HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



i34 



clearly appear whether this remark applies to both 

 carnivorous and omniferous insects as distinct from 

 those adapted entirely for a floral diet. I cannot 

 help thinking that most entomologists will agree with 

 me when I say that, it may be taken as a general 

 rule, that insects that have to capture their prey, 

 exhibit greater intelligence than those who actually 

 living upon, or within their food, need not to exercise 

 qualities so conspicuous in insect carnivora as skill, 

 craft, cunning, patience, etc. 



Let me here consider en masse the several terms 

 employed by me to which Mr. Tansley takes excep- 

 tion. Although they may ,not be the happiest I 

 might have used, I yet think that they fully express 

 the meaning I intended to convey. With regard to 

 " accidental " and "designed " I mean those creatures 

 or things accidentally brought together, as opposed to 

 those associated together from the beginning. This 

 is, primarily, the idea I meant to bring before the 

 reader. Let me, however, add that I had in my 

 mind at the time I penned the words the thought 

 that there was a purpose in this original association, 

 that it was not fortuitous but designed — nor do I now 

 desire in anywise to qualify the term almost uncon- 

 sciously so employed. If Mr. Tansley asks what are 

 accidental adaptations, let me briefly instance the case 

 of exotic insects through man's agency imported into 

 a country where the indigenous flora is distinct from 

 that of the creatures' native habitat. A large propor- 

 tion of them would probably perish for want of 

 suitable food — possibly all. Some few, however, 

 might contrive to exist — some few even flourish upon 

 plants differing from their natural food, e.g., the well- 

 known instance of silkworms feeding upon lettuce 

 leaves. In many instances both animals and plants 

 so introduced have so effectually adapted themselves 

 to their new conditions, to the detriment of the 

 natives, that they have not only brought about the 

 latter's, decrease, but often their actual extirpation. 

 It cannot be said that in these instances the mutual 

 adaptations of the introduced plants or animals are 

 other than accidental, since the change has been 

 brought about by no purely natural process but solely 

 through the agency of man. 



On the other hand these same creatures — say 

 insects — in their native habitat feed upon its indi- 

 genous flora, and in process of time have become as 

 permanently dependent upon it as it has upon their 

 offices. Probably this mutual dependence has existed 

 from the remotest past — plants and animals have 

 become simultaneously developed until they have, in 

 a sense, become part and parcel of each other, and, 

 finally, cannot exist apart. I do not call this an 

 accidental, but a designed adaptation — that is to say, 

 that in it there is evidence of an original purpose or 

 intention, i.e. design. 



"Created," "meaningless"! Does Mr. Tansley 

 mean in the sense in which I have used it — or does he 

 altogether object to the word? I used it in the 



popularly understood sense. It plainly implies 

 purpose, as distinguished from fortuity. Mr. Tansley 

 has probably misapprehended my object. 



Again, some selectionists assert that primitive 

 flowers were colourless, but that by a process of 

 insect selection, colours were evolved ; * that in 

 point of fact, that which once had no existence was 

 practically by insects " created." I fail to see how 

 the upholders of the theory can get away from this 

 conclusion — it appears to me a logical one. Mr. 

 Tansley must, however, admit that their office is one 

 quite unconsciously performed — nor does it come 

 within the compass of the creatures' ability to produce 

 a single colour, and I say, that to credit them with 

 this absolute power is to invest them with the 

 attributes of Deity, which is manifestly absurd, and, 

 function or no function, is not only an " evolu- 

 tionary " but an utter "impossibility." This is the 

 idea I intended to convey in my use of the term 

 "creation." 



Possibly the selectionist may here agree that of 

 course they never intend to assert thaf insects cause 

 colour to appear where absolutely none already exists 

 — i.e. bring something out of nothing ; they contend 

 only for their "development" — the opening of that 

 enveloped. Then why use such terms as "non- 

 existent " and " colourless " ? To say the least, they 

 are misleading. 



Notwithstanding my desire to avoid the introduction 

 of theology into the discussion, Mr. Tansley's objection 

 to my use of such terms as "designed" and "created" 

 leads me to here remark that, however "meaningless " 

 these terms may appear to him, there are yet very 

 many who believe in the power of One to create, and 

 who, although evolutionists, can yet believe that in 

 the multifarious processes continually going on around 

 us, and in the marvellous adaptations and relations 

 visible in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we can 

 trace the evidence of purpose, intention, design ; and 

 whether by His direct interposition, or by and through 

 the harmonious operations of His laws, these relations 

 have been established. 



I trust that I am not so much of an evolutionist as 

 to ignore this evidence, nor so little of one that I can 

 ignore plain facts to suit preconceived theological 

 notions. 



Then why find fault with my figure of speech — 

 "disturbance of Nature's scheme"? The context 

 clearly shows the sense in which it is used. It is 

 assumed by all true naturalists that a harmony and 

 beauty pervades all creation — that things are nicely- 

 balanced, exquisitely adjusted — that there is an ap- 

 pointed place for every creature in Nature, and that 

 every creature is in that place, and in harmonious 

 relation with those surrounding it. Whether true in 



* Although the utilization of already existing colours is so 

 frequently discussed by them, I cannot call to mind any 

 instance in the works of either Darwin or Wallace where 

 colour in flowers is said to have been non-existent 



