1 68 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



the doctrine in its more restricted form, and then pro- 

 ceed, at considerably greater length, to deal with it in 

 its more extended form. 



The doctrine that all species must necessarily be due 

 to natural selection, and therefore must severall)' 

 present at least one adaptive character, appears to me 

 doubly erroneous. 



In the first place, it is drawn from what I have 

 just shown to be a false premiss : and, in the second 

 place, the conclusion docs not follow even from this 

 premiss. That the premiss — or definition of the theory 

 as primarily a theory of the origin of species — is false, 

 I need not wait again to argue. That the conclusion 

 does not follow even from this erroneous premiss, 

 a very few words will suffice to prove. For, even if 

 it were true that natural selection is primarily a theory 

 of the origin of species, it would not follow that it 

 must therefore be a theory of the origin of all species. 

 This would only follow if it were first shown that the 

 theory is not merely a theory of the origin of species, 

 but tJie theory of the origin of species — i.e. that there 

 can be no further theory upon this subject, or any 

 cause other than natural selection which is capable of 

 transforming any single specific type. 



Needless to say, this cannot be shown by way of 

 deduction from the theory of natural selection itself — 

 which, nevertheless, is the only way whereby it is 

 alleged that the doctrine is arrived at^ 



From the doctrine of utility as advocated by Professor 



• For a full treatment of Professor Huxley's yiews upon this subject, 

 see Appendix II. 



