4o8 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



Turning, then, to the animal kingdom below the 

 level of insects, here we are bound to confess that 

 the beauty which so often meets us cannot reasonably 

 be ascribed either to natural or to sexual selection. 

 Not to sexual selection for the reasons already given ; 

 the animals in question are neither sufficiently in- 

 telJigcnt to possess any aesthetic taste, nor, as a matter 

 of fact, do we observe that they exercise any choice 

 in pairing. Not to natural selection, because we cannot 

 here, as in the case of vegetables, point to any benefit 

 as generally arising from bright colours and beautiful 

 forms. On the principles of naturalism, therefore, we 

 are driven to conclude that the beauty here is purely 

 adventitious, or accidental. Nor need we be afraid to 

 make this admission, if only we take a sufficiently wide 

 view of the facts. For, when we do take such a view, 

 we find that beauty here is by no means of invariable, 

 or even of general, occurrence. There is no loveliness 

 about an oyster or a lob-worm ; parasites, as a rule, 

 are positively ugly, and they constitute a good half of 

 all animal species. The truth seems to be, when we 

 look attentively at the matter, that in all cases where 

 beauty does occur in these lower forms of animal life, 

 its presence is owing to one of two things — either 

 to the radiate form, or to the bright tints. Now, 

 seeing that the radiate form is of such general 

 occurrence among these lower animals — appearing 

 over and over again, with the utmost insistence, even 

 among groups widely separated from one another by 



even as regards those that do, it is not remarkable that their chlorophyll 

 should, as it were, accidentally assume brilliant tints while breaking 

 down into lower grades of chemical constitution. The case, in fact, is 

 exactly parallel to those in the animal kingdom which are considered in 

 the ensuing paragraphs. 



