184 GEOBGE JOHN EOMANES 



tures at all, they ought to occur with (greater ?) 

 frequency among species, where (as ?) yet natural 

 selection has not had time to remove them. But I 

 cannot think I have here unduly favoured natural 

 selection. For although there are not a few instances 

 of apparently useless structures running through even 

 an entire class (as the ' Origin ' remarks), these are 

 not only infinitely less numerous than apparently 

 useless structures in species, but are also very much 

 more rarely trivial. 



Now the latter fact, coupled with that of the 

 greatly wider range of their occurrence, appears to 

 me intensely to strengthen ' the argument from 

 ignorance,' i.e. to give us much more justification for 

 believing that they are now, or once were, of use. 

 For in the case of species, the l once were ' possibility 

 is virtually excluded. 



A propos to this point, I do not believe that any- 

 one yet has half done justice to natural selection in 

 respect of its action subsequent to the formation of 

 species at least, not expressly. But I must shut 

 up. 



I should greatly like to see Jordan's paper. Sir 

 J. Hooker and Professor Oliver have sent me refe- 

 rences to literature, but neither of them mentions 

 this. 



Why my answer to Wallace has not appeared in 

 this month's c Fortnightly ' I am at a loss to under- 

 stand. The editor bullied me with letters and 

 telegrams to have it ready in time, till I laid every- 

 thing else aside, and sent him back the proof on 

 the 15th. 



