270 Danvin, and after Darwin. 



the determining of specific distinctions by system- 

 atists? Or, may we not rather ask, are there any 

 other '• characters " which have had more to do with 

 their delineation of animal species ? Therefore, if 

 " the external organs and integuments naturally give 

 rise to a greater variety of colours," for non-utilitarian 

 reasons, than is the case with internal organs and 

 tissues : while even the latter present, for similarly 

 non-utilitarian reasons, such variety and intensity of 

 colours as they do : must it not follow that, on the 

 ground of the " Laws of Growth " alone. Mr. Wallace 

 has conceded the entire case as regards " a large 

 proportional number of specific characters" being 

 non-adaptive — "spontaneous" in their occurrence, 

 and •' meaningless " in their persistence ? 



Once more : — 



"The enormously lengthened plumes of the bird of paradise 

 and of the peacock, can, however, have no such use [i.e. for pur- 

 poses of defence], but must be rather injurious than beneficial 

 in the birds' ordinary life. The fact that they have been de- 

 veloped to so great an extent in a few species is an indication 

 of such perfect adaptation to the conditions of existence, such 

 complete success in the battle for life, that there is, in the 

 adult male at all events, a surplus of strength, vitality, and 

 growth-power, which is able to expend itself in this way without 

 injury. That such is the case is shown by the great abun- 

 dance of most of the species which possess these wonderful 

 superfluities of plumage. . . . Why, in allied species, the 

 development of accessory plumes has taken different forms, we 

 are unable to say, except that it may be due to that individual 

 variability which has served as a starting-point for so much 

 of wliai seems to us strange in form, or fantastic in colour, 

 both in the animal and vegetable world'." 



Here, again, one need only ask, How can such state- 



Darwinism, pp. 293-3. 



