I8/I.] 'DESCENT OF MAN.' 135 



with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak fairly 

 when differing from any one. If I had offended you, it 

 would have grieved me more than you will readily believe. 

 Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol. I. interests 

 you ; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in 

 utter doubt about the value of any part. I intended, when 

 speaking of females not having been specially modified for 

 protection, to include the prevention of characters acquired 

 by the $ being transmitted to ? ; but I now see it would have 

 been better to have said " specially acted on," or some such term. 

 Possibly my intention may be clearer in Vol. II. Let me say 

 that my conclusions are chiefly founded on the consideration 

 of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common 

 the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. 

 The first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty 

 closely with you. I then worked on, came back to Lepi- 

 doptera, and thought myself compelled to alter it finished 

 Sexual Selection and for the last time went over Lepidoptera, 

 and again I felt forced to alter it. I hope to God there will 

 be nothing disagreeable to you in Vol. II., and that I have 

 spoken fairly of your views ; I am fearful on this head, because 

 I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book,* 

 and I feel absolutely certain that he meant to be fair (but he 

 was stimulated by theological fervour) ; yet I do not think he 

 has been quite fair. . . . The part which, I think, will have 

 most influence is where he gives the whole series of cases like 

 that of the whalebone, in which we cannot explain the grada- 

 tional steps ; but such cases have no weight on my mind if a 

 few fish were extinct, who on earth would have ventured even 

 to conjecture that lungs had originated in a swim-bladder? 

 In such a case as the Thylacine, I think he was bound to say 

 that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is super- 

 ficial ; the number and correspondence and development of 

 teeth being widely different. I think again when speaking 

 * 'The Genesis of Species,' by St. G. Mivart, 1871. 



