characteristic differences of our several domestic breeds, which
nevertheless are generally admitted to have arisen through ordinary
generation from one or a few parent-stocks, we ought not to lay too much
stress on our ignorance of the precise cause of the slight analogous
differences between true species.

UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE, HOW FAR TRUE: BEAUTY, HOW ACQUIRED.

The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made
by some naturalists against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of
structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe
that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight
man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific
discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed.
Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. I fully
admit that many structures are now of no direct use to their possessors,
and may never have been of any use to their progenitors; but this does not
prove that they were formed solely for beauty or variety. No doubt the
definite action of changed conditions, and the various causes of
modifications, lately specified, have all produced an effect, probably a
great effect, independently of any advantage thus gained. But a still more
important consideration is that the chief part of the organisation of every
living creature is due to inheritance; and consequently, though each being
assuredly is well fitted for its place in nature, many structures have now
no very close and direct relation to present habits of life. Thus, we can
hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose, or of the frigate-
bird, are of special use to these birds; we cannot believe that the similar
bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore leg of the horse, in the wing
of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these
animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance. But