to another insect protected by its unpalatableness. The cases are
discussed in relation to the much greater importance (to the species as a
whole) of the preservation of the female insect with her load of eggs than
the male who may safely be sacrificed after pairing. See Letter 189,
note.) Although it may be most for the welfare of the species that the
female should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no
disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from
danger. For my part, I should say that the female alone had happened to
vary in the right manner, and that the beneficial variations had been
transmitted to the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no
improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals a strong probability)
that variations leading to beauty must often have occurred in the males
alone, and been transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in
many cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the
need of the protective principle. I should be grateful for an answer on
the point.


LETTER 441. TO J. JENNER WEIR.
Down, April 18th [1868].

You see that I have taken you at your word, and have not (owing to heaps of
stupid letters) earlier noticed your three last letters, which as usual are
rich in facts. Your letters make almost a little volume on my table. I
daresay you hardly knew yourself how much curious information was lying in
your mind till I began the severe pumping process. The case of the
starling married thrice in one day is capital, and beats the case of the
magpies of which one was shot seven times consecutively. A gamekeeper here
tells me that he has repeatedly shot one of a pair of jays, and it has
always been immediately replaced. I begin to think that the pairing of