New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-17
able necessity, SOFT is evident that this chosen way,


realization than the genealogical relationship The
latter does not M the Darwnians believe, exclude
the former; but on the contrary, is included by 1t
as the genus includes the Species
We thus see that the development theory Is
broader than that of Darwinism. which IL special"
transmhation theory that is, it supposes that the
descent of every species from another takes place
through the gradual remodelng OF the type through
a summation of minute variations. The theory OF
descent a. such, leaves for this Thought, but
ii does not require it, and permits In addition 10 H.
other opinions upon the nature and method OF the
descent Of one type from another. The transInuta-
ton theory not indeed the nearest lying SUPPOSE
tion but rather the thought that the first egg OF the
newly created species must be created in the embryo
of nearly related species through remodeling OF
the embryonic design in primitive stage. This the
org is called by Kollker Heterogeneous generation.
1t is by no means hostile to the transmutation the
DRY. The difference is rather graduated one. Inc
transmutation may be as gradual as 1t can De- Dut
nevertheless the smallest steps are still Unite ana
these steps deviations, however small constitute,
in the strongest significance of the word, leap OF
nature and the question is simply whether the leap
is greater or lesser one.
Taking up at length Darwin's theory OF natural
selection Hartmann remarks that 1t has, IN certain
SENSE even wider range than Darwin has gwen 1t
for il is lust as well applicable to types which have
originated from Heterogeneous generation as those
which have arisen from accidental gradual devia-
tons. Natural selection is truly efficient principle
in nature But it is not true because it Is mechan-
zeal principle nor is it false as Wigand thinks, from
this reason but it is true because, although II is
in part mechanical principle, it is as such vehicle
for the realization of an ideal principle. But III
order that natural selections may be efficient 1t re-
aures three factors: l. The struggle Tor existence
g The principle of variability. 3. The law OF trans
mission or heredty. any of these factors is denied
their natural selection is excluded. hartmann
allows great deal to the operation OF this hrst lac
tor the struggle for existence, but he is also very
clear and thorough in showing its limitations.
Nature he deems rich for this principle to be the
only regulator for the restoration of the equilibrium
between the individual member OF species and the
number of their germs. He charges also that Darwin
applies the selection theory to unlmportant dlstne
tons and to qualities which give to the possessor
certain amenity charm, without, however IN
creasing the chances in the struggle for existence
We come to the same result when we consider the
dependence Of characters upon each other IT, accord
ing to our experience, successive modelling of diff
ferent characteristics is observed III the natural
origin of species this would not exclude the posi-
bility that such transformation as Darwin supposes
had taken place. but it, however the characteristics
which constitute one type so bound together that
the one is only decisive useful the suppositlon
of the other then the mpossibty OF the successive
origin of these qualities is proved. For example
the formation of the teeth of animals Is only expe
dent and useful under the superstition OF a deter
mined constitution of the digestive organs,
and rice rersa So that these characteristics
must have originated out of one and the
same cause, as coordinate effects. ms
cannot be utility in the struggle for life, be-
cause every single of the characteristics Is only
expedient under the supposition that the other Is
already given that their sum can only be called
useful in respect to the instructive appetite OF Tue
species for a determined mode of existence.
The theory of the struggle for existence is still
more napplicable where the different qualities sup
posed are not Joined in the same individual, but IN
different species perhaps in different domains Of or
ganization. Such example is afforded IN the
arrangement of bearing flowers, fructifed by
insects. and of the sucking apparatus OF the re-
spectiye insects. Neither OF these arrangements Is
useful but upon the superstition OF correlative
qualities. There Is no room for the struggle Ior
existence unless modification IN one OF the cor
relatives is already supposed. The lengthenlng OF
the suctorial organs of the insect would only be OF
advantage on the suppostion of preceding deepen
ing of the calyx; and the deepening OF the calyx,
on the other hand, must be disadvantage Tor the
Modification Of the plant, and positive hindrance
in the struggle for existence, SO long as previous
lenghening of the suctOrial organs OF the insect Is
not supposed. So that must suppose both changes
to go hand III hand.
We must remember also that the utility for the
individual lies essentially upon the side OF physio-
logical and not upon the side OF morphol0glcal
characters which really decide the place IN the
created system and the progress from lower To hgher
organization.
Especaly evident is the insufficency of the prin-
chile of utility in the consideration OF the progress
in organization which is unfOlded TO view in the
ARCHAEOLOGICAL succession Here We deal with
succession of steps, every one OF which considered
with reference to the utility of their arrangement
for the aim of the individual llfe are perfectly
equal while every one in respect 10 the form OF It's
life and corresponding plane OF organization SHOWS
a positive progress from the preceding. Darwin has
COMPOUNDED perfection in accommodation to given
conditions of life with perfection in the progress
and the aim of life itself and the accompanying en-
hancement or progress of the organization. The
conception of utility only the first of these.
He enormously transfers il to the other He repre-
sents Utilitaranism in Natural Philosophy as John
Stuart Mill represents it in mental and moral phllos-
ophy. Wigand well illustrates the difference be-
tween the two forms of perfection mentioned IN the
comparison of a clock. clock shows perfect adap-
taton to the aim of its existence as mere indicator
of correct and equal time when its works are simple
and exact and of the best possible CONSTRUCTION III
possesses on the other hand, perfection OF organza
ton when it shows not only the hours but also the
minutes perhaps also the seconds, or the phases OF
the moon and if it also possesses striking or
alarm apparatus Darwin himself has implicitly
confessed the inapplicabilty of the principle
of utility to the explanation OF perfection in organ