HI CRITICISMS ON " THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES " 8? 



good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures 

 have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere 

 variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my 

 theory yet I fully admit that many structures are of no direct 

 use to their possessor. " 



And after sundry illustrations and qualifications, 

 he concludes (p. 200) : 



"Hence every detail of structure in every living creature 

 (making some little allowance for the direct action of physical 

 conditions) may be viewed either as having been of special use 

 to some ancesti-al form, or as being now of special use to the 

 descendants of this form either directly, or indirectly, through 

 the complex laws of growth. " 



But it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that 

 every detail observed in an animal's structure is 

 of use to it, or has been of use to its ancestors ; 

 and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that 

 every detail of an animal's structure has been 

 created for its benefit. On the former hypothesis, 

 for example, the teeth of the foetal Balccna have a 

 meaning ; on the latter, none. So far as we are 

 aware, there is not a phrase in the " Origin of 

 Species " inconsistent with Professor Kolliker's 

 position, that " varieties arise irrespectively of the 

 notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general 

 laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurt- 

 ful, or indifferent." 



On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary 

 of Chap. V.) : 



" Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in 

 one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason 

 why this or that part varies more or less from the same part in 

 35 



