That might further eugenics. That might give us a better chance to
breed finely than all other species.


We already owe a great deal to passion: more than men ever realize.
Wasn't it Darwin who once even risked the conjecture that the vocal
organs themselves were developed for sexual purposes, the object
being to call or charm one's mate. Hence--perhaps--only animals
that were continuously concerned with their matings would be at all
likely to form an elaborate language. And without an elaborate
language, growth is apt to be slow.

If we owe this to passion, what follows? Does it mean, for example,
that the more different mates that each simian once learned to charm,
the more rapidly language, and with it civilization, advanced?



XII


A doctor, who was making a study of monkeys, once told me that he
was trying experiments that bore on the polygamy question. He had
a young monkey named Jack who had mated with a female named Jill;
and in another cage another newly-wedded pair, Arabella and Archer.
Each pair seemed absorbed in each other, and devoted and happy.
They even bugged each other at mealtime and exchanged bits of food.

After a time their transports grew less fiery, and their affections
less fixed. Archer got a bit bored. He was decent about it,