304 gajjr S*rm0tts, (gssags, anb gefaiifas. 



of Nature to recognise, to their fullest extent, those adap- 

 tations to purpose which are so striking in the organic 

 world, and which Teleology has done good service in 

 keeping before our minds, without being false to the 

 fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the 

 universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the 

 Teleologist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by 

 the Darwinian hypothesis. 



But leaving our own impressions of the " Origin of 

 Species," and turning to those passages specially cited by 

 Professor Kolliker, we cannot admit that they bear the 

 interpretation he puts upon them. Darwin, if we read 

 him rightly, does not affirm that every detail in the 

 structure of an animal has been created for its benefit. 

 His words are (p. 199) : 



" The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest 

 lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that 

 every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. 

 They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty 

 in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would 

 be absolutely fatal to my theory yet I fully admit that many struc- 

 tures are of no direct use to their possessor." 



And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, he 

 concludes (p. 200) : 



" Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making 

 some little allowance for the direct action of physical conditions) 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 Bal&na 

 have a meaning ; on the latter, none. So far as we are 



