6o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



formula : " Nowadays," lie says, " most naturalists are more Dar- 

 winian than Mr. Darwin himself." * This is most true ; and Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer need not be the least surprised. All this hap- 

 pens according to a law. When a great man dies, leaving be- 

 hind him some new idea — new either in itself or in the use he 

 makes of it — it is almost invariably seized upon and ridden to 

 the death by the shouting multitudes who think they follow 

 him. Mr. Herbert Spencer here directs upon their confusions 

 the searching light of his analysis. He most truly distinguishes 

 Darwin's hypothesis in itself, first from the theory of " organic 

 evolution in general," and secondly from " the theory of evolu- 

 tion at large." This analysis roughly corresponds with the dis- 

 tinctions I have pointed out in the preceding paper ; and when 

 he points to the confounding of these distinctions under one 

 phrase as the secret of wide delusions, he has got hold of a clew 

 by which much further unraveling may be done. Guided by 

 this clew, and in the light of this analysis, he brings down Dar- 

 win's theory to a place and a rank in science which must be still 

 further offensive to those whom he designates as the " mass of 

 readers." He speaks of it as " a great contribution to the theory 

 of organic evolution." It is in his view a " contribution," and 

 nothing more — a step in the investigation of a subject of enor- 

 mous complexity and extent, but by no means a complete or satis- 

 factory solution of even the most obvious difficulties presented by 

 what we know of the structure and the history of organic forms. 

 It is no part of my object in this paper to criticise in detail 

 the value of that special conception with which Mr. Herbert 

 Spencer now supplements the deficiencies of the Darwinian 

 theory. He calls it "inheritance of functionally produced 

 modifications," and he makes a tremendous claim on its behalf. 

 He evidently thinks that it supplies not only a new and wholly 

 separate factor, but that it goes a long way toward solving 

 many of the difficulties of organic evolution. Nothing could 

 indicate more strongly the immense proportions which this idea 

 has assumed in his mind than the question which he propounds 

 toward the conclusion of his paper. Supposing the new factor 

 to be admitted, " do there remain," he asks, " no classes of or- 

 ganic phenomena unaccounted for ? " Wonderful question, in- 

 deed ! But at least it is satisfactory to find that his reply is more 

 rational than his inquiry : " To this question, I think it must be 

 replied that there do remain classes of organic phenomena un- 

 accounted for. It may, I believe, be shown that certain cardinal 

 traits of animals and plants at large are still unexplained " ; and 

 so he proceeds to the second paper, in which the still refractory 

 residuum is to be reduced. 



* Page 584. (" Popular Science Monthly," vol. xxviii, p. '7'73.) 



