1871.] 26 3 [Cope, 
That in addition, a disposition toa general variation, on the part of the 
species, has been met by the greater or less adaptation of the results of 
such variation to the varying necessities of their respective situations. 
That the result of such conflict has been the extinction of those types 
that are not adapted to their immediate or changed conditions and the 
preservation of those that are.” 
It is unnecessary to state that the first sentence of the above does not 
express the theory of Darwin in any part or particular, while the two fol- 
lowing do. 
Further, it is stated (same page), ‘« What we propose is, that of [gen- 
eric characters] comparatively very few, in the whole range of animals 
and plants, are adaptations to external needs of forces, and that of specific 
characters a large proportion is of the ‘same kind. How, then, could 
they owe their existence to a process regulated by adaptation?’ Below, 
it is again said, ‘that while Natural Selection acts by the ‘preservation 
of the fittest,’ Acceleration and Retardation act without any reference to 
fitness at all; that instead of being controlled by fitness it is the controller 
of fitness.”’ 
Thus, from the existence of large numbers of non-adaptive characters I 
was induced to believe that an antagonism existed between the two laws. 
The present essay shews this to have been an error, and that by recon- 
ciling them, they become coérdinate factors in producing the result. 
Thus ‘Acceleration and Retardation” is the “controller of fitness,’’ 
because all adaptive structures are produced in accordance with it, and 
in no other way. The law of Intelligent Selection also prescribing fitness, 
removes it from the domain of physical or material necessity implied by 
Darwin’s law of “Survival of the fittest.” Adaptation therefore is 
the guide of change, though not the mechanically produced adaptation 
implied by natural selection. The disturbance of: the balance of forces 
produced under its influence, leaves growth force to create primarily, the 
great number of unadaptive characters, which are simply wnjinished adap- 
tive ones, and secondarily, others occasioned by excess or loss of force 
in different directions. . 
The reconciliation of these laws and their complementary relations 
were perceived before the essay was completed, see in the recapitulation. 
Prop. bi, pe7g: 
2.) Under the head of Heterology (p. 55), a number of groups are in- 
troduced as ‘‘ Homologous’? (as defined ~ ——— Ze 
p. 64). Some of these I believe to be 9 A. 
truly of this character, but somé others 
are probably not so related, but are 
merely series of genera presenting simi- 
lar structural peculiarities as conse- 
quences of the operation of identical 
laws. I would place under this head, 
and withdraw from the homologous class, 
Fig. 18. (See Di 238, 
the families of Lacerttlia Leptoglossa, Diploglossa and Typhlophthalmi, 
those of the Old and New World Quadrumana and those of Cephalopoda. 
- 
