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.