352 EET. J. T. GFLICK ON 



sense advautageous, and, in some cases, may even be disadvan- 

 tageous. 



A familiar example will perhaps put the distinction between 

 the causes of existence and transformation and the causes of 

 divergent existence and transformation in a clearer light. The 

 forms of language are growths tbat are governed by the laws of 

 utility as fully as tlie forms of varieties and species. Eacb lan- 

 guage and each part of a language exists and persists only as it 

 is found to be of use. The " Survival of the Fittest" is a law 

 that is perhaps as conspicuous in the domain of language as it is 

 in the organic world. Again, every language, like every organic 

 species, is in many respects determined by the environment. 

 A language, for example, developed in Java will present names for 

 many plants and animals that will not be represented in a lan- 

 guage developed in Greenland. But, granting all this, does it 

 follow that linguistic differences are necessarily advantageous ? 

 The Polynesian system of counting by fours, and the Eskimo 

 system that proceeds by scores, are undoubtedly useful systems ; 

 but is there anything advantageous in the difference ? I think 

 not, for each system is as well adapted to the environment of 

 the other as to its own environment. We may look upon the 

 more important parts of a language as persisting through their 

 usefulness, the survival of the fittest being the law; but the 

 divergent evolution wbich brings several languages out of one 

 seems to be principally due to other principles whicb are closely 

 akin to the principles tbat produce divergences in the organic 

 world. The fundamental condition in both organic and linguistic 

 divergence is Segregation ; and, this being secured, diversity of 

 habits, bringing diversity of aptitudes and diversity in the forms 

 of survival, is sure to arise even when the environment is the 

 same. 



4. Specific differences are not always differences of adaptation 

 to the environment ; and those that are not should not be 

 attributed to the action of natural selection. 

 It is admitted by every one that a distinction relating to a 

 character that is of no use in the economy of the organism can- 

 not have arisen under the influence of natural selection. Those 

 who maintain tbat all specific distinctions are due to natural 

 selection maintain at the same time that these distinctions are 

 both adaptational and advantageous. There are naturalists who 



