EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY. 371 



The stumbling-blocks are various, and they lie in 

 every path: we can allude only to one or two as 

 specimens. 



Adaptation and utility are the marks of design. 

 What, then, are organs not adapted to use marks of ? 

 Functionless organs of some sort are the heritage of 

 almost every species. We have ways of seeming to ac- 

 count for them — and of late one which may really ac- 

 count for them — but they are unaccountable on the 

 principle of design. Some, shutting their eyes to the 

 difficulty, deny that we know them to be functionless, 

 and prefer to believe they must have a use because 

 they exist, and are more or less connected with or- 

 gans which are correlated to obvious use; but only 

 blindfolded persons care to tread the round of so nar- 

 row a circle. Of late some such abortive organs in 

 flowers and fruits are found to have a use, though not 

 the use of their kind. But unwavering believers in de- 

 sign should not trust too much to instances of this 

 sort. There is an old adage that, if anything be kept 

 long enough, a use will be found for it. If the follow- 

 ing up of this line, when it comes in our way, should 

 bring us round again to a teleological principle, it 

 will not be one which conforms to the prevalent ideas 

 now attacked. 



It is commonly said that abortive and useless or- 

 gans exist for the sake of symmetry, or as parts of a 

 plan. To say this, and stop there, is a fine instance 

 of mere seeming to say something. For, under the 

 principle of design, what is the sense of introducing 

 useless parts into a useful organism, and what shadow 

 of explanation does " symmetry " give ? To go fur- 



