ism from other organisms; the latter can be explained by 

 means of certain vital functions, hence they possess a cer- 

 tain utility and adapt themselves more or less to environ- 

 ment. The former are permanent, the latter changeable. 

 Darwinians regard all the characters of organisms as use- 

 ful, physiological, and adaptive. If they have been hitherto 

 unable to make good this assumption, they appeal to our 

 lack of knowledge and console themselves with the thought 

 that the future may yet reveal the missing relations. The 

 presence on plants and animals of any autochthon-mor- 

 phological characters means death to Darwinism, be- 

 cause these can never be explained by means of selection 

 and struggle for existence. T-*^A*e. »'^. K<4. cmi*-^ uj»>^ii ■ 



Eimer is too much inclined towards the other extreme ; 

 he does not admit the existence of adaptive-morpho- 

 logical characteristics. Viewed in this aspect, his repudi- 

 ation of mimicry may perhaps also seem somewhat harsh 

 and one-sided. In this narrowness of view must also be 

 sought the reason for his complete repudiation of Naegeli's 

 principle of perfection. 



It is an incontrovertible fact that in the organic world 

 there exists an ascending scale from the imperfect to the 

 perfect. Every organism is indeed perfect in its own 

 sphere and from its own point of view. But perfection 

 with reference to things of earth is a very relative concept ; 

 many an organism which is perfect in itself, appears very 

 imperfect when compared with others. If, then, there is 

 a gradation of animals and plants from the lower to the 

 higher, it is the task of the theory of Descent to explain 



87 



