J. T. Gulick — Inconsistencies of Utilitarianism. 3 



causes that may subject isolated portions of one of these spe- 

 cies to different forms of selection, producing divergence ; or, 

 again, that as differences in the uses to which men put an 

 animal are not necessarily useful differences, so the differences 

 in the uses which isolated portions of a species make of the 

 environment, though they produce diversity of natural selec- 

 tion, leading to permanent divergence, are not necessarily 

 useful differences. These, with other allied doctrines, which 

 were presented in my paper on " Divergent Evolution Through 

 Cumulative Segregation," have received adverse criticism from 

 Mr. Wallace in the work mentioned above. He says : " In 

 Mr. Gulick' s last paper {Jour, of Linn. Soc, Zoology, vol. xx, 

 pp. 189-274), he discusses the various forms of isolation 

 above referred to, under no less than thirty-eight different 

 divisions, with an elaborate terminology, and he argues that 

 these will frequently bring about divergent evolution without 

 any change in the environment or any action of natural selec- 

 tion. The discussion of the problem here given will, I believe, 

 sufficiently expose the fallacy of his contention, but his illus- 

 trations of the varied and often recondite modes by which 

 practical isolation may be brought about, may help to remove 

 one of the popular difficulties in the way of the action of 

 natural selection in the origination of species." (Note on p. 

 150). 



In this passage Mr. Wallace seems to take issue with each 

 and all of my propositions ; but after a careful study of his 

 whole discussion, one cannot but be in doubt whether he fully 

 dissents from any of them. This uncertainty arises either 

 from his failing to recognize distinctions which I have made, 

 or from ambiguities and inconsistencies in his own statements. 



Extending the meaning of Natural Selection does not save the 



Theory. 



He represents me as contending that divergent groups are 

 frequently found in which the action of natural selection is 

 wanting. He here fails to distinguish between the absence of 

 diversity in the action of natural selection and the absence of 

 any action of the same principle. I have never maintained 

 that any species can long escape the action of natural selec- 

 tion ; but I have that natural selection cannot produce trans- 

 formation of a race unless it secures the propagation of other 

 than average forms of that race ; that it cannot be a cause of 

 divergence unless to this condition is added the independent 

 generation (i. e., isolation) of groups that are subjected to some 

 diversity in its action ; and, that, in isolated groups, some of 

 the divergent characters may be due to other causes of trans- 



