i88s.] 
The New Factor in Organic Development . 
281 
V. A NEW FACTOR IN ORGANIC 
DEVELOPMENT* 
S T is now, we think, generally admitted, even by the most 
orthodox Darwinians, that natural selection does not 
suffice to explain the origin of all the features of 
the animal and vegetable kingdoms. It has been repeatedly 
shown in the Journal of Science as well as elsewhere, that 
the principle laid down by Darwin and Wallace, though 
it may account for the preservation of any favourable varia- 
tion, throws no light at all on the origin of variation. To 
the question why did not the first protozoon launched upon 
the earth not simply reproduce its like in secula seculorum 
it can return no answer. A further difficulty is the explana- 
tion of the minute and exaft purposiveness so often recog- 
nised in the animal organism. Here Natural Selection, even 
aided by Sexual Selection, is plainly inadequate. Here, 
consequently, the advocates of individual, or, so to speak, 
“ mechanical” creation take their stand, and ask us to show 
how such an apparent adaptation of means to ends can have 
arisen ? This problem has not newly arisen. Empedoclesf 
dealt with it of old (one of the interesting proofs of what 
Greek philosophy might have been and done but for the 
great aberration mainly due to Socrates, Plato, and their 
following) and sought to explain purposiveness upon purely 
mechanical principles without the introduction of teleological 
considerations. With him as with Dr. Roux, “ the purpo- 
sive is not a something intended, but something which has 
come to pass; nothing teleological, but something natural ; 
not that which corresponds to a pre-conceived plan, but that 
which had the properties necessary for existence, surviving.” 
It may be scarcely necessary to add that this view is opposed 
not merely to the idea of individual creation but to that of 
Evolution^ upon certain given lines. We must further note 
* Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus Ein Beitrag zur Vervollstandigung 
der Mechanischen Zweckmassigkeits lehre. Von Dr. W. Roux. Leipzig: 
Engelmann. 
t Empedoclis Agrigentini fragmenta disposuit, &c. H. Stein. Bonn, 1852, 
P. 4. 
+ Why may vve not, as some Americans have done, substitute for Evolution 
the plain English word “ Unfolding ?’ 
VOL. IV. (THIRD SERIES). U 
