" CONTRE-EVOLUTION " 175 



As I have throughout strongly insisted on the distinction 

 between cross- and in-feeding, it is significant to learn, that, on 

 Dr. Larger 's diagnosis, the (cross-feeding) Equidae have not 

 appreciably degenerated : 



Si Ton considere 1'adaptation a la course dans le phylum des liquid 6s, 

 on observe, outre les mutations regressives des membres, des modifications 

 correlatives avantageuses de la dentition et du crane, du cerveau, des 

 poumons, du cceur, etc. L'essentiel est que, Regressives ou Progressives, 

 les mutations non seulement n'entrainent pas a leur suite une diminution 

 des moyens de defense de 1'organisme, mais contribuent au contraire a 

 les ameliorer dans leur ensemble. Tel est precis6ment le cas des $quids 

 actuels qui, pour cette unique raison, n'ont pas degener6. Les fiquides, 

 en effet, non seulemement ne presentent aucun stigmate appreciable de 

 degen^rescence ; mais sont, au contraire, merveilleusement adaptes a la 

 course. 



But after all that has been said on the subject, we may be 

 sure that the far-reaching correlations of the cross-feeding habit 

 have had more to do with the general beneficence of modifications 

 in the Equidae than their running propensities, although these, 

 of course, implied healthy exercise. 



When we find that the ensemble of parts has gained in the 

 organism, we may justly conclude that the organism has not been 

 " hors de Symbiose " as regards feeding. Who will deny, more- 

 over, that the physiological " means of defence " are derived 

 to a large extent from the symbiotic environment, and that 

 the supply of the respective potencies is the more assured 

 and the more regular, the more there is of symbiotic behaviour, 

 of symbiotic disposition, and of symbiotic moderation ? In 

 my Evolution by Co-operation, I have emphasised the fact 

 that the horse is comparatively modest amongst grazing animals, 

 and that young foals do not gorge themselves with milk as calves 

 do. I have there also remarked that I see the explanation 

 of Cope's second law in the survival of legitimate bio-economic 

 behaviour. What is known as Cope's second law is that of 

 non-specialisation. It states that " organic types which are 

 not specialised alone are capable of an ulterior evolution." 



Those animals, says Cope, which have attained excessive 

 specialisation, have lost their plasticity, their adaptive faculty, 

 and are, therefore, destined to perish with a change of environment. 

 This, says Dr. Larger, is but a statement of facts : 



Sans pouvoir les expliquer, sans meme y essayer, car la notion exacte 

 de la vraie Degen6rescence leur (Cope and Dollo) fait defaut a tous deux, 

 comme d'ailleurs a tous les Biologistes-normaux. 



