= ” 
“it CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 87 
i. d of its possessor. They believe that very many structures ; 
uve been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere 
- yariety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my 
- theory—yet I fully atleatt that many structures are of no direct 
_ use to their possessor.” 
_ And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, 
1: concludes (p. 200) :— 
2 “Hence every detail of structure in every living creature 
g some little allowance for the direct action of physical 
j enditions) may be viewed either as having been of special use 
to some ancestral form, or as being now of special use to the 
descendants of this form—either directly, or indirectly, through 
_ the complex laws of growth.” 
- But it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that 
every detail observed in an animal’s structure is 
of use to it, or has been of use to its ancestors; 
and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that 
every detail of an animal’s structure has been 
‘created for its benefit. On the former hypothesis, 
_ for example, the teeth of the foetal Balwna have a 
meaning ; on the latter, none. So far as we are 
| aware, there is not a phrase in the “Origin of 
Species” inconsistent with Professor Kélliker’s 
position, that “ varieties arise irrespectively of the 
notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general 
laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurt- 
ful, or indifferent.” . 
On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary 
of Chap. V.) :— 
* Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in 
one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason 
why this or that part varies more or less from the same part in 
