154 
The question as to whether the processes of nature and 
of art are closely analogous to one another, and whether 
the method of nature is not superior to that of art, is 
capable of a very practical solution. If the method of 
nature is almost precisely similar to that of art—if the 
method of nature is infinitely superior to that of art— 
why should we not persuade the cattle-breeder and the 
pigeon-fancier to adopt the method of nature ? And if 
they are too conservative to alter their methods, if they 
are naturally content with their brilliant success, why not 
offer a prize of ;£i,ooo to the man who will most suc 
cessfully reproduce in art the process which the theory 
of Natural Selection supposes to be always going on in 
nature ? 
Let us see what he would be required to do. In the 
first place he must invent some system of selection which 
will work automatically and not require his supervision or 
interference when it is once started. He must take care 
not to protect his eggs and seeds and undeveloped young, 
but let the fox and the weasel, and indeed any wild or 
tame creature that may be about, take what he can get. 
When it comes to selection he must kill off all those from 
which he does not intend to breed. And he must not act 
on one principle of selection throughout, but apply different 
tests in each generation and throughout many generations. 
Those which ultimately survive these various processes 
must not at the last be isolated for breeding purposes, but 
they are to marry as they please. In addition to all this, 
if you want to have exactly the same process as that of 
Natural Selection you must only select, when you do select, 
such variations as are of vital importance to the race ; in 
short, the breeder or the fancier must surround his art with 
all the disabilities which we have seen to obtain in nature. 
What cattle-breeder, what pigeon-fancier, would undertake