Inconsistencies of Utilitarianism . 129 
that presses for solution, namely the explanation of perma- 
nent divergence in characters that are useless without being 
hurtful (p. 142), unless he considers his suggestion “ that it 
may be due to individual variability ” an adequate explana- 
tion ; and I presume he does not. On page 142 he says of 
characters that are u useless without being hurtful.” “ No 
cause or influence has been adduced adequate to render such 
characters fixed and constant ; ” but in speaking of “ the 
delicate tints of spring foliage and the intense hues of 
autumn ” he says, “ As colours they are unadaptive and 
appear to have no more relation to the well-being of the 
plants themselves than do the colours of gems and minerals. 
We may also include in the same category those alg83 and 
fungi which have bright colours — the red snow of the Arctic 
regions, the red, green, or purple seaweeds, the brilliant 
scarlet, yellow, white, or black Agarics, and other fungi. All 
these colours are probably the direct results of chemical com- 
position or molecular structure, and being thus normal products 
of the vegetable organism need no special explanation from 
our present point of view ; and the same remark will apply 
to the varied tints of the bark of trunks, branches, and twigs, 
which are often of various shades of brown and green, or even 
vivid reds or yellows ” (p. 302). He here seems to admit 
that instead of useless specific characters being unknown they 
are so common and so easily explained by u the chemical 
constitution of the organism ” that they claim no special 
attention. 
Inconsistency in extending the meaning of Environment . 
If Mr. Wallace accepts the definition of natural selection 
which makes it the survival of those members of a species 
which are best fitted to its environment (and this is the scope 
he seems to assign to it in the earlier half of Chapter V,, where 
the matter is under special discussion), then he ought to admit 
that changes in a species produced by the action of the mem- 
bers of the species on each other although they are adaptive 
are not due to natural selection. If, on the other hand, natu- 
ral selection is made to include the actions and reactions of 
the species on itself (and this he does on pages 282-285) , then 
certainly he ought to admit that there may be changes in the 
action of natural selection without any change in the relations 
of the species to the environment. One way to escape this 
dilemma is to extend the definition of the environment, so as 
to include every influence that affects the species, whether it 
is within the species or external to it ; but this reduces his 
