1894 ON SELF-ADAPTATION 335 



in flowers to thrusts, strains &c. caused by insects. 

 But here, if I may say so, it does not seem to me 

 that you sufficiently deal with an obvious criticism, 

 viz. How is it so much as conceivable that proto- 

 plasm should always respond to insect irritation 

 adaptively, when we look to the endless variety and 

 often great elaboration of the mechanism ? Similarly 

 as regards the inorganic environment, Lamarck's 

 hypothesis of ttse-inheritance (i.e. mere increase and 

 decrease of parts as due to inherited efforts of greater 

 or less development by altered flow of nutrition) was 

 at least theoretically vahd. But how can you extend 

 this to structures which, though useful, are never 

 active, so as to modify flow of nutrition, e.g. hard 

 shells of nuts, soft pulp of fruits, &c. ? Here it is 

 that natural selection theory has the pull. And so 

 of adaptive colours, odours, and secretions ? I con- 

 fess that, even accepting inheritance of acquired 

 characters, I could conceive of ' self- adaptation ' 

 alone producing all such innumerable and diversified 

 adjustments only by seeing with Newman (in his 

 ' Apologia ') an angel in every flower. 



Besides, I do not see why you are shut up to 

 this, even on your own principles. For surely, be 

 there as much self-adaptation in Nature as ever you 

 please, it would still be those individuals (or incijnent 

 types) which test respond to stimulation {i.e. most 

 adaptively do so) that, other things equal, would 

 survive in the struggle for existence, and so be 

 naturally selected. In other words, I do not see 

 why you should accept natural selection as regards 

 ' vigour ' of seedlings, and nowhere else. 



