WCP2848

[1]^{1 2}

Churchfield,

Edgbaston,

Birmingham.

Nov[ember] 30^th

Dear Sir:

Very many thanks for your letter about hare's[?] tails, which I have been some time answering, as I wished to do a little observing before doing so.

As you may be aware we have had in Birmingham this week on of the largest Dog shows in the British Isles. From which with its many [2] representatives of every breed, I have been able to generalize on the matter we are discussing. I do not say that my results hold every where, but, so far, I could find no ^single exception to the following statement:-

Where the colour of the back differed from the colour of the under-body, the tail [1 word illeg.] provisional and likewise differed in the shade of its colouring. The under-body [3] near the tail, when its differed, was invariably lighter than the back.

But as you say "The essential point however is its being exhibited[?] while running." Hence[?] are led to imply natural selection as causing it in, the Rabbit hare.

But do not most, if not all, dogs, similarly exhibit the under side of the tail when running? Now, from the fore—going evidence, they would show a lighter shade there like the hares, should you therefore say that they had been naturally selected [4]³ as to tail colour? It seems to me — evidence not very weighty you will say! — that the interpretation I have previously given, that the tail colour is merely a prolongation of the body colour supplies a much more feasible explanation. Can you find time, once more to say whether you disagree with me, or better still to say that there is "something in" my hypothesis?

Yours sincerely | F. Howard Collins [signature]