WCP6531

[1]

Parkstone, Dorset

January 28th, 1899

W. Storrs Fox Esq.

Dear Sir

There is very little difference between your views and my own. The bright colours of female birds ^{or rather the similarity of sexes} where necks are covered was first stated by me over 30 years ago. (See Chap.VI of my "Natural Selection & Tropical Nature").

As to Recognition, its importance was greatest (in many cases) during the process of differentiation of the species. (See my letter in "Nature" of 12th. of this month.) Also, the diversity between species now, is often great on account of loss of intermediate Sp.

As to colour, I do believe in a law of its development in intensity, not directly as beauty, but as diversity. [2] See "Darwinism" p.189 — The Problem To Be Solved — p.273 — Probable Causes of Colours — and especially pp.296-98 — General Laws of Animal Colouration — where I urge that colour is a necessary result of constitution of organised features — subject to progressive changes in some definite order — dependent on laws of growth &c &c.

I think you state the case too strongly when you say the female has no choice. I think it is the fact, that no female bird or mammal can be impregnated without consent. [3] No doubt when in heat they do consent to the the first male as a rule. But the power of refusal does give a certain amount of choice.

I think if you read the whole of what I have written on colour, both in Darwinism & in Natural Selection, you will see that every point you refer to is discussed more or less fully, & the conclusions are not substantially different from your own.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

over) [4]

P.S. In my paper on "the Problem of Utility" — in Journal of Linn. Soc. vol XXV. (read June 18th,1896) you will find the question of use of recognition in incipient stages of species formation further dwelt upon.

A.R.W.