164 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE [CHAP. VII. 



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, &c. first 

 appeared in many cases as fluctuating variations, which sooner or 

 later became constant through the nature of the organism and of 

 the surrounding conditions, as well as through the intercrossing 

 of distinct individuals, but not through natural selection ; for as 

 these morphological diameters do not affect the welfare of the 

 species, any slight deviations in them could not have been 

 governed or accumulated 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 towards 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 organisation, is the degree to which the parts have 

 been specialised or differentiated ; and natural selection tends 

 towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to per- 

 form their functions 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 conclu- 

 sions, 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 

 variation, independently of natural selection, whereas in the Avork 

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

 established cases than can be found in any other work known to 

 me. My judgment may not be trustworthy, but after reading 



