PDF - Wallace Online
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

PDF - Wallace Online

PDF - Wallace Online PDF - Wallace Online

wallace.online.org
from wallace.online.org More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

154 NATURAL SELECTION vnalso in the forms given to living organisms"(Reign of Law,p. 248).Here the statement that" no connection can be conceivedbetween the splendour of the humming birds and any functionessential to their life," is met by the fact that Mr. Darwinhas not only conceived but has shown, both by observationand reasoning, how beauty of colour and form may have adirect influence on the most important of all the functions oflife, that of reproduction. In the variations to which birdsare subject, any more brilliant colour than usual is believedto be attractive to the females, and would therefore lead tothe individuals so adorned leaving more than the averagenumber of offspring. There are some indications that this kindof sexual selection does actually take place, and the laws ofinheritance would necessarily lead to the further developmentof any individual peculiarity that was attractive, and thus thesplendour of the humming birds is directly connected withtheir very existence. It is true that "a crest of topaz maybe no better than a crest of sapphire," but either of these maybe much better than no crest at all ;and the different conditionsunder which the parent form must have existed indifferent parts of its range will have determined different1variations of tint, either of which were advantageous. Thereason why female birds are not adorned with equally brilliantplumes is sufficiently clear ; they would be injurious by renderingtheir possessors too conspicuous during incubation.Survival of the fittest has therefore favoured the developmentof those dark green tints on the upper surface of so manyfemale humming birds, which are most conducive to theirprotection while the important functions of hatching andrearing the young are being carried on. Keeping in mindthe laws of multiplication, variation, and survival of thefittest, which are for ever in action, these varied develop->1Since writing this essay I have come to the conclusion that merediversity of colouring between species is an important factor in their differentiation,serving as a means of recognition, and thus preventing crossunions.See Damnnism, p. 217. I have also been led to doubt the realityof the fact of female selection of slight differences of colour on which Mr.Darwin relied, but it has not been thought advisable to alter the passageswhich seem to admit it, as they represent my belief at the time they were

CREATION BY LAW 155ments of beauty and harmonious adjustments to conditionsare not only conceivable but demonstrable results.The objection I am now combating is solely founded onthe supposed analogy of the Creator's mind to ours as regardsthe love of beauty for its own sake but if this ; analogy is tobe trusted, then there ought to be no natural objects whichare disagreeable or ungraceful in our eyes. And yet it isundoubtedly the fact that there are many such. Just assurely as the horse and deer are beautiful and graceful, theelephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and camel are the reverse.The majority of monkeys and apes are not beautiful the;majority of birds have no beauty of colour a vast number of;insects and reptiles are positively ugly. Now, if the Creator'smind is like ours, whence this ugliness? It is useless to say" that is a mystery we cannot explain," because we haveattempted to explain one -half of creation by a method thatwill not apply to the other half. We know that a man withthe highest taste and with unlimited wealth practically doesabolish all ungraceful and disagreeable forms and colours fromhis own domains.If the beauty of creation is to be explainedby the Creator's love of beauty, we are bound to ask why Hehas not banished deformity from the earth, as the wealthy andenlightened man does from his estate and from his dwelling ;and if we can get no satisfactory answer, we shall do well toreject the explanation offered. Again, in the case of flowers,which are always especially referred to as the surest evidenceof beauty being an end of itself in creation, the whole of thefacts are never fairly met. At least half the plants in theworld have not bright-colouredor beautiful flowers ;and Mr.Darwin has lately arrived at the wonderful generalisationthat flowers have become beautiful solelyto attract insects to"assist in their fertilisation. He adds, I have come to thisconclusion from finding it an invariable rule, that when aflower is fertilised by the wind it never has a gaily-colouredcorolla." Here is a most wonderful case of beauty beinguseful, when it might be least expected. But much more isproved ;for when beautyis of no use to the plant it is notgiven. It cannot be imagined to do any harm. It is simplynot necessary, and is therefore withheld ! We ought surelyto have been told how this fact is consistent with beauty

CREATION BY LAW 155ments of beauty and harmonious adjustments to conditionsare not only conceivable but demonstrable results.The objection I am now combating is solely founded onthe supposed analogy of the Creator's mind to ours as regardsthe love of beauty for its own sake but if this ; analogy is tobe trusted, then there ought to be no natural objects whichare disagreeable or ungraceful in our eyes. And yet it isundoubtedly the fact that there are many such. Just assurely as the horse and deer are beautiful and graceful, theelephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and camel are the reverse.The majority of monkeys and apes are not beautiful the;majority of birds have no beauty of colour a vast number of;insects and reptiles are positively ugly. Now, if the Creator'smind is like ours, whence this ugliness? It is useless to say" that is a mystery we cannot explain," because we haveattempted to explain one -half of creation by a method thatwill not apply to the other half. We know that a man withthe highest taste and with unlimited wealth practically doesabolish all ungraceful and disagreeable forms and colours fromhis own domains.If the beauty of creation is to be explainedby the Creator's love of beauty, we are bound to ask why Hehas not banished deformity from the earth, as the wealthy andenlightened man does from his estate and from his dwelling ;and if we can get no satisfactory answer, we shall do well toreject the explanation offered. Again, in the case of flowers,which are always especially referred to as the surest evidenceof beauty being an end of itself in creation, the whole of thefacts are never fairly met. At least half the plants in theworld have not bright-colouredor beautiful flowers ;and Mr.Darwin has lately arrived at the wonderful generalisationthat flowers have become beautiful solelyto attract insects to"assist in their fertilisation. He adds, I have come to thisconclusion from finding it an invariable rule, that when aflower is fertilised by the wind it never has a gaily-colouredcorolla." Here is a most wonderful case of beauty beinguseful, when it might be least expected. But much more isproved ;for when beautyis of no use to the plant it is notgiven. It cannot be imagined to do any harm. It is simplynot necessary, and is therefore withheld ! We ought surelyto have been told how this fact is consistent with beauty

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!