23 



end in all this, except in a " forced sense," but I have set forth the 

 theory, and by it I mean to stand or fall. 



I believe all this, I say, although I have somewhere or other stated 

 that ' natural selection cares nothing for appearances," and that if it 

 were true that 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." You may say that if this be not 

 self-contradiction and self -confutation, you do not know what is. Per- 

 haps you do not, but you must allow me to decide. 



I believe, for instance, that one peacock having by some lucky 

 accident come by a new feather of striking appearance, became at once 

 an object of great attraction to the lady-birds about him, so that the 

 next eggs laid hatched out an improved peacock. No doubt about it. 

 No doubt about it ; only see it as I do, and you will see what you will 

 see. " Some naturalists believe " that this is nonsense. All naturalists, 

 do you say? all mankind? Let them say what they like, and think 

 what they like, what is that to me ? 



I believe it all ; I " see no good ground to doubt " it, although it 

 " should appear childish to attribute any effect to such weak means." 

 Thus you may get at the mental, if not the moral, qualities of birds by 

 the " help of the imagination " the " imagination " according to Tyndall. 



I believe it, I say, again and again, though you may ask me how 

 it came to pass that the admiration was all so on one side, and 

 that the gentleman birds had no such admiration for the " lady-birds," 

 very ungallant, you say, do you ? Well, perhaps it was ; but then, you 

 know, dc ffustibux nou dixputandum, " when a lady is in the case." Nor 

 can I tell you how it has come to be very much the opposite with 

 mankind, descended as we are from monkeys, or cock sparrows, or 

 what not. I allow that the courting is on the side of the male ; but 

 they must change sides for my argument. 



I believe, "I do not doubt, that some domestic animals vary less 

 than others, yet the variety or absence of distinct breeds of the cat, 

 the donkey, goose, &c., may be attributed in main part to selection not 

 having been brought into play." Don't laugh. Its no laughing matter. 

 It may be a difficulty with you, but it is none with me, though it 

 seems (to you I say) very unaccountable that no change should have 

 taken place in these interesting animals the cat to wit, with all its 

 caterwauling in all the millions upon millions of ages that my theory 

 supposes, down to the present time. Nor is it any difficulty with me 

 that, as I allow, the cats in the mummies of Egypt are precisely ' the 

 same as those of to-day ; for what is five thousand years in my scale 

 of time ? 



I believe that "the goose seems to have a singularly inflexible 

 organisation." It is a bird that is too much for natural selection. I 

 am sorry for it, but I can't help it. 



I believe, " I can see no difficulty in natural selection preserving and 

 accumulating variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. 

 It is thus I believe that all the most complex and wonderful instincts 

 have originated." Once on a time, I mean, bees had no such instincts 

 as they have now ; nor had ants, nor migratory birds. At that early 

 date natural selection had not been " called into play." 



I believe that the spider was once without the instinct which now 

 prompts it to spin its web, without the legs it now has, without the 

 habits it now has, without its spinnerets, and therefore without the 

 power of catching insects to live on. How it lived then, I am not 

 quite prepared at present to say, nor whether it was a spider at all or 

 not. Nor can I say, as to its " complex instincts," how it could have 

 done with only the beginning of a web to support it through all the 



