one with ordinary instincts could hesitate to believe that Mr.
Darwin was entitled to claim what he claimed with so much
insistance. If ars est celare artem Mr. Darwin must be allowed to
have been a consummate artist, for it took us years to understand
the ins and outs of what had been done.

I may say in passing that we never see the "Origin of Species"
spoken of as "On the Origin of Species, &c.," or as "The Origin of
Species, &c." (the word "on" being dropped in the latest editions).
The distinctive feature of the book lies, according to its admirers,
in the "&c.," but they never give it. To avoid pedantry I shall
continue to speak of the "Origin of Species."

At any rate it will be admitted that Mr. Darwin did not make his
title-page express his meaning so clearly that his readers could
readily catch the point of difference between himself and his
grandfather and Lamarck; nevertheless the point just touched upon
involves the only essential difference between the systems of Mr.
Charles Darwin and those of his three most important predecessors.
All four writers agree that animals and plants descend with
modification; all agree that the fittest alone survive; all agree
about the important consequences of the geometrical ratio of
increase; Mr. Charles Darwin has said more about these last two
points than his predecessors did, but all three were alike cognisant
of the facts and attached the same importance to them, and would
have been astonished at its being supposed possible that they
disputed them. The fittest alone survive; yes--but the fittest from
among what? Here comes the point of divergence; the fittest from
among organisms whose variations arise mainly through use and
disuse? In other words, from variations that are mainly functional?