BACKGROUND OF DARWINISM—THE WEB OF LIFE 217 
The recognition of consequences—often far-reaching—grows with 
us as we work with the idea of the web of life, as we see in proper 
perspective the criminality of those who are ruthless. President 
Roosevelt has declared his abomination of “the land-skinner’’—“‘the 
individual whose idea of developing the country is to cut every stick 
of timber off it, and then leave a barren desert for the home-maker 
who comes in afterhim. That man isa curse, and not a blessing to the 
country. The prop of the country must be the man who intends so 
to run his business that it will be profitable to his children after him.” 
Every right-thinking man, and especially those who have grasped the 
idea of the web of life, will say with Roosevelt, “‘I am against the land- 
skinner every time.” 
It may be said that man must exterminate a good deal if he is to 
go on peaceably with his business, and it will be admitted that there 
has never been a strong enthusiasm, humanitarian or otherwise, 
against the elimination of rattlesnakes, and such like. The natural- 
ist’s answer is that every crusade should be carefully considered on its 
own merits, and that every careless and hasty destruction of life is to be 
condemned. Even in regard to snakes killing may be carried too far. 
Some creatures are, as it were, on the fringes of the web, while others 
occupy a position where many threads meet. It is scientifically and 
aesthetically deplorable that birds like the great auk and mammals 
like the quagga should have been exterminated, but it is practically 
much more deplorable that we have lost so many hawks and weasels 
and other members of that pertinacious army whose guerilla warfare 
keeps hundreds of more humdrum creatures up to the scratch, and 
keeps “vermin” from becoming a plague. Moreover, it is extremely 
difficult to tell what may be the consequences of exterminating any 
creature—remote as it may seem from the beaten track of human 
affairs. One of the obvious lessons of Darwinism is that we should be 
slow to call any change unimportant. Everything counts, or may 
count. A so-called unimportant, animal is destroyed and no imme- 
diate ill effects are seen. But who can tell? 
Very pertinent, for instance, is the question: What about the 
parasites that used to complete their life-history in romantic routine 
in this extinguished animal? Have we extinguished the parasite also ? 
Or is it waiting, with a whip of scorpions, to chastise mankind for 
their ignorance of Darwinism ? 
The practical importance of recognising the web of life has been 
proved by the heavy penalties which man has often had to pay for 
