The first beginning of transformation is not, even in ordinary natural selection, to be understood as due to selection, but is to be regarded as _a given variation_ (the causes of which we shall discuss later on); it is only the increase of such incipient variations in a definite direction that can depend on natural selection, and they _must_ depend on it in so far as the transformations are purposeful. Now, all secondary sexual characters can be recognized as useful, save only the decorative distinctions, although these also undoubtedly represent intensifications of originally unimportant variations. Are we then to regard these alone as the mere outcome of the internal impulsive forces of the organism, while in the case of the analogous sexual characters for tracking, catching, and holding the female, and so forth, the augmentation and the directing must be referred to processes of selection? But if there be any utility at all in the decorative sexual characters it can only lie in their greater attractiveness to the females, and it can only be of any account if the females have, in a certain sense, the power of choice. Independently, therefore, of direct observations as to the actual occurrence of choosing, we should be compelled by our chain of reasoning to assume that there was such a power of choice--and I shall immediately discuss it more precisely. If we consider the decorative, distinctive characters of the males more closely, we find that they are of very diverse kinds. The males of many animals are distinguished from the females chiefly by greater beauty of form, and especially of colour. This is the case in many birds, some amphibians, like the water-salamander, many fishes, many insects, and above all, in diurnal Lepidoptera. Especially among birds the dimorphism between the sexes is in obvious relation to the excess in the number of male individuals, or--what practically comes to the same thing--to polygamy. For when a male attaches to himself four or ten females the result is the same as if the number of female individuals were divided by four or by ten. Thus the fowls and pheasants, which are polygamous, are adorned by magnificent colours in the male sex, while the monogamous partridges and quails exhibit the same colouring in both sexes. Of course 'beautiful' is a relative term, and we must not simply assume that what seems beautiful to us appears so to all animals; yet when we see that all the male birds which are beautifully decorative according to our taste--whether humming-birds, pheasants, birds of Paradise, or rock-cocks (_Rupicola crocea_)--unfold their 'feather-wheels, 'fans,' 'collars,' and so forth, before the eyes of the females in the breeding season, and display them in all their brilliance, we must conclude that, in these instances at least, human taste accords with that of the animals. That birds have sharp vision and distinguish colours is well known; it is not for nothing that the