178 UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE t 



the pelvis, and then by the law of homologous variation, 

 the front limbs and the head would probably be affected. 

 Yhe shape, also, of the pelvis might affect by pressure 'the 

 shape of certain parts of the young in the womb. The 

 laborious breathing necessary in high regions tends, as we 

 have good reason to believe, to increase the size of the 

 chest ; and again Borrelation would come into play. The 

 effects of lessened exercise, together with abundant food, on 

 the whole organization is probably still more important; 

 and this, as H. von Nathusius has lately shown in his 

 excellent Treatise, is apparently one chief cause of the 

 great modification which the breeds of swine have under- 

 gone. But we are far too ignorant to speculate on the rela- 

 tive importance of the several known and unknown causes 

 of variation ; and 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 neverthe- 

 less 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 of 

 the slight analogous differences between true species. 



UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE: BEAUTY, HOW 



ACQUIRED. 



The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the 

 protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian 

 doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for 

 the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures 

 have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the 

 Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific 

 discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already 

 discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal 

 to my theory. I fully admit that many structures are now of 

 no direct use to their possessors, and many 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 modifications, lately specified, have all produced 

 an effect, probably a great effect, independently of any advan- 

 tage thus gained. But a still more important consideration 

 is that the chief part ot the organization of every living 

 creature is due to inheritance ; and consequently, though 

 tach being assuredly is well fitted for its place in nature^ 



