445 
began—that, inasmuch as the race ultimately exhibits 
similar modifications to those which appear in the indi 
vidual first subjected to the influences of a new habit, this 
has been brought about by a transforming rather than 
a selective influence in nature. 
We have attempted to reply to those arguments which 
seek to unduly appreciate Natural Selection at the cost of 
transforming influences. It only remains to consider 
briefly the way in which the strict and logical significance 
of Natural Selection is lowered in order to reconcile it to 
the facts of nature. 
In the first place, it is not unusual to find any selection 
which takes place in nature designated by the term 
“ Natural Selection.” We have an illustration of this 
mode of speech in Dr. Ray Lankester’s explanation of the 
production of blind animals inhabiting dark caves. He 
rejects the Lamarckian explanation, and then proceeds to 
prove that the change is brought about by a process which 
he designates as “ a Natural Selection.” 
It is not quite easy to say whether Dr. Ray Lankester 
wishes his readers to understand that “a Natural Selec 
tion ” means an individual case of the general principle 
of Natural Selection ; or whether he means a particular 
species or variety of a generic term of Natural Selection ; 
or whether by “a Natural Selection” he simply means a 
selection which takes place in nature. If he means that 
any selection in nature is Natural Selection, that is not 
correct ; for similar variants may be isolated for breeding 
purposes by other influences than that of life and death. 
If he means that there are many kinds of Natural Selec 
tion, that would only be to adopt several definitions of 
one term—a process not very conducive to clear reasoning. 
If he means to assert that this is an individual instance of 
Natural Selection, that assertion is not true ; for Natural