174 SYMBIOSIS 



se tirer d'embarras, ont imagine en outre une troisieme categoric de muta- 

 tions : les mutations " indifferentes." Comme si quoi que ce soit pouvait 

 etre jamais indifferent dans la nature ou tout a sa raison d'etre. Or, cette 

 raison d'etre, nous pouvofls parfois ne pas la distinguer ; mais la nier, 

 non point ! 



The case for Nature could scarcely be better stated, were it 

 not that the question of " usefulness " is the great stumbling 

 block in Biology. Could Dr. Larger but bring himself to realise 

 that there exists a sociological, i.e., economic and moral " raison 

 d'etre" in Nature, and that such "raison d'etre" lies behind 

 the phenomena to which he calls attention. Towards the 

 distinction of " useful " from " injurious " mutations he can 

 guide us but little more than the " Biologistes-normaux." 

 According to him, it is the constant aim of Nature, not only to 

 maintain, but also incessantly to improve the means of defence 

 in the organism. He does not, however, stoop to tell us how this 

 noble end is attained. He takes the fact for granted, and, Nature's 

 high aim being somehow fulfilled, 



II y a adaptation et l'animal continue d'evoluer normalement vers 

 des adaptations nouvelles. Dans le cas contraire, il y a non adaptation, 

 ou inadaptation et 1'etre quel qu'il soit, animal ou vegetal, degenere et 

 disparait. II ne peut rester stationnaire, a moins d'avoir une organisa- 

 tion tres simple, indifferente jusqu' a un certain point aux influences internes 

 et extern es. 



In other words, qui non proficit, deficit, which is, after all, a 

 sociological truth. "Adaptation," according to this view, is born 

 of the noble intents of Nature, but it remains to be seen what 

 it is that confers the sanction of Nature upon one " adaptation " 

 more than another. Dr. Larger is far from realising that normal 

 adaptation is that which accords with normal behaviour, i.e., 

 such as is calculated by its other-regarding value sufficiently to 

 compensate Nature for her pains. Yet what simpler or better 

 explanation than the sociological is there to account for the fact 

 of the simultaneous and correlated progress of closely inter- 

 dependent beings which constitutes evolution ? It follows from 

 such a view that degeneration is to be regarded as the result of 

 long-continued misuse turning organic wealth into " illth." Failing 

 such common-sense view, Dr. Larger feels constrained to make 

 the sweeping assertion that " tout s'use, tout degenere dans la 

 nature," as though use per se entailed degeneration, which, of 

 course, is not true. We may say, on the contrary, that the more 

 right use, the less degeneration. 



