Abstract
IN his reply to a criticism which appeared in NATURE, Prof. Struthers alluded to a question of considerable interest to evolutionists, viz., whether or not the presence of useless organs “proves too much for the argument.”* The difficulty is one often met with, and has been well stated by Prof. Huxley, thus:—“Prof. Haeckel has invented a new and convenient name, ‘Dysteleology,’ for the study of the ‘purposelessnesses’ which are observable in living organisms—such as the multitudinous cases of rudimentary and apparently useless structures. I confess, however, that it has often appeared to me that the facts of dysteleology cut two ways. If we assume, as evolutionists in general do, that useless organs atrophy, such cases as the existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in the foot of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For, either these rudiments are of no use to the animal—in which case, considering that the horse has existed in its present form since the pliocene epoch, they surely ought to have disappeared—or they are of some use to the animal, in which case they are of no use as arguments against teleology,” &c.†
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ROMANES, G. Natural Selection and Dysteleology. Nature 9, 361–362 (1874). https://doi.org/10.1038/009361a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/009361a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.