SHORTENED LEGS OF RABBITS.

In the case of the domestic rabbit Darwin notices that the bones of the

legs have (relatively) become shorter by an inch and a half. But as the

leg-bones have _not_ diminished in relative weight,[37] they must

clearly have grown _thicker_ or denser. If disuse has shortened them, as

Darwin supposes, why has it also thickened them? The ears and the tail

have been lengthened in spite of disuse. Why then may not the ungainly

hind-legs have been shortened by human preference independently of the

inherited effects of disuse? By relying on apparently favourable

instances and neglecting the others it would be easy to arrive at all

manner of unsound conclusions. We might thus become convinced that

vessels tend to sail northwards, or that a pendulum oscillates more

often in one direction than in the other. It must not be forgotten that

it would be easy to cite an enormous number of cases which are in direct

conflict with the supposed law of use-inheritance.

Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? An Examination of the View Held by Spencer and Darwin · 第 28 / 70 题