SELECTION 441 



come of selection, we do not forget the varying organism, 

 strong in endeavour. One forgives much to Samuel Butler 

 in admiration of his genius, one forgives even the jibe that 

 ^' Darwinism tries to explain how I am here by showing 

 how my uncles, cousins, and aunts have gone away ". But it 

 seems to us to promote misunderstanding when an expert 

 writes in cold blood — '^ Danvin . . . left the question of 

 variability open, a course which reduced his doctrine to the 

 self-evident proposition that what was not capable of exist- 

 ence could not exist ". . . . ^' Darwinism . . . explained 

 how by throwing stones one could build houses of typical 

 style " (Driesch, History and Theory of Vitalism. Trans. 

 London, 1914). 



(6) It also promotes misunderstanding to make very much 

 of the fact that Natural Elimination is often a more accurate 

 phrase than Natural Selection. A wonder-working gardener 

 like Mr. Luther Burbank actively selects and fosters variants 

 that catch his eye and seem to him to be promiseful ; what 

 happens in Nature is in great part a weeding-out of the 

 relatively less fit to given conditions. But it is familiar 

 Darwinian doctrine to distinguish between ' lethal selec- 

 tion ' which works by the discriminate elimination of the 

 relatively less fit, and ' reproductive selection ' which works 

 through the increased and more effective multiplication of 

 the relatively more fit. As a matter of fact the weeding out 

 of the relatively less fit must always to some extent involve 

 the fostering of the relatively more fit which survive. 



§ 3. Sentimental Recoil from Darwinism. 



(A) The sentimental recoil from Darwinism may be illus- 

 trated by those who shudder at the so-called automatism of 

 the selective process. The raw material of novelties passes 



