In our response, below, we undertake a deeper engagement with one of the authors, Elizabeth Grosz, that a number of the respondents have evoked, implicitly as well as explicitly, in their response to our text and, in particular, Grosz's arguments on art as of the chaotic and of the animal. Whilst our comments on the bowerbird speak to the artistry involved in a sexuated mode of reproduction that increases biological difference, we emphasise an abyssal moment in our initial text wherein we move from a consideration of sexual selection to symbiosis and accretion as productive of diversity, terms that no longer sit quite so comfortably in the lexicon of the ‘animal’. Rather, we implicate aesthetics and an artistry across and down chemical concentration gradients.