176 eecent Literature. [ZOE 
biological communication with the islands.”* The chapter on 
embryology is especially worthy of mention as probably the best 
and fullest argument for evolution ever made from this standpoint. 
It is noticeable that the general plan of Prof. Joseph Le Conte’s work 
on Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought has been fol- 
lowed in the first section of the work under discussion, although 
the illustrations and the method of presenting them are, to a large 
extent, unlike those of any other expounder of the subject. 
I will not attempt to discuss a number of points which might be 
raised with regard to the second part of the book, reserving this for 
a future time. There is only one point which need be mentioned 
here. In the chapter on The Theory of Natural Selection, Mr. 
Romanes says:+ ‘‘Next, it must be clearly understood that the 
life which it is the object, so to speak, of natural selection to pre- 
serve, is primarily the life of the species; not that of the individual. 
Natural selection preserves the life of the individual only in so far 
as this is conducive to that of the species. Whenever the life- 
interests of the individual clash with those of the species, that 
individual is sacrificed in favor of others who happen better to 
subserve the interests of the species.’ Why not go a step 
farther and say that it is the life of the genus, or the family, 
and not of the species, which natural selection preserves? Spe- 
cies or specific types count for nothing if they come into conflict 
with higher or better adapted specific types. The record of evolu- 
tion is a history of the destruction of inferior species to make room 
for superior. But is it not in reality the individual, rather than 
the species, which natural selection preserves? I mean, of course, 
the best individuals. He cites as proof that natural selection 
works for the good of the species rather than the individual 
the case of the ant, ‘‘which will allow her head to be slowly 
drawn from her body rather than relinquish her hold upon a pupa.’ 
Let us examine this instance a little more in detail. There can be 
no doubt, apparently, that such an instinct as this does make for 
the good of the community and against the well-being of the indi- 
vidual concerned. 
Suppose, however, this instinct of the ant which he cites had. 
* Pp, 230-231. 
t Pp. 264-265, 
