OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION 179 



which is common to many allied forms, is ranked by us as of high 

 systematic importance, and consequently is often assumed to be 

 of high vital importance to the species. Thus, as I am inclined to 

 believe, morphological differences, which we consider as important 

 — such as the arrangement of the leaves, the divisions of the flower 

 or of the ovarium, the position of the ovules, etc., first appeared 

 in many ca^es as fluctuating variations, which sooner or later be- 

 came constant through the nature of the organism and of the sur- 

 rounding conditions, as well as through the intercrossing of distinct 

 individuals, but not through natural selection; for as these mor- 

 phological characters do not affect the welfare of the species, any 

 slight deviations in them could not have been governed or ac- 

 cumulated through this latter agency. It is a strange result which 

 we thus arrive at, namely, that characters of slight vital importance 

 to the species are the most important to the systematist; but, as 

 we shall hereafter see when we treat of the genetic principle of 

 classification, this is by no means so paradoxical as it may at first 

 appear. 



Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic 

 beings of an innate tendency toward progressive development, yet 

 this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth 

 chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For 

 the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard 

 of organization, is the degree to which the parts have been spe- 

 cialized or differentiated; and natural selection tends toward this 

 end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their func- 

 tions more efficiently. 



A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George Mivart, has recently 

 collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by 

 myself and others against the theory of natural selection as pro- 

 pounded by Mr. Wallace and myself, and has illustrated them 

 with admirable art and force. When thus marshalled, they make 

 a formidable array; and as it forms no part of Mr. Mivart's plan 

 to give the various facts and considerations opposed to his con- 

 clusions, no slight effort of reason and memory is left to the reader, 

 who may wish to weigh the evidence on both sides. When dis- 

 cussing special cases, Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the 

 increased use and disuse of parts, which I have always maintained 

 to be highly important, and have treated in my "Variation under 

 Domestication" at greater length than, as I believe, any other 

 writer. He likewise often assumes that I attribute nothing to vari- 

 ation, independently of natural selection, whereas in the work 

 just referred to I have collected a greater number of well-estab- 



