121 
likely be preserved, and by preservation give rise ultimately to new specific 
forms ; and therefore, so far as the origin of these living beings is concerned, 
variation has been the cause in every one of them of their peculiarities. That, 
however, is not saying variation was the rule — nothing of the kind. Then we 
are told that this variation involves inconsistency with the rule “ like 
produces like.” What then are we to do with the descendants of these 
variations. We have two principles at work, one (the rule), to inherit the 
same peculiarities ; the other (the exception), to vary them. When, then, 
you have an individual plant or animal that has varied from its progenitors, 
what are the descendants of that plant or animal to do ? If they follow the 
rule, they perpetuate the variation, because “like produces like.” If they follow 
the exception, they revert to the original type. Therefore, on Mr. Reddie’s 
principle, the instant variation occurs it should be perpetuated, because “like 
produces like.” Then comes another extraordinary statement, — it amuses 
me, the number of misrepresentations and misunderstandings in this paper ! 
We are told that on one occasion Darwin brings in “use and disuse” 
because his own “ peculiar theory of the struggle for existence is itself felt to 
be inadequate.” One would suppose from this that Darwin’s theory of the 
“ struggle for existence ” was a theory to account for variations. Let me read 
what Darwin says himself : “ Several writers have misapprehended or objected 
to the term Natural Selection . Some have even imagined that natural selection 
induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations 
as occur and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.” — (P. 91.) 
How can it be said, then, that bringing in “ use and disuse ” as a means of 
varying organs is helping out the theory of natural selection? Natural 
selection is simply the law by which these variations, when they occur, are 
seized hold of and perpetuated ; nothing more. To regard it as the cause of the 
variations is simply to misunderstand Darwin’s theory utterly. Then as to 
reversion, Darwin’s pigeon, which he, after a good deal of especial pains, got 
to revert to the original, how is it misconstrued ! He took two pigeons which 
bred extremely true, such as were scarcely ever known to show a symptom of 
reversion ; he caused them to breed, and he obtained a mongrel. A mongrel 
is not a reversion. In like manner, he obtained another mongrel, put the 
two together, and then, and not till then, did reversion appear. And yet this 
is quoted as a proof — an admitted proof— that varities will come back and 
revert to the original type — 
The Chairman. — I said it was a well-observed fact among naturalists 
that all natural varieties which man produces have a tendency, when man’s 
interference is taken away, to revert to their original types. I did not think 
it necessary to quote Darwin for this ; but I said it was admitted in two 
remarkable instances by Darwin that the thing held true. 
Mr. Warington. — I think you were misquoting Darwin, with all due 
deference — 
The Chairman. — You have forgotten a passage in which he says that, “ do 
what man will, there is always a recurring to the original blue rock-pigeon.” 
Mr. Warington. — One more remark upon the paper, and that is a view 
