The Primal Peacock: Why Size Mattered in the Stone Age

 

The Primal Peacock: Why Size Mattered in the Stone Age

In 1967, Desmond Morris dropped a literary bombshell that made the swinging sixties feel a little more... anatomical. In The Naked Ape, he pointed out a biological fact that wounded the ego of every other primate on the planet: relative to body size, the human male possesses the largest penis of any living primate. While gorillas are massive silverbacks capable of snapping trees, their "equipment" is—to put it politely—minimalist. Morris argued this wasn't an accident of plumbing, but a flamboyant result of sexual selection.

From a business model perspective, the human penis evolved as a high-visibility marketing campaign. In the dense social structures of early humans, where we lost our body hair and started walking upright, the organ became a "self-advertising" signal. It wasn't just about delivery; it was about the display. In the darker, more cynical corridors of human nature, this suggests that even before we invented sports cars or designer watches, the male of the species was already obsessed with "visual impact" to win over a mate.

Critics, of course, have spent decades debating if Morris was over-reading the data. After all, sexual selection often leads to "runaway" traits that serve no survival purpose—like the peacock’s tail, which is beautiful but makes it easier for tigers to eat you. Historically, this reminds us that humans are the only animals capable of turning a basic biological necessity into a competitive status symbol. Morris's 1967 revelation shocked the public not because it was false, but because it stripped away the veneer of "civilized" romance and replaced it with the raw, competitive reality of the primate troop.

---

The Mechanics of Ecstasy: When Evolutionary Theory Meets Gravity

 

The Mechanics of Ecstasy: When Evolutionary Theory Meets Gravity

Desmond Morris, the patron saint of looking at humans like hairless zoo exhibits, proposed a delightfully functionalist theory in The Naked Ape. He argued that the female orgasm evolved as a "horizontal sedative." Since humans started walking upright, the vaginal canal shifted orientation; thus, the post-coital exhaustion of an orgasm was nature’s way of forcing the female to lie down, preventing gravity from leaking the "genetic material" back out. It’s a very neat, business-like model of reproduction: Orgasm as a biological glue.

However, Elisabeth Lloyd and subsequent researchers threw a massive wrench into this "biological lie-down" theory. Their critique is rooted in a simple observation of human nature and physics: Women don't just stay on the bottom. If a woman achieves orgasm while in a superior position (on top), gravity is actively working against Morris’s hypothesis. In that scenario, the physiological "rest" wouldn't aid fertilization; it would arguably hinder it if the goal was mere retention.

This debate highlights a darker, more cynical trend in evolutionary psychology: the desperate need to find a "purpose" for every human pleasure. We are obsessed with the idea that nature is an efficient engineer, but history and biology suggest she is often a chaotic tinkerer. Lloyd suggests that the female orgasm might not have a direct reproductive "function" at all, but is instead a developmental byproduct—much like male nipples. It turns out, human nature is less of a calculated business plan and more of a happy accident that we’ve spent centuries trying to over-intellectualize.

---

The Chromatic Taxonomy: A Guide to Werner’s Nomenclature

 

The Chromatic Taxonomy: A Guide to Werner’s Nomenclature

In the early 19th century, before the world was saturated with digital swatches and Pantone codes, humanity grappled with a more fundamental problem: how to describe a color without sounding like a confused poet. Patrick Syme’s 1814 edition of Werner’s Nomenclature of Colours is the clinical solution to this linguistic chaos—a book that sought to standardize the very light that hits our retinas.

The origin of this work lies with Abraham Gottlob Werner, a "great mineralogist" who realized that if scientists couldn't agree on what "pale blue" meant, they couldn't possibly agree on what a rock was. Werner developed a suite of 79 tints specifically for minerals. However, human nature—ever prone to expansion—couldn't leave well enough alone. Patrick Syme, a flower painter from Edinburgh, looked at Werner’s mineral-centric list and decided it was "defective" for the broader world of "general science". He extended the list to 108 tints, covering the "most common colours or tints that appear in nature".

The brilliance of the document lies in its refusal to trust the human imagination. Syme argues that "description without figure is generally difficult to be comprehended" and that even a figure is "defective" without the standard of color. To fix this, he categorized colors and provided examples from three "kingdoms":

• The Animal Kingdom: Using the natural world to ground the abstract.

• The Vegetable Kingdom: Applying the standard to the flora Syme knew so well.

• The Mineral Kingdom: Honoring the work’s geological roots.

The intended audience for this manual of chromatic discipline included experts in Zoology, Botany, Chemistry, Mineralogy, and even "Morbid Anatomy"—proving that in 1814, whether you were looking at a rare bird, a new chemical, or a cadaver, you needed a standard to ensure your colleagues knew exactly which shade of grey you were observing. It is the ultimate business model for science: reduce the vibrant, messy reality of the world into a numbered list of 108 boxes, and then charge everyone for the privilege of referring to them.