NATURAL SELECTION. 



115 



have had had he been born into a community of savages whose individual 

 existence depended entirely upon their own strength, speed, and ability to 

 defend themselves against wild animals and antagonistic tribes ? Granted 

 this case, the assertion is confuted, but anyone who raises variable plants 

 from seed and spore knows full well that some of the varieties vary very 

 much the wrong way, dwarfed, depauperate, and altogether unfitted for 

 the battle of life. What are these but " ill-adapted varieties " ? And where 

 will be found a selective cultivator who does not suffer from them, and 

 why are we to assume that such misfits do not occur under wild 

 conditions as well ? Furthermore what must we say of such variations 

 as involve sterility, such as perfectly double flowers which bear no seed ? 

 Surely these from the natural point of view are ill-adapted variations, yet 

 they occur under wild conditions, and a number of perfectly barren fern 

 sports have been found. Returning now to No. 1 is it not reasonable 

 to impute the " miffiness " of many plants which outwardly resemble 

 their robust relatives to " slight variations of structure"? Constitution 

 and structure are presumably correlated, and liability to disease or 

 defective assimilation is equally presumably due to subtle differences in 

 the cell structure which is the basis of the plant. A very slight 

 difference in human structure facilitating appendicitis may also be fatal. 

 This to my mind disposes of No. 1 and No. 2. 



3. " There is no question of origin but only of the distribution of 

 existing species by means of natural selection " (p. 91). " But in 

 originating new varieties and species the struggle for life is really not 

 required at all. Indeed, new varieties arise much better without it, as 

 every horticulturist knows and takes care that it should be so " (p. 91). 



Considering that Darwin's whole theory is based on the fact that 

 existing species differ from old and extinct ones, on gradational lines, and 

 that he set himself to account for their origin by evolution the one from 

 the other, it is extremely curious that Professor Henslow should say, 

 " There is no question of origin bat only of the distribution of existing [my 

 italics here] species by means of natural selection." He ignores the very 

 pith of Darwin's doctrines. Then with regard to the last clause of No. 3 : 

 " But in originating new varieties and species the struggle for life is 

 really not required at all. Indeed, new varieties arise much better 

 without it, as every horticulturist knows and takes care that it should be 

 so." What on earth has this to do with natural selection, where the 

 plants have to fight their own battle and survive or perish according as 

 they are best or least fitted for the struggle ? In point of fact, however, 

 the horticulturist by weeding out the imperfect ones according to his ideal 

 and selecting the best or fittest in that connection introduces a struggle 

 for existence on quite parallel lines, and he only arrives at his successes 

 as a rule after ruthless slaughter. As a selective fern cultivator I can 

 assert it is this weeding-out which is one of the most painful processes in 

 the cult. , 



4. Replying to Professor Darwin's remarks implying ill-adapted as 

 well as well-adapted variations, Professor Henslow says : — 



" This has been long shown to be erroneous. Experiments prove that 

 all the seedlings of a plant vary alike and in direct response to the new 

 conditions " ; he then continues : " This fact puts natural selection, as a 



i 2 



