726 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 98. 



ing a special name to the particular case of 

 Sexual Selection. ♦ 



In short, does not the formulation of any 

 positive influence which regulates the operation 

 of Natural Selection really indicate a ' factor ' 

 in the whole evolution movement? Darwin 

 formulated Sexual Selection as such a factor. 

 Wallace's ' recognition-mark ' theory of the 

 origin of bright plumage in male birds is another 

 such formulation . Organic Selection formulates 

 the general factor which both these positions — 

 and possibly others — illustrate; 'newness' in any 

 other sense I am not disposed to maintain for it. 



Darwin's personal use of the principle of 

 Sexual Selection, I may add, seemed to require 

 a very high psychological development on the 

 part of the choosing mate, the female; but the 

 way that the principle may be generalized — al- 

 though still with reference to the special case of 

 mating — may be seen in the very interesting 

 suggestions of Groos {Die Spiele der Thiere, pp. 

 230 flf). 



More than one of my critics have spoken of 

 the relation of Organic Selection to Natural 

 Selection. It is discussed at some length in the 

 Naturalist article (July, pp. 549 ff). Prof. Cat- 

 tell says : " It is the essence of Natural Selection 

 that under changed environment those individ- 

 uals will survive who can best adapt themselves 

 to it. ' ' Certainly it is. But I think that the ad- 

 vocates of Natural Selection have considered 

 as useless or uninfluential in evolution those 

 adaptations of individuals which were not ade- 

 quately represented in the congenital equipment 

 of the individual. Certainly the tendency, at 

 least, of the Neo-Darwinians has been to deny 

 the influence of the principle of use and disuse 

 on evolution — to consider it altogether a part of 

 the machinery of Lamarckism.* The influence of 

 new adaptations, however, in determining the limits 

 of variation in subsequent generations without ap- 

 pealing to the inheritance of acquired characters ; 

 that (to repeat) is the combination which I con- 

 sidered new, although I should not have had the 

 courage to label it so if certain biologists familiar 



*Thus they would say : Theintelligence is congeni- 

 tal, but the particular things learned by intelligence, 

 not being inherited, have as such no influence on race 

 development, except as the children also learn to 

 do these things intelligently. 



with the history of discussion had not so char- 

 acterized it. 



If Romanes, for example, had thought of this 

 answer to Lamarckism, I cannot conceive that 

 he would still have pressed his argument for the 

 inheritance of acquired characters drawn from 

 the coordinated muscular movements seen in in- 

 stinct; and in this particular case — the origin of 

 instinct — I think the doctrine of Organic Selec- 

 tion gives a new theory. 



So far, however, from opposing Natural Selec- 

 tion appeal is made directly to it. The crea- 

 ture that can adapt itself gets its value only 

 because it is selected, as Natural Selection does 

 all its selecting. Even might we say that the 

 very ability to make personal adaptations may 

 possibly be due to Natural Selection. But I 

 can not go with Prof. Cattell in saying : "If Or- 

 ganic Selection is itself a congenital variation, 

 as Prof. Baldwin indicates [as possible,]* we are 

 still in the status quo of chance variations and 

 Natural Selection. ' ' Not entirely, I think, since 

 the future variations are narrowed down in 

 their range within certain limits. Say a creature 

 is kept alive and begets young because he can 

 adapt himself intelligently or socially, and say 

 his mate has the same character; then the drift 

 of variations in the next generation will be in 

 the same direction, as Prof. Cattell himself 

 recognizes. f Of course, as far as this point goes, 

 we do 'remain ignorant as to why the individual 

 makes suitable adaptations ;' that is quite a 

 difi^erent question, involving I think, for adap- 

 tations in the sphere of muscular movement, an- 

 other application of Natural Selection, i. e., to 

 overproduced or excessive movements^ ; but 

 we do not remain ignorant as to ' why congenital 

 variations occur in the line of evolution,' admit- 

 ting that they occur at all. And, of course, we 

 do remain in ignorance as to why ' they [varia- 

 tions] are hereditary; ' that again is a matter 

 of the mechanism of heredity. 



In connection with this question of ' newness ' 



*Cf. my 3Iental Development, pp. 172 ff. 204 fE. 



fin the illustration he gives of Organic Selection, i. 

 €., of dogs becoming granivorous from feeding on 

 grain during many generations. 



^Criticisms of this hypothesis I can not consider 

 now, but hope to answer them soon in The Psycholog- 

 ical Review. 



