You seem already to have well investigated the subject.  I confess on receiving your note that I felt rather flat at my recent work being almost thrown away, but I did not intend to show this feeling.  As a proof how little advance I had made on the subject, I may mention that though I had been collecting facts on the colouring and other sexual differences in mammals, your explanation with respect to the females had not occurred to me.  I am surprised at my own stupidity, but I have long recognised how much clearer and deeper your insight into matters is than mine.

I do not know how far you have attended to the laws of inheritance, so what follows may be obvious to you.  I have begun my discussion on sexual selection by showing that new characters often appear in one sex and are transmitted to that sex alone, and that from some unknown cause such characters apparently appear oftener in the male than in the female.  Secondly, characters may be developed and be confined to the male, and long afterwards be transferred to the female.  Thirdly, characters may, again, arise in either sex and be transmitted to both sexes, either in an equal or unequal degree.  In this latter case I have supposed that the survival of the fittest has come into play with female birds and kept the female dull-coloured.  With respect to the absence of spurs in female gallinaceous birds, I presume that they would be in the way during incubation; at least, I have got the case of a German breed of fowls in which the hens were spurred, and were found to disturb and break their eggs much.

With respect to the females of deer not having horns, I presume it is to save the loss of organised matter.

In your note you speak of sexual selection and protection as sufficient to account for the colouring of all animals; but it seems to me doubtful how far this will come into play with some of the lower animals, such as sea anemones, some corals, etc. etc.

On the other hand, Haeckel has recently well shown that the transparency and absence of colour in the lower oceanic animals, belonging to the most different classes, may be well accounted for on the principle of protection.

Some time or other I should like much to know where your paper on the nests of birds has appeared, and I shall be extremely anxious to read your paper in the Westminster Review.

Your paper on the sexual colouring of birds will, I have no doubt, be very striking.

Forgive me, if you can, for a touch of illiberality about your paper, and believe me yours very sincerely,

CH.  DARWIN.

* * * * *

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  July 6, 1867.

My dear Wallace,—­I am very much obliged for your article on Mimicry,[61] the whole of which I have read with the greatest interest.  You certainly have the art of putting your ideas with remarkable force and clearness; now that I am slaving over proof-sheets it makes me almost envious.