The Peacock Problem

The Peacock Problem

‘The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!’ So wrote Charles Darwin in a letter to his friend, expressing his frustration at not being able to explain how natural selection could drive the evolution of this extravagantly ornamental display. Not only was there an obvious lack of survival advantage to an awkwardly heavy appendage, it came with an energy cost and added vulnerability to predators. How then, did the peacock’s tail evolve?

Once again, it was Darwin who came up with the idea of sexual selection, that depends, “not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring”

  

By flaunting his “handicap”, the peacock signals to his potential mate that he has survived despite the negative consequences! The good gene hypothesis suggests that the ornament is a proxy for a healthy immune system and metabolic fitness. The peahen’s preference for gaudy displays drives the evolution of the tail by positive feedback: when she mates with the most fashionable male, she passes his traits on to her sons who in turn, are assured of reproductive success! Choosy mothers produce sexy sons and over many generations, runaway evolution results in strange and beautiful ornamentations like the lion’s mane, the antlers of a stag and the blue-footed booby. In the 20th century, Ronald Fisher, who is considered the greatest evolutionary biologist after Darwin, argued that the female’s preference and the male’s development of the ornament must advance together until practical or physical limits halt any further exaggeration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway). 

We’ve seen how sexual selection gives rise to the difference in appearance between male and female (sexual dimorphism). Animals that are monogamous show less sexual dimorphism. Interestingly, our pre-Homo ancestors may have been more dimorphic compared to modern humans suggesting that we have become more monogamous over time! 

REF:The sight of the peacock’s tail makes me sick: the early arguments on sexual selection. (2000) Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10824193

#ScienceSunday  

This entry was posted in Rajini Rao and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

221 Responses to The Peacock Problem

  1. Soman Naidu says:


    interesting fact….


  2. Rajini Rao​ you always post very interesting and intriguing content – a great read! 🙂

  3. Rajini Rao says:


    Some eye-candy to start your Sunday, Larry Fournillier . Thank you! 


    Enough food for thought..better make some food for the hungry body now 🙂


  4. Males go to any lengths to woo females! 

  5. Jim Gorycki says:


    I do agree upon the good gene hypothesis. If a peacock ‘ plumage is displayed to lure a suitable mate, then does the pea hen think of best survivability for her offspring?

  6. Rajini Rao says:


    Jim Gorycki that’s the idea, although does the peahen make this determination voluntarily or involuntarily? 


  7. But Rajini Rao​ if one compares penis size in humans to those of other apes, we see sexual selection in action. Breast size… need I go on? Certain dimorphisms perpetuate themselves when required/desired… others not so much…


  8. Oh and nice post by the way 🙂

  9. Rajini Rao says:


    Jason Wade Howard yes, those are indeed examples. The argument is that such traits are exaggerated in baboons, gorillas and other primates, relative to humans. “Humans today display relatively limited


    sexual dimorphism ( 15%), whereas


    some of the other hominoids (gorillas


    and orangutans) are highly dimorphic


    (50%).” 


    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf


  10. Rajini Rao eye-candy indeed! 🙂  I’m off to the kitchen and have a wonderful Sunday! 


  11. Rajni Rao…..: The NATURE, would have continued this ‘ sexual dimorphism ‘, in humans. Males would have looked more handsome ! Thanks for that very interesting post. Lol. Good Evening.

  12. Rajini Rao says:


    G. N. V. SWAMY Gowd. I agree! Somehow, women have ended up being the peacocks of our species. I would have preferred it the other way 🙂

  13. Kapil Ranade says:


    http://www.amazon.com/The-Handicap-Principle-Missing-Darwins/dp/0195129148


    Very counterintuitive argument; I read of it in this book which’s been sitting on my shelf for a while now.

  14. Rajini Rao says:


    A quick summary of the handicap principle and “honest signaling” is on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle


  15. Rajini Rao Ha ha ha. You are a women, but still, you wish, males look better. You have a big heart. Lol. Thanks.


  16. Yeah, Mr. Peacock is rather silly. And Missus Peacock is equally silly. 😀 Not a practical bone in their little bird bodies. lol

  17. Rajini Rao says:


    Don’t be so quick with your lols Jena Troelsgaard . They’re practical enough to ensure that their genes are passed down the generations, while the less flashy ones died out 🙂


  18. Rajini Rao It still is silly. Had the females looked for beneficial traits that tail wouldn’t look the way it does. There might’ve been more types of peacocks all over the world. World domination! Instead.. Just look at that self-important thing. lol What exactly can it compete with?


    The strategy works evidently and that’s kinda sad. And not beneficial to the species imo. Except if you consider how now we humans keep them alive for our own amusement.

  19. Rajini Rao says:


    Jena Troelsgaard I think you may have misunderstood the biology behind sexual selection. First, the ornamentation is both a visible and reliable trait of fitness so it is helpful to the female and benefits the species, even if it looks silly to us. Second, animals that show strong sexual dimorphism have a higher rate of forming new species because their discrimination isolates them from other variants. Scientists have observed more species in animals that show sexual dimorphism than among those that don’t. So your instinctive feeling of dislike for this behavior does not match up to the facts. Third, peacocks are not domesticated animals, so it’s unclear why you think they have evolved this way because of humans. Please do think about the science behind the pretty gif, it’s really quite fascinating. I’m happy to answer any questions or criticisms you may have. 

  20. Rajini Rao says:


    Mauricio López Padierna that’s a great question. From the link that I posted above in the comments, ” Monomorphic species of living primates (those


    taxa exhibiting low levels of sexual dimorphism)


    tend to express minimal male–male competition, whereas dimorphic species tend to express relatively


    high levels of competition.” Low dimorphism is associated with pair-bonding or monogamy where there is little inter-male competition. 


    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf


    There are better explanations elsewhere, and I can dig them up if this was not clear. 


  21. Rajini Rao I know. But that bird would still be better off without the tail. It mentions lions too. The mane is in no way as much a problem as that stupid flashy tail. I could possibly even see the mane give some protection if he decides to fight another male? Other species manages to judge fitness without a literal ball’n’chain around the ankle.


    I didn’t say they evolved that way because humans keep them as pets… I said that it was the only benefit the tail gave the bird is that we humans like it. I hope you see that’s not the same?

  22. Rajini Rao says:


    I see the problem with your interpretation now, Jena Troelsgaard . Yes, the bird would be better off without the flashy cumbersome tail only if there was no sexual selection at work here. But peacocks are polygamous and competitive and there are strong natural selection advantages to this mating strategy. If they were monogamous, then there would not be so much energy spent in looking flashy. So the lion’s mane, the stag’s antlers and the peacock’s tail gives them a sexual advantage in the competition to pass their genes down. This benefits the species, because genes that make the animal fit are selected more strongly. Evolution is all-natural, and it’s not up to us to decide whether some adaptation is smart or silly to our view. 


    The only benefit the tail gave the bird is that we humans like it.  Not at all! The biological benefit of that beautiful train of feathers is entirely to the peacock. The flashier the tail, the more likely he is to win a mate. It’s merely a coincidence that we humans happen to agree with the peahen. If anything, we may be more likely to pinch his feathers for our ornamentation 🙂 


  23. Rajini Rao I’m not denying why it has the tail or that the hen picks the prettiest. All I said is how utterly ridiculous it is. It would be better off without it. Fancy coloured feathers and a funky dance should be enough peacocking really. Making yourself easier prey I will argue isn’t beneficial to a species.


    I don’t really know where the peacock evolved but can’t help but think it was somewhere where it didn’t have a lot of predators. At least at some point.

  24. Jim Gorycki says:


    Rajini Rao voluntarily or involuntarily that’s a great question


  25. Jena Troelsgaard​ Rajini Rao​ just spitballing here but the large tail and many spots (eyes) could make the peacock seem larger and intimidating to potential predators.

  26. Rajini Rao says:


    Could be, David Nicholl . But the heart of this issue is that there is natural selection (ability to fight off predators, basic survival) and sexual selection (not die or live, but propagate or not propagate). It’s an important but subtle difference, and it looks like Jena is not buying into the importance of both sexual and natural selection for the survival of the species. Perhaps someone else can explain it better. 


  27. Rajini Rao​ yes I agree. I think there is the misconception that Evolution is striving towards perfection or THE optimum when really it’s working towards very good or good enough given the life constraints and genetics it’s working with and how much chance and randomness have to do with it.

  28. bala murali says:


    very nice very nice…..


  29. Darwin was paranoid.


     What give a surprise I shall never forget was a King peacock flying from a tree to the ground and viceversa.


    I never thought such a bird could be a very good flyer.


  30. Fascinating Rajini Rao, especially the last paragraph. :))


    May be the high divorce rates and Bohemian lifestyles will drive dimorphism up again.

  31. Rajini Rao says:


    David Nicholl very true, thanks for reminding us that evolution is not necessarily tidy or perfect, nor must it appear to make sense to us with our biased and incomplete vision.  


  32. Rajini Rao  I wonder where Darwin saw the Peacock. If he had seen it in its natural habitat, maybe he  would have figured the reason before…

  33. Rajini Rao says:


    Jayabhanu Pratyusha Murthy humans do show sexual dimorphism that we can observe- both physical and behavioral. That might explain our hair styles and make-up choices 🙂 It’s just not as pronounced as in other primates like baboons. 

  34. Rajini Rao says:


    Debashish Samaddar actually, I wondered about that. Although we’re not going to know how things turn out in the long run, I would think we are becoming more androgynous and socially accepting of non-conventional mates, so that dimorphism will continue to go down. Some countries like Japan are seeing their young people lose interest in sex altogether. I’ll have to do a post on the usefulness of sexual reproduction (and the male of the species) another day! 

  35. Rajini Rao says:


    Rashmi Pahuja I’ve seen peacocks in park like settings, not in the wild. I would love to watch one put on a show for the benefit of some lucky peahen! 


  36. Rajini Rao   I have seen them in the wild but not in full display…I have seen one in a park court a peahen(typical Hindi movie style 😉 )They are elusive in the wild, cause the safari driver who had worked there for 3 years was surprised when we came upon one. They are beautiful when they fly too.


  37. now lets see that bird shake its tail feathers


  38. Rajini Rao a personal addendum: I had always marveled at how the males managed with this cumbersome ornamentation, until I met them in the wild in the Indonesian jungle: they are really really fast!!!

  39. Rajini Rao says:


    nomad dimitri I saw a video of peacocks in flight recently, quite an awesome sight! Actually, there was a study done that shows the train having only a slight drag on their flight, although these small penalties can be costly in some situations. 

  40. Rajini Rao says:


    Thanks to Laura Gibbs who shared a lovely Aesop’s poem called “The Peacock’s Complaint”. It begins like this:


    A Peacock once upbraided heaven,


    Who, little favouring, had not given


    To him the nightingale’s sweet note:


    “Whene’er,” he says, “I stretch my throat,


    All laugh, but stand enchanted round


    To listen to his charming sound.”


    Read Juno’s reply here http://englishaesop.lauragibbs.net/2011/02/boothby-juno-and-peacock.html


  41. Very interesting fact that I never knew, so thanks


  42. Rajini Rao Are Japan’s youth turned off from sex altogether or just sex with other humans/people? They seem to have a lively sexual culture when it comes to anime and robots (or so it would seem)!!


    It reminds me of Asimov’s robot novels, viz. The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn.

  43. Rajini Rao says:


    Debashish Samaddar apparently so, at least in part- Japan’s “celibacy syndrome” has been blamed on anime girlfriends and a game from Nintendo called “Love Plus” which I’d not heard of before! 


    http://theweek.com/articles/453219/everything-need-know-about-japans-population-crisis


    P.S> Nice analogy to Asimov’s stories! 

  44. Rajini Rao says:


    Haha, thanks for the laughs Rashid Moore . I feel for him…


  45. Is Love Plus like Google Plus though? I played a first person multi player role playing game called Second Life (it was very popular at the time, don’t know what happened to it) and it was very engaging life-sucking. You could be stuck pretending to be a character for hours.

  46. Rajini Rao says:


    Debashish Samaddar I hope we don’t go extinct from addiction to G Plus! From what I saw on YouTube, Love Plus has these doll-like characters with huge eyes and pixie faces. I guess you pick ones to date. 


  47. Such a great post Rajini Rao.

  48. herbielina says:


    Thats because Charles Darwin in his rebellion to the Creator of the Universe, saw God’s incredible Design of the peacock. And it blew his mind.

  49. Rajini Rao says:


    Thanks, Deepak Shriwastava !


  50. I wonder how much of the evolution of the peacock’s tail was direct and how much was side effect. From what I’ve read about the experiments with silver foxes in Russia, selecting foxes for tolerance to humans  yielded some appearance changes as well as changes in temperament.


    “Some important changes in physiology and morphology are now visible, such as mottled or spotted colored fur. Many scientists believe that these changes related to selection for tameness are caused by lower adrenaline production in the new breed…”


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox


    Maybe that’s how the peacock tail got started. Some behavioral trait that gave them a reproductive advantage led to morphological changes, like a prettier tail, and then the tail itself become the signal of reproductive fitness, leading to further selection for pretty tails, and so on.


    Just amateur speculation, of course, but it’s a fun hobby. 🙂


  51. Don’t they also use the tail as an Intimidation factor? Like how cats contort their face to look like snakes, or butterfly markings.

  52. Kevin Potts says:


    I’ve always wanted to eat a peacock.

  53. Rajini Rao says:


    J Bennett absolutely, what you suggest makes good sense. In fact, I read somewhere that feathers arose as an ornament in dinosaurs (ok, don’t hold me to specifics here!) and later evolved for flight. The observations on domesticating foxes is fascinating! I’m going to check it out, thanks. 

  54. Rajini Rao says:


    Kimberlee Moad we were speculating a few comments up that the eye spots on the train feathers could be used for intimidation. 

  55. Rajini Rao says:


    Kevin Potts well, you’re in good company- peacocks were served to royalty in medieval times. 


  56. Rajini Rao oh, I missed it lol

  57. Sunil Bajpai says:


    An interesting example of dimorphism in humans might be baldness in males. 


    Men look for youthfulness in their mates (better for bearing children) and if women did likewise, the average age within the specie would be driven down. So women (among other characteristics) look for evidence of years accumulated by their mates. Hence, the need to fake age through premature greying and “male pattern” baldness. 


    I wonder if colouring the hair then doesn’t work against a natural advantage?

  58. John Bump says:


    We saw a ton of baby peas the other day.  (Peababies?)  They were totally cute, and momma Peahen was totally defensive about them.  Daddy was, of course, off somewhere flirting with other ladies.

  59. INTI Tripura says:


    The picco is like my hear

  60. Jim Gorycki says:


    Sunil Bajpai coloring hair or hair transplants? Trickery. You see the ads where older men have these much younger women in tow. I see them in the ED ads too.

  61. Sunil Bajpai says:


    Jim Gorycki Transplants too, of course.


  62. Their tail freaked me out the first time I saw one in the wild. I was a kid, 6 years old if I remember correctly. I turned and ran as fast as I could. No doubt in my mind it can be used for intimidation, especially for smaller predators.


  63. On a side note, I’m extremely surprised YEC’s haven’t been to this post yet.

  64. Rajini Rao says:


    Aww, Justin MacIsaac I can imagine how strange and terrifying they must seem to a little kid. Peacocks are aggressive birds too. But what/who are YEC’s? 


  65. YEC=Young Earth Creationists.

  66. Rajini Rao says:


    Justin MacIsaac I used to have tons of arguments about evolution in my early days on G+. For whatever reason, I’m not a target anymore. I’m glad, it’s exhausting and they’re not going to change their mind anyway. 


  67. Jesus loves you guys no matter how much you hate him.


  68. Oops, I spoke too soon..

  69. Rajini Rao says:


    Obvious troll is obvious 🙂

  70. Vlad Levin says:


    I was wondering how much is known about how a given preference in sexual selection originates. That is, given a particular female of a species, why does she prefer a male that is in some way different from others? How strongly coupled to actual fitness in the environment does sexual selection have to be? It does seem rather odd that females would select males for traits that may make it harder for them to survive.


    What process would be the trigger for this? I think I can understand how it works once it gets going, but what starts the ball rolling in the first place? Is it purely a random thing that happens to occur early on in the evolution of a species and then becomes self reinforcing after that?


    I’m imagining a female that is a) more fit than others in her species and b) also happens for some random reason to prefer some trait of a male. As long as her fitness benefit genetically transmitted to her offspring outweighs any detriment from her sexual preference (also transmitted), then this sexual preference will continue to be reinforced through selection. Does that sound right?


    (Jena Troelsgaard is this question what you were getting at too?)

  71. Rajini Rao says:


    Vlad Levin Wiki actually has a really nice explanation of how seemingly small preferences originating from genetic drift can become explosively amplified to result in the exaggerated traits we see today. There are mathematical models that recreate this process. See the section on “exponential growth in female preference” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

  72. Vlad Levin says:


    Thank you Rajini Rao, that’s really cool, particularly the process of genetic linking!


  73. Transformations never happen in any amount of time.

  74. Rajini Rao says:


    Your comment makes no sense, Jungle Jargon . 


  75. Obvious troll is obvious 😉

  76. Rajini Rao says:


    I had to block the last one because he returned to re-troll 🙂


  77. Yeah, he trolls the RDFRS page daily. I’ve learned to just ignore him.


  78. Thanks for the interesting information… 🙂


  79. Rajini Rao You need info that’s not there before you can have an evolutionary transformation. No information=no evolution.


  80. Jungle Jargon All statistically significant data ever collected fully validates that evolution happened. If you have big data disproving evolution, I challenge you here and now to present it. Otherwise, stop denying the validity of the scientific method.


  81. Patrick Smith No data of evolution has ever been gathered. You are kidding yourself. All of the evidence is that you have a supernatural invisible Maker because no visible natural thing can ever make any directed working part of you.


  82. Jungle Jargon since you didn’t reply to my challenge, I’ll take that as a no. You have no statistically significant data disproving evolution.

  83. Rajini Rao says:


    Jungle Jargon you continue to make no sense, and you’ve apparently not even taken high school biology so I’m afraid that no sensible discussion is possible. You’re probably just trolling anyway. Thanks, Patrick Smith, for attempting reason but our feline friend needs a swift ban hammer right around now. 


  84. Rajini Rao yes, this person denies every post on science he can find. I challenge him at least once per day because over 30% of the U.S. population think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and I don’t want young people to be influenced by the likes of him. His mind is too far gone so I have no hope for him.


    Scientists need to take people like this seriously because they each have a vote, regardless of how deluded they are. And they elect young Earthers whenever possible.

  85. Rajini Rao says:


    I had to block four identical profile names with the same agenda, Patrick Smith . Fortunately, I had not come across him before. Point taken about the troubling trend in science denialism in the US. Although this particular guy was essentially incoherent, there are others who are definitely worth engaging with. 


  86. Rajini Rao yes, it’s a serious problem. Some scientists laugh because the logic behind the denialism is illogical. However there are large areas of the U.S. Where if you say the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, you’ll be rejected for jobs etc.


    When you have hundreds of thousands of children visiting Ken Ham’s fake ark museum with dioramas of human children playing with dinosaurs, it’s a serious problem!


  87. Rajini Rao Thanks for being a voice of reason, logic and knowledge in this crazy world! Keep up the good work.

  88. Rajini Rao says:


    Thank you, Patrick Smith , for chipping in as well. I wish more of my scientist colleagues would venture out into the public and join the conversation. We need more voices of logic, reason and knowledge! 


  89. Rajini Rao Yes, I think scientists don’t take young Earth believers seriously because they make no sense from a scientific and evidential perspective.


    But I don’t want science funding cut by those who as children went to Ham’s museum and are now voting creationists into office!


    Fortunately, acceptance of unguided evolution in the US is up to 20% from under 10% 15 years ago. Let’s hope the trend continues!

  90. Ng Huey Jen says:


    Prbbchvkvgv bkvhbkhvhvgyvoclhhjkl

  91. adhiraj rai says:


    Beautiful dancing peacock !!!! dear friend, 💑


  92. I had never actually considered the impetus behind sexual dimorphism or that it might ebb and flow over time…. What a beautiful concept to ‘chew’ on …. Thank you for this ‘food for thought’ Rajini Rao 


  93. Le plus beau jour d’été


  94. I’m not a believer of evolution but just want to point out that no where in Genesis or the rest of the bible does it say that the earth is only 6000 years old. Genesis 1:1 simply says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is not part of the creative days account. It allows for an indefinite time period before the creative days account, and is not in conflict with known scientific facts about the universe.

  95. Azlin Bloor says:


    Thank you Rajini Rao, fascinating read as always.

  96. kageass says:


    Love your post! And by the way, it also makes me sick when I look at it. Hahaha 😂


  97. I love the way your brain works


  98. Does this theory explain hairy men? I consider my lack of hair as my being more removed (genetically) from our’s the ape’s common ancestor. Or so I delude myself

  99. 連盈貴 says:


    🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩


    🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩


    🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩🐩


  100. Gostaria de morar no brasil?

  101. Micki Mick says:


    YOU post the neatest stuff, I have ever seen, your great!😊

  102. Rajini Rao says:


    What a nice thing to say. Much appreciated, Kathy King , thank you! 

  103. Karar Koko says:


    ماعرف حاجي وية الهنود


  104. The common ancestor of birds (the feathered dinosaur) had brightly colored feathers. Most drab birds ancestors were colorful according to recent phylogenetic studies. Colorfulness was ‘lost ‘ due to evolutionary pressure. So there is a negative correlation between colorfulness and migration distance. In the cases where females are drab and male colorful, the basal state is generally colorful.


    Of course this cannot answer the extreme cases of the birds of paradise and their evolution was aided by absence of predation allowing for such aesthetic preferences to evolve (it’s the high aesthetic of the female that maintains and drives this selection, so sexual selection is always in tension with normal struggle for survival)

  105. Rumeysa Dari says:


    Çok güzel bir hayvan

  106. 連盈貴 says:


    Taiwan GDP👉in china.


  107. That is so cute I would love one.

  108. daniel wyatt says:


    As is life, being for beings sake..

  109. daniel wyatt says:


    Meant to say, as are life/science, being for being’s sake

  110. daniel wyatt says:


    Time and space-position; time, space biology-i was gonna say”that’s all folks”- but not..


    I keep coming back to life or not

  111. 1 0 says:


    Lovely! after skip reading this, how can so little mean so much. The tail is to know how, thank you for sharing such beauty ❤


  112. 👌👌👌👌👌👌


    🇳 🇮 🇨 🇪 = 🇵 🇴 🇸 🇹 = 🇩 🇫 …🌷


    🇬 🇴 🇴 🇩 = NIGHT


    🇭 🇦 🇵 🇵 🇾= 🇲 🇴 🇳 🇩 🇦 🇾


    🇬 🇴 🇩 = 🇧 🇱 🇪 🇸 🇸 = 🇾 🇴 🇺


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅 🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅 🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅 🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙____🍅🇷 🇦 🇯 🇮 🇻


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■


    💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜••★••💜


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #beautiful ❵❵🌹    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊❴❴ #fantastic ❵❵🌹


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💙❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💙      


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💛❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💛_🍑


    ┊ ┊ ┊ ┊ 💗❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💗___🍓    


    ┊ ┊ ┊ 💚❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💚____🍋  


    ┊ ┊ 💜 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🌀


    ┊ 💟 ❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💟_____🍉


    💜❴❴ѵɛʀʏ❵❴ղıcɛ❵❵💜____🍅


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    💜ѵɛʀʏ💙ɳicɛ💜


    -:;*;((🍃🌹🍃));*;:- 🇮


    -:;*;((💜));*;:-


    -:;*;))((;*;: 🇧 🇷 🇮 🇳 🇬


    -:;*;)(;*;:-


    -:;*;:- 🇮 🇹


    ;*; 😛


    💧🇷=🇰☚👔☛ 😜😜


    👖


     


  113. Darwin’s Theory life evoluation


    It’s your viewing I.e invation


    Very nice and beautiful article written


    Thanks


    Good night RAJNIJI

  114. LuSeaL Rooks says:


    What a beautiful bird.😊

  115. Anup kumar says:


    What a beautiful picture I like so much

  116. Anup kumar says:


    Thank you for useful information

  117. Danunjai G says:


    Hi naice your choice


  118. Very very beautiful.


  119. Que hermoso el pavoreal


  120. and this explains why most females like men with abs lolol

  121. veda smitha says:


    Very interesting to Read Rajani ji


  122. Good luck with very happy ms rajini

Leave a Reply to Hanamant Nangare Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s