The omnipresent process of sex

West, Lively and Read (1999) (hereinafter `the authors') note that there are upwards of 20 hypotheses for the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction and argue that more than one may be correct. In particular, they suggest that environmental and mutational mechanisms may both be applicable and that interactions between them could be important. I like the suggestion of a pluralistic approach. The area of interactions between different mechanisms is, as the authors say, largely unexplored. I have no criticisms of the article, only a few comments. The quotation from Havelock Ellis, which I chose as a title, fortuitously points up the problem. I do not find it surprising that a plethora of hypotheses have been presented. It almost appears that, with each new molecular discovery, there comes another hypothesis. Is a sufficient explanation to be found among these? I suspect that among them, singly or in combination, lies the answer. But who can be sure that the happy thought that will provide a really satisfying answer will not appear. Then everyone would immediately accept the idea and say `How obvious, why didn't I think of it?'. Welcome as this would be, it seems unlikely, and we shall continue to have a diversity of views and an increasing number of hypotheses. Yet, I suppose there is always room for one more hypothesis. Many of the newer hypotheses strike me as, if not wrong, applicable only to such special circumstances as to lack generality. I am tempted to quote Laplace: `Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis'. There indeed is a problem, however. The evolutionary advantage of sex cannot be marginal, it must be large. The standard two-fold cost is a proper target for a quantitative assessment. But, let me emphasize that it is not alone.