RUDIMENTS AND THE IDEAL FORM. 



By NINA F. LAYARD. 



N reply to two papers 

 in the October 

 issue of SciENCE- 

 GossiF, referring 

 to my articles on 

 "Rudimentary 

 Organs," I will 

 first notice Dr, 

 William Smith's 

 explanation of the 

 word " rudimen- 

 tary," as quoted 

 l,y Mr. A. H. 

 Swinton, though 

 it does not mate- 

 lially differ from 

 the meanings 

 given by other 

 good lexicograph- 

 ers. He says : "It 

 is derived from 

 the Latin adjective ntdis, in a natural state, not 

 improved by art," &c. 



As a natural state is, according to Dr. Webster, a 

 "normal " state, and a normal state is one in which 

 the organ "performs its proper functions," this 

 appears to disallow Mr. Darwin's expressed explana- 

 tion of his own use of the word in a letter to C. Lyell, 

 1859. "An organ," he says, " should not be called 

 rudimentary, unless it be useless." This characteris- 

 tic he proceeds to contrast with that of a nascent 

 organ, "which though little developed, as it has to 

 be developed, must be useful," &c. 



Notwithstanding, however, the. assertion, that that 

 which is properly called "rudimentary" is incapable 

 of development, we find an instance in the " Descent 

 of Man," in which the author has himself accidentally 

 fallen into the generally accepted use of the word. 

 Explaining the first attempts of birds to sing, he says, 

 "Their first essays show hardly a rudiment of the 

 future song." * He also, without comment, quotes 



■• "Descent of Man," p. 86. 



No. 289. — January 1889. 



Professor Wyman, and speaks of " rudimentary legs " 

 in the human embryo.* 



In the letter quoted by Mr. Swinton, the following 

 expression occurs : "Natural selection cannot jDOssibly 

 make a useless or rudimentary organ." How is this 

 to be reconciled with another statement in the 

 " Descent of Man " ? p. 25. Treating of the existence 

 of rudimentary organs, Mr. Darwin says: "They 

 became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or 

 through the natural selection of individuals," &c. 



With reference to Mr. Tansley's paper, I am sorry 

 that he should suppose that 1 purposely ignored the 

 instance of the " os coccyx " brought forward by him 

 in his article of August last. 



He there asks : " What ' quality ' does Miss Layard 

 find in the ' os coccyx ' to compensate for the 

 ' quantity ' in the tail ? And how can a structure, i.e. 

 which is so degenerated as to have no function at all, 

 be ' more perfect ' than one which in many cases has 

 distinct functions " ? 



To this I would reply : In the first place, it is not 

 a fact that the os coccyx has " no function at all." 

 It is perfectly adapted to its function, which is to 

 " give attachment to certain muscles." Of this 

 Darwin was aware, though he still chose to call it a 

 "rudimentary tail." f 



When we consider the difference of man's posture 

 from that of the beasts, the former being erect, the 

 latter quadrupedal, we may, perhaps, regard the tail 

 as a necessary protection, which the improved 

 structure no longer required. 



I am not aware that this solution has been put for- 

 ward, but it appears a very simple and natural one ; 

 in which case the tail, far from being the " typical 

 standard " of a now debased organ, would rather 

 suggest a mark of servitude, and stamp its wearer as 

 of lower origin. 



Mr. Tansley is perfectly justified in pinning me to 

 the second consideration, which I am most certainly 

 responsible for starting, namely, as to the claim of the 

 human creature, from one point of view, to be regarded 



* " Descent of Man," p. 11. 



t ' Letter to C Lyell,' October 11, 1859. 



