XIII. 



EVOLUTIONAET TELEOLOGY. 



When Cuvier spoke of tlie " combination of organs 

 in such order that they may be in consistence with the 

 part which the animal has to play in ITatnre," his op- 

 ponent, Geoff roy St.-Hilaire, rejoined, " I know noth- 

 ing of animals which have to play a part in jN^ature." 

 The discussion was a notable one in its day. From 

 that time to this, the reaction of moi'phology against 

 " final causes " has not rarely gone to the extent of 

 denying the need and the propriety of assuming ends 

 in the study of animal and vegetable organizations. 

 Especially in our o^ti day, when it became apparent 

 that the actual use of an organ might not be the funda- 

 mental reason of its existence — that one and the same 

 organ, morphologically considered, was modified in dif- 

 ferent cases to the most diverse uses, while intrinsically 

 different organs subserved identical functions, and con- 

 sequently that use was a fallacious and homology the 

 surer guide to correct classification — it was not sur- 

 prising that teleological ideas nearly disappeared from 

 natural history. Probably it is still generally thought 

 that the school of Cuvier and that of St.-Hilaire have 

 nteither common ground nor capability of reconcile- 

 ment. 



