﻿312 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



Professor Huxley makes no attempt to do this, his criticism 

 amounts to mere begging of the question. 



And now, as regards the second point (3), even if we grant 

 the assumption that natural selection is the only possible 

 cause of the origin of species — or, which is the same thing, 

 that every species has been originated by natural selection, — is 

 it likewise the same thing whether we define the theory of 

 natural selection as a theory of species or as a theory of 

 adaptations ? Professor Huxley's criticism endeavours to show 

 that it is ; but a little consideration is enough to show that it 

 is not. What does follow from the assumption is, that, so far 

 as specific characters are concerned, it is one and the same thing 

 to say that the theory is a theory of species, and to say that 

 it is a theory of adaptations. But specific characters are not 

 conterminous with adaptive characters; for innumerable 

 adaptive characters are not distinctive of species, but of 

 genera, families, orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms. There- 

 fore, if it is believed (as, of course, Professor Huxley 

 believes) that the theory in question explains the evolution 

 of all adaptive characters, obviously it is not one and the 

 same thing to define it indifferently as a theory of species or 

 as a theory of adaptations. 



Now, all this is not merely a matter of logic chopping. On 

 the contrary, the question whether we are to accept or to 

 reject the deduction that all species must necessarily have 

 owed their origin to natural selection, is a question of no 

 small importance to the general theory of evolution. And 

 our answer to this question must be determined by that 

 which we give to the ulterior question — Is the theory of 

 natural selection to be defined as a theory of species, or 

 as a theory of adaptations ? 



We now pass on to our consideration of Darwin's opinion 

 touching the question, as stated by himself, — " The doctrine 

 of utility, how far true ? " As I cannot ascertain that Darwin 



