x.] MB. DARWIN^ S CRITICS. 265 



I do not exactly know what Mr. Mivart means by an 

 &quot;absolute and pure Darwinian;&quot; indeed Mr. Mivart 

 makes that creature hold so many singular opinions 

 that I doubt if I can ever have seen one alive. But 

 I find nothing in his statement of the view which he 



O 



imagines to be originated by himself, which is really 

 inconsistent with what I understand to be Mr. Darwin s 

 views. 



I apprehend that the foundation of the theory of 

 natural selection is the fact that living bodies tend 



O 



incessantly to vary. This variation is neither indefinite, 

 nor fortuitous, nor does it take place in all directions, in 

 the strict sense of these words. 



Accurately speaking, it is not indefinite, nor does it 

 take place in all directions, because it is limited by the 

 general characters of the type to which the organism 

 exhibiting the variation belongs. A whale does not tend 

 to vary in the direction of producing feathers, nor a bird 

 in the direction of developing Avhalebone. In popular 

 language there is no harm in saying that the waves 

 which break upon the sea-shore are indefinite, fortuitous, 

 and break in all directions. In scientific language, on 

 the contrary, such a statement would be a gross error, 

 inasmuch as every particle of foam is the result of per 

 fectly definite forces, operating according to no less 

 definite laws. In like manner, every variation of a 

 living form, however minute, however apparently acci 

 dental, is inconceivable except as the expression of the 

 operation of molecular forces or &quot; powers &quot; resident 

 within the organism. And, as these forces certainly 

 operate according to definite laws, their general result 

 is, doubtless, in accordance with some general law which 

 subsumes them all. And there appears to be no objec 

 tion to call this an &quot; evolutionary law.&quot; But nobody is 

 the wiser for doing so, or has thereby contributed, in the 



