190 UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE: 



mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if 

 true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. I fully 

 admit that many structures are now of no direct use to 

 their possessors, and may never have been of any use to 

 their progenitors; but this does not prove that they were 

 formed solely for beauty or variety. No doubt the definite 

 action of changed conditions, and the various causes of 

 modifications, lately specified, have all produced an effect, 

 probably a great effect, independently of any advantage 

 thus gained. But a still more important consideration is 

 that the chief part of the organization of every living 

 creature is due to inheritance; and consequently, though 

 each being assuredly is well fitted for its place in nature, 

 many structures have now no very close and direct rela- 

 tion to present habits of life. Thus, we can hardly believe 

 that the webbed feet of the upland goose, or of the frigate- 

 bird, are of special use to these birds; we can not believe 

 that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the 

 fore leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the 

 flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We 

 may safely attribute these structures to inheritance. But 

 webbed feet no doubt were as useful to the progenitor of 

 the upland goose and of the frigate-bird, as they now are 

 to the most aquatic of living birds. So we may believe 

 that the progenitor of the seal did not possess a flipper, 

 but a foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping; and 

 we may further venture to believe that the several bones 

 in the limbs of the monkey, horse and bat, were originally 

 developed, on the principle of utility, probably through 

 the reduction of more numerous bones in the fin of some 

 ancient fish-like progenitor of the whole class. It is 

 scarcely possible to decide how much allowance ought to 

 be made for such causes of change, as the definite action 

 of external conditions, so-called spontaneous variations, 

 and the complex laws of growth; but with these important 

 exceptions, we may conclude that the structure of every 

 living creature either now is, or was formerly, of some 

 direct or indirect use to its possessor. 



With respect to the belief that organic beings have been 

 created beautiful for the delight of man — a belief which it 

 has been pronounced is subversive of my whole theory — 

 I may first remark that the sense of beauty obviously de- 



