2c UTILITAKIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAE TEUE : 



latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), 

 or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. 

 Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my 

 theory. I fully admit that many structures are now of 

 no direct use to their possessors, and may never have 

 been of any use to their progenitors ; but this does not 

 prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety. 

 Xo doubt the definite action of changed conditions, and 

 the various causes of modifications, lately specified, 

 have all produced an effect, probably a great effect, 

 independently of any advantage thus gained. But a 

 still more important consideration is that the chief 

 part of the organisation of every living creature is due 

 to inheritance ; and consequently, though each being 

 assuredly is well fitted for its place in nature, many 

 structures have now no very close and direct relation to 

 present habits of life. Thus, we can hardly believe 

 that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the 

 frigate-bird are of special use to these birds ; we cannot 

 believe that the similar bones in the arm of the 

 monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of 

 the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special 

 use to these animals. AVe may safely attribute these 

 structures to inheritance. But webbed feet ho doubt 

 were as useful to the progenitor of the upland goose 

 and of the frigate-bird, as they now are to the most 

 aquatic of living birds. So we may believe that the 

 progenitor of the seal did not possess a flipper, but a 

 foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping ; and 

 we may further venture to believe that the several 

 bones in the limbs of the monkey, horse, and bat, 

 were originally developed, on the principle of utility, 

 probably through the reduction of more numerous 



