33 



question in order to allude to the fact that man does introduce 

 rudimentary and useless structures in modern art, which, how- 

 ever, had their uses, but which are now obsolete, but not with 

 such purpose. 



One illustration will suffice. In the days when roads were 

 bad, it was necessary to have straps with loops, by which to 

 hold on inside the carriages or coaches. When roads became 

 good, coaches were still made with them, though their use 

 had gone. First-class railway carriages, which were originally 

 three coaches united, have them stilL Again; boots, before 

 vulcanized indiarubber was invented, were usually laced up 

 over the instep ; when elastic sides were adopted, imitation 

 lacing was inserted. Many other instances might be given 

 besides these two, which are suggested by Mr. Wallace. 



Now, if the modern coachbuilder or railway- carriage manu- 

 facturer were asked why he still made these useless appendages, 

 whatever his answer, I am quite sure it would not be in order 

 to shoiv that modern carriages are built on the same plan as 

 those of the sixteenth century ! If then we argue from the 

 rudiments in man's works to those in creation, this explanation 

 usually given is utterly preposterous, and Mr. Lewes may well 

 say that it is ^' a specimen of pedantic trifling worthy of no 

 intellect above the Pongo's.'' (p. 615.) 



Besides atrophied and rudimentary organs, which, when 

 compared with their homologies in full development and 

 activity, evince an absence of that perfection which is so in- 

 sisted upon by teleologists, the very organs taken to prove 

 perfection of design and execution, such as the eye, witness to 

 a great want of perfection. 



Now, if it can be shown that so highly elaborate a structure 

 as the eye is relatively perfect only, we need not attempt to 

 prove it for any other. 



Purposely omitting all diseases to which the eye is subject, 

 the first imperfections I will notice are long and short sight. 

 Again, eyesight is of great variability of strength. In many 

 cases the weakness (due to degeneration and atrophy, but not 

 disease) amounts to a positive defect. Some persons have no 

 appreciation of distinct colours, all appearing alike; or else 

 they cannot distinguish between complementary colours, such 

 as red and green. In other persons, called " moon-blind,^^ 

 they cannot see after a certain hour of the day. Again, the 

 achromatism is said not to be absolutely perfect, while the 

 power of adjustment to strong light is greatly limited ; and in 

 many cases sight fails under certain employments, such as type- 

 setting, &c., and so on. 

 I am not complaining that our eyes are not absolutely 



VOL. VIT. D 



