452 
A Characterisation of 
[August, 
“ domestication, and the changes are often inherited. Such 
“ changed habits in an organic being, especially when living 
“ a free life, would often lead to the augmented or dimi- 
“ nished use of various organs, and consequently to their 
“ modification ” (ii ., 346). 
Lastly, elsewhere, Mr. Darwin allows that he formerly 
underrated the results of spontanous variation independent 
of natural selection ( Descent of Man, p. 61). Some deem 
this a concession of great consequence. For their mis- 
judgment, if such it be, excuses might be made. Were 
that not so, I fail to see anything unjust and unbecoming 
(to use Prof. Huxley’s own words) in enumerating those 
points upon which Mr. Darwin has modified his opinions. 
We now pass to the Variation under Nature. “ To treat 
“ this subjedt properly,” writes Mr. Darwin, “ a long cata- 
“ logue of dry fadts ought to be given ; but these I shall 
“ reserve for a future work ” (p. 33). As is well known, the 
world is more familiar with these favourite expressions 
about fadtual catalogues and future works than with the 
things themselves. In the Var. under Dom., upon several 
occasions, Mr. Darwin arrested himself when approaching 
the topic of variation under Nature, remarking, that it 
would be travelling beyond his proper limit to discuss it 
there, or to like effedt. In short, every means calculated to 
kindle curiosity is added to the intrinsic interest of an in- 
stalment which a logician might possibly have made the 
“ caput magnum ” of his opus magnum. 
It behoves me to specify the reasons for believing that the 
Variation under Nature, had it ever emerged from manu- 
script, would have justified some measure of unfavourable 
charadterisation. 
In the first place, the procedure of the Or. of Sp. being 
to show how evolution might be effedted, and afterwards to 
show that it had occurred, it is possible that, in the ex- 
pansion of Chapter II., the word-war about the meaning of 
species might have suffered amplification. Now the question 
of the nature of species belongs cither to that department 
of physiology which discusses hybridism (for I presume this 
is still the criterion), or to that of philosophy which discerns 
the Creator’s motives, or to both ; and discussions thereon 
which consist of tabulations of the arbitrary “ opinions of 
“ naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience ” 
(p. 37), who lack the requisite physiological data or 
spiritual pretensions, are of a value not at once very 
obvious as bearing upon Evolution. They may, of course, 
have other uses. 
