410 Darwin, and after Darwin. 
kingdom, the colour is concealed, is surely sufficient 
proof that the colour, if regarded from an esthetic 
point of view, is accidental, Therefore, when, as in 
other cases, such colouring occurs upon the surface, 
and thus becomes apparent, are we not irresistibly 
led to conclude that its ex/zb¢tion in such cases is 
likewise accidental, so far as any question of esthetic 
design is concerned ? 
I have now briefly glanced at all the main facts of 
organic nature with reference to beauty; and, as a 
result, I think it is impossible to resist the general 
conclusion, that in organic nature beauty does not 
exist as an end ger se. All cases where beauty can 
be pointed to in organic nature are seemingly due— 
either to natural selection, acting without reference 
to beauty, but to utility; to sexual selection, act- 
ing with reference to the taste of animals; or else 
to sheer accident. And if this general conclusion 
should be held to need any special verification, is it 
not to be found in the numberless cases where or- 
ganic nature not only fails to be beautiful, but reveals 
itself as the reverse. Not again to refer to the case 
of parasites, what can be more unshapely than a 
hippopotamus, or more generally repulsive than a 
crocodile? If it be said that these are exceptions, 
and that the forms of animals as a rule are graceful, 
the answer—even apart from parasites—is obvious. 
In all cases where the habits of life are such as to 
render rapid locomotion a matter of utilitarian 
necessity, the outlines of an animal mast be 
graceful—else, whether the locomotion be terrestrial, 
aerial, or aquatic, it must fail to be swift. Hence it 
is only in such cases as that of the hippopotamus, 
