though perhaps in a lesser degree. This is sinterely to be 

 deplored, since his theory would have gained in depth if 

 he had but done full justice to the internal principle of de- 

 velopment. For the same reason he seems to have at- 

 tacked Naegeli's principle of perfection, another fact which 

 is very much to be regretted. True, it is as anti-mechan- 

 ical as it can be and hence has gained but few adherents; 

 but it is based on ti'Uth nevertheless, and will some day 

 prevail in the doctrine of Descent. 



It is perfectly intelligible that the thought of "per- 

 fection" should not have occurred to Eimer or should have 

 slipped his memory during his observations on butterflies. 

 The fact however, reveals a one-sidedness which he could 

 have avoided. When the notion of utility is rejected — 

 and Eimer rejects it very emphatically in his discussions 

 on mimicry — it is undoubtedly difficult to arrive at the 

 concept of a perfecting tendency. This, however, can in 

 no way mean that this concept should be entirely ban- 

 ished from nature, even as the notion of utility cannot be 

 banished. Even if the coloration and design of the wings 

 of the butterfly do not reveal utility, other characteristics 

 certainly do reveal it. It is one of the fatal mistakes of 

 Darwinism, that it fails to recognize the possibility of di- 

 viding the characters and qualities of organisms into 

 two large groups, as I attempted to do with more detail, 

 for instance, in my "Catechism of Botany." There I called 

 them (p. 89) "Autochthon-morphological" and "adaptive- 

 morphological characters." The former reveal no re- 

 lation to utility, they are innate and distinguish the organ- 



86 



