CRITICISMS ON " THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES " 181 



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 structures 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, teleo- 

 logically, 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 Balsena have a meaning ; 

 on the latter, none. So far as we are aware, there is not a 

 phrase in the Origin of Species, inconsistent with Professor 

 Kolliker' s position, that "varieties arise irrespectively of 

 the notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general 

 laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurtful, or 

 indifferent." 



On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary of Chap. 

 V.) : 



" Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in 

 one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why 

 this or that part varies more or less from the same part in the parents. 

 . . . The external conditions of life, as climate and food, etc. seem 

 to have induced some slight modifications. Habit, in producing 

 constitutional differences, and use, in strengthening, and disuse, in 

 weakening and diminishing organs, seem to have been more potent 

 , in their effects." 



