p.

A still more remarkable admission is that in which he says, after referring to the action of both natural and sexual selection :

volume which will doubtless form a land- beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to mark in the domain of zoological science. be one of the greatest oversights as yet detectWe find even in the third edition of his ed in my work.'-('Descent of Man,' vol. i. "Origin of Species' the following passages: 152.) -Natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by short and slow steps' (p. 214). Again he says:-If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case' (p. 208). He adds:

:

'An unexplained residuum of change, perhaps a large one, must be left to the assumed action of those unknown agencies, which occasionally induce strongly marked and abrupt deviations of structure in our domestic productions.'-vol. i. p. 154.

But perhaps the most glaring contradiction is presented by the following passage:

'No doubt man, as well as every other animal, presents structures, which as far as we can judge with our little knowledge, are not now of any service to him, nor have been so during any former period of his existence, either in relation to his general conditions of life, or of

Every detail of structure in every living creature (making some little allowance for the direct action of physical conditions) may be viewed either as having been of special use to some ancestral form, or as being now of special use to the descendants of this form either directly, or indirectly through the complex laws of growth;' and 'if it could be provone sex to the other. Such structures cannot ed that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection' (p. 220).

It is almost impossible for Mr. Darwin to have used words by which more thoroughly to stake the whole of his theory on the nonexistence or non-action of causes of any moment other than natural selection. For why should such a phenomenon annihilate his theory'? Because the very essence of his theory, as originally stated, is to recog nize only the conservation of minute va riations directly beneficial to the creature presenting them, by enabling it to obtain food, escape enemies, and propagate its kind. But once more he says:-

'We have seen that species at any one period are not indefinitely variable, and are not linked together by a multitude of intermediate gradations, partly because the process of natural selection will always be very slow, and will act, at any one time, only on a very few forms; and partly because the very process of natural selection almost implies the continual supplanting and extinction of preceding and intermediate gradations.'-P. 223.

Such are Mr. Darwin's earlier statements. At present we read as follows:

'I now admit, after reading the essay by Nägeli on plants, and the remarks by various authors with respect to animals, more especially those recently made by Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my "Origin of Species" I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest.'

'I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither

be accounted for by any form of selection, or by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts. We know, however, that many strange and strongly marked peculiarities of structure occasionally appear in our domesticated productions; and if the unknown causes which produce them were to act more uniformly, they would probably become common to all the individuals of the species.'—vol. ii. p. 387.

Mr. Darwin, indeed, seems now to admit the existence of internal, innate powers, for he goes on to say:

monstrosities.'

'We may hope hereafter to understand something about the causes of such occasional modifications, especially through the study of 'In the greater number of cases we can only say that the cause of each slight variation and of each monstrosity lies much more in the nature or constitution of the organism* than in the nature of the surrounding conditions; though new and changed conditions certainly play an important part in exciting organic changes of all kinds.'

Also, in a note (vol. i. p. 223), he speaks of incidental results of certain unknown differences in the constitution of the reproductive system.'

Thus, then, it is admitted by our author that we may have abrupt, strongly marked' changes, neither beneficial nor injurious' to the creatures possessing them, produced by unknown agencies' lying deep in the nature or constitution of the organism,' and which, if acting uniformly, would probably' modify similarly all the individuals of a species.' If this is not an abandonment of

เ

The italics in the quotations from Mr. Darwin's book in this article are, in almost all cases, our's and not the author's.

disturb convictions reposing upon the gen eral consent of the majority of cultivated minds, we may well pause before we trust ourselves unreservedly to a guidance which thus again and again declares its own reiterated fallibility. Mr. Darwin's conclusions may be correct, but we feel we have now indeed a right to demand that they shall be proved before we assent to them; and that since what Mr. Darwin before de clared 'must be,' he now admits not only to be unnecessary but untrue, we may justly regard with extreme distrust the numerous statements and calculations which, in the 'Descent of Man,' are avowedly recom

6

'natural selection,' it would be difficult to select terms more calculated to express it. But Mr. Darwin's admissions of error do not stop here. In the fifth edition of his 'Origin of Species' (p. 104) he says, Until reading an able and valuable article in the "North British Review" (1867), I did not appreciate how rarely single variations, whether slight or strongly marked, could be perpetuated.' Again: he was formerly inclined to lay much stress on the principle of protection, as accounting for the less bright colours of female birds (Descent of Man,' vol. ii. p. 198); but now he speaks as if the correctness of his old conception of such colours being due to protection was unlike-mended by a mere may be.' This is the ly. Is it probable, he asks, 'that the more necessary, as the Author, starting at head of the female chaffinch, the crimson first with an avowed hypothesis, constantly on the breast of the female bullfinch,-the asserts it as an undoubted fact, and claims green of the female chaffinch,-the crest of for if, somewhat in the spirit of a theolothe female golden-crested wren, have all been gian, that it should be received as an article rendered less bright by the slow process of of faith. Thus the formidable objection to selection for the sake of protection? I can- Mr. Darwin's theory, that the great break in not think so' (vol. ii. p. 176.) the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, is answered simply by an appeal to a belief in the general principle of evolution' (vol. i. p. 200), or by a confident statement that we have every reason to believe that breaks in-the series are simply the result of many forms having become extinct' (vol. i. p. 187). So, in like manner, we are assured that the early progenitors of man were, no doubt, once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles' (vol. i. p. 206). And, finally, we are told, with a dogmatism little worthy of a philosopher, that, unless we wilfully close our eyes,' we must recognize our parentage (vol. i. p. 213).

Once more Mr. Darwin shows us (vol. i. p. 125) how he has been over-hasty in attributing the development of certain structures to reversion. He remarks, in my "Variations of Animals under Domestication" (vol. ii. p. 57) I attributed the not very rare cases of supernumerary mamma in women to reversion.' 'But Professor Preyer states that mammæ erratica have been known to occur in other situations, even on the back; so that the force of my argument is greatly weakened or perhaps quite destroyed.'

Finally, we have a postscript at the beginning of the second volume of the 'Descent of Man' which contains an avowal more remarkable than even the passages already cited. He therein declares:

"I have fallen into a serious and unfortunate error, in relation to the sexual differences of animals, in attempting to explain what seemed to me a singular coincidence in the late period of life at which the necessary variations have arisen in many cases, and the late period at which sexual selection acts. The explanation given is wholly erroneous, as I have discovered by working out an illustration in figures."

While willingly paying a just tribute of esteem to the candour which dictated these several admissions, it would be idle to dissemble, and disingenuous not to declare, the amount of distrust with which such repeated over-hasty conclusions and erroneous calculations inspire us. When their Author comes before us anew, as he now does, with opinions and conclusions still more startling, and calculated in a yet greater degree to

These are hard words; and, even at the risk of being accused of wilful blindness, we shall now proceed, with an unbiassed and unprejudiced mind, to examine carefully the arguments upon which Mr. Darwin's theory

rests.

man

Must we acknowledge that with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system,' must we acknowledge that man with all these exalted powers' is descended from an Ascidian? Is this a scientific truth resting on scientific evidence, or is it to be classed with the speculations of a bygone age?

With regard to the Origin of Man, Mr. Darwin considers that both natural se

lection' and 'sexual selection' have acted. | Mr. Darwin. Still he contends that the We need not on the present occasion dis- greater part of the beauty and melody of cuss the action of natural selection; but it the organic world is due exclusively to this will be necessary to consider that of 'sexual selective process, by which, through countselection' at some length. It plays a very less generations, the tail of the peacock, the important part in the descent of man,' ac- throat of the humming-bird, the song of the cording to Mr. Darwin's views. He main- nightingale, and the chirp of the grasshoptains that we owe to it our power of song and per have been developed by females, age our hairlessness of body, and that also to it after age, selecting for their mates males is due the formation and conservation of the possessing in a more and more perfect various races and varieties of the human degree characters which must thus have species. In this matter then we fear we been continually and constantly preferred. shall have to make some demand upon our readers' patience. Sexual selection' is the corner-stone of Mr. Darwin's theory. It occupies three-fourths of his two volumes; and unless he has clearly established this point, the whole fabric falls to the ground. It is impossible, therefore, to review the book without entering fully into the subject, even at the risk of touching upon some points which, for obvious reasons, we should have preferred to pass over in silence.

Under the head of 'sexua! selection' Mr. Darwin includes two very distinct processes. One of these consists in the action of superior strength or activity, by which one male succeeds in obtaining possession of mates and in keeping away rivals. This is, undoubtedly, a vera causa; but may be more conveniently reckoned as one kind of 'natural selection' than as a branch of 'sexual selection.' The second process consists in alleged preference or choice, exercised freely by the female in favour of particular males on account of some attractiveness or beauty of form, colour, odour, or voice, which such males may possess. It is this second kind of sexual selection' (and which alone deserves the name) that is important for the establishment of Mr. Darwin's views, but its valid action has to be proved..

Now, to prove the existence of such a power of choice Mr. Darwin brings forward a multitude of details respecting the sexual phenomena of animals of various classes; but it is the class of birds which is mainly relied on to afford evidence in support of the exercise of this power of choice by female animals. We contend, however, that not only is the evidence defective even here, but that much of his own evidence is in direct opposition to his views. While the unquestionable fact, that male sexual characters (horns, mane, wattles, &c., &c.) have been developed in many cases where sexual selection has certainly not acted, renders it probable, à priori, that the unknown cause which has operated in these numerous cases has operated in those instances also which seem to favour the hypothesis supported by

Yet, after all, Mr. Darwin concedes in principle the very point in dispute, and yields all for which his opponents need argue, when he allows that beautiful and harmonious variations may occur spontaneously and at once, as in the dark or spangled bars on the feathers of Hamburgh fowls

Descent of Man,' vol. i. p. 281). For what difference is there, other than mere difference of degree, between the spontaneous appearance of a few beautiful feathers with harmonious markings and the spontaneous appearance of a whole beautiful clothing like that of the Tragopans?

6

new

Again, on Mr. Darwin's own showing, it is manifest that male sexual characters, such as he would fain attribute to sexual selection, may arise without any such action whatever. Thus he tells us, 'There are breeds of the sheep and goat, in which the horns of the male differ greatly in shape from those of the female; and with tortoise-shell cats, the females alone, as a general rule, are thus coloured, the males being rusty-red' (vol. i. p. 283). Now, if these cats were only known in a wild state, Mr. Darwin would certainly bring them forward amongst his other instances of alleged sexual selection, though we now know the phenomenon is not due to any such cause. A more striking instance, however, is the following:-' With the pigeon, the sexes of the parent species do not differ in any external character; nevertheless, in certain domesticated breeds the male is differently coloured from the female. The wattle in the English carrierpigeon and the crop in the pouter are more highly developed in the male than in the female;' and this has arisen, not from, but rather in opposition to, the wishes of the breeder;' which amounts to a positive demonstration that sexual characters may arise spontaneously, and, be it noted, in the class of birds.

The uncertainty which besets these speculations of Mr. Darwin is evident at every turn. What at first could be thought a better instance of sexual selection than the light of the glowworm, exhibited to attract her mate? Yet the discovery of luminous larvæ,

breeder of race-horses in the world, says that stallions are so frequently capricious in their choice, rejecting one mare and without any apparent cause taking to another, that various artifices have to be habitually used.' 'He has never known a mare to reject a horse; though this has occurred in Mr. Wright's stable.

Some of the most marked sexual characters found amongst mammals, are those which exist in apes. These are abundantly noticed by Mr. Darwin, but his treatment of them seems to show his inability to bring them within the scope of his theory.

It is well known that certain apes are distinguished by the lively colours or peculiarities as to hair possessed by the males, while it is also notorious that their vastly superior strength of body and length of fang, would render resistance on the part of the female difficult and perilous, even were we to adopt the utterly gratuitous supposition, that at seasons of sexual excitement the female shows any disposition to coyness. Mr. Darwin has no facts to bring forward to prove the exercise of any choice on the part of female apes, but gives in support of his views the following remarkable passage:—

'Must we attribute to mere purposeless variability in the male all these appendages of hair and skin? It cannot be denied that this is possible; for, with many domesticated quadrupeds, certain characters, apparently not derived through reversion from any wild parent-form, have appeared in, and are confined to, the males, or are more largely developed in them than in the females, for instance, the hump in the male zebu-cattle of India, the tail in fattailed rams, the arched outline of the forehead

therefore Mr. Darwin infers (grounding his inference on alleged phenomena in birds) that sexual selection is reversed, and that in this case the male selects. This hypothetical reversion of a hypothetical process to meet an exceptional case will appear to many rash indeed, when they reflect that as to teeth, whiskers, general size, and superciliary ridges this monkey follows the common rule of the male excelling the female' (vol. ii. p. 294).

To turn now to the class on which Mr. Darwin especially relies, we shall find that even Birds supply us with numerous instances which conflict with his hypothesis. Thus, speaking of the battling of male waders, our author tells us:Two were seen to be thus engaged for half an hour, until one got hold of the head of the other, which would have been killed had not the observer interfered; the female all the time looking on as a quiet spectator' (vol. ii. p. 41). As these battles must take place generally in the absence of spectators, their doubtless frequently fatal termination must limit greatly the power of selection Mr. Darwin attributes to the females. The same limit is certainly imposed in the majority of Gallinaceous birds, the cocks of which fight violently; and there can be little doubt but that, as an almost invariable rule, the victorious birds mate with the comparatively passive hens.

Again, how can we explain, on Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, the existence of distinguishing male sexual marks, where it is the male and not the female bird which selects? Yet the wild turkey-cock, a distinguished bird enough, is said by Mr. Darwin (vol. ii. p. 207) to be courted by the females; and he quotes (vol. ii. p. 120) Sir R. Heron as saying, that with peafowl, the first advances are always made by the female.' And of If these are due, as is probable, to simple round the male while he is parading, and the capercailzie he says, the females flit variability, then, he adds,

in the males of several breeds of sheep, the mane in the ram of an African breed, and, lastly, the mane, long hairs on the hinder legs, and the dewlap in the male alone of the Berbura goat.'-vol. ii. p. 284.

'It would appear reasonable to extend the same view to the many analogous characters occurring in animals under a state of nature. Nevertheless I cannot persuade myself that this view is applicable in many cases, as in that of the extraordinary development of hair on the throat and fore-legs of the male Ammotragus, or of the immense beard of the Pithecia (monkey).'-vol. ii. p. 385.

But one naturally asks, Why not? Mr. Darwin gives no reason (if such it may be called) beyond that implied in the gratuitous use of the epithet 'purposeless' in the passage cited, and to which we shall return.

In the Rhesus monkey the female appears to be more vividly coloured than the male;

solicit his attention.'

But though, of course, the sexual instinct always seeks its gratification, does the female ever select a particular plumage? The strongest instance given by Mr. Darwin is as follows:

'Sir R. Heron during many years kept an account of the habits of the peafowl, which he bred in large numbers. He states that the hens have frequently great preference for a particular peacock. They were all so fond of an old pied cock, that one year, when he was confined though still in view, they were conhis prison, and would not suffer a japanned stantly assembled close to the trellice-walls of peacock to touch them. On his being let out in the autumn, the oldest of the hens instantly courted him, and was successful in her court