Some may perhaps deny that Mr. Darwin did this, and say he laid so
much stress on use and disuse as virtually to make function his main
factor of evolution.

If, indeed, we confine ourselves to isolated passages, we shall find
little difficulty in making out a strong case to this effect.
Certainly most people believe this to be Mr. Darwin's doctrine, and
considering how long and fully he had the ear of the public, it is
not likely they would think thus if Mr. Darwin had willed otherwise,
nor could he have induced them to think as they do if he had not
said a good deal that was capable of the construction so commonly
put upon it; but it is hardly necessary, when addressing biologists,
to insist on the fact that Mr. Darwin's distinctive doctrine is the
denial of the comparative importance of function, or use and disuse,
as a purveyor of variations,--with some, but not very considerable,
exceptions, chiefly in the cases of domesticated animals.

He did not, however, make his distinctive feature as distinct as he
should have done. Sometimes he said one thing, and sometimes the
directly opposite. Sometimes, for example, the conditions of
existence "included natural selection" or the fact that the best
adapted to their surroundings live longest and leave most offspring;
{156a} sometimes "the principle of natural selection" "fully
embraced" "the expression of conditions of existence." {156b} It
would not be easy to find more unsatisfactory writing than this is,
nor any more clearly indicating a mind ill at ease with itself.
Sometimes "ants work BY INHERITED INSTINCTS and inherited tools;"
{157a} sometimes, again, it is surprising that the case of ants
working by inherited instincts has not been brought as a
demonstrative argument "against the well-known doctrine of INHERITED