149 
the love, courtship and marriage of animals as it occurs 
in the freedom of nature and as it is modified by the 
art of man. For surely Artificial Selection is nothing 
more than the control exercised by the will of man over 
the sexual passions of animals. The breeder of dogs has 
not the slightest regard for the romantic love which may 
bind the well-bred dog to a mongrel, and he vetoes the 
union of the two as emphatically as any fashionable 
mother in May Fair frowns upon the “detrimental ” who 
aspires to her daughter’s hand. He takes care that the 
blind impulse of passion shall be directed aright. He 
cares nothing whether the tastes of the animals are satis 
fied in their marriage. It is his taste which has to be 
gratified. 
The breeder does not respect the sanctities of the mono- 
gamic union ; nor does he allow the males of certain 
species to fight with one another for the possession of 
their large harems ; he does not permit polyandry of a 
promiscuous sort. In short, he puts upon animal love, 
courtship and marriage a restriction which is, of course, 
conspicuous by its absence in nature. There is an im 
mense difference between the two propositions, when 
we contend that Artificial Selection controls Sexual 
Selection, and when we assert that Natural Selection, 
unless of the strictest kind, is rendered abortive by Sexual 
Selection. 
But if we put aside all these considerations, and assumed 
the unqualified truth of the principle laid down by Mr. 
Romanes, one great difficulty would remain to be con 
sidered. The advocate of the theory lays upon Natural 
Selection a burden from which Artificial Selection is 
perfectly free. Man can produce what variant he pleases, 
perfectly irrespective of the principle of utility. He can 
create whatever form his fancy paints. If in so doing he