186 ORGANIC EVOLUTION CONSIDERED 



possessed many mammae and brought forth many 

 young, as is common with low forms at present. 



This being true, how can we account for the total 

 disappearance of mammae in various places in many 

 existing mammals, and from both sexes, so that not 

 even a rudiment remains to tell of their former exist- 

 ence? If rudimentary mammas could survive through 

 the entire history of mammals, in the males, how was 

 it possible for numerous mammary glands to totally 

 disappear from both males and females — glands that 

 were formerly functional in the females? 



These two claims, I think, are entirely inconsistent 

 with each other. If the rudiments have survived in 

 males, as they certainly have, then the others could 

 not have entirely disappeared — which means that they 

 never existed. Animals, for example, such as man, 

 which have but two mammas, could never have had 

 more, otherwise there would be rudimentary mammas 

 as evidence of the fact, since these rudimentary organs 

 are extremely persistent. 



If this is true, man could not have been evolved 

 from a lower form of mammal, for, going down the 

 scale, we soon reach mammals with more than two 

 mammas. 



I think, then, that we are justified in concluding 

 that in males the mammae have always been rudimen- 

 tary, that they have existed during the entire history 

 of the mammals, and that mammals have not had 

 mammas, as evolution must assume, that have entirely 

 disappeared. 



Since writing the above I find that I have over- 

 looked certain views of this subject which Mr. Dar- 

 win has stated in the Descent of Man. He says: "In 

 the mammalian class the males possess in their vesi- 

 culas prostraticas rudiments of a uterus with the adja- 

 cent passage; they bear also rudiments of mammas, 



