I70 



Determinate Variatio7i and Selection 



different usages of the table do fulfil ; so that if each has 

 its qualifying word (' natural,' * sexual,' ' organic,' etc.), the 

 use of the term 'selection' is not ambiguous. Further, in 

 selection of the pre-Darwinian sort, as defined by Pro- 

 fessor Hutton, zvhciicvcr it is a question of orgastic evolu- 

 tion, these two conditions arc also requisite, i.e., variation 

 and heredity, as in Darwin's artificial selection. So while 

 fully agreeing with Professor Hutton on the necessity of 

 definition of selection, I do not see the need of taking 

 our nomenclature back to pre-Darwinian zoology. More- 

 over, the attempt would be quite futile. 



Professor Hutton goes on to say that Darwin's term 

 'Natural Selection' is better than 'Organic Selection.' 

 He seems to suppose that the two are used for the same 

 thing. As the proposer of ' Organic Selection ' (and all 

 the other users of the term, so far as I know, e.g., Osborn, 

 Poulton, Conn, Headley, etc., have given it the same 

 meaning), the writer can say that nothing of that sort is 

 intended. Organic selection is supplementary ; it is based 

 upon and presupposes natural selection. It recognizes the 

 positive accommodations on the part of individual animals 

 by which they keep themselves alive and so have an advan- 

 tage over others under tJie operation of natural selection. 

 I agree with Professor Poulton in holding ^ that, so far 

 from coming to replace natural selection or impair our 

 confidence in it, it does quite the reverse. But it is 

 also claimed that it explains cases of 'determinate evolu- 

 tion ' which are not fully explained by natural selection 

 alone. So some such term is justified; and it is a form 

 of 'selection' in the Darwinian sense, for it requires both 



1 Science, Oct. 15, 1897, ^"^1 Nature, April 14, 1898, p. 556. See also 

 Chap. XIV. § 4, and cf. the strong statement of Headley quoted in Appendix B. 



