575. 242 



599.9 



II. 



Human Evolution. 



III. — Mr. Wells Replies. 



MR. COSTE makes some illuminating criticisms of my sketch of a 

 theory of human progress^ and, I must admit, forces a certain 

 modification of phrase upon me. But it does not appear to me that 

 his objections justify his description of them as " fatal." My argu- 

 ment was that, save for culture, for the developing artificial factor, 

 " man is still, mentally, morally, and physically, what he was during 

 the later Palaeolithic Period." For the effective development of a 

 subsidiary argument I have already restated that conclusion in an 

 aggravated form.^ And I see no reason to abandon it. 



The main issue between Mr. Coste and myself arises out of a 

 very simple (and probably very frequent) method of misunder- 

 standing. When one speaks of a species, as I speak of "man" in the 

 proposition I am defending, one may have in mind one of two things, 

 {a) the normal or average type or {b) all the individuals of the species 

 collectively. To be frank I did not clearly see my proposition in the 

 light of the second sense, until I read Mr. Coste's article. My 

 position is that the mean human being has not perceptibly progressed, 

 and may just as possibly have retrograded. But obviously (if only on 

 account of the undeniable numerical increase of the race) the range of 

 variation must be more spacious about that mean than in the later 

 Palaeolithic period. 



Now Mr. Coste's opening considerations, unless I misunderstand 

 him, amount simply to this, that I have understated the variability of 

 man by assuming that it is only equal to that of the rabbit. He uses the 

 rather vague word " plasticity," but that I take it is his meaning. 

 And he alleges that man is a domesticated animal, an animal removed 

 from his natural conditions, and therefore exceptionally liable to vary. 

 The whole of the question of enhanced variability under domestica- 

 tion would admit I believe of a profitable analysis, but that would be 

 out of place here. My point would be that practically nothing is 

 known of the things that die young in a wild species. But as I said 



1 " The Artificial Factor in Man." Fortnightly Review : Oct., 1S96. 

 ■■^ " Morals and Civilization." Fortnightly Revieui: Feb., 1897. 



