io6 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



This instrumentality was at first supplied in the theory of Dr, Darwin by the 

 " struggle for life," occasioning the disappearance from the scene of the feeblest 

 and the " survival of the fittest " to carry on the race. The notion is a striking 

 one ; and with the advocacy of its able author, his charming style, and the in- 

 teresting illustrations by which it was supported, naturally produced a powerful 

 impression upon the public mind. A little consideration, however, gradually 

 weakened the first effect. It was presently observed that such a description 

 was only properly applicable to a certain class of animals — the polygamous^ in 

 which one male in the herd or flock assumes possession of all the females ; and 

 to that class but imperfectly, making no account of the females, whose influence 

 in determining the condition of the offspring is at least equal to that of the 

 males. . . . 



With regard to the two propositions upon which the Darwinian theory essen- 

 tially depends, we have already alluded to an apparent objection to the first 

 mentioned, the " struggle for life," and which is indeed equally predicable of 

 the other, the principle of " selection in relation to sex " — namely, that it is lim- 

 ited in its application to certain classes of animals, and those neither the most 

 numerous nor the most important. For we confess we can not understand how 

 either of them could be supjjosed to prevail at all in at least one whole depart- 

 ment of animal life — the aquatic. Surely there is but scant room for the 

 hypothesis of a "struggle for life," and still less for that of "selection in rela- 

 tion to sex " among fishes ! And these, with the other denizens of the deep, 

 constitute more than one half of the animal kingdom. But there is yet another 

 point of view in regard of which both the conditions in question are obviously 

 inadequate to the conclusion that is built upon them — namely, that it is only in 

 the already advanced stages of animal subsistence that they come into operation 

 at all. The "struggle for life" and " selection in relation to sex " could have 

 no scope for exercise among the lower forms of life ; many of them without the 

 power of locomotion, incapable of either seeking their food or choosing their 

 mates. And yet these are, in the theory before us, the foundation of the ani- 

 mal superstructure, comprising the earlier stages of that progressive develop- 

 ment which by those means is supposed to be accomplished. 



From these passages we can only suppose that their writer believes 

 what he states, viz., that Mr. Darwin's theory of natural selection in 

 the struggle for life is limited to natural selection in what Mr. Darwin 

 has called " the law of battle." In all animals that fight among them- 

 selves Mr. Darwin supposes that strength, courage, and all other quali- 

 ties conducive to success in battle, are some of the qualities which in 

 such animals constitute that " fitness " to survive which is laid hold 

 upon by natural selection in the struggle for existence, and perpetuated 

 in advancing degrees by heredity. But to suppose that the struggle 

 for existence is limited to a literal fighting among animals is a miscon- 

 ception so extraordinary that it could scarcely be suspected, were it 

 not so carefully enforced by the writer himself. Why else should he 

 mention only " the feeblest " as those individuals which must disappear 

 in the struggle for life ? or why else should the process of natural se- 

 lection be restricted in its operation to such animals as are " polyga- 

 mous " ? And how else can there be any meaning in the statement 

 that " we confess we can not understand how either of them could be 



