tation of species ; and the different effects of use and
disuse enable us to see reasons for so different results.
But the unchanged organism of one species cannot destroy
the evidence of the changed organism of another species.
The effect of this depreciation of the inherited effects of
habit is to make room for the theory of Natural Selection.
Thus, it is argued that the very considerable effects of use
and disuse “ have often been largely combined with, and
sometimes overmastered by, the Natural Selection of in
nate variations.”* In the case of the hoofs of quadrupeds,
“who will pretend to determine how far Natural Selection
may be aided in the formation of structures of such
obvious importance to the animal ?”f “ The very fact that
use implies usefulness, renders it almost impossible to
eliminate the action of selection in a state of nature.” J
In the third place, it is contended that, in artificial selec
tion, the improved structures and endowments are due to
the principle of selection, almost or altogether. I fail
utterly to see how the inherited effects of habit can be over
mastered by the Natural Selection of innate variations. If
by “ innate ” is meant what is the nature of the race, as
opposed to the recent acquirements of the individual,
it is possible that the former may prevail ; but it will be
preserved by Natural Selection only on the understanding
that it is more advantageous than the habit which it dis
places. But this habit is presumably the result of an
attempt to adapt the organism to conditions, and such
a variation must, under the circumstances, be more favour
able than any others. If by “innate” you understand
the variations inevitably associated with reproduction, is it
likely that such a variation will overmaster the useful
* Origin of Species, p. 114.
t The Variation, vol. ii., p. 297.
J Wallace. Darwinism, p. 440.