He adds, however, at the end the striking remark,[111] which concedes the whole position, "but the goose seems to have _a singularly inflexible organization_." This is not the only place in which such expressions are used.

He elsewhere makes use of phrases which quite harmonize with the conception of a normal specific constancy, but varying greatly and suddenly at intervals.

Thus he speaks[112] of a _whole organization seeming to have become plastic, and tending to depart from the parental type_.

That different organisms should have different degrees of variability, is only what might have been expected _a priori_ from the existence of parallel differences in inorganic species, some of these having but a single form, and others being polymorphic.
To return to the goose, however, it may be remarked that it is at least as probable that its fixity of character is the cause of the neglect, as the reverse.

It is by no means unfair to assume that _had_ the goose shown a tendency to vary similar in degree to the tendency to variation of the fowl or pigeon, it would have received attention at once on that account.
As to the peacock it is excused on the pleas (1), that the individuals maintained are so few in number, and (2) that its beauty is so great it can hardly be improved.