250 UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE : 



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. 

 No doubt the definite action of changed conditions, and 

 the various causes of modifications, lately specified, 

 have all produced an effect, probably a great effect, in- 

 dependently 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 as- 

 suredly is well fitted for its place in nature, many struc- 

 tures 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 be- 

 lieve 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. "We may safely attribute these structures to 

 inheritance. But webbed feet no doubt were as use- 

 ful 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; but we may further 

 venture to believe that the several bones in the limbs 

 of the monkey, horse, and bat, were originally devel- 

 oped, on the principle of utility, probably through the 

 reduction of more numerous bones in the fin of some 



