170 Determinate Variatiofi 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, whenever it is a question of orgastic evolu- 

 tion, these two conditions are 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 tinder the 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, ^^^ Nature, April 14, 1898, p. 556. See also 

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



