Hence, the two terms, as we will use them here, may be defined as follows: _morphological adaptation_ is a change in the structural character of the species in order that it may be better fitted to meet the needs of the new conditions of growth; while _physiological adaptation_ is an acquired power to survive and develop under abnormal conditions, which is not accompanied by any visible change in the characteristic structure of the species.
Both of these types of adjustment may be either hereditary (or evolutionary), or spontaneous in their origin and development. Changes which are evolutionary are fixed by heredity and become definite habits of growth in the species. Their origin may be explained in either one of two ways; namely, the so-called "increase by use," and "the survival of the fittest." The hypothesis of "increase by use," as an explanation of adaptations, is based upon the well-known observation that, in animals, muscles and other organs increase in volume as they are extensively used; and the assumption of the application of this principle to the phenomenon of adaptation supposes that the modification of any given structure or composition is the result of the hereditary accumulations of increased size resulting from use, or of atrophy from disuse. The "survival of the fittest" theory supposes that individuals of a species differ from each other by spontaneous variations, and that in the competitive struggle for existence those forms which are best adapted to the environmental conditions survive while the others perish. The contrast between these two views is that the first holds that adaptation proceeds by development, and the second that it proceeds by variation and elimination; the first presupposes the existence in the organism of a mechanism for response to changing conditions, and the second assumes that there are chance variations followed by the death through competition of the forms which are not able to meet the needs of the environment.
Confusion arises whenever an attempt is made to apply either of these theories to all kinds of adaptations. The idea of increase by use can be applied with some satisfaction to certain morphological adaptations in animal structure; and to such phenomena as the increase in strength of the branches of fruit trees, either with or without corresponding increase in size, as the load of fruit increases. But it certainly cannot apply to color change in surface pigmentation of either animals or plants, which is one of the most common forms of adaptation. Furthermore, it is difficult to conceive the general application of this idea to alterations of habits of growth of plants, since a plant cannot have any such thing as a voluntary control over the amount of "use" which it makes of its different organs in response to changes of environment. The common form of statement that a plant develops an organ, or a process to meet a certain need, or modifies its habits of growth to meet a change of environment are, of course, purely metaphorical, and can only be taken to mean that such processes are mechanical responses to changes in external conditions.