What, then, must we conclude in regard to the many fishes, both sexes of which are splendidly coloured? Mr. Wallace[27] believes that the species which frequent reefs, where corals and other brightly-coloured organisms abound, are brightly coloured in order to escape detection by their enemies; but according to my recollection they were thus rendered highly conspicuous. In the fresh-waters of the Tropics there are no brilliantly-coloured corals or other organisms for the fishes to resemble; yet many species in the Amazons are beautifully coloured, and many of the carnivorous Cyprinidæ in India are ornamented with “bright longitudinal lines of various tints.”[28] Mr. M’Clelland, in describing these fishes goes so far as to suppose that “the peculiar brilliancy of their colours” serves as “a better mark for kingfishers, terns, and other birds which are destined to keep the number of these fishes in check;” but at the present day few naturalists will admit that any animal has been made conspicuous as an aid to its own destruction. It is possible that certain fishes may have been rendered conspicuous in order to warn birds and beasts of prey (as explained when treating of caterpillars) that they were unpalatable; but it is not, I believe, known that any fish, at least any freshwater fish, is rejected from being distasteful to fish-devouring animals. On the whole, the most probable view in regard to the fishes, of which both sexes are brilliantly coloured, is that their colours have been acquired by the males as a sexual ornament, and have been transferred in an equal or nearly equal degree to the other sex.