accordance with, the principle of the retention of type, and it 
is believed have never had a use until accidentally called into 
action, as in the above-mentioned example. And, lastly, I 
would say that the conviction of their being ordinarily of no 
use, is only arrived at by a considerable acquaintance with 
them, and the causes which produce them. 
One or two examples may assist in clearing away this diffi- 
culty from a sceptical mind. No one will deny the purpose 
of teeth ; but what can be their ec use 33 in the rudimentary 
form in which they appear in the young whale before it is 
supplied with “ whalebone 33 ? Again, the pappus or “ down ” 
of thistles and other genera of the Compositae, &c., is justly 
regarded as a means for the dispersion of the seed ; but why is 
it retained on those flowers which are neuter, and incapable of 
producing any ? Of what use are the rudimentary pistils in 
bisexual plants appearing merely as minute papillae in the 
centre of the staminate flowers ? Might it not rather be 
assumed an evidence of a wise ordinance that organs no longer 
required should dwindle away in part or entirely, so that the 
energy or force demanded for their production is thus pre- 
served and directed into other channels, while they appear 
capable, should nature require it,, of a re- development with 
functional power ? 
Analogous arguments may be brought to bear upon this 
point, which will assist in limiting the ground of objection 
very considerably. Thus we might ask what is the use of 
plants producing myriads of seeds which can never possibly 
grow up to maturity ? What is the use of parasites to man 
and animals, the frequent cause of suffering and even death ? 
But it is not for us to call these facts to account. This is the 
issue of God-’s laws. 
These brief allusions to the supposed imperfections of nature 
will be sufficient for my purpose, simply dismissing them with 
the cautionary remark that it is for want of a better expres- 
sion that I use the word imperfection as implying relative 
perfection, without, however, attaching any meaning to the 
word, which may be thought derogatory to the Deity. But, 
on the other hand, it would be the height of absurdity not to 
admit most admirable contrivances and adaptations in nature. 
Are they evidences of what we call design, mental purpose, or 
intention ? If any of these or kindred expressions can at all 
adequately represent the fact, I unhesitatingly say it is my 
firm belief such to be the case. Instead, however, of selecting 
some particular example, as the eye or hand, and saying such 
exquisite mechanism is a very witness in itself of being a direct 
emanation from the Creator, I would say it evidences at least 
