32 
NATURE 
[Nov. 10, 1870 
oni 

. 
fatiral selection only had been at work in their production? 
The difficulties in the way of the natural selection explanation 
are also materially increased when we find, as is often the case, 
that it is one sex only (the female) which undergoes these 
iimetic changes, and that the changes have to take place 
Simultaneously in the direction of colour, size, form, and habit, 
It may now fairly be asked, if the principle of natural selection 
i$ abandoned as the main cause of these wonderful modifications, 
what other theory can be substituted in its place? I do not 
know that the objector toa theory is always bound to provide 
another theory as a substitute. Mr. Darwin, in his ‘‘ Variation 
of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” quotes with well- 
(eserved approval Whewell’s aphorism, that “ Hypotheses may 
often be of service to science, when they involve a certain portion 
of incompleteness, and even of error.” Mr, Darwin’s and Mr. 
Wallace’s hypothesis of natural selection has been of signal 
service to science; but if this hypothesis has been too rashly 
fiandled and too widely applied, it may be equally serviceable to 
point out its incompleteness or its error, as the first step to a still 
more scientific explanation. In the following remarks, I merely 
wish to call the attention of naturalists to one or two points 
which I think have almost been lost sight of in the discussion. 
Ihave already adverted to the inaccuracy of the title of Mr. 
Darwin’s great work, ‘The Orwin of Species by means of 
Natural Selection.” The opponents of Darwinism, even so acute 
a yeasoner as the Duke of Argyll, appear to see no alternative 
between the theory that species have arisen through the agency 
of external causes, and the theory that species have remained 
immutable since their creation. I can accept no such alternative. 
Indeed we may say that external influences cazot be the primary 
cause of the transmutation of species. The utmost claimed by 
the theory of natural selection is, that it selects the fittest from 
already existing so-called ‘‘spontaneous” varieties. Every page 
of Mr. Darwin’s work teems with reference to this pre-existing 
tendency to variation, with respect to which he says: ‘‘ Our 
ignorance of the laws of variation is profound,” Mr. Bates, 
when speaking on the subject of mimicry, makes the following 
yery remarkable admission :—‘‘Tt would seem as though our 
Leplalis naturally produced simple varieties of a nature to resemble 
fthomie.’* By a careful study of the context, I can only con- 
elude that Mr. Bates means the same thing by his “natural” 
yayieties as Mr. Darwin does by his ‘‘ spontaneous” yariations, 
namely, an innate tendency to vary wot caused by natural selec- 
#ien, but on which tendency natural selection operates, and 
without which it would be perfectly inoperative. The use of 
the term ‘‘spontaneous” is open to objection from a philoso- 
phical point of view. It either means that the phenomena in 
question are subject to no law, or that they are the result of some 
ae with which we are unacquainted. The former hypothesis 
will probably be rejected by every scientific naturalist, and must 
Le utterly abhorrent to the believer in a ‘* Reign of Law.” This 
tendency to variation in the offspring meets us on every side in our 
investigation of nature. Every gardener knows how uncertain 
is the produce of seeds compared with the produce of buds or 
offshoots from the same plant. The ordinary mode of obtaining 
new varieties of strawberries or other fruits is from seeds. An 
endless variety of the commonest florist’s flowers is produced by 
sowing seeds from the same capsule. Of the laws of this yaria- 
lion we are, as Mr. Darwin says, ‘‘ profoundly ignorant ;” but 
it does not follow that a patient interrogation of nature pursued 
the true Darwinian spirit, may not reveal to us something of 
nese laws. Of one thing we are certain, that natural selection 
here plays no part. If then we must admit that the first 
beginning of change takes place without the operation ot this 
principle, why should we claim for it the main, almost the ex- 
clusive agency, in the changes which follow? Some other 
principle, at present unknown to us, originates these variations ; 
what right have we to say that this principle, whateyer it may 
‘be, then ceases to act, instead =} being the main agent in 
all the other subsequent changes ? 
But are we limited to negative evidence in tracing the trans- 
mutations of species mainly to some unknown internal law? A 
Single sentence in Mr, Wallace’s Chapter on Mimicry seems to 
je pregnant with results for the future inquirer, He incidentally 
Yemarks how frequently it is the case that, when mimicry has 
‘once set in by the action of natural selection, new habits and 
instincts come into play to assist in the mimicry, It does not, 
however, appear to occur to Mr. Wallace to trace any con- 
Nhection between the instinct and the mimicry. The connection 
* Transactions of the Linnean Society, vol. xxiii,, p, 5x2. 



will be found, I believe, to be very close. Passing by for the — 
moment any definition of instinct, let us trace its range in the ~ 
organised world. From the whole vegetable kingdom it is — 
conspicuous by its absence. In the lowest classes of the animal ~ 
kingdom, the Protozoa and Ccelenterata, it is found, if at all, in — 
a very low form; and though there is a popular superstition that 
oysters may be crossed in love, yet we cannot attribute to the — 
Mollusca as a class any strong development of the instinctive 
faculty. When, however, we come to the Articulata, and 
especially to the Insecta and closely allied Arachnida, we meet — 
at once with developments of instinct rivalling, if not exceeding — 
in perfectness, those found in the highest forms of animal life. 
In the lower orders of Vertebrata again, the Pisces and Reptilia, 
we apparently come to a retrogression in the instinctive faculty, 
which is once more strongly developed in the Aves and Mam- 
malia. Now let us compare this with what is known of Mimicry. — 
From the vegetable kingdom it is absent. There are, it is true, — 
resemblances, and resemblances of the most wonderful and 
perfect kind, in the marking and venation of the leaves of plant 
belonging to entirely different natural orders, equal inextraordinary 
closeness to those of which I have spoken in the animal kingdom ; 
but these are inno sense mimetic or protective. Mere protective 
resemblances of colour I consider of far less importance than of 
form or habit; since colour may unquestionably be affected 
directly by the external circumstances of light, &c., and varies 
“spontaneously” in both the animal and yegetable kingdom to 
a far greater extent than does form. In the lowest forms of 
animal life we have no well-authenticated instances of mimetism, 
the most striking among the Mollusca with which I am acquainted — 
is one pointed out to me by Mr. G. S. Brady in the beautiful 
Lima hians.* But when we come to insects, we find protective 
resemblances of the most extraordinary kind, in marking, in 
form, in habit, presented to us on every side. Among fishes and 
reptiles the principle appears to be again comparatively in 
abeyance, and to be once more strongly developed in birds. The 
parallelism is indeed almost complete. In short, the power of 
mimetism, as far as is known at present, runs almost far? passu — 
with the development of the nervous system. ‘ 4 
But what is instinct? Modern naturalists are pretty well 
agreed in abandoning the old distinction in kind between reason 
and instinct, and in considering the nest-building instinct of birds — 
and the cell-constructing instinct of bees, as but a lower form of — 
the same faculty which we call reason in ourselves. It is ad- 
mitted that this instinct teaches the bee which flowers to rifle 
for its honey, and even to modify its habits in accordance with 
the circumstances in which it is placed; but, according to the ~ 
prevalent theory, it has no power to modify its proboscis so as — 
to enable it to obtain the honey from the flower, or to modify its — 
wings to suit to its new habit. In short its own body is almost — 
the only thing over which the animal has no power. To me — 
such a restriction appears to be unphilosophical. I cannot but : 
believe in the existence of an unconscious Organising Intelligence, — 
an idea which Mr. J. J. Murphy has ably and logically adyo- 
cated in his ‘‘ Habit and Intelligence.” And if this inherent — 
innate power of change is admitted, it at once harmonises the © 
tendency to variation which exists in all created beings, with 4 
the perpetuation of those forms best adapted to resist the struggle _ 
of life, and lends to natural selection the assistance of a fellow- — 
worker far more powerful and of more universal operation. ‘ 
A Rae argument in favour of this view may be drawn 
from Mr. Wallace’s volume. Eyery reader of that book must 
have been struck with the remarkable manner in which he com- 
pletely abandons and casts aside his own theory when he comes 
to treat of man. Natural selection is amply sufficient to account 
for all the other transmutations in the animal kingdom ; only 
give time enough, and it is competent to develop the elephant 
out of the Amadva—the one step in the animal creation which is 
beyond its power is that from the ape to man ; all the infinite 
forms of the brute creation have resulted from this principle, — _ 
to produce the different races of mankind sume other power is — 
needed. In a singularly able review of this work in the dvchives — 
des Sciences Physigues et Niturelles, M. Claparéde, of Geneva, — 
points out with great acumen the singular inconsistency of this — 
reasoning; and shows how great a want of faith in his own — 
pcvle it betrays on the part of its author. Mr. Wallace’s 
line of argument is very interesting. We may take only a single 
instance, Man is the only terrestrial mammal with a bare hair- 
less back. All savage nations feel the want of a covering to — 
their back ; in cold countries to protect them from the cold, in — 
* See Natures, Vol, ii., p. 376. 

