That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of the male alone assuming protective colours; but in the cases in which protection has been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexual selection would interfere with the male losing his beauty.  If the male alone had acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily overlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than their females.  Moreover, I grant that the loss of the male is somewhat less precious and thus there would be less rigorous selection with the male, so he would be less likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for protection. (This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greater the excess of males and the less precious their lives, so much the better for sexual selection.) But it seems to me a good argument, and very good if it could be thoroughly established.—­Yours most sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

I do not know whether you will care to read this scrawl.

P.S.—­I heard yesterday that my photograph had been sent to your London address—­Westbourne Grove.

* * * * *

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  May 5, 1868.

My dear Wallace,—­I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble in writing to me at such length.  I am glad to say that I agree almost entirely with your summary, except that I should put sexual selection as an equal or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than natural selection for protection.  As I get on in my work I hope to get clearer and more decided ideas.  Working up from the bottom of the scale I have as yet only got to fishes.  What I rather object to in your articles is that I do not think anyone would infer from them that you place sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary.  It was very natural that you should give only a line to sexual selection in the summary to the Westminster Review, but the result at first to my mind was that you attributed hardly anything to its power.  In your penultimate note you say:  “In the great mass of cases in which there is great differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due almost wholly to the need of protection to the female.”  Now, looking to the whole animal kingdom I can at present by no means admit this view; but pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent, I do not thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirable generalisation on birds’ nests.  With respect to this latter point, however, although following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look at the whole case from a rather different point of view.

You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris:[70] I believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by Selection.