better and more comprehensive statement was reached by Tillier, who, to
some extent, may be said to have anticipated Groos. Darwin, Tillier
pointed out, had not sufficiently taken into account the coexistence of
combat and courtship, nor the order of the phenomena. Courtship without
combat, Tillier argued, is rare; "there is a normal coexistence of combat
and courtship."[25] Moreover, he proceeded, force is the chief factor in
determining the possession of the female by the male, who in some species
is even prepared to exert force on her; so that the female has little
opportunity of sexual selection, though she is always present at these
combats. He then emphasized the significant fact that courtship takes
place long after pairing has ceased, and the question of selection thus
been eliminated. The object of courtship, he concluded, is not sexual
selection by the female, but the sexual excitement of both male and
female, such excitement, he asserted, not only rendering coupling easier,
but favoring fecundation. Modesty, also, Tillier further argued, again
anticipating Groos, works toward the same end; it renders the male more
ardent, and by retarding coupling may also increase the secretions of the
sexual glands and favor the chances of reproduction.[26]

In a charming volume entitled _The Naturalist in La Plata_ (1892)
Mr. W.H. Hudson included a remarkable chapter on "Music and
Dancing in Nature." In this chapter he described many of the
dances, songs, and love-antics of birds, but regarded all such
phenomena as merely "periodical fits of gladness." While,
however, we may quite well agree with Mr. Hudson that conscious
sexual gratification on the part of the female is not the cause