150
makes the animal helpless, he can protect it, even though
it be one of what Mr. Tegetmeier calls “the monstrosities
of the fancier.”* But the principle of utility dominates
Natural Selection with an iron rule. And not only must
the variation preserved be useful to the animal—it must be
(if we are to be strict in our logical development of the
theory) a matter of life and death. The favourable varia
tion survives ; the unfavourable variation perishes. It is
not enough that we should recognise the fact that these
two features of Artificial and Natural Selection are not
perfectly analogous ; they are stupendously different, and
would be sufficient in itself to make us doubt whether
what has been achieved by Artificial Selection is possible
to Natural Selection.
We have now to consider the one exception which Mr.
Romanes finds to the complete analogy between the
processes of Artificial Selection and Natural Selection.
“ The utility or the beauty which it is the aim of artificial selection
continually to enhance, is utility or beauty in relation to the require
ments or to the tastes of man ; whereas the utility or the beauty which
is produced by Natural Selection and sexual selection, has reference
only to the requirements or the tastes of the organisms themselves.”
—(p. 296.)
But if we consider all “the facts of domestication,” we
shall find that Mr. Romanes is hardly justified in making
this distinction between the two processes so absolute as he
does. For in some cases, at any rate, what is useful to
man is also useful to the animal. Its mere domestication
is a blessing to both. The animal gains a powerful and
intelligent protector, the man secures a faithful com
panion and a useful servant or a valuable possession. In
all cases in which the animal is used for operations kindred
with those which it pursues in a wild condition, the training
and selection of man make it more capable, in whatever
Nature, vol. xxxiii., p. 412.