Alfred Russel Wallace 



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 sum- 

 mary, 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. Work- 

 ing 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 sum- 

 mary. It was very natural that you should give only a 



2i6 



