that the results which may or may not be supposed to ensue on choice
depend upon what it is that is supposed to be chosen from; they do
not appear to see that though the expression natural selection must
be always more or less objectionable, as too highly charged with
metaphor for purposes of science, there is nevertheless a natural
selection which is open to no other objection than this, and which,
when its metaphorical character is borne well in mind, may be used
without serious risk of error, whereas natural selection from
variations that are mainly fortuitous is chimerical as well as
metaphorical. Both writers speak of natural selection as though
there could not possibly be any selection in the course of nature,
or natural survival, of any but accidental variations. Thus Mr.
Romanes says: {66a} "The swamping effect of free inter-crossing
upon an individual variation constitutes perhaps the most formidable
difficulty with which THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION is beset."
And the writer of the article in the Times above referred to says:
"In truth THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION presents many facts and
results which increase rather than diminish the difficulty of
accounting for the existence of species." The assertion made in
each case is true if the Charles-Darwinian selection from fortuitous
variations is intended, but it does not hold good if the selection
is supposed to be made from variations under which there lies a
general principle of wide and abiding application. It is not likely
that a man of Mr. Romanes' antecedents should not be perfectly awake
to considerations so obvious as the foregoing, and I am afraid I am
inclined to consider his whole suggestion as only an attempt upon
the part of the wearer of Mr. Darwin's mantle to carry on Mr.
Darwin's work in Mr. Darwin's spirit.

I have seen Professor Hering's theory adopted recently more