258 NATURAL SCIENCE. Oct.. 



Mr. Wallace writes: "It is, of course, admitted that direct 

 proof of the action of Natural Selection is at present wanting." " At 

 present " — why is it still wanting if it really exist ? Has not one of 

 the many biologists who have studied nature all over the world, during 

 the last five-and-thirty years, been able yet to find one single proof ? 



On the other hand, I venture to say and to prove, in the style test 

 sense of the term, that Natural Selection is not wanted as an " aid " or 

 a " means" in originating species.-^ 



In the elimination of superfluous weaklings, in the delimitation of 

 specific forms, and in the distribution of plants, Natural Selection may 

 be largely credited with the results, but in the origin of species it is 

 not wanted. 



Darwin says that " Natural Selection has no relation whatever 

 to the primary cause of any modification of structure " 5 ; and the 

 question with which I am solely concerned is to try and find out how 

 and by what means variations in structure originate in plants ; for new 

 sub-varieties, varieties, sub-species, species, and genera are all based 

 upon morphological variations ; these being the only things systematic 

 botanists trouble themselves with at all. Then, whether Natural 

 Selection exists as a " means " or an " aid " in establishing these differ- 

 ences is a separate question altogether, as Darwin insists. To answer 

 this, one looks to see, not only if Nature supplies those data upon which 

 Natural Selection is supposed to act, but if they are of any use in the 

 process. Mr. Wallace tells us what they are, for he says : " Offspring 

 resemble their parents very much, but not wholly — each being possesses 

 its individuality. This ' variation ' itself varies in amount, but it is 

 always present, not only in the whole being, but in every part of every 

 being. Every organ, every character .... is individual; that is to 

 say, varies from the same organ, character ... in every other indi- 

 vidual."^ Now, is there any evidence, direct or indirect, that any such 

 slight morphological differences as are here alluded to are of the 

 slightest consequence to a seedling so as to enable it to survive in the 

 struggle for life ? What attempts have been made experimentally to 

 test the truth or the reverse of this hypothesis ? 



Let it not be forgotten, too, that specific and generic characters 

 are more often taken from the flowers and fruits, organs which are 

 totally undeveloped when the " slaughter of the innocents " takes 

 place, and, therefore, must be all put out of court so far as Natural 

 Selection is concerned in bringing about the survival of the fittest. 

 It has been suggested that a plant survives because, say, of some 

 superiority in the structure of the flower, this feature being correlated 

 with a more vigorous constitution than that of the other seedlings, 

 which die in a premature state. I reply this simply begs the question, 



^ The title of Darwin's book is " The Origin of Species by means of Natural 

 Selection." 



^"Animals and Plants under Domestication," ii., p. 272. 

 <■' " On Natural Selection," p. 2G6. 



