Essays on Life 



he changed his title, or had been no longer 

 Mr. Wallace. 



Besides, thanks to the works of Mr. Spencer, 

 Professor Mivart, Professor Semper, and very 

 many others, there has for some time been a 

 growing perception that the Darwinism of 

 Charles Darwin was doomed. Use and dis- 

 use must either do even more than is officially 

 recognised in Mr. Darwin's later concessions, 

 or they must do a great deal less. If they 

 can do as much as Mr. Darwin himself said 

 they did, why should they not do more ? Why 

 stop where Mr. Darwin did ? And again, 

 where in the name of all that is reasonable did 

 he really stop ? He drew no line, and on what 

 principle can we say that so much is possible 

 as effect of use and disuse, but so much more 

 impossible? If, as Mr. Darwin contended, 

 disuse can so far reduce an organ as to render 

 it rudimentary, and in many cases get rid of it 

 altogether, why cannot use create as much as 

 disuse can destroy, provided it has anything, 

 no matter how low in structure, to begin 

 with ? Let us know where we stand. If it is 



admitted that use and disuse can do a good 



264 



