152 
The dogs and the pigeons and the cattle are admirably- 
drawn, and prove quite conclusively the power of Artificial 
Selection. The perspective of the drawings is not, how 
ever, as Mr. Romanes says, exactly what it should be, and 
so some of the animals look larger than they actually are. 
The perspective of the animals is rather at fault, I am 
inclined to think, in the logical argument that they adorn. 
They are put in the foreground on the implication that 
they are the outcome of a process precisely analogous 
(barring one item) to that of Natural Selection. We 
admit that the drawings may rightfully be regarded “ as 
an overwhelming proof of the efficacy of the selective 
principle in the modification of organic types.” We deny 
the assertion that in these typical proofs of the efficacy of 
Artificial Selection we have the strongest conceivable 
testimony to the power of Natural Selection. 
But not only .does Mr. Romanes exhibit the products of 
Artificial Selection as the proofs of the power of Natural 
Selection, although the processes are so different, but he 
also affirms that the results of Natural Selection must be 
much greater than those of Artificial Selection. “Artificial 
Selection, notwithstanding the many and marvellous re 
sults which it has accomplished, can only be regarded as 
a feeble imitation of Natural Selection, which must act 
with so much greater vigilance and through much im 
mensely greater periods of time.” But in a very limited 
period of time Artificial Selection can work the most 
marvellous transformation, so that the cattle-breeder and 
the pigeon-fancier have been said to wield a magician’s 
wand. If the process is marvellously successful in so 
short a time, one does not see what else there is to be 
gained by immensely greater periods of time—when the 
transmutation is once completed. As for the assertion 
that Natural Selection must act with so much greater