The criticism is all embodied in two pro_Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3 Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility

the theory of natural selection carries with it, as a "necessary

consequence," the doctrine that survival of the fittest has been the

cause of the origin of _all_ species; and (_b_) that therefore it

amounts to one and the same thing whether we define the theory as a

theory of species or as a theory of adaptations. Now, as a mere matter

of logical statement, it appears to me that both these propositions are

unsound. As regards the first, if we hold with Darwin that other causes

have co-operated with natural selection in the origination of some (i.

e. many) species, it is clearly no part of the theory of natural

selection to assume that none of these causes can ever have acted

independently. In point of fact, as we have seen in the foregoing

chapters, such has probably and frequently been the case under the

influences of isolation, climate, food, sexual selection, and laws of

growth; but I may here adduce some further remarks with regard to yet

another possible cause. If the Lamarckian principles are valid at all,

no reason can be shown why in some cases they may not have been

competent _of themselves_ to induce morphological changes of type by

successive increments, until a transmutation of species is effected by

their action alone--as, indeed, Weismann believes to have been the case

with all the species of Protozoa[148]. That such actually has often been

the case also with numberless species of Metozoa, is the belief of the

neo-Lamarckians; and whether they are right or wrong in holding this

belief, it is equally certain that, _as a matter of logical reasoning_,

they are not compelled by it to profess any _disbelief_ in the agency of

natural selection. They may be mistaken as to the facts, as Darwin in a

lesser degree may have been similarly mistaken; but just as Darwin has

nowhere committed himself to the statement that _all_ species must

_necessarily_ have been originated by natural selection, so these

neo-Lamarckians are perfectly logical in holding that _some_ species may

have been wholly caused by the inheritance of acquired characters, as

_other_ species may have been wholly caused by the natural selection of

congenital characters. In short, unless we begin by assuming (with

Wallace and against Darwin) that there _can be no other cause_ of the

origin of species than that which is furnished by natural selection, we

have no basis for Professor Huxley's statement "that every species has

been originated by selection"; while, if we do set out with this

assumption, we end in a mere tautology. What ought to be done is to

prove the validity of this assumption; but, as Professor Huxley makes

no attempt to do this, his criticism amounts to mere begging of the

question.

[148] Since the above was written Professor Weismann has transferred

this doctrine from the Protozoa to their ancestors.

And now, as regards the second point (_b_), even if we grant the

assumption that natural selection is the only possible cause of the

origin of species--or, which is the same thing, that every species has

been originated by natural selection,--is it likewise the same thing

whether we define the theory of natural selection as a theory of species

or as a theory of adaptations? Professor Huxley's criticism endeavours

to show that it is; but a little consideration is enough to show that it

is not. What does follow from the assumption is, that, _so far as

specific characters are concerned_, it is one and the same thing to say

that the theory is a theory of species, and to say that it is a theory

of adaptations. But specific characters are not conterminous with

adaptive characters; for innumerable adaptive characters are not

distinctive of species, but of genera, families, orders, classes, and

sub-kingdoms. Therefore, if it is believed (as, of course, Professor

Huxley believes) that the theory in question explains the evolution of

all adaptive characters, obviously it is not one and the same thing to

define it indifferently as a theory of species or as a theory of

adaptations.

Now, all this is not merely a matter of logic chopping. On the contrary,

the question whether we are to accept or to reject the deduction that

all species must necessarily have owed their origin to natural

selection, is a question of no small importance to the general theory of

evolution. And our answer to this question must be determined by that

which we give to the ulterior question--Is the theory of natural

selection to be defined as a theory of species, or as a theory of

adaptations?

* * * * *

We now pass on to our consideration of Darwin's opinion touching the

question, as stated by himself,--"The doctrine of utility, how far

true?" As I cannot ascertain that Darwin has anywhere expressed an

opinion as to whether natural selection has been necessarily concerned

in the origin of all _species_, the issue here is as to whether he held

this with regard to all _specific characters_. It will be remembered

that while opposing this doctrine as erroneous both in logic and in

fact, I have represented that it is not a doctrine which Darwin

sanctioned; but, on the contrary, that it is one which he expressly

failed to sanction, by recognizing the frequent inutility of specific

characters. Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, alleges that Darwin did

believe in the universal--as distinguished from the general--utility of

such characters. And he adds that he has "looked in vain in Mr. Darwin's

works" for any justification of my statements to the contrary[149].

Therefore I will endeavour to show that Mr. Wallace's search has not

been a very careful one.

[149] _Darwinism_, p. 131. He says:--"I have looked in vain in Mr.

Darwin's works for any such acknowledgement" (i.e. "that a

large proportion of specific distinctions must be conceded

useless to the species presenting them").

We must remember, however, that it was not until the appearance of my

paper on _Physiological Selection_, four years after Darwin's death,

that the question now in debate was raised. Consequently, he never had

occasion to deal expressly with this particular question--viz. whether

"the doctrine of utility" has any _peculiar_ reference to _specific_

characters--as he surely would have done had he entertained the

important distinction between specific and all other characters which

Mr. Wallace now alleges that he did entertain. But, be this as it may,

we cannot expect to find in Darwin's writings any express allusion to a

question which had not been raised until 1886. The most we can expect to

find are scattered sentences which prove that the distinction in

question was never so much as present to his mind,--i. e. never occurred

to him as even a possible distinction.

I will first take the passages which Mr. Wallace himself supplies from

among those which I had previously indicated.

"But when, from the nature of the organism and of the conditions,

modifications have been induced which are unimportant for the

welfare of the _species_, they may be, and apparently often have

been, transmitted in nearly the same state to numerous, otherwise

modified, descendants[150]."

[150] _Origin of Species_, p. 175. Italics mine.

On this passage Mr. Wallace remarks that the last five words "clearly

show that such characters are usually not 'specific,' in the sense that

they are such as distinguish species from one another, but are found in

numerous allied species." But I cannot see that the passage shows

anything of the sort. What to my mind it does show is, (_a_) that Mr.

Darwin repudiated Mr. Wallace's doctrine touching the _necessary_

utility of _all_ specific characters: (_b_) that he takes for granted

the contrary doctrine touching the inutility of _some_ specific

characters: (_c_) that without in this place alluding to the

proportional number of useless specific characters, he refers their

origin in some cases to "the nature of the organism" (i.e. "spontaneous

variability" due to internal causes), and in other cases to "the

conditions" (i.e. variability induced by external causes): (_d_) that

when established as a specific character by heredity, such a useless

character was held by him not to tend to become obsolete by the

influence of natural selection or any other cause; but, on the contrary,

to be "transmitted in nearly the same state to numerous, otherwise

modified, descendants"--or progeny of the species in genera, families,

&c.: (_e_) and, therefore, that useless characters which are now

distinctive of genera, families, &c., were held by him frequently, if

not usually, to point to uselessness of origin, when first they arose as

merely specific characters. Even the meaning which Mr. Wallace reads

into this passage must imply every one of these points; and therefore I

do not see that he gains much by apparently seeking to add this further

meaning--viz. that in Darwin's opinion there must have been some

unassignable reason preventing the occurrence of useless specific

characters in cases where species are _not_ destined to become the

parents of genera.

Moreover, any such meaning is out of accordance with the context from

which the passage is taken. For, after a long consideration of the

question of utility, Darwin sums up,--"We thus see that with plants many

morphological changes may be attributed to the laws of growth and the

interaction of parts, _independently of natural selection_." And then he

adds,--"From the fact of the above characters being _unimportant for the

welfare of the species_, any slight variations which occurred in them

_would not have been augmented through natural selection_." Again, still

within the same passage, he says, while alluding to the causes other

than natural selection which lead to changes of specific

characters,--"If the _unknown cause_ were to act almost uniformly for a

length of time, we may infer that the result would be almost uniform;

and in this case _all_ the individuals of the _species_ would be

modified in the same manner." For my own part I do not understand how

Mr. Wallace can have overlooked these various references to _species_,

all of which occur on the very page from which he is quoting. The whole

argument is to show that "many morphological changes may be attributed

to the laws of growth and the inter-action of parts [_plus_ external

conditions of life], independently of natural selection"; that such

non-adaptive changes, when they occur as "specific characters," may, if

the species should afterwards give rise to genera, families, &c., become

distinctive of these higher divisions. But there is nothing here, or in

any other part of Darwin's writings, to countenance the inconsistent

notion which Mr. Wallace appears to entertain,--viz. that species which

present useless characters are more apt to give rise to genera,

families, &c., than are species which do not present such characters.

The next passage which Mr. Wallace quotes, with his comments thereon, is

as follows. The italics are his.

"'Thus a large yet undefined extension may safely be given to the

direct and indirect results of natural selection; but I now admit,

after reading the essay of Naegeli on plants, and the remarks by

various authors with respect to animals, more especially those

recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of

my Origin of Species I perhaps attributed too much to the action of

natural selection, or the survival of the fittest. I have altered

the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to

adaptive changes of structure; _but I am convinced, from the light

gained during even the last few years, that very many structures

which now appear to be useless, will hereafter be proved to be

useful, and will therefore come within the range of natural

selection_. Nevertheless I did not formerly consider sufficiently

the existence of structures which, as far as we can at present

judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to

be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work.'

Now it is to be remarked that neither in these passages nor in any

of the other less distinct expressions of opinion on this question,

does Darwin ever admit that "specific characters"--that is, the

particular characters which serve to distinguish one species from

another--are ever useless, much less that "a large proportion of

them" are so, as Mr. Romanes makes him "freely acknowledge." On the

other hand, in the passage which I have italicised he strongly

expresses his view that much of what we suppose to be useless is

due to our ignorance; and as I hold myself that, as regards many of

the supposed useless characters, this is the true explanation, it

may be well to give a brief sketch of the progress of knowledge in

transferring characters from the one category to the other[151]."

[151] _Darwinism_, p. 132.

It is needless to continue this quotation, because of course no one is

disputing that an enormous number of specific characters whose utility

is unknown are nevertheless useful, and therefore due to natural

selection. In other words, the question is not--Are there not many

useful specific characters whose utility is unknown? but--Does it follow

from the theory of natural selection that all specific characters must

necessarily be useful? Well, it appears to me that without going further

than the above passage, which Mr. Wallace has quoted, we can see clearly

enough what was Darwin's opinion upon the subject. He did not believe

that it followed _deductively_ from his theory that all specific

characters must necessarily be useful; and therefore he regarded it as a

question of _fact_--to be determined by induction as distinguished from

deduction--in what proportional number of cases they are so. Moreover he

gives it as his more matured opinion, that, "as far as we can at present

judge" (i.e. from the present state of observation upon the subject: if,

with Mr. Wallace, his judgement were _a priori_, why this

qualification?), he had not previously sufficiently considered the

existence of non-adaptive characters--and this he ended by believing was

one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in his work. To me it has

always seemed that this passage is one of the greatest exhibitions of

candour, combined with solidity of judgement, that is to be met with

even in the writings of Darwin. There is no talk about any deductive

"necessity"; but a perfect readiness to allow that causes other than

natural selection may have been at work in evoking non-adaptive

characters, so that the fifth edition of the _Origin of Species_ was

altered in order to confine the theory of natural selection to "adaptive

changes"--i.e. to constitute it, as I have said in other words, "a

theory of the origin, or cumulative development, of _adaptations_."

If to this it be said that in the above passage there is no special

mention of _species_, the quibble would admit of a three-fold reply. In

the first place, the quibble in question had never been raised. As

already stated, it is only since the appearance of my own paper on

_Physiological Selection_ that anybody ever thought of drawing a

distinction between species and genera, such that while all specific

characters must be held necessarily useful, no such necessity extends to

generic characters. In the second place, that Darwin must have had

specific characters (as well as generic) in his mind when writing the

above passage, is rendered unquestionable by the fact that many of the

instances of inutility adduced by Naegeli and Broca have reference to

specific characters. Lastly, as shown in the passages previously quoted

from the sixth edition of the _Origin of Species_, Darwin attributed the

origin of useless generic characters to useless specific characters; so

that Mr. Wallace really gains nothing by his remark that specific

characters are not specially mentioned in the present passage.

Once more:--

"Darwin's latest expression of opinion on this question is

interesting, since it shows he was inclined to return to his

earlier view of the general, or universal, utility of specific

characters[152]."

[152] _Darwinism_, p. 142.

This "latest expression of opinion," as I shall immediately prove, shows

nothing of the kind--being, in fact, a mere re-statement of the opinion

everywhere and at all times expressed by Darwin, touching the caution

that must be observed in deciding, _with respect to individual cases_,

whether an apparently useless specific character is to be regarded as

really useless. Moreover, at no time and in no place did Darwin

entertain any "view of the general, or universal, utility of specific

characters." But the point now is, that if (as was the case) Darwin

"inclined" to depart more and more from his earlier view of the highly

_general_ utility of specific characters; and if (as was not the case)

he ended by showing an inclination "_to return_" to this earlier view;

what becomes of the whole of Mr. Wallace's contention against which

this Appendix is directed, namely, _that Darwin never entertained any

other view than that of the "general, or universal, utility of specific

characters_"?

The "latest expression of opinion" which Mr. Wallace quotes, occurs in a

letter written to Professor Semper in 1878. It is as follows:--

"As our knowledge advances, very slight differences, considered by

systematists as of no importance in structure, are continually

found to be functionally important; and I have been especially

struck with this fact in the case of plants, to which my

observations have of late years been confined. Therefore it seems

to me rather rash to consider the slight differences between

representative species, for instance those inhabiting the different

islands of the same archipelago, as of no functional importance,

and as not in any way due to natural selection[153]."

[153] _Life and Letters_, vol. iii. p. 161.

Now, with regard to this passage it is to be observed, as already

remarked, that it refers to the formation of final judgements touching

_particular cases_: there is nothing to show that the writer is

contemplating _general principles_, or advocating on deductive grounds

the dogma that specific characters must be necessarily and universally

adaptive characters. Therefore, what he here says is neither more nor

less than I have said. For I have always held that it would be "rather

rash" to conclude that any given cases of apparent inutility are

certainly cases of real inutility, _merely on the ground that utility is

not perceived_. But this is clearly quite a distinct matter from

resisting the _a priori_ generalization that all cases of apparent

inutility must certainly be cases of real utility. And, I maintain, in

every part of his writings, without any exception, where Darwin alludes

to this matter of general principle, it is in terms which directly

contradict the deduction in question. As the whole of this Appendix has

been directed to proving that such is the case, it will now, I think, be

sufficient to supply but one further quotation, in order to show that

the above "latest expression of opinion," far from indicating that in

his later years Darwin "inclined" to Mr. Wallace's views upon this

matter, is quite compatible with a distinct "expression of opinion" to

the contrary, in a letter written less than six years before his death.

"In my opinion _the greatest error which I have committed_, has

been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the

environment, i.e. food, climate, &c., _independently of natural

selection_. Modifications thus caused, _which are neither of

advantage nor disadvantage to the modified organisms_, would be

especially favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your

observations, _by isolation in a small area, where only a few

individuals lived under nearly uniform conditions_[154]."

[154] _Life and Letters_, vol. iii. p. 158.

I will now proceed to quote further passages from Darwin's works, which

appear to have escaped the notice of Mr. Wallace, inasmuch as they admit

of no doubt regarding the allusions being to _specific_ characters.

"_We may easily err in attributing importance to characters, and in

believing that they have been developed through natural selection._

We must by no means overlook the effects of the definite action of

changed conditions of life,--of so-called spontaneous variations,

which seem to depend in a quite subordinate degree on the nature of

the conditions,--of the tendency to reversion to long-lost

characters,--of the complex laws of growth, such as of

correlation[155], compensation, of pressure of one part on another,

&c., and finally of sexual selection, by which characters of use to

one sex are often gained and then transmitted more or less

perfectly to the other sex, though of no use to this sex. But

structures thus indirectly gained, _although at first of no

advantage to a species_, may subsequently have been taken advantage

of by its modified descendants, under new conditions of life and

newly acquired habits[156]."

[155] It must be observed that Darwin uses this word, not as Mr.

Wallace always uses it (viz. as if correlation can only be

with regard to adaptive characters), but in the wider sense

that any change in one part of an organism--whether or not it

happens to be an adaptive change--is apt to induce changes in

other parts.

[156] _Origin of Species_, pp. 157-8.

It appeared--and still appears--to me, that where so many causes are

expressly assigned as producing useless _specific_ characters, and that

some of them (such as climatic influences and independent variability)

must be highly general in their action, I was justified in representing

it as Darwin's opinion that "a large proportional number of specific

characters" are useless to the _species_ presenting them, although

afterwards they may sometimes become of use to genera, families, &c.

Moreover, this passage goes on to point out that specific characters

which at first sight appear to be obviously useful, are sometimes found

by fuller knowledge to be really useless--a consideration which is the

exact inverse of the argument from ignorance as used by Mr. Wallace, and

serves still further to show that in Darwin's opinion utility is by no

means an invariable, still less a "necessary," mark of specific

character. The following are some of the instances which he gives.

"The sutures in the skulls of young mammals have been advanced as a

beautiful adaptation for aiding parturition, and no doubt they may

facilitate, or be indispensable for this act; but as sutures occur

in the skulls of young birds and reptiles, which have only to

escape from a broken egg, we may infer that this structure has

_arisen from the laws of growth_, and has been taken advantage of

in the parturition of the higher animals[157]."

"The naked skin on the head of a vulture is generally considered as

a direct adaptation for wallowing in putridity; and so it may be,

_or it may possibly be due to the direct action of the putrid

matter_; but we should be very cautious in drawing any such

inference [i.e. as to utility] when we see the skin on the head of

the clean-feeding male Turkey is likewise naked[158]."

[157] _Ibid._

[158] _Origin of Species_, pp. 157-8.

Similarly, in the _Descent of Man_ it is said:--

"Variations of the same _general_ nature have _often been taken

advantage of_ and accumulated through sexual selection in relation

to the propagation of the species, and through natural selection in

relation to the general purposes of life. Hence, _secondary sexual

characters, when equally transmitted to both sexes, can be

distinguished from ordinary specific characters, only by the light

of analogy_. The modifications acquired through sexual selection

are often so strongly pronounced that the two sexes have frequently

been ranked as distinct species, or even as distinct genera[159]."

[159] _Descent of Man_, p. 615.

As Mr. Wallace does not recognize sexual selection, he incurs the burden

of proving utility (in the life-preserving sense) in all these

"frequently" occurring cases where there are such "strongly pronounced

modifications," and we have already seen in the text his manner of

dealing with this burden. But the point here is, that whether or not we

accept the theory of sexual selection, we must accept it as Darwin's

opinion--first, that in their beginnings, as _specific_ characters,

these sexual modifications were often of a merely "_general nature_" (or

without reference to utility even in the life-embellishing sense), and

only _afterwards_ "have often been taken advantage of and accumulated

through _sexual_ selection": and, secondly, that "we know they have been

acquired in some instances _at the cost not only of inconvenience, but

of exposure to actual dangers_[160]."

[160] _Ibid._

We may now pass on to some further, and even stronger, expressions of

opinion with regard to the frequent inutility of _specific_ characters.

"I have made these remarks only to show that, if we are unable to

account for the characteristic differences of our several domestic

breeds, which nevertheless are generally admitted to have arisen

through ordinary generation from one or a few parent stocks, we

ought not to lay too much stress on our ignorance of the precise

cause [i.e. whether natural selection or some other cause] of the

slight analogous differences between true _species_.... I fully

admit that _many_ structures are now of no use to their possessors,

and may never have been of any use to their progenitors; but this

does not prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety.

No doubt the definite action of changed conditions, and the various

causes of modification, lately specified, have all produced an

effect, _probably a great effect, independently of any advantage

thus gained_.... It is scarcely possible to decide how much

allowance ought to be made for such causes of change, as the

definite action of external conditions, so-called spontaneous

variations, and the complex laws of growth; but, _with these

important exceptions_, we may conclude that the structure of every

living creature either now is, or formerly was, of some direct or

indirect use to its possessor[161]."

[161] _Descent of Man_, pp. 159-60.

Here again, if we remember how "important" these "exceptions" are, I

cannot understand any one doubting Darwin's opinion to have been that a

large proportional number of specific characters are useless. For that

it is "species" which he here has mainly in his mind is evident from

what he says when again alluding to the subject in his "Summary of the

Chapter"--namely, "In _many_ other cases [i.e. in cases where natural

selection has not been concerned] modifications are probably the direct

result of the laws of variation or of growth, independently of any good

having been thus gained." Now, not only do these "laws" apply as much to

species as they do to genera; "but," the passage goes on to say, "even

such structures have often, we may feel assured, been subsequently

taken advantage of, and still further modified, for the good of

_species_ under new conditions of life." Obviously, therefore, the

inutility in such cases is taken to have been prior to any utility

subsequently acquired; and genera are not historically prior to the

species in which they originate.

Here is another quotation:--

"Thus, as I am inclined to believe, morphological differences,

which we consider as important--such as the arrangement of the

leaves, the divisions of the flower or of the ovarium, the position

of the ovules, &c.--_first_ appeared in _many_ cases as

_fluctuating variations_, which sooner or later became constant

through the nature of the organism and of the surrounding

conditions, as well as through the intercrossing of distinct

individuals, _but not through natural selection_; for as these

morphological characters do not affect the welfare of the

_species_, any slight deviations in them could not have been

governed or accumulated through this latter agency. It is a strange

result which we thus arrive at, namely, that characters of slight

vital importance to the _species_, are the most important to the

systematist; but, as we shall hereafter see when we treat of the

genetic principle of classification, this is by no means so

paradoxical as it may at first appear[162]."

[162] _Descent of Man_, p. 176.

Clearly the view here expressed is that characters which are now

distinctive of higher taxonomic divisions "first appeared" in the parent

species of such divisions; for not only would it be unreasonable to

attribute the rise and preservation of useless characters to

"fluctuating variations" affecting a number of species or genera

similarly and simultaneously; but it would be impossible that, if such

were the case, they could be rendered "constant through the nature of

the organism and of the surrounding conditions, as well as through the

intercrossing of distinct individuals[163]."

[163] The passage to which these remarks apply is likewise quoted,

in the same connexion as above, in my paper on _Physiological

Selection_. In criticising that paper in _Nature_ (vol. xxxix.

p. 127), Mr. Thiselton Dyer says of my interpretation of this

passage, "the obvious drift of this does not relate to

specific differences, but to those which are characteristic of

family." But in making this remark Mr. Dyer could not have

read the passage with sufficient care to note the points which

I have now explained.

Here is another passage to the same general effect. In alluding to the

objection from inutility as advanced by Bronn, Broca, and Naegeli, Mr.

Darwin says:--"There is much force in the above objection"; and, after

again pointing out the important possibility in any particular cases of

hidden or former use, and the action of the laws of growth, he goes on

to say,--"In the third place, we have to allow for the direct and

definite action of changed conditions of life, and for so-called

spontaneous variations, in which the nature of the conditions plays

quite a subordinate part[164]." Elsewhere he says,--"It appears that I

formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of

variation as leading to permanent modifications of structure

_independently of natural selection_[165]." The "forms of variation" to

which he here alludes are "variations which seem to us in our ignorance

to arise spontaneously"; and it is evident that such variations cannot

well "arise" in two or more species of a genus similarly and

simultaneously, so as independently to lead "to permanent modifications

of structure" in two or more parallel lines. It is further evident that

by "spontaneous variations" Darwin alludes to extreme cases of

spontaneous departure from the general average of specific characters;

and therefore that lesser or more ordinary departures must be of still

greater "frequency."

[164] _Origin of Species_, p. 171.

[165] _Ibid._ p. 421.

Again, speaking of the principles of classification, Darwin writes:--

"We care not how trifling a character may be--let it be the mere

inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in which an

insect's wing is folded, whether the skin be covered by hair or

feathers--if it prevail throughout many and different species,

especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes

high value [i.e. for purposes of classification]; for we can

account for its presence in so many forms with such _different

habits_, only by inheritance from a common parent. We may err in

this respect in regard to single points of structure, but when

several characters, let them be ever so trifling, concur throughout

a large group of beings _having different habits_, we may feel

almost sure, on the theory of descent, that these characters have

been inherited from a common ancestor; and we know that such

aggregated characters have especial value in classification[166]."

[166] _Origin of Species_, pp. 372-373.

Now it is evident that this argument for the general theory of evolution

would be destroyed, if Wallace's assumption of utility of specific

characters as universal were to be entertained. And the fact of

apparently "trifling" characters occurring throughout a large group of

beings "having different habits" is proof that they are really trifling,

or without utilitarian significance.

It is needless to multiply these quotations, for it appears to me that

the above are amply sufficient to establish the only point with which we

are here concerned, namely, that Darwin's opinion on the subject of

utility in relation to specific characters was substantially identical

with my own. And this is established, not merely by the literal meaning

of the sundry passages here gathered together from different parts of

his writings; but likewise, and perhaps still more, from the tone of

thought which pervades these writings as a whole. It requires no words

of mine to show that the literal meaning of the above quotations is

entirely opposed to Mr. Wallace's view touching the _necessary_ utility

of _all_ specific characters; but upon the other point--or the general

tone of Mr. Darwin's thought regarding such topics--it may be well to

add two remarks.

In the first place, it must be evident that so soon as we cease to be

bound by any _a priori_ deduction as to natural selection being "the

exclusive means of modifications," it ceases to be a matter of much

concern to the theory of natural selection in what proportion other

means of modification have been at work--especially when non-adaptive

modifications are concerned, and where these have reference to merely

"specific characters," or modifications of the most incipient kind,

least generally diffused among organic types, and representing the

incidence of causes of less importance than any others in the process of

organic evolution considered as a whole. Consequently, in the second

place, we find that Darwin nowhere displays any solicitude touching the

proportional number of specific characters that may eventually prove to

be due to causes other than natural selection. He takes a much wider and

deeper view of organic evolution, and, having entirely emancipated

himself from the former conception of species as the organic units, sees

virtually no significance in specific characters, except in so far as

they are also adaptive characters.

Such, at all events, appears to me the obvious interpretation of his

writings when these are carefully read with a view to ascertaining his

ideas upon "Utilitarian doctrine: how far true." And I make these

remarks because it has been laid to my charge, that in quoting such

passages as the above I have been putting "a strained interpretation"

upon Darwin's utterances: "such admissions," it is said, "Mr. Romanes

appears to me to treat as if wrung from a hostile witness[167]." But,

from what has gone before, it ought to be apparent that I take precisely

the opposite view to that here imputed. Far from deeming these and

similar passages as "admissions wrung from a hostile witness," and far

from seeking to put any "strained interpretation" upon them, I believe

that they are but the plain and unequivocal expressions of an opinion

which I have always understood that Darwin held. And if any one has been

led to think otherwise, I throw back this charge of "strained

interpretation," by challenging such a person to adduce a single

quotation from any part of Darwin's works, which can possibly be held to

indicate that he regarded passages like those above quoted as in any way

out of conformity with his theory of natural selection--or as put

forward merely to "admit the possibility of explanations, to which

really, however, he did not attach much importance." To the best of my

judgement it is only some bias in favour of Mr. Wallace's views that can

lead a naturalist to view in this way the clear and consistent

expression of Darwin's.

[167] Mr. Thiselton Dyer in _Nature_, _loc. cit._

That Mr. Wallace himself should be biassed in this matter might,

perhaps, be expected. After rendering the following very unequivocal

passage from the _Origin of Species_ (p. 72)--"There can be little doubt

that the tendency to vary in the same manner has often been so strong,

_that all individuals of the same species have been similarly modified

without the aid of any form of selection_"--Mr. Wallace says, "But no

proof whatever is offered of this statement, and it is so entirely

opposed to all we know of the facts of variation as given by Darwin

himself, that the important word 'all' is probably an oversight." But,

if Mr. Wallace had read the very next sentence he would have seen that

here the important word "all" could not _possibly_ have been "an

oversight." For the passage continues,--"Or only a third, fifth, or

tenth part of the individuals may have been thus affected, of which fact

several instances could be given. Thus Graba estimates that about

one-fifth of the guillemots in the Faroe Islands consist of a variety so

well marked, that it was formerly ranked as a distinct species under the

name of Uria lacrymans." And even if this passage had not been thus

specially concerned with the question of the _proportion_ in which

"_individuals of the same species have been similarly modified without

the aid of any form of selection_" the oversight with respect to "the

important word 'all'" would still have remained an oversight of a

recurrent character, as the following additional quotations from other

parts of Darwin's writings may perhaps render apparent.

"There must be some efficient cause for each slight individual

difference, as well as for more strongly marked variations which

occasionally arise; and if the unknown cause were to act

persistently, it is almost certain that _all_ the individuals of

the _species_ would be similarly modified[168]."

"The acquisition of a useless part can hardly be said to raise an

organism in the natural scale.... We are so ignorant of the

exciting cause of the above specified modifications; but if the

unknown cause were to act almost uniformly for a length of time, we

may infer that the result would be almost uniform; and in this case

_all_ the individuals of the _species_ would be modified in the

same manner[169]."

[168] _Origin of Species_, p. 171.

[169] _Ibid._ p. 175.

Moreover, when dealing even with such comparatively slight changes as

occur between our domesticated varieties--and which, _a fortiori_, are

less likely to become "stable" through the uniform operation of causes

other than selection, seeing that they are not only smaller in amount

than occurs among natural species, but also have had but a comparatively

short time in which to accumulate--Darwin is emphatic in his assertion

of the same principles. For instance, in the twenty-third chapter of the

_Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication_, he repeatedly

uses the term "definite action of external conditions," and begins the

chapter by explaining his use of the term thus:--

"By the term definite action, as used in this chapter, I mean an

action of such a nature that, when many individuals of the same

variety are exposed during several generations to any change in

their physical conditions of life, _all_, or _nearly all_, the

individuals are modified in the same manner. A new _sub-variety_

would thus be produced _without the aid of selection_[170]."

[170] _Variation_, &c., vol. ii. p. 260.

As an example of the special instances that he gives, I may quote the

following from the same work:--

"Each of the endless variations which we see in the plumage of our

fowls must have had some efficient cause; and if the same cause

were to act uniformly during a long series of generations on many

individuals, _all_ probably would be modified in the same manner."

And, as instances of his more general statements in Chapter XXIII, these

may suffice:--

"The direct action of the conditions of life, whether leading to

definite or indefinite results, _is a totally distinct

consideration from the effects of natural selection_.... The direct

and definite action of changed conditions, in contradistinction to

the accumulation of indefinite variations, _seems to me so

important_ that I will give a large additional body of

miscellaneous facts[171]."

[171] _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 261.

Then, after giving these facts, and showing how in the case of species

in a state of nature it is often impossible to decide how much we are to

attribute to natural selection and how much to the definite action of

changed conditions, he begins his general summary of the chapter thus:--

"There can be no doubt, from the facts given in the early part of

this chapter, that extremely slight changes in the conditions of

life sometimes act in a definite manner on our already variable

domesticated productions [productions, therefore, with regard to

which uniformity and 'stability' of modification are least likely

to arise]; and, as the action Of changed conditions in causing

general or indefinite variability is accumulative, so it may be

with their definite action. Hence it is possible that _great_ and

_definite_ modifications of structure may result from altered

conditions acting during a long series of generations. In some few

instances a marked effect has been produced quickly on _all_, or

_nearly all_, the individuals which have been exposed to some

considerable change of climate, food, or other circumstance[172]."

[172] _Variation_, &c., vol. ii. p. 280.

Once more, in order to show that he retained these views to the end of

his life, I may quote a passage from the second edition of the _Descent

of Man_, which is the latest expression of his opinion upon these

points:--

"Each of the endless diversities in plumage, which we see in our

domesticated birds, is, of course, the result of some definite

cause; and under natural and more uniform conditions, some one

tint, _assuming that it was in no way injurious, would almost

certainly sooner or later prevail_. The free-intercrossing of the

many individuals belonging to the same species would ultimately

tend to make any change of colour thus induced _uniform in

character_.... Can we believe that the very slight differences in

tints and markings between, for instance, the female black-grouse

and red-grouse serve as a protection? Are partridges as they are

now coloured, better protected than if they had resembled quails?

Do the slight differences between the females of the common

pheasant, the Japan and golden pheasants, serve as a protection, or

might not their plumage have been interchanged with impunity? From

what Mr. Wallace has observed of the habits of certain gallinaceous

birds in the East, he thinks that such slight differences are

beneficial. For myself, I will only say, I am not convinced[173]."

[173] _Descent of Man_, pp. 473-4.

Yet "convinced" he certainly must have been on merely _a priori_

grounds, had he countenanced Mr. Wallace's reasoning from the general

theory of natural selection; and the fact that he here fails to be

convinced even by "what Mr. Wallace has observed of the habits of

certain gallinaceous birds," appears to indicate that he had considered

the question of utility with special reference to Mr. Wallace's opinion.

That opinion was then, as now, the avowed result of a theoretical

prepossession; and this prepossession, as the above quotations

sufficiently show, was expressly repudiated by Darwin.

Lastly, this is not the only occasion on which Darwin expressly

repudiates Mr. Wallace's opinion on the point in question. For it is

notorious that these co-authors of the theory of natural selection have

expressed divergent opinions concerning the origin by natural selection

of the most general of all specific characters--cross-sterility.

Although allowing that cross-sterility between allied species may be of

adaptive value in "keeping incipient species from blending," Darwin

persistently refused to be influenced by Wallace's belief that it is due

to natural selection; i.e. the belief on which alone can be founded the

"necessary deduction" with which we have been throughout concerned.

NOTE A TO PAGE 57.

I think it is desirable here to adduce one or two concrete illustrations

of these abstract principles, in order to show how, as a matter of fact,

the structure of Weismann's theory is such as to preclude the

possibility of its assumptions being disproved--and this even supposing

that the theory is false.

At first sight nothing could seem more conclusive on the side of

Darwinian or Lamarckian principles than are the facts of hereditary

disease, in cases where the disease has unquestionably been acquired by

the parents. Take, for example, the case of gout. Here there is no

suspicion of any microbe being concerned, nor is there any question

about the fact of the disease being one which is frequently acquired by

certain habits of life. Now, suppose the case of a man who in middle age

acquires the gout by these habits of life--such as insufficient

exercise, over-sufficient food, and free indulgence in wine. His son

inherits the gouty diathesis, and even though the boy may have the fear

of gout before his eyes, and consequently avoid over-eating and

alcoholic drinking, &c., the disease may overtake him also. Well, the

natural explanation of all this is, that the sins of the fathers descend

upon the children; that gout acquired may become in the next generation

gout transmitted. But, on the other hand, the school of Weismann will

maintain that the reason why the parent contracted the gout was because

he had a congenital, or "blastogenetic," tendency towards that

disease--a tendency which may, indeed, have been intensified by his

habits of life, but which, in so far as thus intensified, was not

transmitted to his offspring. All that was so transmitted was the

congenital tendency; and all that is proved by such cases as those above

supposed, where the offspring of gouty parents become gouty

notwithstanding their abstemious habits, is that in such offspring the

congenital tendency is even more pronounced than it was in their

parents, and therefore did not require so much inducement in the way of

unguarded living to bring it out. Now, here again, without waiting to

consider the relative probabilities of these two opposing explanations,

it is enough for the purposes of the illustration to remark that it is

obviously impossible to disprove either by means of the other, or by any

class of facts to which they may severally appeal.

I will give only one further example to show the elusiveness of

Weismann's theory, and the consequent impossibility of finding any cases

in nature which will satisfy the conditions of proof which the theory

imposes. In one of his papers Weismann says that if there be any truth

in the Lamarckian doctrine of the transmission of acquired characters,

it ought to follow that the human infant should speak by instinct. For,

ever since man became human he has presumably been a talking animal: at

any rate it is certain that he has been so for an innumerable number of

generations. Therefore, by this time the faculty of language ought to

have been so deeply impressed upon the psychology of the species, that

there ought to be no need to teach the young child its use of language;

and the fact that there is such need is taken by Weismann to constitute

good evidence in proof of the non-transmissibility of individually

acquired characters. Or, to quote his own words, "it has never yet been

found that a child could read of itself, although its parents had

throughout their whole lives practised this art. Not even are our

children able to talk of their own accord; yet not only have their

parents, but, more than that, an infinitely long line of ancestors have

never ceased to drill their brains and to perfect their organs of

speech.... From this alone we may be disposed to doubt whether acquired

capabilities in the true sense can ever be transmitted." Well, in answer

to this particular case, we have first of all to remark that the

construction of even the simplest language is, psychologically

considered, a matter of such enormous complexity, that there is no real

analogy between it and the phenomena of instinct: therefore the fact

that Lamarckian principles cannot be applied to the case of language is

no evidence that they do not hold good as regards instinct. Secondly,

not only the construction, but still more the use of language is quite

out of analogy with all the phenomena of instinct; for, in order to use,

or speak, a language, the mind must already be that of a thinking agent;

and therefore to expect that language should be instinctive is

tantamount to expecting that the thought of which it is the vehicle

should be instinctive--i.e. that human parents should transmit the whole

organization of their own intellectual experiences to their unborn

children. Thirdly, even neglecting these considerations, we have to

remember that language has been itself the product of an immensely long

course of evolution; so that even if it were reasonable to expect that a

child should speak by instinct without instruction, it would be

necessary further to expect that the child should begin by speaking in

some score or two of unknown tongues before it arrived at the one which

alone its parents could understand. Probably these considerations are

enough to show how absurd is the suggestion that Darwinians ought to

expect children to speak by instinct. But, now, although it is for these

reasons preposterous under any theory of evolution to expect that

children should be able to use a fully developed language without

instruction, it is by no means so preposterous to expect that, if all

languages present any one simple set of features in common, these

features might by this time have grown to be instinctive; for these

simple features, being common to all languages, must have been

constantly and forcibly impressed upon the structure of human psychology

throughout an innumerable number of sequent generations. Now, there is

only one set of features common to all languages; and this comprises the

combinations of vowel and consonantal sounds, which go to constitute

what we know as articulate syllables. And, is it not the case that these

particular features, thus common to all languages, as a matter of fact

actually _are_ instinctive? Long before a young child is able to

understand the meanings of any words, it begins to babble articulate

syllables; and I do not know that a more striking fact can be adduced at

the present stage of the Weismann controversy than is this fact which he

has thus himself unconsciously suggested, namely, that the young of the

only talking animal should be alone in presenting--and in unmistakably

presenting--the instinct of articulation. Well, such being the state of

matters as regards this particular case, in the course of a debate which

was held at the Newcastle meeting of the British Association upon the

heredity question, I presented this case as I present it now. And

subsequently I was met, as I expected to be met, by its being said that

after all the faculty of making articulate sounds might have been of

congenital origin. Seeing of how much importance this faculty must

always have been to the human species, it may very well have been a

faculty which early fell under the sway of natural selection, and so it

may have become congenital. Now, be it remembered, I am only adducing

this case in illustration of the elusiveness of Weismann's theory. First

of all he selects the faculty of articulate speech to argue that it is a

faculty which ought to be instinctive if acquired characters ever do

become instinctive; and so good does he deem it as a test case between

the two theories, that he says _from it alone_ we should be prepared to

accept the doctrine that acquired characters can never become

congenital. Then, when it is shown that the only element in articulate

speech which possibly could have become congenital, actually has become

congenital, the answer we receive is a direct contradiction of the

previous argument: the faculty originally selected as representative of

an acquired character is now taken as representative of a congenital

one. By thus playing fast and loose with whatever facts the followers of

Darwin may adduce, the followers of Weismann bring their own position

simply to this:--All characters which can be shown to be inherited we

assume to be congenital, or as we term it, "blastogenetic," while all

characters which can be shown not to be inherited, we assume to be

acquired, or as we term it, "somatogenetic"--and this merely on the

ground that they have been shown to be inherited or not inherited as the

case may be. Now, there need be no objection to such assumptions,

provided they are recognized as assumptions; but so long as the very

question in debate has reference to their validity as assumptions, it is

closely illogical to adduce them as arguments. And this is the only

point with which we are at present concerned.

NOTE B TO PAGE 89.

In answer to this illustration as previously adduced by me, Mr. Poulton

has objected that the benefit arising from the peculiar mode of stinging

in question is a benefit conferred, not on the insect which stings, but

upon its progeny. The point of the illustration however has no reference

to the maternal instinct (which here, as elsewhere, I doubt not is due

to natural selection); it has reference only to the particular instinct

of selective stinging, which here ministers to the purposes of the other

and more general instinct of rearing progeny. Given then the maternal

instinct of stinging prey for the use of progeny, the question is--What

first determined the ancestors of the Sphex to sting their prey only in

nine particular points? Darwin's answer to this question is as

follows:--

"I have been thinking about Pompilius and its allies. Please take

the trouble to read on perforation of the corolla by Bees, p. 425

of my 'Cross-fertilization,' to end of chapter. Bees show so much

intelligence in their acts, that it seems not improbable to me that

the progenitors of Pompilius originally stung caterpillars and

spiders, &c., in any part of their bodies, and then observed by

their intelligence that if they stung them in one particular place,

as between certain segments on the lower side, their prey was at

once paralyzed. It does, not seem to me at all incredible that this

action should then become instinctive, i.e. memory transmitted from

one generation to another. It does not seem necessary to suppose

that when Pompilius stung its prey in the ganglion it intended or

knew that their prey would keep long alive. The development of the

larvae may have been subsequently modified in relation to their

half-dead, instead of wholly dead prey; supposing that the prey was

at first quite killed, which would have required much stinging.

Turn this over in your mind," &c.

Weismann, on the other hand, can only suppose that this intensely

specialized instinct had its origin in fortuitous variations in the

psychology of the species. But, neglecting the consideration that, in

order to become fixed as an instinct by natural selection, the

particular variation required must have occurred in many different

individuals, not only in the first, but also in the sequent generations,

the chances against its occurring only once, or in but one single

individual case, are many thousands if not millions to one.

INDEX

Acceleration and retardation, 16.

Acquired characters, heredity of, 39, 103, 133.

Adaptation, 7, 13, 55, 62, 67, 71, 159, 165;

of species and of specific characters, 166.

ALLEN, Mr., referred to, 209.

_All-sufficiency of Natural Selection_, referred to, 65, 95.

_Alone with the Hairy Ainu_, referred to, 26.

American and European trees compared, 201.

_American Journal of Science_, referred to, 273.

_American Naturalist_, referred to, 35, 58.

Ammonites, species of, 254.

_Animal Intelligence_, referred to, 93.

_Animal Life_, referred to, 101.

_Animal Life and Intelligence_, referred to, 33, 36.

_Apparent Paradox in Mental Evolution_, referred to, 90.

Appendages of Normandy and Irish pigs, 188.

Articulation and inheritance, 335.

Artistic faculties of man, 27.

BABINGTON, Prof., referred to, 252.

BACHMAN, Dr., referred to, 186.

BAILEY, Prof., referred to, 127.

BAKER, Mr., referred to, 252.

Balancing of brainless frog, 78.

BALL, Mr. Platt, referred to, 3, 95; quoted, 50.

BATESON, Mr. W., referred to, 36.

BEDDARD, Mr. F., referred to, 174.

BENTHAM, Mr., referred to, 252.

Birds, diagnostic characters of, 176;

of Australia, effect of climate on, 210;

influence of food on, 218.

Blastogenetic, 123, 242, 245, 250.

Blending of adaptations, 67.

_Brain_, referred to, 80.

BROCA, Prof., referred to, 64, 67, 174, 318.

BRONN, Prof., referred to, 174.

BROOKS, Prof., referred to, 14.

BROWN-SEQUARD, referred to, 104, 122, 142; quoted, 104.

BUCKLEY, Mr., referred to, 147.

BUCKMAN, Prof. James, referred to, 125.

BUCKMAN, Prof. S.S., referred to, 24.

BUTLER, Mr. A. G., referred to, 254.

BUTLER, Mr. Samuel, referred to, 87.

Butterfly, seasonal changes of, 210;

influence of food on, 217.

Carnivora, instincts of, 89.

CARRIERE, M. L. A., referred to, 123.

Cave animals, colour-changes in, 211.

_Cave Fauna of North America_, quoted, 211.

Cessation of Selection, 99, 199, 212, 292.

Characters, adaptive and specific, 159, 307;

specific, due to Natural Selection, 171.

_Charadriidae, Geographical Distribution of the Family_, quoted, 173.

Chimpanzee, counting of, 31.

Climate, influence of, on plants, 200;

on animals, 209.

Co-adaptation, 64.

COCKERELL, Prof., referred to, 218.

Colour, 269.

Colour-changes in butterflies, 210.

in cave animals, 211.

_Colours of Animals_, referred to, 36.

Congenital, as opposed to acquired characters, 134.

Constancy of characters not necessarily due to Natural Selection, 186.

_Contemporary Review_, referred to, 60, 65, 95

Continuity of germ-plasm, 44, 61, 133;

absolute and relative, 134, 155.

_Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection_, referred to, 2;

quoted, 180.

COPE, Prof., referred to, 14, 15, 20, 63, 256; quoted, 16.

Correlation, 171, 184, 211, 222, 268.

COSTA, M., quoted, 217.

CUNNINGHAM, Mr. J. T., quoted, 103; referred to, 95, 122.

DALL, Prof., referred to, 14.

DARWIN, Charles, referred to, 1-13, 20-22, 25, 44, 45, 51-53, 56, 66,

67, 74, 87, 88, 93, 95, 96-100, 149, 159, 160, 167, 173, 174, 181-183,

187-191, 193, 195, 198, 200-202, 213-216, 218, 219, 226, 256, 261-265,

268, 271, 277, 283, 287, 291, 305-307, 313-332, 337; quoted, 11, 53, 66,

96, 181, 182, 186-191, 193, 195, 201, 202, 213-215, 261, 262, 265,

313-316, 319-322, 324-326, 328-331, 337.

_Darwin et ses Precurseurs Francais_, referred to, 234.

_Darwinian Theory of the Origin of Species_, quoted, 254.

_Darwinism_, quoted, 22, 27, 67, 181, 182, 186, 189-191, 221, 222, 235,

236, 252, 253, 269, 270, 273, 313, 316; referred to, 7, 12, 15, 20, 70.

DE CANDOLLE, Prof., referred to, 206.

Deep-sea faunas, 212.

DELB[OE]UF, referred to, 224.

_Descent of Man_, quoted, 25, 322-324, 331.

_Development of the Hard Parts of the Mammalia_, referred to, 14.

DE VRIES, Prof., referred to, 122, 174.

Diagnostic characters of birds, 176;

Marsupials, 178.

Divergent Evolution through Cumulative Segregation, quoted, 224.

DIXON, Mr. Charles, referred to, 174; quoted, 177, 223.

_Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism_, quoted, 260.

Dogs, scratching, reflex of, 80;

shaking off water, 84;

transplantation of ovaries, 143.

DORFMEISTER, Dr., referred to, 211.

Ducks, use-inheritance in, 96;

losing true plumage, 187.

DUPUY, Dr., referred to, 105.

DYER, Mr. Thistleton, quoted, 325, 327.

_Effect of External Influences upon Development_, referred to, 66, 95.

_Effects of Use and Disuse_, quoted, 50.

EIMER, Prof., referred to, 14, 174, 217.

_Entomological Society, Trans. of_, quoted, 211; referred to, 217.

Epilepsy of guinea-pigs, 104.

_Essays on Heredity_, quoted, 56, 91, 97, 107, 152; referred to, 12, 36,

65, 105, 110.

EUDES-DESLONGCHAMPS, M., referred to, 188.

European and American trees, compared, 201.

EVEREST, Rev. E., quoted, 213.

_Evolution without Natural Selection_, quoted, 177.

_Examination of Weismannism_, referred to, 39-42, 44, 100, 122, 123,

134, 136, 138-140, 156.

_Experiments in Pangenesis_, referred to, 145.

FABRE, M., referred to, 88.

Factors of organic evolution:

Natural Selection, 2, 5, 6;

use-inheritance, 3, 11.

_Factors of Organic Evolution_, referred to, 8.

Faculties and organs, 29.

Fertility, 229.

Flat-fish, Mr. Cunningham on, 103.

_Floral Structures_, referred to, 19.

FOCKE, Dr., referred to, 174.

_Fonctions du Cerveau_, referred to, 109.

Food, influence of, 217.

Foot, of man, 23.

Frog, brainless, balancing of, 78.

GALTON, Mr. Francis, referred to, 40-48, 100, 103, 134-139, 145, 146,

152, 154, 156, 300, 303-305; quoted, 46, 100.

Gangrene, effects of, 54, 105.

_Gardener's Chronicle_, quoted, 127.

GAERTNER, Dr., referred to, 206.

GEDDES, Prof., referred to, 15, 20,174.

Gemmules, 47, 145, 155.

Genera and species, 261.

Germ-plasm and Stirp, 40;

and pangenesis, 42;

isolation of, 137;

stability of, 243.

_Germ-plasm_, referred to, 128.

GIARD, Prof., referred to, 14, 174.

Giraffe, co-adaptation in, 64.

GOLTZ, Prof., referred to, 80, 84.

GOULD, Mr., referred to, 210.

Graft-hybridization, 143.

Growth, laws of, 222, 226, 248, 270, 321.

Guinea-pigs, epilepsy of, 104.

GULICK, Mr., referred to, 174, 259, 260, 271; quoted, 224, 273.

_Gute und schlechte Arten_, quoted, 203.

Habit, hereditary, 87.

_Habit and Intelligence_, quoted, 225.

Hand, of man, 24.

_Handbook of British Flora_, referred to, 252.

HAYCRAFT, Prof., referred to, 80.

HEAPE, Mr. Walter, referred to, 147.

HENSLOW, Prof. George, referred to, 18-20, 127-132, 174, 208; quoted,

19, 130, 131.

Heredity, problems of, 39.

HERING, Prof., referred to, 87.

HEWITT, Mr., referred to, 187.

HILL, Prof. Leonard, quoted, 132.

HAECKEL, Prof., referred to, 174, 260, 282.

HOFFMANN, Dr., referred to, 123, 280.

Horse, callosities of, 265.

HUXLEY, Prof. T. H., referred to, 167-170, 185, 256, 275, 283, 307-312;

quoted, 307-309.

Huxleyan doctrine of species, 167.

_Hyatt_, Prof., referred to, 14, 15.

Hymenoptera, social, 92.

_Inadequacy of Natural Selection_, referred to, 65, 95.

_Inconsistencies of Utilitarianism as the Exclusive Theory of Organic

Evolution_, quoted, 273.

Indifferent characters, 171, 185, 208, 247.

Insects, instincts of, 91.

Instability of useless characters, 186.

Instinct and hereditary habit, 87;

of Sphex, 88;

of carnivora, 89;

of man, 89;

Prof. Weismann's views on, 90;

of insects, 91.

Intercrossing, 67-71.

Isolation, 223 _et seq._

JORDAN, Dr., referred to, 206, 252.

Karyokinesis, 140.

KERNER, Prof., referred to, 174, 202-206, 231, 239, 260, 282; quoted,

203.

KOCH, Dr., referred to, 217.

KOELLIKER, Prof., referred to, 174.

Lamarck, referred to, 9-15.

Lamarckism, 9, 61, 113.

LANDOR, A. H. Savage, referred to, 26.

Language and Weismannism, 334.

LANKESTER, Prof. Ray, quoted, 245, 299; referred to, 305.

LESAGE, M., referred to, 126.

_Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, quoted, 319, 320; referred to, 11.

LUCIANI, referred to, 109.

_Making of Flowers_, referred to, 19.

_Manual of British Botany_, referred to, 252.

_Manual of Dental Anatomy_, figure from, 267.

Marsupials, diagnostic characters of, 178.

_Materials for the Study of Variation_, referred to, 36.

MEEHAN, Mr., referred to, 201.

MELDOLA, Prof., referred to, 68.

_Mental Evolution in Animals_, referred to, 25, 88, 89, 92.

_Mental Evolution in Man_, referred to, 31.

MERRIFIELD, Mr., referred to, 211.

Mice, mutilation of tails of, 148.

MIVART, Prof. St. George, referred to, 4, 174, 217.

Monstrosity, in turkeys, 181;

in cattle, 196.

MORGAN, Prof. Lloyd, referred to, 33, 36, 174, 271, 300-305; quoted,

300, 303.

MOSELEY, Prof., referred to, 26.

MURPHY, Mr. J. J., referred to, 224.

Mutilations, inheritance of, 53, 148.

NAEGELI, Prof., referred to, 174, 206, 318.

Naked skin of man, 25.

NATHUSIUS, referred to, 188.

Natural Selection, range of, 2, 5, 51, 62, 92;

a theory of species, 161, 169;

and cave animals, 211;

and Porto Santo rabbits, 214.

_Natural Selection and Tropical Nature_, quoted, 23.

_Natural Science_, quoted, 104.

_Nature_, quoted, 132, 223, 245, 299, 325; referred to, 68, 98, 218.

Neo-Darwinian school, 10, 61.

Neo-Lamarckian school, 13, 62, 63.

_Neuer Beitrag zum geologischen Beweis der Darwin'schen Theorie_,

quoted, 254.

_Neuter Insects and Darwinism_, referred to, 95.

_Neuter Insects and Lamarckism_, referred to, 95.

Neuters of hymenopterous insects, 92.

NEWMAN, Cardinal, referred to, 20.

Niata cattle, 191.

OBERSTEINER, Dr., referred to, 105, 106.

_Oesterreichische medicinische Jahrbuecher_, referred to, 105.

_On Truth_, referred to, 217.

Orang-utan, teeth of, 267.

_Organic Evolution_, referred to, 217.

_Origin of the Fittest_, quoted, 16; referred to, 14.

_Origine des Plantes Domestiques, demontree par la culture du Radis

sauvage_, referred to, 123.

_Origin of Sex_, referred to, 17.

_Origin of Species_, quoted, 3, 4, 181, 182, 186, 188, 190, 261, 262,

265, 321, 322, 325, 326, 329; referred to, 67, 159, 227, 286.

OSBORN, Prof., referred to, 14, 58, 63.

OWEN, Sir Richard, referred to, 191.

Oxen, skulls of, compared, 192.

Oysters, change of, 217.

PACKARD, Prof., referred to, 14, 213.

Pangenesis, 11, 42.

Panmixia, 97, 212, 291.

Parsimony, law of, 51.

Parsnips, variation of, 125.

PASCOE, Mr., referred to, 174; quoted, 254.

PERRIER, Prof., referred to, 14, 93, 95.

PETER, Dr., referred to, 206.

PFEFFER, Herr, referred to, 15.

_Pflueger's Archiv_, referred to, 80.

_Philosophical Transactions_, referred 10, 103.

_Physiological Selection_, referred to, 187, 307, 313, 324; quoted, 188,

308.

_Pickard-Cambridge_, Rev. O., quoted, 221.

Pig, old Irish, 188.

Plants, influence of climate on, 122-207.

Porto Santo rabbits, 214.

POULTON, E. B., referred to, 36, 217, 337.

_Presidential Address to the Bristol Naturalists Society_, 1891; quoted,

300, 303.

_Proceedings of the Royal Society_, referred to, 145, 147; quoted, 307.

Protective resemblance, 72.

Protrusion of eyeball, in epileptic guinea-pigs, 111.

QUATREFAGES, M., referred to, 234.

Rabbits, and use-inheritance, 96;

transplantation of ovaries, 143;

Porto Santo, 214.

Radish, variation of, 123.

Rats, scratching, reflex of, 81.

_Raupen und Schmetterlinge der Wetterau_, referred to, 217.

Reflex action and use-inheritance, 64-87.

_Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann_, referred to, 95.

Reversal of selection, 101, 292.

_Revue Generale de Botanie_, referred to, 126.

RICHARDSON, referred to, 188.

ROUX, Prof., referred to, 298.

Rudiments, 294.

RYDER, Prof., referred to, 14.

SACHS, Prof., referred to, 15, 174.

"Sally," counting of, 31.

SAUERMANN, Dr., referred to, 218.

SCHAEFER, Prof., referred to, 145.

_Schmetterlinge des Suedwestlichen Deutschlands_, referred to, 217.

SCHMIDT, Dr. Oscar, quoted, 260.

Schools of Evolutionists, 12-20.

SCOTT, Prof., referred to, 63.

Scratching, reflex, in dogs, 80;

in rats, 81.

Seasonal changes of butterflies, 210.

SEEBOHM, Mr. Henry, quoted, 173; referred to, 174.

Selection, cessation of, 99, 292;

reversal of, 101, 292.

Selection, sexual, 219 _et seq._

Selective value, 73.

Self-adaptation, 18.

SEMPER, Prof. Karl, referred to, 101.

Sexual selection, 219 _et seq._

Sole, pigment of, 104.

Somatogenetic and somatoplasm, 123, 137, 155, 242-249.

_Some Laws of Heredity_, referred to, 24.

Species, stress laid on origin of, 159;

necessarily due to natural selection, 168.

---- definitions of, 229.

SPENCER, Herbert, referred to, 8, 64-68, 95.

Sphex, instincts of, 88, 337.

STEBBING, Rev. T. R., quoted, 25.

Sterility, 8.

Stirp and germ-plasm, 40, 47, 138.

_Struggle for Existence between the parts of an Organism_, referred to,

299.

Theory of Heredity, referred to, 40, 47, 137, 154; quoted, 46, 47.

THOMAS, Mr. Oldfield, referred to, 178.

THOMSON, J. A., referred to, 15.

TODD, J. E., referred to, 35.

TOMES, Mr., referred to, 267.

Transfusion of blood in rabbits, 145.

Transplantation of ovaries in rabbits, 143, 147.

Trees, comparison of European and American, 201.

Turkey, tuft of hair of, 181;

losing metallic tints, 186.

Use-inheritance, 3, 49, 77, 95, 151.

Utility, law of, 8, 20, 159;

universality of, 166;

of specific characters, 172;

of specific characters in birds, 176;

of specific characters in Mammals, 178.

_Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication_, quoted, 3, 4, 53,

66, 96, 187, 189, 191, 193, 195, 213-216, 330, 331.

Varieties, climatic, 228.

Vestigial characters, 171, 184, 261, 294.

VINES, Prof., referred to, 297.

Vitality, plumes of birds due to surplus, 270, 25.

Voice, of man, 25.

WAGNER, Moritz, referred to, 217.

WALLACE, Mr. A. R., referred to, 2, 6, 9, 11, 15, 20-35, 50, 66-70, 167,

169, 172-175, 180-198, 210, 218-227, 235-237, 252, 256, 258, 263-278,

285, 313-322, 328, 331, 332; quoted, 22-24, 27, 67, 180-182, 185, 186,

190, 191, 221-223, 235, 236, 269, 273, 313.

Wallacean doctrine of species, 167, 169.

WEISMANN, Prof., referred to, 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, 39-60, 65, 66, 90-105,

112, 128, 134-142, 148, 149, 151, 152, 155, 156, 173, 241, 243, 244,

246, 279, 280, 291, 294, 297, 298, 300, 311, 338; quoted, 56, 91, 97,

152, 243, 244, 297.

Weismannism, diagram of constituent theories, 43, 136;

elusiveness of, 334.

_Weismannism once more_, referred to, 66, 95.

WELBY, Hon. Lady, referred to, 90.

WESTPHAL, Prof., referred to, 105, 107.

Withdrawal of foot by reflex action, 75.

WUERTENBERGER, Dr., referred to, 254.

YARRELL, Mr., referred to, 186.

LIST OF OPEN COURT PUBLICATIONS ON SCIENCE

The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution. By E. D. Cope. Second

edition. Pages, 550; illustrations, 121; tables, bibliography, and

index. Cloth, $2.00 net.

A comprehensive handbook of the Neo-Lamarckian theory of Evolution.

A Mechanico-Physiological Theory of Organic Evolution. By Carl von

Naegeli. Translated by V. A. Clark and F. A. Waugh. Price, cloth, 60c;

paper, 30c net.

A synopsis of his great work on evolution.

Darwin and After Darwin. An exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a

Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions. By George J. Romanes. 3 vols.

Price, $4.00 net.

Part I. The Darwinian Theory. Price, cloth, $2.00 net.

Part II. Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility. Price, cloth,

$1.50 net.

Part III. Post-Darwinian Questions. Isolation and Physiological

Selection. Price, cloth, $1.00 net.

An Examination of Weismannism. By George J. Romanes. Price, cloth,

$1.00 net; paper, 40c net.

"The best criticism of the subject in our language."--_The

Outlook._

On Germinal Selection. By August Weismann. Translated by T. J.

McCormack. Price, paper, 30c net.

The Rise of Man. A Sketch of the Origin of the Human Race. By Paul

Carus. Pages, 97; illustrated. Boards, cloth back, 75c net.

The Scope and Content of the Science of Anthropology. By Juul

Dieserud. Pages, 200; cloth, gilt top, $2.00 net.

"The science of Anthropology," according to Topinard, "is that

branch of natural history which treats of man, and the races of

men."

Experiments on the Generation of Insects. By Francesco Redi.

Translated from the Italian edition of 1688, by Mab Bigelow.

Illustrated. Cloth, $2.00 net.

This book may be counted as one of the classics of the theory of

evolution.

Ants and Some Other Insects. An Inquiry into the Psychic Powers of

these Animals, with an Appendix on the peculiarities of their Olfactory

Sense. By August Forel. Translated by William M. Wheeler. Price,

$1.00 net; paper, 55c net.

Plant Breeding. Comments on the Experiments of Nilsson and Burbank. By

Hugo de Vries. Pages, xv, 360. Illustrated with 114 half-tone plates

from nature. Printed on fine paper, in large type. Cloth, gilt top.

Price, $1.50 net.

A scientific book in simple language. Intensely interesting as well

as instructive. Of special value to every botanist, horticulturist

and farmer.

Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation. Lectures delivered at

the University of California by Hugo de Vries, Professor of Botany in

the University of Amsterdam. Pages, xviii, 847. Cloth, gilt top, $5.00

net.

The Mutation Theory. Experiments and Observations on the Origin of

Species in the Vegetable Kingdom. 2 vols. Numerous illustrations,

colored plates. By Hugo de Vries. Translated by Prof. A. B. Farmer

and A. D. Darbishire. Cloth, per volume, $4.00.

This is de Vries' great book on a new explanation of the evolution

theory, accounting for the formation of species not by the struggle

for existence but by mutation.

Intracellular Pangenesis. Including a paper on Fertilization and

Hybridization. By Hugo de Vries. Translated from the German by C.

Stuart Gager. Cloth, $3.00 net.

This is de Vries' first important book. It is not very large, but

ought to be read by all students of botany, and also by those who

are interested in the theory of evolution.

On Orthogenesis and the Impotence of Natural Selection in

Species-Formation. By Th. Eimer. Translated by T. J. McCormack.

Price, paper, 30c net.

Another critic of Darwin who claims that organisms develop through

transmission of acquired characters.

On the Inheritance of Acquired Characters. By Eugenio Rignano.

Translated by Basil C. H. Harvey. With an Appendix "On the Mnemonic

Origin and Nature of Affective Tendencies." Cloth, $3.00 net.

Rignano calls his theory "centro-epigenesis" and is greatly

influenced by Weismann.

On Double Consciousness. Studies in Experimental Psychology. By

Alfred Binet. Third edition. Pages, 93. Cloth, 50c net; paper, 20c

net.

"A most valuable contribution to this important subject which none

of its students can afford to leave unread."--_Public Opinion._

The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms. By Alfred Binet. Authorized

translation. Pages, xii, 120. Cloth, 75c net; paper, 30c net.

"He fortifies his theory by such a wealth of exact observation and

experiments that the reader who follows his demonstration carefully

can hardly fail of conviction."--_New York Tribune._

The Psychology of Reasoning. By Alfred Binet. Translated from the

second French edition by Adam Gowans Whyte, B.Sc. Pages, 191. Cloth,

75c net; paper, 30c net.

"Like everything that Dr. Binet writes, the subject is stated and

expounded lucidly."--_The Lancet._

The Diseases of Personality. By Theodule Ribot. Authorized

translation. Fourth edition. Pages, 157. Cloth, 75c net; paper, 30c.

Contents: Introduction, Consciousness; Organic Disorders; Affective

Disorders; Diseases of the Intellect; Dissolution of Personality.

The Diseases of the Will. By Theodule Ribot. Authorized translation.

Third edition. Pages, vi, 121. Cloth, 75c net; paper, 30c net.

Contains chapters on impairments of the will and of voluntary

attention, the realm of caprices, and extinction of the will.

Essay on the Creative Imagination. By Theodule Ribot. Translated

from the French by A. H. N. Baron, Fellow in Clark University. Cloth,

gilt top. Pages, 357. $1.75 net.

The motor nature of the constructive imagination.

The Psychology of Attention. By Theodule Ribot, Professor in the

College de France and editor of the "Revue Philosophique." Fifth and

revised edition. Authorized translation. Pages, 121. Cloth, 75c net;

paper, 30c net.

Contents: Spontaneous or Natural Attention; Voluntary or Artificial

Attention; Morbid States of Attention.

The Diseases of Memory. By Theodule Ribot. Cloth, $1.50 net.

Memory. Lectures on the Specific Energies of the Nervous System. By

Ewald Hering. Fourth edition, containing an additional chapter on the

Theory of Nerve Activity. Cloth, $1.00 net.

The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the

Psychical. By Ernst Mach, Emeritus Professor in the University of

Vienna. Translated by C. M. Williams. Third edition revised and

supplemented from the fifth German edition by Sydney Waterlow, M.A.

Pages, xvi, 380. Cuts, 37. Cloth, $1.50 net.

Popular Science Lectures. By Ernst Mach, Professor in the University

of Vienna. Translated from the German by T. J. McCormack. Third

edition. Pages, 415. Cloth, gilt top, $1.50 net; paper, 60c net.

A portrayal of the methods and spirit of science, in lectures on

mechanics, sound, light, electricity, the conservation of energy,

philosophy and education.

Man a Machine. By Julien Offray De La Mettrie. Including Frederick

the Great's Eulogy on La Mettrie and Extracts from La Mettrie's "Natural

History of the Soul." Translated, with notes, by Gertrude Carman

Bussey. French-English edition. With a portrait of La Mettrie. Pages,

226. Cloth, $2.00 net.

La Mettrie was the most extreme writer among the earliest French

materialists. His doctrine is an extension to man of Descartes'

doctrine that animals are automata.

PORTRAITS

Philosophical and Psychological Portrait Series

Printed on large paper (11 x 14) with tint and platemark. Many of them

are reproduced from rare paintings, engravings, or original photographs.

They are suitable for framing and hanging in public and private

libraries, laboratories, seminaries, recitation and lecture rooms, and

will be of interest to all concerned in education and general culture.

PHILOSOPHICAL

Pythagoras

Socrates

Plato

Aristotle

Epictetus

Thomas Aquinas

St. Augustine

Averrhoes

Duns Scotus

Giordano Bruno

Bacon

Hobbes

Descartes

Malebranche

Herbert Spencer

Schelling

Spinoza

Locke

Berkeley

Hume

Montesquieu

Voltaire

D'Alembert

Condillac

Diderot

Rousseau

Leibniz

Wolff

Kant

Fichte

Hegel

Schleiermacher

Schopenhauer

Herbart

Feuerbach

Lotze

Reid

Dugald Stewart

Sir W. Hamilton

Cousin

Comte

Rosmini

J. Stuart Mill

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Cabanis

Maine de Biran

Beneke

E. H. Weber

Fechner

Helmholtz

Wundt

Hering

G. T. Ladd

Aubert

Mach

Stumpf

Exner

Steinthal

Bain

Sully

Ward

C. L. Morgan

Romanes

Paul Janet

Ribot

Taine

Fouillee

Binet

G. Stanley Hall

PRICES:

Philosophical and Psychological Portrait Series.

68 portraits on plate paper, $7.50 per set net. On Japanese vellum,

$12.50 per set net.

Philosophical Portrait Series.

No. 100. 43 portraits on plate paper, $6.25 per set net.

No. 100a. 43 portraits on Japanese vellum, $8.75 per set net.

Single portraits on American plate, 25c net.

Single portraits on Japanese vellum, 35c net.

Psychological Portrait Series.

No. 101. 25 portraits on plate paper, $3.75 net.

No. 101a. 25 portraits on Japanese vellum, $5.00 net.

Single portraits on American plate, 25c net.

Single portraits on Japanese vellum, 35c net.

Framing Portrait of Hugo de Vries.

Platino finish. 10" x 12", unmounted, $1.00 net.

Framing Portrait of William James.

Printed on Japan paper. 11" x 14", $1.00.

Portraits of Eminent Mathematicians

Three portfolios edited by David Eugene Smith, Professor of Mathematics

in Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York.

In response to a widespread demand from those interested in mathematics

and the history of education, Professor Smith has edited three

portfolios of the portraits of some of the most eminent of the world's

contributors to the mathematical sciences. Accompanying each portrait is

a brief biographical sketch, with occasional notes of interest

concerning the artist represented. The pictures are of a size that

allows for framing (11" x 14"), it being the hope that a new interest in

mathematics may be aroused through the decoration of classrooms by the

portraits of those who helped to create the science.

Portfolio No. 1.--Twelve great mathematicians down to 1700 A.D.: Thales,

Pythagorus, Euclid, Archimedes, Leonardo of Pisa, Cardan, Vieta, Napier,

Descartes, Fermat, Newton, Leibniz.

Portfolio No. 2.--The most eminent founders and promotors of the

infinitesimal calculus: Cavallieri, Johann and Jakob Bernoulli, Pascal,

L'Hopital, Barrow, Laplace, Lagrange, Euler, Gauss, Monge, and Niccolo

Tartaglia.

Portfolio No. 3--Eight portraits selected from the two former

portfolios, especially adapted for high schools and academies,

comprising portraits of

Thales--with whom began the study of scientific geometry;

Pythagoras--who proved the proposition of the square on the

hypotenuse;

Euclid--whose Elements of Geometry form the basis of all modern

text-books;

Archimedes--whose treatment of the circle, cone, cylinder and sphere

influences our work today;

Descartes--to whom we are indebted for the graphic algebra in our

high schools;

Newton--who generalized the binomial theorem and invented the

calculus;

Napier--who invented logarithms and contributed to trigonometry;

Pascal--who discovered the "Mystic Hexagram" at the age of sixteen.

Portraits of Mathematicians, Part I.

No. 102. 12 portraits on American plate paper, $3.00 net.

No. 102a. 12 portraits on Japanese vellum, $5.00 net.

Single portraits, American plate, 35c net.

Single portraits, Japanese vellum, 50c net.

Portraits of Mathematicians, Part II.

No. 103. 12 portraits on American plate paper, $3.00 net.

No. 103a. 12 portraits on Japanese vellum, $5.00 net.

Single portraits, American plate paper, 35c net.

Single portraits, Japanese vellum, 50c net.

Portraits of Mathematicians, High School Portfolio.

Eight portraits selected from the two preceding portfolios.

No. 104. 8 portraits on American plate paper, $2.00 net.

No. 104a. 8 portraits on Japanese vellum, $3.50 net.

Single portraits, American plate paper, 35c net.

Single portraits, Japanese vellum, 50c net.

_For Purchasers who may prefer not to frame the Portraits, a neat

Portfolio can be supplied at an extra cost of $1.00._

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

The following typographical errors were correctred.

|Page |Error |Correction |

|10 |dicussion |discussion |

|45 |thoughout |throughout |

|229 |pyschological |psychological |

The following inconsistent hyphenations were changed.

|Page |Original |Changed to |

|34 |inter-crossing |intercrossing |

|46 |re-appear |reappear |

|123 |re-act |react |

|132 |eye-lid |eyelid |

|216 |lifetimes |life-times |

|217 |lifetime |life-time |

|317 |threefold |three-fold |

The following inconsistent hyphenations were not changed.

"somatoplasm" (3 instances) and "somato-plasm" (2 instances)

"twofold" (2) and "two-fold" (1)

"interaction" (1) and "inter-action" (1)

"supernatural" (1) and "super-natural" (1)

Other changes:

Page 16 Footnote 10 - double quotes around "acceleration" and

"retardation" changed to single quotes. A double quote inserted at

the end.

In the Index - Entries "On Truth" and "Orang-utan, teeth of" moved

from under "M" to under "O".

Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume 2 of 3 Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility · 第 14 / 14 章

The criticism is all embodied in two propositions--namely, (_a_) that