introduce it. It has no fitness in its connection with Hermann
Muller's book, for what little Hermann Muller says about teleology
at all is to condemn it; why, then, should Mr. Darwin muse here of
all places in the world about the interest attaching to design in
organism? Neither has the passage any connection with the rest of
the preface. There is not another word about design, and even here
Mr. Darwin seems mainly anxious to face both ways, and pat design as
it were on the head while not committing himself to any proposition
which could be disputed.

The explanation is sufficiently obvious. Mr Darwin wanted to hedge.
He saw that the design which his works had been mainly instrumental
in pitchforking out of organisms no less manifestly designed than a
burglar's jemmy is designed, had nevertheless found its way back
again, and that though, as I insisted in "Evolution Old and New,"
and "Unconscious Memory," it must now be placed within the organism
instead of outside it, as "was formerly the case," it was not on
that account any the less--design, as well as interesting.

I should like to have seen Mr. Darwin say this more explicitly.
Indeed I should have liked to have seen Mr. Darwin say anything at
all about the meaning of which there could be no mistake, and
without contradicting himself elsewhere; but this was not Mr.
Darwin's manner.

In passing I will give another example of Mr Darwin's manner when he
did not quite dare even to hedge. It is to be found in the preface
which he wrote to Professor Weismann's "Studies in the Theory of
Descent," published in 1881.