of the existence of animals in a state of domestication, we should expect to find that, in wild species, all unused parts or organs had been reduced to the smallest rudiments, or had wholly disappeared. Instead of this we find various grades of reduction, indicating the probable result of several distinct causes, sometimes acting separately, sometimes in combination, such as those we have already pointed out.
And if we find no positive evidence of disuse, acting by its direct effect on the individual, being transmitted to the offspring, still less can we find such evidence in the case of the use of organs. For here the very fact of use, in a wild state, implies utility, and utility is the constant subject for the action of natural selection; while among domestic animals those parts which are exceptionally used are so used in the service of man, and have thus become the subjects of artificial selection. Thus "the great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats," quoted by Spencer from Darwin, really affords no proof of inheritance of the increase due to use, because, from the earliest period of the domestication of these animals, abundant milk-production has been highly esteemed, and has thus been the subject of selection; while there are no cases among wild animals that may not be better explained by variation and natural selection.
Difficulty as to Co-adaptation of Parts by Variation and Selection.
Mr. Spencer again brings forward this difficulty, as he did in his Principles of Biology twenty-five years ago, and urges that all the adjustments of bones, muscles, blood-vessels, and nerves which would be required during, for example, the development of the neck and fore-limbs of the giraffe, could
responding congenital diminution of the unused organ; and in cases where the means of nutrition are deficient, every diminution of these useless parts will be a gain to the whole organism, and thus their complete disappearance will, in some cases, be brought about directly by natural selection. This corresponds with what we know of these rudimentary organs.
It must, however, be pointed out that the non-heredity of acquired characters was maintained by Mr. Francis Galton more than twelve years ago, on theoretical considerations almost identical with those urged by Professor Weismann; while the insufficiency of the evidence for their hereditary transmission was shown, by similar arguments to those used above and in the work of Professor Weismann already referred to (see "A Theory of Heredity," in Journ. Anthrop. Instit., vol. v. pp. 343-345).
