81 
element of Darwinism. The whole question is, — How far this 
is* true ? Is like producing like the rule in nature ? or. Is vari- 
ation the rule, and reproduction and inheritance exceptions ? 
This is the grand issue we have to settle. Now I have said 
that Darwinism converts the exceptions into the rule ; and so 
does Mr. Warington in the conclusion he draws from these 
conflicting “ elements of the theory.” He says, — The re- 
sult is natural selection, entailing divergence of character and 
the extinction of less improved forms,” — in other words, the 
result is (1) Dissimilarity ; and (2), in so far as there is not dis- 
similarity, destruction , or, euphemistically, the extinction of 
less improved forms.” 
I must here observe, that the effect of “ use and disuse,” 
which is really the leading principle of the theory of Lamarck, 
is stuck into Mr. Warington’s third definition, (following, how- 
ever, in this his master,) because Mr. DarwhTs own peculiar 
theory of “ the struggle for existence ” is itself felt to be in- 
adequate. Here is another and fuller account of Mr. Darwin’s 
reasoning, which I put forward in a paper read before the 
Anthropological Society three years ago : — 
As regards vegetable life, Mr. Darwin dwells almost exclusively upon 
his law of natural selection proper, to account for modifications. But, when 
he comes to speak of animals, he recognises that “ the external conditions of 
life, as climate, food, &c., seem to have induced some slight modifications.” 
He also says, that “ habit , in producing constitutional differences, and use in 
strengthening, and disuse in weakening and diminishing organs, seem to have 
been more potent in their effects.” When, however, neither use nor disuse 
appears to operate sufficiently to justify Lamarck’s theory, then Mr. Darwin is 
ready to draw attention to “ the most important consideration, that the chief 
part of the organisation of every being is simply due to inheritance 
and so he accounts [as any anti-Darwinian would do] for the webbed feet of 
the Upland goose “ remaining unchanged; ” and he curiously describes them as 
being “ rudimentary in function, though not in structure ! ” (Orig. of Species , 
pp. 185, 204, 219.) In fact, Mr. Darwin confesses that he is “ well aware that 
scarcely a single point is discussed in his volume on which facts cannot be 
adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at 
which he has arrived.” (p. 2.) Yet he very ingeniously claims all these con- 
flicting facts as illustrations of one or other of the various theories, old and 
new, which he has selected to form into one, of a very plastic character in- 
deed, itself a practical specimen of “ transmutation from varieties.” * 
Now it must be perfectly plain, I think, that I do not strain 
the Darwinian hypothesis unfairly, when I say it makes variation 
* On Anthropological Desiderata. — Anthrop. Bev., vol. ii. p. cxx. 
G 
