497
described as progressive. On the other hand, an organ
undergoing degeneration might be regarded as a degraded
organ, a remnant or a relic of a past perfection and effi
ciency ; or as an atrophied organ referring to the process
of wasting away, of which its modification is an illustra
tion. If such a nomenclature could have been adopted,
we should always have known exactly what a writer
meant, supposing that he was careful in the use of his
terms.
We have already seen, that Mr. Lydekker says that the
change of view introduced by the theory of Natural Selec
tion has given to the word “ rudiment ” a meaning in
scientific discussion the very opposite of that which ob
tains in common parlance. Innumerable instances might
be quoted to show the truth of this assertion :—
“ Rudimentary organs may be compared with the letters in a word,
still retained in the spelling, but become useless in the pronuncia
tion, but which serve as a clue to its derivation.”—(Origin of Species,
p. 402.)
“ It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in
rendering organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps
to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until at last
it became rudimentary, as in the case of the eyes of animals in
habiting dark caverns.”—(Origin of Species, p. 400.)
The term “rudimentary ” is also used to signify what is
functionally useless, though constitutionally perfect.
“ An animal may possess various parts in a perfect state, and yet
they may in one sense be rudimentary, for they are useless.”—(Origin
of Species, p. 397.)
. . . “the remarkable rudimentary organs—eyes that see not,
wings that are never used in flying, muscles that do not contract.”—
(Haeckel. Essays, p. 2So.)
Once more the same organ is treated as rudimentary
from one point of view and non-rudimentary from another.
FF