14 J. T. GuLiok — Inconsistencies of Utilitarianism. 



useful, occur in very small numbers." . . . (p. 144). Near 

 the end of the same chapter, after presenting arguments in 

 favor of this position, and after reviewing some of the facts 

 which I have presented concerning the divergences of Sand- 

 wich Island land molluscs, he remarks — " We have, however, 

 seen reason to believe that geographical or local isolation is by 

 no means essential to the differentiation of species, because the 

 same result is brought about by the incipient species acquiring 

 different habits or frequently a different station ; and also by 

 the fact that different varieties of the same species are known 

 to prefer to pair with their like and thus to bring about a 

 physiological isolation of the most effective kind " (p. 150). 

 Except that he has used " physiological isolation " where I 

 should have used psychological segregation, this last passage 

 is as completely in accord with what I have presented in my 

 paper on " Divergent Evolution " as it could have been if he 

 had copied my statements. But how is this passage, and one 

 of similar import on page 185, to be reconciled with his own 

 statement just quoted from page 144. On pages 217, 218 and 

 226, he bases his argument for the importance of different 

 coloration in closely allied species on the obvious necessity for 

 means "to secure the pairing together of individuals of the 

 same species," if a new species is to be kept " separate from its 

 nearest allies." He here assumes the fundamental fact on 

 which the theory of segregation rests. All that is wanting is 

 its recognition as a universal principle on which all permanent 

 divergences, whether varietal or specific necessarily depend. 

 In the formation of domestic variations it is fully recognized ; 

 for he says, " It is only by isolation and pure breeding that 

 any specially desired qualities can be increased by selection" 

 (p. 99). If experimental biology shows this to be a constant 

 law, is there any good reason for not applying it in the general 

 theory of organic evolution ? Seeing it is admitted that arti- 

 ficial selection, unaided by isolation, is of no avail in produc- 

 ing divergent races, how can it be claimed that natural selection, 

 unaided by isolation, is of any avail in producing varieties and 

 species. Again, as in domestication, the segregate breeding of 

 other than average forms always produces divergence, have we 

 any reason to doubt that, when the same process takes place in 

 the grouping of organisms in a natural state, the result will also 

 be divergence ? 



The discrepancies to which I have referred are it seems to me 

 due to deficiencies in the theory which Mr. Wallace maintains 

 in common with man}" others. These problems that drive the 

 exclusive utilitarian into various inconsistencies, can, I am con- 

 vinced, be consistently explained by the theory of Divergence 

 through Segregation. 



26 Concession, Osaka, Japan. 



