ON THE METHOD OF PALEONTOLOGY 44^ 



plants from their fragments, he will say at once that he knows nothing 

 of physiological necessities and correlations." 



To any unprejudiced reader of ordinary intelligence it will be 

 quite obvious that the question of the existence of physiological 

 correlation between the parts of plants is here utterly untouched. 

 The question is whether the physiological or the morphological laws 

 of correlation guide the botanical paleontologist. I affirm the latter, 

 and I am supported by every botanist with whom I have spoken on 

 the subject. 



Dr. Falconer writes at p. 487 : — 



" Nature has formed living beings upon certain types which 

 constitute the basis of methodical nomenclature, and the correlation 

 of part to part and organ to organ is adjusted in subordination 

 to these types.'' 



Now what is this but an admission of all that I have contended 

 for, namely, that the physiological correlation of organs is wholly 

 subordinate to their morphological or, in other words, typical corre- 

 lation ? What is it that Dr. Falconer attacks, after all ? And 

 this question becomes all the more bewildering, when we find at 

 p. 480 : — 



" Our first remark is, where and by whom has the principle of the 

 ' utilitarian adaptation to purpose ' been used as an instrument of 

 research ? Mr. Huxley avers that its value as such has been enor- 

 mously overrated. If so, by whom has it been ever used ? From the 

 prevalence of adaptations and mechanisms in nature suited to the 

 production of certain ends we reason up to the agency of an all-wise, 

 powerful and benevolent Designer. But the inference is a product 

 not an instrument of the research, and to call it the latter is simply a 

 misuse of terms." 



Surely Dr. Falconer can understand that adaptation to purpose is 

 adaptation to use, and that therefore adaptation to purpose may well 

 be said to be ' utilitarian.' 



In answer to the next part of his inquiry, I must refer him to 

 Dr. Whewell ; ^ and with regard to the last part, the misuse of words 

 is Dr. Falconer's. I am not speaking of any inference from the 

 principle, but of the principle itself 



But the most curious proof that Dr. Falconer has not taken the 

 trouble to read with attention or think over carefully the statements 

 contained in my abstract is yielded by the passage at p. 480, begin- 



1 Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. ii. pp. 87, 88 ; and again, p. 78 :— " This 

 idea of a final cause is an essential condition in order to the pursuing our researches respecting 

 organized bodies." 



