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.