ON THE BEAUTY OF NATURE. 259 
theory except that of a designing power, able first to desion 
what is beautiful (which we can very’seldom and very litile), 
and then able to produce it in such profusion that it looks 
spontaneous, and far more natural than ugliness, because it is 
so common, and in quite infinite variety. 
I have said allthat I need about the universal beauty and un- 
limited variety in trees of all kinds, for which the evolutionists 
have never yet pretended to invent an explanation. And I 
have said all that need be said of coloured flowers. If any- 
body likes to consider the insect theory sufficient to account 
for them, let him. ‘They are so small a portion of creation 
that they are not worth arguing about. If that theory is 
right, and adequate to account for the infinity of beautiful 
shapes as well as colours in flowers, it wants another theory 
to explain how the insectal taste for floral beauty came to 
agree so well with human. Perhaps we and the flies had a 
common ancestor, and inherit our taste for beauty from him, 
whoever he may have been. Nor is the insectal theory much 
helped by the fact that bees of all kinds cultivate flowers of a 
multitude of kinds and colours, including some with the very 
minimum of colour, such as mignonette, and have not yet been 
able to impart any more of it to them. If it is said that the 
insects are attracted by nice smells, I reply that the vast pre- 
ponderance of nice smells over nasty ones in nature, and of 
nasty smells over nice ones in art, is an additional difficulty 
for the automatic creationists. 
_ Leaving that small section of creation then, with that small 
attempt of the evolutionists to account for it on automatic 
principles, I will say a few words on another kind of life, for 
the usual beauty of which their explanation is more plausible, 
but yet very far from sufficient—viz., that of animals. The 
effects of judicious selection in breeding are undeniable when 
that selection is made by some agent with adequate intelli- 
gence and experience. And so we can breed new varieties of 
flowers and improve fruits, whether insects do or not, beyond 
what is ordained for them by their instincts or their expe- 
rience, which depends upon the laws of their creation. So it 
is not unnatural to conclude, but it is very difficult to prove, 
that animals select their mates according to their beauty. 
According to their strength, there is evidence enough that 
they do, and in fact must, whenever there is a superfluity in 
whichever is the stronger sex (which is not quite always the 
male sex). And, so far as strength and beauty go together, 
the result will be that the beauties get the best of it. Very 
likely also, the beauties of the weaker sex, on the whole, get 
the best of it. But they do so less than one would expect, 
