XIII. 



EVOLUTIONARY TELEOLOGY. 



WHEN Cuvier spoke of the " combination of organs 

 in such order that they may be in consistence with the 

 part which the animal has to play in Nature," his op- 

 ponent, Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, rejoined, " I know noth- 

 ing of animals which have to play a part in Nature." 

 The discussion was a notable one in its day. From 

 that time to this, the reaction of morphology against 

 " final causes " has not rarely gone to the extent of 

 denying the need and the propriety of assuming ends 

 in the study of animal and vegetable organizations. 

 Especially in our own day, when it became apparent 

 that the actual use of an organ might not be the funda- 

 mental reason of its existence that one and the same 

 organ, morphologically considered, was modified in dif- 

 ferent cases to the most diverse uses, while intrinsically 

 different organs subserved identical functions, and con- 

 sequently that use was a fallacious and homology the 

 surer guide to correct classification it was not sur- 

 prising that teleological ideas nearly disappeared from 

 natural history. Probably it is still generally thought 

 that the school of Cuvier and that of St.-Hilaire have 

 neither common ground nor capability of reconcile- 

 ment. 



