WCP5031

Parkstone, Dorset

March 20th. 1891

Edw. Westermarck Esq.

Dear Sir

You interesting letter does not yet convince me of the correctness of your view, as to rudimentary dress (concealing the pudenda) being to ^wholly due to desire to excite the sexual passions. I see no facts supporting it, & it seems to me improbable. However, as you have fully considered the matter, you have a right to your opinions, but I think it would be well to give the substance of your letter to me in your book, either as text or a note. It will show you have considered the other views & have rejected them.

Your ^short chapter on Sexual Selection [2] is very interesting to me because as an independent reasoner I find that your views very nearly approach mine. I have made several observations in pencil on the margin where your facts are not quite accurate.

You carry the importance of recognition even farther than I have done, & I am very glad of your support in this. But I feel sure that there is a normal production of colour in animate as in inanimate nature, which is modified or directed for utility [3] but not produced by it. Else why colour in internal organs blood, bile, &c in sightless organisms as bivalve molluscs and in the mineral kingdom? The hair of man,— black, red, or flaxen,— is certainly produced ^{by physiological causes} in correlation with other physical characters,— & is not due to utility in itself. Again the brilliancy & diversity of the warning colours of inedible catterpillars [sic] is a strong case. As a warning of inedibility one colour for all — red or yellow or blue —, contrasting with the green [4] or brown of edible catterpillars would have been better as being more easily ^learned[?] ^and recognised by insectivorous birds &c. &c. No selection or utility is conceivable here for the diversity of brilliant colours.

With all the rest of your argument I am in full accord, and I hope you will retain the chapter.

Yours very faithfully

Alfred R. Wallace [signature]