20 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



should be of an adaptive kind, so as to build up 

 the millions of diverse and often elaborate mechanisms 

 in question including not only forms and move- 

 ments, but also colours, odours, and secretions. For 

 my own part I confess that, even granting to an 

 ultra- Lamarckian extent the inheritance of acquired 

 characters, I could conceive of "self-adaptation" alone 

 producing all such innumerable and diversified adjust- 

 ments only after seeing, with Cardinal Newman, an 

 angel in every flower. Yet Mr. Henslow somewhat 

 vehemently repudiates any association between his 

 theory and that of teleology. 



On the whole, then, I regard all the works which 

 are here classed together (those by Cope, Geddes, 

 and Henslow), as resembling one another both in 

 their merits and defects. Their common merits lie 

 in their erudition and much of their criticism, while 

 their common defects consist on the one hand in not 

 sufficiently distinguishing between mere statements 

 and real explanations of facts, and, on the other, in 

 not perceiving that the theories severally suggested 

 as substitutes for that of natural selection, even if 

 they be granted true, could be accepted only as 

 co-operative factors, and by no stretch of logic as 

 substitutes. 



Turning now to Mr. Wallace's work on Darwinism^ 

 we have to notice, in the first place, that its doctrine 

 differs from " Darwinism " in regard to the important 

 dogma which it is the leading purpose of that work 

 to sustain namely, that "the law of utility" is, to all 

 intents and purposes, universal, with the result that 

 natural selection is virtually the only cause of organic 



