220 Dai'wifif and after Darwin. 



selection. In the latter case, it will be remembered, 

 he is easily met by showing that the causes of specific 

 change other than natural selection, such as food, 

 climate. &c., may be quite as general, persistent, and 

 uniform, as natural selection itself; and therefore in 

 this connexion Mr. Wallace's argument falls to the 

 ground. But the argument is much more formidable 

 as he brings it to bear against the theory of sexual 

 selection. Here he asks, What is there to guarantee 

 the uniformity and the constancy of feminine taste 

 with regard to small matters of embellishment through 

 thousands of generations, and among animals living 

 on extensive areas? And. as we have seen in Part I, 

 it is not easy to supply an answer. Therefore this 

 argument from the " necessary instability of charac- 

 ter" is of immeasurably greater force as thus applied 

 against Darwin's doctrine of sexual selection, than it 

 is when brought against his doctrine that all specific 

 characters need not necessarily be due to natural 

 selection. Therefore, also, if any one feels disposed 

 to attach the smallest degree of value to this argu- 

 ment in the latter case, consistency will require him 

 to allow that in the former case it is simply over- 

 whelming, or in itself destructive of the whole theory 

 of sexual selection. And, conversely, if his belief in 

 the theory of sexual selection can survive collision 

 with this objection from instability, he ought not to 

 feel any tremor of contact when the objection is 

 brought to bear against his scepticism regarding the 

 alleged utiHtyofall specific characters. For assuredly 

 no specific character which is apparent to our e>es 

 can be supposed to be so refined and complex (and 

 therefore so presumably inconstant and unstable), as 



