230 COMTE TO BENJAMIN KIDD PART iv 



variations ; what is to explain sex ? It must presumably 

 itself have been a new variation when it appeared for 

 the first time in a sexless world. Once it had appeared, 

 it might well predominate. If some multicellular organ- 

 isms propagated sexually, and others non-sexually, and 

 if some of the offspring of sexual unions proved superior 

 in the struggle to any of their competitors, why then 

 sex would be selected by nature 1 as advantageous ; the 

 sexual specimens would tend ty be the only ones that 

 survived and reproduced their kind. The origin of 

 sex, accordingly, would still be veiled in deep dark- 

 ness. Weismann could say little more than that it 

 "happened" to occur. That is very much what he 

 does confine himself to saying " in the present state of 

 our knowledge." Yet it appears perfectly logical to say, 

 not that natural selection brought sex into being ; 

 natural selection originates nothing ; it chooses be- 

 tween competing candidates; but that, from the first 

 and until now, natural selection has favoured sex, and 

 has made it the predominant reproductive method. 

 This seems to be perfectly fair, if Weismann is willing 

 to postulate the true condition of natural selection, 

 viz. competition; in this case, competition between 

 sexual and non-sexual forms. But I am afraid that 

 may not be so. In view of Weismann's attitude 

 towards the question of the origin of (natural) death, 2 

 one must concur in Romanes' criticism, that " ultra 

 Darwinians use the term 'natural selection' with 

 extreme laxity." The condemnation might be even 

 more severely expressed. 



1 May we say that, upon the whole, it is selected by nature, at least 

 for the higher forms of life ? 



2 See the paragraphs which follow. Of course, if there is a corre- 

 lation of sex and death, the new question is really the same under a 

 different name. 



