WCP1899

[1]

Down.

Bromley.

Kent. S.E.

Ap. 15th [1868]¹

My dear Wallace

I have been deeply interested by your admirable article on Birds' nests.² — I am delighted to see that we really differ very little, — not more than two ^men almost always will[.] —

You do not lay much or any stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one sex (generally the male) & being transmitted exclusively, or more commonly ^only in excess, to that sex. — I on the other hand formerly [one illegible word crossed out] paid far too little attention to protection.³ I had only a [2] glimpse of the truth. But even now I do not go quite as far as you. — I cannot avoid thinking rather more than you do about the exceptions ^{in nesting} to the rule, especially the partial exceptions, i.e[.] when there is some little difference between the sexes⁴ in species which build covered ^concealed nests.

I am not quite satisfied about the incubating males: there is so little difference in conspicuousness between the sexes.⁵ — I wish with all my heart I could could [sic] go the whole length with [3] you. — You seem to think that male birds probably select the most beautiful females; I must feel some doubt on this head, for I can find no evidence of it.⁶ Though I am writing so carping a note, I admire the article thoroughily [sic]. —

And now I want to ask a question. — When female Butterflies are more brilliant than their males you believe that they have in most cases or in all cases been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other [4] species & thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having been rendered equally brilliant & equally protected. Although it may be most[?] for the welfare of the species for ^that the female to ^should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger.⁷ For my part, I should say that the female alone had [5] had [sic] happened to vary in the right manner, & 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, & been transmitted to that sex alone.⁸ Thus I sh[oul]^d account in many cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female,^{9, 10} without the need of the [6] protective principle. — I sh[oul]^d. be grateful for an answer on this point.

I hope that your Eastern Book progresses well —¹¹

My dear Wallace | Yours sincerely | C. Darwin [signature]