progresses, so difficult is it for one man to convince another, unless his
mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself to a certain extent contradict my
own remark, for I believe far more in the importance of protection than I
did before reading your articles.

I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what you
admit in your letters: viz., "there seems to be some production of
vividness...of colour in the male independent of protection." This I am
making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that I
believe that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked by being
dangerous.

That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of 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 life 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. (442/2. 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. [Note in
original.]) But it seems to me a good argument, and very good if it could
be thoroughly established. I do not know whether you will care to read
this scrawl.


LETTER 443. TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, May 5th [1868?].