{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20818/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20818","id":"gutenberg_20818","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20818","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Evolution (Biology)"],"text":"Produced by Steven Gibbs, Keith Edkins and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nON THE GENESIS OF SPECIES.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nON THE\n\nGENESIS OF SPECIES.\n\nBY\nST. GEORGE MIVART, F.R.S.\n\nLondon:\nMACMILLAN AND CO.\n1871.\n\n[_The Right of Translation and Reproduction is reserved._]\n\nLONDON:\nR. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS,\nBREAD STREET HILL.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTO\n\nSIR HENRY HOLLAND, BART., M.D.,\n\nF.R.S., D.C.L., ETC. ETC.\n\nMY DEAR SIR HENRY,\n\nIn giving myself the pleasure to dedicate, as I now do, this work to you,\nit is not my intention to identify you with any views of my own advocated\nin it.\n\nI simply avail myself of an opportunity of paying a tribute of esteem and\nregard to my earliest scientific friend--the first to encourage me in\npursuing the study of nature.\n\n      I remain,\n          MY DEAR SIR HENRY,\n              Ever faithfully yours,\n                  ST. GEORGE MIVART.\n\n  7, NORTH BANK, REGENT'S PARK,\n      _December 8, 1870._\n\n                                                                      {vii}\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_INTRODUCTORY_\n\nThe problem of the genesis of species stated.--Nature of its probable\nsolution.--Importance of the question.--Position here defended.--Statement\nof the DARWINIAN THEORY.--Its applicability to details of geographical\ndistribution; to rudimentary structures; to homology; to mimicry,\n&c.--Consequent utility of the theory.--Its wide acceptance.--Reasons for\nthis other than, and in addition to, its scientific value. Its\nsimplicity.--Its bearing on religious questions.--_Odium theologicum_ and\n_odium antitheologicum_.--The antagonism supposed by many to exist between\nit and theology neither necessary nor universal.--Christian authorities in\nfavour of evolution.--Mr. Darwin's \"Animals and Plants under\nDomestication.\"--Difficulties of the Darwinian theory enumerated ... _Page_\n1\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE INCOMPETENCY OF \"NATURAL SELECTION\" TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT\nSTAGES OF USEFUL STRUCTURES._\n\nMr. Darwin supposes that Natural-Selection acts by slight\nvariations.--These must be useful at once.--Difficulties as to the giraffe;\nas to mimicry; as to the heads of flat-fishes; as to the origin and\nconstancy of the vertebrate, limbs; as to whalebone; as to the young\nkangaroo; as to sea-urchins; as to certain processes of              {viii}\nmetamorphosis; as to the mammary gland; as to certain ape characters; as to\nthe rattlesnake and cobra; as to the process of formation of the eye and\near; as to the fully developed condition of the eye and ear; as to the\nvoice; as to shell-fish; as to orchids; as to ants.--The necessity for the\nsimultaneous modification of many individuals.--Summary and conclusion ...\n_Page_ 23\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE CO-EXISTENCE OF CLOSELY SIMILAR STRUCTURES OF DIVERSE ORIGIN._\n\nChances against concordant variations.--Examples of discordant\nones.--Concordant variations not unlikely on a non-Darwinian evolutionary\nhypothesis.--Placental and implacental mammals.--Birds and\nreptiles.--Independent origins of similar sense organs.--The ear.--The\neye.--Other coincidences.--Causes besides Natural Selection produce\nconcordant variations in certain geographical regions.--Causes besides\nNatural Selection produce concordant variations in certain zoological and\nbotanical groups.--There are homologous parts not genetically\nrelated.--Harmony in respect of the organic and inorganic worlds.--Summary\nand conclusion ... _Page_ 63\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_MINUTE AND GRADUAL MODIFICATIONS._\n\nThere are difficulties as to minute modifications, even if not\nfortuitous.--Examples of sudden and considerable modifications of different\nkinds.--Professor Owen's view.--Mr. Wallace.--Professor Huxley.--Objections\nto sudden changes.--Labyrinthodont.--Potto.--Cetacea.--As to origin of\nbird's wing.--Tendrils of climbing plants.--Animals once supposed to be\nconnecting links.--Early specialization of\nstructure.--Macrauchenia.--Glyptodon.--Sabre-toothed tiger.--Conclusion ...\n_Page_ 97\n\n                                                                       {ix}\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_AS TO SPECIFIC STABILITY._\n\nWhat is meant by the phrase \"specific stability;\" such stability to be\nexpected _a priori_, or else considerable changes at once.--Rapidly\nincreasing difficulty of intensifying race characters; alleged causes of\nthis phenomenon; probably an internal cause co-operates.--A certain\ndefiniteness in variations.--Mr. Darwin admits the principle of specific\nstability in certain cases of unequal variability.--The goose.--The\npeacock.--The guinea fowl.--Exceptional causes of variation under\ndomestication.--Alleged tendency to reversion.--Instances.--Sterility of\nhybrids.--Prepotency of pollen of same species, but of different\nrace.--Mortality in young gallinaceous hybrids.--A bar to intermixture\nexists somewhere.--Guinea-pigs.--Summary and conclusion ... _Page_ 113\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_SPECIES AND TIME._\n\nTwo relations of species to time.--No evidence of past existence of\nminutely intermediate forms when such might be expected _a priori_.--Bats,\nPterodactyles, Dinosauria, and Birds.--Ichthyosauria, Chelonia, and\nAnoura.--Horse ancestry.--Labyrinthodonts and Trilobites.--Two subdivisions\nof the second relation of species to time.--Sir William Thomson's\nviews.--Probable period required for ultimate specific evolution from\nprimitive ancestral forms.---Geometrical increase of time required for\nrapidly multiplying increase of structural differences.--Proboscis\nmonkey.--Time required for deposition of strata necessary for Darwinian\nevolution.--High organization of Silurian forms of life.--Absence of\nfossils in oldest rocks.--Summary and conclusion ... _Page_ 128\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_SPECIES AND SPACE._\n\nThe geographical distribution of animals presents difficulties.--These not\ninsurmountable in themselves; harmonize with other\ndifficulties.--Fresh-water fishes.--Forms common to Africa and India; to\nAfrica and South America; to China and Australia; to North America and  {x}\nChina; to New Zealand and South America; to South America and Tasmania; to\nSouth America and Australia.--Pleurodont lizards.--Insectivorous\nmammals.--Similarity of European and South American frogs.--Analogy between\nEuropean salmon and fishes of New Zealand, &c.--An ancient Antarctic\ncontinent probable.--Other modes of accounting for facts of\ndistribution.--Independent origin of closely similar forms.--Conclusion ...\n_Page_ 144\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_HOMOLOGIES._\n\nAnimals made up of parts mutually related in various ways.--What homology\nis.--Its various kinds.--Serial homology.--Lateral homology.--Vertical\nhomology.--Mr. Herbert Spencer's explanations.--An internal power\nnecessary, as shown by facts of comparative anatomy.---Of teratology.--M.\nSt. Hilaire.--Professor Burt Wilder.--Foot-wings.--Facts of pathology.--Mr.\nJames Paget.--Dr. William Budd.--The existence of such an internal power of\nindividual development diminishes the improbability of an analogous law of\nspecific origination ... _Page_ 155\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_EVOLUTION AND ETHICS._\n\nThe origin of morals an inquiry not foreign to the subject of this\nbook.--Modern utilitarian view as to that origin.--Mr. Darwin's speculation\nas to the origin of the abhorrence of incest.--Cause assigned by him\ninsufficient.--Care of the aged and infirm opposed by \"Natural Selection;\"\nalso self-abnegation and asceticism.--Distinctness of the ideas right and\nuseful.--Mr. John Stuart Mill.--Insufficiency of \"Natural Selection\" to\naccount for the origin of the distinction between duty and\nprofit.--Distinction of moral acts into material and formal.--No ground{xi}\nfor believing that formal morality exists in brutes.--Evidence that it does\nexist in savages.--Facility with which savages may be\nmisunderstood.--Objections as to diversity of customs.--Mr. Button's review\nof Mr. Herbert Spencer.--Anticipatory character of morals.--Sir John\nLubbock's explanation.--Summary and conclusion ... _Page_ 188\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_PANGENESIS._\n\nA provisional hypothesis supplementing \"Natural Selection.\"--Statement of\nthe hypothesis.--Difficulty as to multitude of gemmules.--As to certain\nmodes of reproduction.--As to formations without the requisite\ngemmules.--Mr. Lewes and Professor Delpino.--Difficulty as to developmental\nforce of gemmules.--As to their spontaneous fission.--Pangenesis and\nVitalism.--Paradoxical reality.--Pangenesis scarcely superior to anterior\nhypotheses.--Buffon.--Owen.--Herbert Spencer.--Gemmules as mysterious as\n\"physiological units.\"--Conclusion ... _Page_ 208\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_SPECIFIC GENESIS._\n\nReview of the statements and arguments of preceding chapters.--Cumulative\nargument against predominant action of \"Natural Selection.\"--Whether\nanything positive as well as negative can be enunciated.--Constancy of laws\nof nature does not necessarily imply constancy of specific\nevolution.--Possible exceptional stability of existing epoch.--Probability\nthat an internal cause of change exists.--Innate powers somewhere must be\naccepted.--Symbolism of molecular action under vibrating impulses.\nProfessor Owen's statement.--Statement of the Author's view.--It avoids the\ndifficulties which oppose \"Natural Selection.\"--It harmonizes apparently\nconflicting conceptions.--Summary and conclusion ... _Page_ 220 [Page xii]\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION._\n\nPrejudiced opinions on the subject.--\"Creation\" sometimes denied from\nprejudice.--The unknowable.--Mr. Herbert Spencer's objections to theism; to\ncreation.--Meanings of term \"creation.\"--Confusion from not distinguishing\nbetween \"primary\" and \"derivative\" creation.--Mr. Darwin's\nobjections.--Bearing of Christianity on evolution.--Supposed opposition,\nthe result of a misconception.--Theological authority not opposed to\nevolution.--St. Augustin.--St. Thomas Aquinas.--Certain consequences of\nwant of flexibility of mind.--Reason and imagination.--The first cause and\ndemonstration.--Parallel between Christianity and natural theology.--What\nevolution of species is.--Professor Agassiz.--Innate powers must be\nrecognized.--Bearing of evolution on religious belief.--Professor\nHuxley.--Professor Owen.--Mr. Wallace.--Mr. Darwin.--_A priori_ conception\nof Divine action.--Origin of man.--Absolute creation and dogma.--Mr.\nWallace's view.--A supernatural origin for man's body not necessary.--Two\norders of being in man.--Two modes of origin.--Harmony of the physical,\nhyperphysical, and supernatural.--Reconciliation of science and religion as\nregards evolution.--Conclusion ... _Page_ 243\n\nINDEX ... _Page_ 289\n\n                                                                     {xiii}\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\nLeaf Butterfly in flight and repose (_from Mr. A. Wallace's \"Malay\nArchipelago\"_) ... 31\n\nWalking-Leaf Insect ... 35\n\nPleuronectidae, with the peculiarly placed eye in different positions (_from\nDr. Traquair's paper in Linn. Soc. Trans., 1865_) ... 37, 166\n\nMouth of Whale (_from Professor Owen's \"Odontography\"_) ... 40\n\nFour plates of Baleen seen obliquely from within (_from Professor Owen's\n\"Odontography\"_) ... 41\n\nDugong ... 41, 175\n\nEchinus or Sea Urchin ... 43, 167\n\nPedicellariae of Echinus very much enlarged ... 44\n\nRattlesnake ... 49\n\nCobra (_from Sir Andrew Smith's \"Southern Africa\"_) ... 50\n\nWingbones of Pterodactyle, Bat, and Bird (_from Mr. Andrew Murray's\n\"Geographical Distribution of Mammals\"_) ... 64, 130, 157\n\nSkeleton of Flying-Dragon ... 65, 158\n\nCentipede (_from a specimen in the Museum of the Royal College of\nSurgeons_) ... 66, 159\n\nTeeth of Urotrichus and Perameles ... 68\n\nThe Archeopteryx (_from Professor Owen's \"Anatomy of Vertebrata\"_) ... 73,\n132\n\n                                                                      {xiv}\nCuttle-Fish ... 75, 141\n\nSkeleton of Ichthyosaurus ... 78, 107, 132, 177\n\nCytheridea Torosa (_from Messrs. Brady and Robertson's paper in Ann. and\nMag. of Nat. Hist., 1870_) ... 79\n\nA Polyzoon, with Bird's-head processes ... 80\n\nBird's-head processes greatly enlarged ... 81\n\nAntechimis Minutissimus and Mus Delicatulus (_from Mr. Andrew Murray's\n\"Geographical Distribution of Mammals\"_) ... 82\n\nOutlines of Wings of Butterflies of Celebes compared with those of allied\nspecies elsewhere ... 86\n\nGreat Shielded Grasshopper ... 89\n\nThe Six-shafted Bird of Paradise ... 90\n\nThe Long-tailed Bird of Paradise ... 91\n\nThe Red Bird of Paradise ... 92\n\nHorned Flies ... 93\n\nThe Magnificent Bird of Paradise ... 93\n\n_(The above seven figures are from Mr. A. Wallace's \"Malay Archipelago\"_)\n\nMuch enlarged horizontal Section of the Tooth of a Labyrinthodon (_from\nProfessor Owen's \"Odontography\"_) ... 104\n\nHand of the Potto (_from life_) ... 105\n\nSkeleton of Plesiosaurus ... 106, 133\n\nThe Aye-Aye (_from Trans, of Zool. Soc._) ... 108\n\nDentition of Sabre-toothed Tiger (_from Professor Owen's \"Odontography\"_)\n... 110\n\nTrilobite ... 135, 171\n\nInner side of Lower Jaw of Pleurodont Lizard (_from Professor Owen's\n\"Odontography\"_) ... 148\n\nSolenodon (_from Berlin Trans._) ... 149\n\nTarsal Bones of Galago and Cheirogaleus (_from Proc. Zool. Soc._) ... 159\n\nSquilla ... 160\n\nParts of the Skeleton of the Lobster ... 161 [Page xv]\n\nSpine of Galago Allenii (_from Proc. Zool. Soc._) ... 162\n\nVertebrae of Axolotl (_from Proc. Zool. Soc._) ... 165\n\nAnnelid undergoing spontaneous fission ... 169, 211\n\nAard-Vark (_Orycteropus capensis_) ... 174\n\nPangolin (_Manis_) ... 175\n\nSkeleton of Manus and Pes of a Tailed Batrachian (_from Professor\nGegenbaur's \"Tarsus and Carpus\"_) ... 178\n\nFlexor Muscles of Hand of Nycticetus (_from Proc. Zool. Soc._) ... 180\n\nThe Fibres of Corti ... 279\n\n                                                                        {1}\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTHE GENESIS OF SPECIES.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_INTRODUCTORY._\n\n    The problem of the genesis of species stated.--Nature of its probable\n    solution.--Importance of the question.--Position here\n    defended.--Statement of the DARWINIAN THEORY.--Its applicability to\n    details of geographical distribution; to rudimentary structures; to\n    homology; to mimicry, &c.--Consequent utility of the theory.--Its wide\n    acceptance.--Reasons for this, other than, and in addition to, its\n    scientific value.--Its simplicity.--Its bearing on religious\n    questions.--_Odium theologicum_ and _odium antitheologicum_.--The\n    antagonism supposed by many to exist between it and theology neither\n    necessary nor universal.--Christian authorities in favour of\n    evolution.--Mr. Darwin's \"Animals and Plants under\n    Domestication.\"--Difficulties of the Darwinian theory enumerated.\n\nThe great problem which has so long exercised the minds of naturalists,\nnamely, that concerning the origin of different kinds of animals and\nplants, seems at last to be fairly on the road to receive--perhaps at no\nvery distant future--as satisfactory a solution as it can well have.\n\nBut the problem presents peculiar difficulties. The birth of a \"species\"\nhas often been compared with that of an \"individual.\" The origin, however,\nof even an individual animal or plant (that which determines an embryo to\nevolve itself,--as, _e.g._, a spider rather than a beetle, a rose-plant {2}\nrather than a pear) is shrouded in obscurity. _A fortiori_ must this be the\ncase with the origin of a \"species.\"\n\nMoreover, the analogy between a \"species\" and an \"individual\" is a very\nincomplete one. The word \"individual\" denotes a concrete whole with a real,\nseparate, and distinct existence. The word \"species,\" on the other hand,\ndenotes a peculiar congeries of characters, innate powers and qualities,\nand a certain nature realized indeed in individuals, but having no separate\nexistence, except ideally as a thought in some mind.\n\nThus the birth of a \"species\" can only be compared metaphorically, and very\nimperfectly, with that of an \"individual.\"\n\nIndividuals as _individuals_, actually and directly produce and bring forth\nother individuals; but no \"congeries of characters\" no \"common nature\" _as\nsuch_, can directly bring forth another \"common nature,\" because, _per se_,\nit has no existence (other than ideal) apart from the individuals in which\nit is manifested.\n\nThe problem then is, \"by what combination of natural laws does a new\n'common nature' appear upon the scene of realized existence?\" _i.e._ how is\nan individual embodying such new characters produced?\n\nFor the approximation we have of late made towards the solution of this\nproblem, we are mainly indebted to the invaluable labours and active brains\nof Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.\n\nNevertheless, important as has been the impulse and direction given by\nthose writers to both our observations and speculations, the solution will\nnot (if the views here advocated are correct) ultimately present that\naspect and character with which it has issued from the hands of those\nwriters.\n\nNeither, most certainly, will that solution agree in appearance or\nsubstance with the more or less crude conceptions which have been put forth\nby most of the opponents of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace. [Page 3]\n\nRather, judging from the more recent manifestations of thought on opposite\nsides, we may expect the development of some _tertium quid_--the resultant\nof forces coming from different quarters, and not coinciding in direction\nwith any one of them.\n\nAs error is almost always partial truth, and so consists in the\nexaggeration or distortion of one verity by the suppression of another\nwhich qualifies and modifies the former, we may hope, by the synthesis of\nthe truths contended for by various advocates, to arrive at the one\nconciliating reality.\n\nSigns of this conciliation are not wanting: opposite scientific views,\nopposite philosophical conceptions, and opposite religious beliefs, are\nrapidly tending by their vigorous conflict to evolve such a systematic and\ncomprehensive view of the genesis of species as will completely harmonize\nwith the teachings of science, philosophy, and religion.\n\nTo endeavour to add one stone to this temple of concord, to try and remove\na few of the misconceptions and mutual misunderstandings which oppose\nharmonious action, is the aim and endeavour of the present work. This aim\nit is hoped to attain, not by shirking difficulties, but analysing them,\nand by endeavouring to dig down to the common root which supports and\nunites diverging stems of truth.\n\nIt cannot but be a gain when the labourers in the three fields above\nmentioned, namely, science, philosophy, and religion, shall fully recognize\nthis harmony. Then the energy too often spent in futile controversy, or\nwithheld through prejudice, may be profitably and reciprocally exercised\nfor the mutual benefit of all.\n\nRemarkable is the rapidity with which an interest in the question of\nspecific origination has spread. But a few years ago it scarcely occupied\nthe minds of any but naturalists. Then the crude theory put forth by\nLamarck, and by his English interpreter the author of the \"Vestiges of\nCreation,\" had rather discredited than helped on a belief in organic\nevolution--a belief, that is, in new kinds being produced from older    {4}\nones by the ordinary and constant operation of natural laws. Now, however,\nthis belief is widely diffused. Indeed, there are few drawing-rooms where\nit is not the subject of occasional discussion, and artisans and schoolboys\nhave their views as to the permanence of organic forms. Moreover, the\nreception of this doctrine tends actually, though by no means necessarily,\nto be accompanied by certain beliefs with regard to quite distinct and very\nmomentous subject-matter. So that the question of the \"Genesis of Species\"\nis not only one of great interest, but also of much importance.\n\nBut though the calm and thorough consideration of this matter is at the\npresent moment exceedingly desirable, yet the actual importance of the\nquestion itself as to its consequences in the domain of theology has been\nstrangely exaggerated by many, both of its opponents and supporters. This\nis especially the case with that form of the evolution theory which is\nassociated with the name of Mr. Darwin; and yet neither the refutation nor\nthe demonstration of that doctrine would be necessarily accompanied by the\nresults which are hoped for by one party and dreaded by another.\n\nThe general theory of evolution has indeed for some time past steadily\ngained ground, and it may be safely predicted that the number of facts\nwhich can be brought forward in its support will, in a few years, be vastly\naugmented. But the prevalence of this theory need alarm no one, for it is,\nwithout any doubt, perfectly consistent with strictest and most orthodox\nChristian theology. Moreover, it is not altogether without obscurities, and\ncannot yet be considered as fully demonstrated.\n\nThe special Darwinian hypothesis, however, is beset with certain scientific\ndifficulties, which must by no means be ignored, and some of which, I\nventure to think, are absolutely insuperable. What Darwinism or \"Natural\nSelection\" is, will be shortly explained; but before doing so, I think  {5}\nit well to state the object of this book, and the view taken up and\ndefended in it. It is its object to maintain the position that \"Natural\nSelection\" acts, and indeed must act, but that still, in order that we may\nbe able to account for the production of known kinds of animals and plants,\nit requires to be supplemented by the action of some other natural law or\nlaws as yet undiscovered.[1] Also, that the consequences which have been\ndrawn from Evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to the\nprejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are in fact\nillegitimate.\n\nThe Darwinian theory of \"Natural Selection\" may be shortly stated\nthus:[2]--\n\nEvery kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a\ngeometrical progression.\n\nEvery kind of animal and plant transmits a general likeness, with\nindividual differences, to its offspring.\n\nEvery individual may present minute variations of any kind and in any\ndirection.\n\nPast time has been practically infinite.\n\nEvery individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence, owing\nto the tendency to geometrical increase of all kinds of animals and plants,\nwhile the total animal and vegetable population (man and his agency\nexcepted) remains almost stationary.\n\nThus, every variation of a kind tending to save the life of the individual\npossessing it, or to enable it more surely to propagate its kind, will in\nthe long run be preserved, and will transmit its favourable peculiarity to\nsome of its offspring, which peculiarity will thus become intensified   {6}\ntill it reaches the maximum degree of utility. On the other hand,\nindividuals presenting unfavourable peculiarities will be ruthlessly\ndestroyed. The action of this law of Natural Selection may thus be well\nrepresented by the convenient expression \"survival of the fittest.\"[3]\n\nNow this conception of Mr. Darwin's is perhaps the most interesting theory,\nin relation to natural science, which has been promulgated during the\npresent century. Remarkable, indeed, is the way in which it groups together\nsuch a vast and varied series of biological[4] facts, and even paradoxes,\nwhich it appears more or less clearly to explain, as the following\ninstances will show. By this theory of \"Natural Selection,\" light is thrown\non the more singular facts relating to the geographical distribution of\nanimals and plants; for example, on the resemblance between the past and\npresent inhabitants of different parts of the earth's surface. Thus in\nAustralia remains have been found of creatures closely allied to kangaroos\nand other kinds of pouched beasts, which in the present day exist nowhere\nbut in the Australian region. Similarly in South America, and nowhere else,\nare found sloths and armadillos, and in that same part of the world have\nbeen discovered bones of animals different indeed from existing sloths and\narmadillos, but yet much more nearly related to them than to any other\nkinds whatever. Such coincidences between the existing and antecedent\ngeographical distribution of forms are numerous. Again, \"Natural Selection\"\nserves to explain the circumstance that often in adjacent islands we find\nanimals closely resembling, and appearing to represent, each other; while\nif certain of these islands show signs (by depth of surrounding sea or what\nnot) of more ancient separation, the animals inhabiting them exhibit a  {7}\ncorresponding divergence.[5] The explanation consists in representing the\nforms inhabiting the islands as being the modified descendants of a common\nstock, the modification being greatest where the separation has been the\nmost prolonged.\n\n\"Rudimentary structures\" also receive an explanation by means of this\ntheory. These structures are parts which are apparently functionless and\nuseless where they occur, but which represent similar parts of large size\nand functional importance in other animals. Examples of such \"rudimentary\nstructures\" are the foetal teeth of whales, and of the front part of the\njaw of ruminating quadrupeds. These foetal structures are minute in size,\nand never cut the gum, but are reabsorbed without ever coming into use,\nwhile no other teeth succeed them or represent them in the adult condition\nof those animals. The mammary glands of all male beasts constitute another\nexample, as also does the wing of the apteryx--a New Zealand bird utterly\nincapable of flight, and with the wing in a quite rudimentary condition\n(whence the name of the animal). Yet this rudimentary wing contains bones\nwhich are miniature representatives of the ordinary wing-bones of birds of\nflight. Now, the presence of these useless bones and teeth is explained if\nthey may be considered as actually being the inherited diminished\nrepresentatives of parts of large size and functional importance in the\nremote ancestors of these various animals.\n\nAgain, the singular facts of \"homology\" are capable of a similar\nexplanation. \"Homology\" is the name applied to the investigation of those\nprofound resemblances which have so often been found to underlie\nsuperficial differences between animals of very different form and habit.\nThus man, the horse, the whale, and the bat, all have the pectoral limb,\nwhether it be the arm, or fore-leg, or paddle, or wing, formed on\nessentially the same type, though the number and proportion of parts may{8}\nmore or less differ. Again, the butterfly and the shrimp, different as they\nare in appearance and mode of life, are yet constructed on the same common\nplan, of which they constitute diverging manifestations. No _a priori_\nreason is conceivable why such similarities should be necessary, but they\nare readily explicable on the assumption of a genetic relationship and\naffinity between the animals in question, assuming, that is, that they are\nthe modified descendants of some ancient form--their common ancestor.\n\nThat remarkable series of changes which animals undergo before they attain\ntheir adult condition, which is called their process of development, and\nduring which they more or less closely resemble other animals during the\nearly stages of the same process, has also great light thrown on it from\nthe same source. The question as to the singularly complex resemblances\nborne by every adult animal and plant to a certain number of other animals\nand plants--resemblances by means of which the adopted zoological and\nbotanical systems of classification have been possible--finds its solution\nin a similar manner, classification becoming the expression of a\ngenealogical relationship. Finally, by this theory--and as yet by this\nalone--can any explanation be given of that extraordinary phenomenon which\nis metaphorically termed _mimicry_. Mimicry is a close and striking, yet\nsuperficial resemblance borne by some animal or plant to some other,\nperhaps very different, animal or plant. The \"walking leaf\" (an insect\nbelonging to the grasshopper and cricket order) is a well-known and\nconspicuous instance of the assumption by an animal of the appearance of a\nvegetable structure (see illustration on p. 35); and the bee, fly, and\nspider orchids are familiar examples of a converse resemblance. Birds,\nbutterflies, reptiles, and even fish, seem to bear in certain instances a\nsimilarly striking resemblance to other birds, butterflies, reptiles, and\nfish, of altogether distinct kinds. The explanation of this matter which\n\"Natural Selection\" offers, as to animals, is that certain varieties of {9}\none kind have found exemption from persecution in consequence of an\naccidental resemblance which such varieties have exhibited to animals of\nanother kind, or to plants; and that they were thus preserved, and the\ndegree of resemblance was continually augmented in their descendants. As to\nplants, the explanation offered by this theory might perhaps be that\nvarieties of plants which presented a certain superficial resemblance in\ntheir flowers to insects, have thereby been helped to propagate their kind,\nthe visit of certain insects being useful or indispensable to the\nfertilization of many flowers.\n\nWe have thus a whole series of important facts which \"Natural Selection\"\nhelps us to understand and co-ordinate. And not only are all these diverse\nfacts strung together, as it were, by the theory in question; not only does\nit explain the development of the complex instincts of the beaver, the\ncuckoo, the bee, and the ant, as also the dazzling brilliancy of the\nhumming-bird, the glowing tail and neck of the peacock, and the melody of\nthe nightingale; the perfume of the rose and the violet, the brilliancy of\nthe tulip and the sweetness of the nectar of flowers; not only does it help\nus to understand all these, but serves as a basis of future research and of\ninference from the known to the unknown, and it guides the investigator to\nthe discovery of new facts which, when ascertained, it seems also able to\nco-ordinate.[6] Nay, \"Natural Selection\" seems capable of application not\nonly to the building up of the smallest and most insignificant organisms,\nbut even of extension beyond the biological domain altogether, so as\npossibly to have relation to the stable equilibrium of the solar system{10}\nitself, and even of the whole sidereal universe. Thus, whether this theory\nbe true or false, all lovers of natural science should acknowledge a deep\ndebt of gratitude to Messrs. Darwin and Wallace, on account of its\npractical utility. But the utility of a theory by no means implies its\ntruth. What do we not owe, for example, to the labours of the Alchemists?\nThe emission theory of light, again, has been pregnant with valuable\nresults, as still is the Atomic theory, and others which will readily\nsuggest themselves.\n\nWith regard to Mr. Darwin (with whose name, on account of the noble\nself-abnegation of Mr. Wallace, the theory is in general exclusively\nassociated), his friends may heartily congratulate him on the fact that he\nis one of the few exceptions to the rule respecting the non-appreciation of\na prophet in his own country. It would be difficult to name another living\nlabourer in the field of physical science who has excited an interest so\nwidespread, and given rise to so much praise, gathering round him, as he\nhas done, a chorus of more or less completely acquiescing disciples,\nthemselves masters in science, and each the representative of a crowd of\nenthusiastic followers.\n\nSuch is the Darwinian theory of \"Natural Selection,\" such are the more\nremarkable facts which it is potent to explain, and such is the reception\nit has met with in the world. A few words now as to the reasons for the\nvery widespread interest it has awakened, and the keenness with which the\ntheory has been both advocated and combated.\n\nThe important bearing it has on such an extensive range of scientific\nfacts, its utility, and the vast knowledge and great ingenuity of its\npromulgator, are enough to account for the heartiness of its reception by\nthose learned in natural history. But quite other causes have concurred to\nproduce the general and higher degree of interest felt in the theory beside\nthe readiness with which it harmonizes with biological facts. These latter\ncould only be appreciated by physiologists, zoologists, and botanists;\nwhereas the Darwinian theory, so novel and so startling, has found a   {11}\ncloud of advocates and opponents beyond and outside the world of physical\nscience.\n\nIn the first place, it was inevitable that a great crowd of half-educated\nmen and shallow thinkers should accept with eagerness the theory of\n\"Natural Selection,\" or rather what they think to be such (for few things\nare more remarkable than the way in which it has been misunderstood), on\naccount of a certain characteristic it has in common with other theories;\nwhich should not be mentioned in the same breath with it, except, as now,\nwith the accompaniment of protest and apology. We refer to its remarkable\nsimplicity, and the ready way in which phenomena the most complex appear\nexplicable by a cause for the comprehension of which laborious and\npersevering efforts are not required, but which may be represented by the\nsimple phrase \"survival of the fittest.\" With nothing more than this, can,\non the Darwinian theory, all the most intricate facts of distribution and\naffinity, form, and colour, be accounted for; as well the most complex\ninstincts and the most admirable adjustments, such as those of the human\neye and ear. It is in great measure then, owing to this supposed\nsimplicity, and to a belief in its being yet easier and more simple than it\nis, that Darwinism, however imperfectly understood, has become a subject\nfor general conversation, and has been able thus widely to increase a\ncertain knowledge of biological matters; and this excitation of interest in\nquarters where otherwise it would have been entirely wanting, is an\nadditional motive for gratitude on the part of naturalists to the authors\nof the new theory. At the same time it must be admitted that a similar\n\"simplicity\"--the apparently easy explanation of complex phenomena--also\nconstitutes the charm of such matters as hydropathy and phrenology, in the\neyes of the unlearned or half-educated public. It is indeed _the_ charm of\nall those seeming \"short cuts\" to knowledge, by which the labour of\nmastering scientific details is spared to those who yet believe that   {12}\nwithout such labour they can attain all the most valuable results of\nscientific research. It is not, of course, for a moment meant to imply that\nits \"simplicity\" tells at all against \"Natural Selection,\" but only that\nthe actual or supposed possession of that quality is a strong reason for\nthe wide and somewhat hasty acceptance of the theory, whether it be true or\nnot.\n\nIn the second place, it was inevitable that a theory appearing to have very\ngrave relations with questions of the last importance and interest to man,\nthat is, with questions of religious belief, should call up an army of\nassailants and defenders. Nor have the supporters of the theory much\nreason, in many cases, to blame the more or less unskilful and hasty\nattacks of adversaries, seeing that those attacks have been in great part\ndue to the unskilful and perverse advocacy of the cause on the part of some\nof its adherents. If the _odium theologicum_ has inspired some of its\nopponents, it is undeniable that the _odium antitheologicum_ has possessed\nnot a few of its supporters. It is true (and in appreciating some of Mr.\nDarwin's expressions it should never be forgotten) that the theory has been\nboth at its first promulgation and since vehemently attacked and denounced\nas unchristian, nay, as necessarily atheistic; but it is not less true that\nit has been made use of as a weapon of offence by irreligious writers, and\nhas been again and again, especially in continental Europe, thrown, as it\nwere, in the face of believers, with sneers and contumely. When we\nrecollect the warmth with which what he thought was Darwinism was advocated\nby such a writer as Professor Vogt, one cause of his zeal was not far to\nseek--a zeal, by the way, certainly not \"according to knowledge;\" for few\nconceptions could have been more conflicting with true Darwinism than the\ntheory he formerly maintained, but has since abandoned, viz. that the men\nof the Old World were descended from African and Asiatic apes, while,\nsimilarly, the American apes were the progenitors of the human beings of\nthe New World. The cause of this palpable error in a too eager disciple{13}\none might hope was not anxiety to snatch up all or any arms available\nagainst Christianity, were it not for the tone unhappily adopted by this\nauthor. But it is unfortunately quite impossible to mistake his meaning and\nintention, for he is a writer whose offensiveness is gross, while it is\nsometimes almost surpassed by an amazing shallowness. Of course, as might\nfully be expected, he adopts and reproduces the absurdly trivial objections\nto absolute morality drawn from differences in national customs.[7] And he\nseems to have as little conception of the distinction between \"formally\"\nmoral actions and those which are only \"materially\" moral, as of that\nbetween the _verbum mentale_ and the _verbum oris_. As an example of his\nonesidedness, it may be remarked that he compares the skulls of the\nAmerican monkeys (_Cebus apella_ and _C. albifrons_) with the intention of\nshowing that man is of several distinct species, because skulls of\ndifferent men are less alike than are those of these two monkeys; and he\ndoes this regardless of how the skulls of domestic animals (with which it\nis far more legitimate to compare races of men than with wild kinds),\n_e.g._ of different dogs or pigeons, tell precisely in the opposite\ndirection. Regardless also of the fact that perhaps no genus of monkeys is\nin a more unsatisfactory state as to the determination of its different\nkinds than the genus chosen by him for illustration. This is so much the\ncase that J. A. Wagner (in his supplement to Schreber's great work on\nBeasts) at first included all the kinds in a single species.\n\nAs to the strength of his prejudice and his regretable coarseness, one\nquotation will be enough to display both. Speaking of certain early\nChristian missionaries, he says,[8] \"It is not so very improbable that the\nnew religion, before which the flourishing Roman civilization relapsed into\na state of barbarism, should have been introduced by people in whose   {14}\nskulls the anatomist finds simious characters so well developed, and in\nwhich the phrenologist finds the organ of veneration so much enlarged. I\nshall, in the meanwhile, call these simious narrow skulls of Switzerland\n'Apostle skulls,' as I imagine that in life they must have resembled the\ntype of Peter, the Apostle, as represented in Byzantine-Nazarene art.\"\n\nIn face of such a spirit, can it be wondered at that disputants have grown\nwarm? Moreover, in estimating the vehemence of the opposition which has\nbeen offered, it should be borne in mind that the views defended by\nreligious writers are, or should be, all-important in their eyes. They\ncould not be expected to view with equanimity the destruction in many minds\nof \"theology, natural and revealed, psychology, and metaphysics;\" nor to\nweigh with calm and frigid impartiality arguments which seemed to them to\nbe fraught with results of the highest moment to mankind, and, therefore,\nimposing on their consciences strenuous opposition as a first duty. Cool\njudicial impartiality in them would have been a sign perhaps of\nintellectual gifts, but also of a more important deficiency of generous\nemotion.\n\nIt is easy to complain of the onesidedness of many of those who oppose\nDarwinism in the interest of orthodoxy; but not at all less patent is the\nintolerance and narrow-mindedness of some of those who advocate it,\navowedly or covertly, in the interest of heterodoxy. This hastiness of\nrejection or acceptance, determined by ulterior consequences believed to\nattach to \"Natural Selection,\" is unfortunately in part to be accounted for\nby some expressions and a certain tone to be found in Mr. Darwin's\nwritings. That his expressions, however, are not always to be construed\nliterally is manifest. His frequent use metaphorically of the expressions,\n\"contrivance,\" for example, and \"purpose,\" has elicited, from the Duke of\nArgyll and others, criticisms which fail to tell against their         {15}\nopponent, because such expressions are, in Mr. Darwin's writings, merely\nfigurative--metaphors, and nothing more.\n\nIt may be hoped, then, that a similar looseness of expression will account\nfor passages of a directly opposite tendency to that of his theistic\nmetaphors.\n\nMoreover, it must not be forgotten that he frequently uses that absolutely\ntheological term, \"the Creator,\" and that he has retained in all the\neditions of his \"Origin of Species\" an expression which has been much\ncriticised. He speaks \"of life, with its several powers, having been\noriginally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one.\"[9] This\nis merely mentioned in justice to Mr. Darwin, and by no means because it is\na position which this book is intended to support. For, from Mr. Darwin's\nusual mode of speaking, it appears that by such divine action he means a\nsupernatural intervention, whereas it is here contended that throughout the\nwhole process of physical evolution--the first manifestation of life\nincluded--_supernatural_ action is assuredly not to be looked for.\n\nAgain, in justice to Mr. Darwin, it may be observed that he is addressing\nthe general public, and opposing the ordinary and common objections of\npopular religionists, who have inveighed against \"Evolution\" and \"Natural\nSelection\" as atheistic, impious, and directly conflicting with the dogma\nof creation.\n\nStill, in so important a matter, it is to be regretted that he did not take\nthe trouble to distinguish between such merely popular views and those\nwhich repose upon some more venerable authority. Mr. John Stuart Mill has\nreplied to similar critics, and shown that the assertion that his\nphilosophy is irreconcilable with theism is unfounded; and it would have\nbeen better if Mr. Darwin had dealt in the same manner with some of his\nassailants, and shown the futility of certain of their objections when {16}\nviewed from a more elevated religious standpoint. Instead of so doing, he\nseems to adopt the narrowest notions of his opponents, and, far from\nendeavouring to expand them, appears to wish to endorse them, and to lend\nto them the weight of his authority. It is thus that Mr. Darwin seems to\nadmit and assume that the idea of \"creation\" necessitates a belief in an\ninterference with, or dispensation of, natural laws, and that \"creation\"\nmust be accompanied by arbitrary and unorderly phenomena. None but the\ncrudest conceptions are placed by him to the credit of supporters of the\ndogma of creation, and it is constantly asserted that they, to be\nconsistent, must offer \"creative fiats\" as explanations of physical\nphenomena, and be guilty of numerous other such absurdities. It is\nimpossible, therefore, to acquit Mr. Darwin of at least a certain\ncarelessness in this matter; and the result is, he has the appearance of\nopposing ideas which he gives no clear evidence of having ever fully\nappreciated. He is far from being alone in this, and perhaps merely takes\nup and reiterates, without much consideration, assertions previously\nassumed by others. Nothing could be further from Mr. Darwin's mind than\nany, however small, intentional misrepresentation; and it is therefore the\nmore unfortunate that he should not have shown any appreciation of a\nposition opposed to his own other than that gross and crude one which he\ncombats so superfluously--that he should appear, even for a moment, to be\none of those, of whom there are far too many, who first misrepresent their\nadversary's view, and then elaborately refute it; who, in fact, erect a\ndoll utterly incapable of self-defence and then, with a flourish of\ntrumpets and many vigorous strokes, overthrow the helpless dummy they had\npreviously raised.\n\nThis is what many do who more or less distinctly oppose theism in the\ninterests, as they believe, of physical science; and they often represent,\namongst other things, a gross and narrow anthropomorphism as the necessary\nconsequence of views opposed to those which they themselves advocate.  {17}\nMr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they have not devoted much\ntime to the study of Christian philosophy; but they have no right to assume\nor accept, without careful examination, as an unquestioned fact, that in\nthat philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between the two ideas,\n\"creation\" and \"evolution,\" as applied to organic forms.\n\nIt is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that many\ndistinguished Christian thinkers have accepted and do accept both ideas,\n_i.e._ both \"creation\" and \"evolution.\"\n\nAs much as ten years ago, an eminently Christian writer observed: \"The\ncreationist theory does not necessitate the perpetual search after\nmanifestations of miraculous powers and perpetual 'catastrophes.' Creation\nis not a miraculous interference with the laws of nature, but the very\ninstitution of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention,\nwas the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion, they admitted\nwithout difficulty the most surprising origin of living creatures, provided\nit took place by _law_. They held that when God said, 'Let the waters\nproduce,' 'Let the earth produce,' He conferred forces on the elements of\nearth and water, which enabled them naturally to produce the various\nspecies of organic beings. This power, they thought, remains attached to\nthe elements throughout all time.\"[10] The same writer quotes St. Augustine\nand St. Thomas Aquinas, to the effect that, \"in the institution of nature\nwe do not look for miracles, but for the laws of nature.\"[11] And, again,\nSt. Basil,[12] speaks of the continued operation of natural laws in the\nproduction of all organisms. [Page 18]\n\nSo much for writers of early and mediaeval times. As to the present day, the\nAuthor can confidently affirm that there are many as well versed in\ntheology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department of natural knowledge, who\nwould not be disturbed by the thorough demonstration of his theory. Nay,\nthey would not even be in the least painfully affected at witnessing the\ngeneration of animals of complex organization by the skilful artificial\narrangement of natural forces, and the production, in the future, of a\nfish, by means analogous to those by which we now produce urea.\n\nAnd this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena, though\nby no means actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided for in the old\nphilosophy centuries before Darwin, or even before Bacon, and that their\nplace in the system can be at once assigned them without even disturbing\nits order or marring its harmony.\n\nMoreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned,\nhowever much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern writers.\nIn proof of this it may be observed that perhaps no post-mediaeval\ntheologian has a wider reception amongst Christians throughout the world\nthan Suarez, who has a separate section[13] in opposition to those who\nmaintain the distinct creation of the various kinds--or substantial\nforms--of organic life.\n\nBut the consideration of this matter must be deferred for the present, and\nthe question of evolution, whether Darwinian or other, be first gone into.\nIt is proposed, after that has been done, to return to this subject (here\nmerely alluded to), and to consider at some length the bearing of\n\"Evolution,\" whether Darwinian or non-Darwinian, upon \"Creation and\nTheism.\"\n\nNow we will revert simply to the consideration of the theory of \"Natural\nSelection\" itself.\n\n                                                                       {19}\nWhatever may have hitherto been the amount of acceptance that this theory\nhas met with, all, I think, anticipated that the appearance of Mr. Darwin's\nlarge and careful work on \"Animals and Plants under Domestication\" could\nbut further increase that acceptance. It is, however, somewhat\nproblematical how far such anticipations will be realized. The newer book\nseems to add after all but little in support of the theory, and to leave\nmost, if not all, its difficulties exactly where they were. It is a\nquestion, also, whether the hypothesis of \"Pangenesis\"[14] may not be found\nrather to encumber than to support the theory it was intended to subserve.\nHowever, the work in question treats only of domestic animals, and probably\nthe next instalment will address itself more vigorously and directly to the\ndifficulties which seem to us yet to bar the way to a complete acceptance\nof the doctrine.\n\nIf the theory of Natural Selection can be shown to be quite insufficient to\nexplain any considerable number of important phenomena connected with the\norigin of species, that theory, as _the_ explanation, must be considered as\nprovisionally discredited.\n\nIf other causes than Natural (including sexual) Selection can be proved to\nhave acted--if variation can in any cases be proved to be subject to\ncertain determinations in special directions by other means than Natural\nSelection, it then becomes probable _a priori_ that it is so in others, and\nthat Natural Selection depends upon, and only supplements, such means, {20}\nwhich conception is opposed to the pure Darwinian position.\n\nNow it is certain, _a priori_, that variation is obedient to some law and\ntherefore that \"Natural Selection\" itself must be capable of being subsumed\ninto some higher law; and it is evident, I believe, _a posteriori_, that\nNatural Selection is, at the very least, aided and supplemented by some\nother agency.\n\nAdmitting, then, organic and other evolution, and that new forms of animals\nand plants (new species, genera, &c.) have from time to time been evolved\nfrom preceding animals and plants, it follows, if the views here advocated\nare true, that this evolution has not taken place by the action of \"Natural\nSelection\" _alone_, but through it (amongst other influences) aided by the\nconcurrent action of some other natural law or laws, at present\nundiscovered; and probably that the genesis of species takes place partly,\nperhaps mainly, through laws which may be most conveniently spoken of as\nspecial powers and tendencies existing in each organism; and partly through\ninfluences exerted on each by surrounding conditions and agencies organic\nand inorganic, terrestrial and cosmical, among which the \"survival of the\nfittest\" plays a certain but subordinate part.\n\nThe theory of \"Natural Selection\" may (though it need not) be taken in such\na way as to lead men to regard the present organic world as formed, so to\nspeak, _accidentally_, beautiful and wonderful as is confessedly the\nhap-hazard result. The same may perhaps be said with regard to the system\nadvocated by Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, however, also relegates \"Natural\nSelection\" to a subordinate _role_. The view here advocated, on the other\nhand, regards the whole organic world as arising and going forward in one\nharmonious development similar to that which displays itself in the growth\nand action of each separate individual organism. It also regards each such\nseparate organism as the expression of powers and tendencies not to be {21}\naccounted for by \"Natural Selection\" alone, or even by that together with\nmerely the direct influence of surrounding conditions.\n\nThe difficulties which appear to oppose themselves to the reception of\n\"Natural Selection\" or \"the survival of the fittest,\" as the one\nexplanation of the origin of species, have no doubt been already considered\nby Mr. Darwin. Nevertheless, it may be worth while to enumerate them, and\nto state the considerations which appear to give them weight; and there is\nno doubt but that a naturalist so candid and careful as the author of the\ntheory in question, will feel obliged, rather than the reverse, by the\nsuggestion of all the doubts and difficulties which can be brought against\nit.\n\nWhat is to be brought forward may be summed up as follows:--\n\nThat \"Natural Selection\" is incompetent to account for the incipient stages\nof useful structures.\n\nThat it does not harmonize with the co-existence of closely similar\nstructures of diverse origin.\n\nThat there are grounds for thinking that specific differences may be\ndeveloped suddenly instead of gradually.\n\nThat the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to\ntheir variability is still tenable.\n\nThat certain fossil transitional forms are absent, which might have been\nexpected to be present.\n\nThat some facts of geographical distribution supplement other difficulties.\n\nThat the objection drawn from the physiological difference between\n\"species\" and \"races\" still exists unrefuted.\n\nThat there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which\n\"Natural Selection\" throws no light whatever, but the explanations of\nwhich, if they could be attained, might throw light upon specific\norigination. [Page 22]\n\nBesides these objections to the sufficiency of \"Natural Selection,\" others\nmay be brought against the hypothesis of \"Pangenesis,\" which, professing as\nit does to explain great difficulties, seems to do so by presenting others\nnot less great--almost to be the explanation of _obscurum per          {23}\nobscurius_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE INCOMPETENCY OF \"NATURAL SELECTION\" TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT STAGES\nOF USEFUL STRUCTURES.\n\n    Mr. Darwin supposes that natural selection acts by slight\n    variations.--These must be useful at once.--Difficulties as to the\n    giraffe; as to mimicry; as to the heads of flat-fishes; as to the\n    origin and constancy of the vertebrate limbs; as to whalebone; as to\n    the young kangaroo; as to sea-urchins; as to certain processes of\n    metamorphosis; as to the mammary gland; as to certain ape characters;\n    as to the rattlesnake and cobra; as to the process of formation of the\n    eye and ear; as to the fully developed condition of the eye and ear; as\n    to the voice; as to shell-fish; as to orchids; as to ants.--The\n    necessity for the simultaneous modification of many\n    individuals.--Summary and conclusion.\n\n\"Natural Selection,\" simply and by itself, is potent to explain the\nmaintenance or the further extension and development of favourable\nvariations, which are at once sufficiently considerable to be useful from\nthe first to the individual possessing them. But Natural Selection utterly\nfails to account for the conservation and development of the minute and\nrudimentary beginnings, the slight and infinitesimal commencements of\nstructures, however useful those structures may afterwards become.\n\nNow, it is distinctly enunciated by Mr. Darwin, that the spontaneous\nvariations upon which his theory depends are individually slight, minute,\nand insensible. He says,[15] \"Slight individual differences, however,  {24}\nsuffice for the work, and are probably the sole differences which are\neffective in the production of new species.\" And again, after mentioning\nthe frequent sudden appearances of domestic varieties, he speaks of \"the\nfalse belief as to the similarity of natural species in this respect.\"[16]\nIn his work on the \"Origin of Species,\" he also observes, \"Natural\nSelection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited\nmodifications.\"[17] And \"Natural Selection, if it be a true principle, will\nbanish the belief ... of any great and sudden modification in their\nstructure.\"[18] Finally, he adds, \"If it could be demonstrated that any\ncomplex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by\nnumerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely\nbreak down.\"[19]\n\nNow the conservation of minute variations in many instances is, of course,\nplain and intelligible enough; such, _e.g._, as those which tend to promote\nthe destructive faculties of beasts of prey on the one hand, or to\nfacilitate the flight or concealment of the animals pursued on the other;\nprovided always that these minute beginnings are of such a kind as really\nto have a certain efficiency, however small, in favour of the conservation\nof the individual possessing them; and also provided that no unfavourable\npeculiarity in any other direction accompanies and neutralizes, in the\nstruggle for life, the minute favourable variation.\n\nBut some of the cases which have been brought forward, and which have met\nwith very general acceptance, seem less satisfactory when carefully\nanalysed than they at first appear to be. Amongst these we may mention \"the\nneck of the giraffe.\"\n\nAt first sight it would seem as though a better example in support of\n\"Natural Selection\" could hardly have been chosen. Let the fact of the {25}\noccurrence of occasional, severe droughts in the country which that animal\nhas inhabited be granted. In that case, when the ground vegetation has been\nconsumed, and the trees alone remain, it is plain that at such times only\nthose individuals (of what we assume to be the nascent giraffe species)\nwhich were able to reach high up would be preserved, and would become the\nparents of the following generation, some individuals of which would, of\ncourse, inherit that high-reaching power which alone preserved their\nparents. Only the high-reaching issue of these high-reaching individuals\nwould again, _caeteris paribus_, be preserved at the next drought, and would\nagain transmit to their offspring their still loftier stature; and so on,\nfrom period to period, through aeons of time, all the individuals tending to\nrevert to the ancient shorter type of body, being ruthlessly destroyed at\nthe occurrence of each drought.\n\n(1.) But against this it may be said, in the first place, that the argument\nproves too much; for, on this supposition, many species must have tended to\nundergo a similar modification, and we ought to have at least several\nforms, similar to the giraffe, developed from different Ungulata.[20] A\ncareful observer of animal life, who has long resided in South Africa,\nexplored the interior, and lived in the giraffe country, has assured the\nAuthor that the giraffe has powers of locomotion and endurance fully equal\nto those possessed by any of the other Ungulata of that continent. It would\nseem, therefore, that some of these other Ungulates ought to have developed\nin a similar manner as to the neck, under pain of being starved, when the\nlong neck of the giraffe was in its incipient stage.\n\nTo this criticism it has been objected that different kinds of animals are\npreserved, in the struggle for life, in very different ways, and even  {26}\nthat \"high reaching\" may be attained in more modes than one--as, for\nexample, by the trunk of the elephant. This is, indeed, true, but then none\nof the African Ungulata[21] have, nor do they appear ever to have had, any\nproboscis whatsoever; nor have they acquired such a development as to allow\nthem to rise on their hind limbs and graze on trees in a kangaroo-attitude,\nnor a power of climbing, nor, as far as known, any other modification\ntending to compensate for the comparative shortness of the neck. Again, it\nmay perhaps be said that leaf-eating forms are exceptional, and that\ntherefore the struggle to attain high branches would not affect many\nUngulates. But surely, when these severe droughts necessary for the theory\noccur, the ground vegetation is supposed to be exhausted; and, indeed, the\ngiraffe is quite capable of feeding from off the ground. So that, in these\ncases, the other Ungulata _must_ have taken to leaf eating or have starved,\nand thus must have had any accidental long-necked varieties favoured and\npreserved exactly as the long-necked varieties of the giraffe are supposed\nto have been favoured and preserved.\n\nThe argument as to the different modes of preservation has been very well\nput by Mr. Wallace,[22] in reply to the objection that \"colour, being\ndangerous, should not exist in nature.\" This objection appears similar to\nmine; as I say that a giraffe neck, being needful, there should be many\nanimals with it, while the objector noticed by Mr. Wallace says, \"a dull\ncolour being needful, all animals should be so coloured.\" And Mr. Wallace\nshows in reply how porcupines, tortoises and mussels, very hard-coated\nbombadier beetles, stinging insects and nauseous-tasted caterpillars, can\nafford to be brilliant by the various means of active defence or passive\nprotection they possess, other than obscure colouration. He says \"the  {27}\nattitudes of some insects may also protect them, as the habit of turning up\nthe tail by the harmless rove-beetles (Staphylinidae) no doubt leads other\nanimals, besides children, to the belief that they can sting. The curious\nattitude assumed by sphinx caterpillars is probably a safeguard, as well as\nthe blood-red tentacles which can suddenly be thrown out from the neck by\nthe caterpillars of all the true swallow-tailed butterflies.\"\n\nBut, because many different kinds of animals can elude the observation or\ndefy the attack of enemies in a great variety of ways, it by no means\nfollows that there are any similar number and variety of ways for attaining\nvegetable food in a country where all such food, other than the lofty\nbranches of trees, has been for a time destroyed. In such a country we have\na number of vegetable-feeding Ungulates, all of which present minute\nvariations as to the length of the neck. If, as Mr. Darwin contends, the\nnatural selection of these favourable variations has alone lengthened the\nneck of the giraffe by preserving it during droughts; similar variations,\nin similarly-feeding forms, at the same times, ought similarly to have been\npreserved and so lengthened the neck of some other Ungulates by similarly\npreserving them during the same droughts.\n\n(2.) It may be also objected, that the power of reaching upwards, acquired\nby the lengthening of the neck and legs, must have necessitated a\nconsiderable increase in the entire size and mass of the body (larger bones\nrequiring stronger and more voluminous muscles and tendons, and these again\nnecessitating larger nerves, more capacious blood-vessels, &c.), and it is\nvery problematical whether the disadvantages thence arising would not, in\ntimes of scarcity, more than counterbalance the advantages.\n\nFor a considerable increase in the supply of food would be requisite on\naccount of this increase in size and mass, while at the same time there\nwould be a certain decrease in strength; for, as Mr. Herbert Spencer   {28}\nsays,[23] \"It is demonstrable that the excess of absorbed over expended\nnutriment must, other things equal, become less as the size of an animal\nbecomes greater. In similarly-shaped bodies, the masses vary as the cubes\nof the dimensions; whereas the strengths vary as the squares of the\ndimensions.\".... \"Supposing a creature which a year ago was one foot high,\nhas now become two feet high, while it is unchanged in proportions and\nstructure--what are the necessary concomitant changes that have taken place\nin it? It is eight times as heavy; that is to say, it has to resist eight\ntimes the strain which gravitation puts on its structure; and in producing,\nas well as in arresting, every one of its movements, it has to overcome\neight times the inertia. Meanwhile, the muscles and bones have severally\nincreased their contractile and resisting powers, in proportion to the\nareas of their transverse sections; and hence are severally but four times\nas strong as they were. Thus, while the creature has doubled in height, and\nwhile its ability to overcome forces has quadrupled, the forces it has to\novercome have grown eight times as great. Hence, to raise its body through\na given space, its muscles have to be contracted with twice the intensity,\nat a double cost of matter expended.\" Again, as to the cost at which\nnutriment is distributed through the body, and effete matters removed from\nit, \"Each increment of growth being added at the periphery of an organism,\nthe force expended in the transfer of matter must increase in a rapid\nprogression--a progression more rapid than that of the mass.\"\n\nThere is yet another point. Vast as may have been the time during which the\nprocess of evolution has continued, it is nevertheless not infinite. Yet,\nas every kind, on the Darwinian hypothesis, varies slightly but\nindefinitely in every organ and every part of every organ, how very\ngenerally must favourable variations as to the length of the neck have {29}\nbeen accompanied by some unfavourable variation in some other part,\nneutralizing the action of the favourable one, the latter, moreover, only\ntaking effect during these periods of drought! How often must not\nindividuals, favoured by a slightly increased length of neck, have failed\nto enjoy the elevated foliage which they had not strength or endurance to\nattain; while other individuals, exceptionally robust, could struggle on\nyet further till they arrived at vegetation within their reach.\n\nHowever, allowing this example to pass, many other instances will be found\nto present great difficulties.\n\nLet us take the cases of mimicry amongst lepidoptera and other insects. Of\nthis subject Mr. Wallace has given a most interesting and complete\naccount,[24] showing in how many and strange instances this superficial\nresemblance by one creature to some other quite distinct creature acts as a\nsafeguard to the first. One or two instances must here suffice. In South\nAmerica there is a family of butterflies, termed _Heliconidae_, which are\nvery conspicuously coloured and slow in flight, and yet the individuals\nabound in prodigious numbers, and take no precautions to conceal\nthemselves, even when at rest, during the night. Mr. Bates (the author of\nthe very interesting work \"The Naturalist on the River Amazons,\" and the\ndiscoverer of \"Mimicry\") found that these conspicuous butterflies had a\nvery strong and disagreeable odour; so much so that any one handling them\nand squeezing them, as a collector must do, has his fingers stained and so\ninfected by the smell, as to require time and much trouble to remove it.\n\nIt is suggested that this unpleasant quality is the cause of the abundance\nof the Heliconidae; Mr. Bates and other observers reporting that they have\nnever seen them attacked by the birds, reptiles, or insects which prey upon\nother lepidoptera.\n\nNow it is a curious fact that very different South American butterflies{30}\nput on, as it were, the exact dress of these offensive beauties and mimic\nthem even in their mode of flight.\n\nIn explaining the mode of action of this protecting resemblance Mr. Wallace\nobserves:[25] \"Tropical insectivorous birds very frequently sit on dead\nbranches of a lofty tree, or on those which overhang forest paths, gazing\nintently around, and darting off at intervals to seize an insect at a\nconsiderable distance, with which they generally return to their station to\ndevour. If a bird began by capturing the slow-flying conspicuous\nHeliconidae, and found them always so disagreeable that it could not eat\nthem, it would after a very few trials leave off catching them at all; and\ntheir whole appearance, form, colouring, and mode of flight is so peculiar,\nthat there can be little doubt birds would soon learn to distinguish them\nat a long distance, and never waste any time in pursuit of them. Under\nthese circumstances, it is evident that any other butterfly of a group\nwhich birds were accustomed to devour, would be almost equally well\nprotected by closely resembling a Heliconia externally, as if it acquired\nalso the disagreeable odour; always supposing that there were only a few of\nthem among a great number of Heliconias.\"\n\n\"The approach in colour and form to the Heliconidae, however, would be at\nthe first a positive, though perhaps a slight, advantage; for although at\nshort distances this variety would be easily distinguished and devoured,\nyet at a longer distance it might be mistaken for one of the uneatable\ngroup, and so be passed by and gain another day's life, which might in many\ncases be sufficient for it to lay a quantity of eggs and leave a numerous\nprogeny, many of which would inherit the peculiarity which had been the\nsafeguard of their parent.\"\n\n[Illustration: LEAF BUTTERFLY IN FLIGHT AND REPOSE.\n(_From Mr. Wallace's_ \"_Malay Archipelago._\")]\n\nAs a complete example of mimicry Mr. Wallace refers to a common Indian\nbutterfly. He says:[26] \"But the most wonderful and undoubted case of\nprotective resemblance in a butterfly, which I have ever seen, is that {31}\nof the common Indian _Kallima inachis_, and its Malayan ally, _Kallima\nparalekta_. The upper surface of these is very striking and showy, as they\nare of a large size, and are adorned with a broad band of rich orange  {32}\non a deep bluish ground. The under side is very variable in colour, so that\nout of fifty specimens no two can be found exactly alike, but every one of\nthem will be of some shade of ash, or brown, or ochre, such as are found\namong dead, dry, or decaying leaves. The apex of the upper wings is\nproduced into an acute point, a very common form in the leaves of tropical\nshrubs and trees, and the lower wings are also produced into a short narrow\ntail. Between these two points runs a dark curved line exactly representing\nthe midrib of a leaf, and from this radiate on each side a few oblique\nlines, which serve to indicate the lateral veins of a leaf. These marks are\nmore clearly seen on the outer portion of the base of the wings, and on the\ninner side towards the middle and apex, and it is very curious to observe\nhow the usual marginal and transverse striae of the group are here modified\nand strengthened so as to become adapted for an imitation of the venation\nof a leaf.\" ... \"But this resemblance, close as it is, would be of little\nuse if the habits of the insect did not accord with it. If the butterfly\nsat upon leaves or upon flowers, or opened its wings so as to expose the\nupper surface, or exposed and moved its head and antennae as many other\nbutterflies do, its disguise would be of little avail. We might be sure,\nhowever, from the analogy of many other cases, that the habits of the\ninsect are such as still further to aid its deceptive garb; but we are not\nobliged to make any such supposition, since I myself had the good fortune\nto observe scores of _Kallima paralekta_, in Sumatra, and to capture many\nof them, and can vouch for the accuracy of the following details. These\nbutterflies frequent dry forests, and fly very swiftly. They were seen to\nsettle on a flower or a green leaf, but were many times lost sight of in a\nbush or tree of dead leaves. On such occasions they were generally searched\nfor in vain, for while gazing intently at the very spot where one had\ndisappeared, it would often suddenly dart out, and again vanish twenty or\nfifty yards further on. On one or two occasions the insect was detected{33}\nreposing, and it could then be seen how completely it assimilates itself to\nthe surrounding leaves. It sits on a nearly upright twig, the wings fitting\nclosely back to back, concealing the antennae and head, which are drawn up\nbetween their bases. The little tails of the hind wing touch the branch,\nand form a perfect stalk to the leaf, which is supported in its place by\nthe claws of the middle pair of feet, which are slender and inconspicuous.\nThe irregular outline of the wings gives exactly the perspective effect of\na shrivelled leaf. We thus have size, colour, form, markings, and habits,\nall combining together to produce a disguise which may be said to be\nabsolutely perfect; and the protection which it affords is sufficiently\nindicated by the abundance of the individuals that possess it.\"\n\nBeetles also imitate bees and wasps, as do some Lepidoptera; and objects\nthe most bizarre and unexpected are simulated, such as dung and drops of\ndew. Some insects, called bamboo and walking-stick insects, have a most\nremarkable resemblance to pieces of bamboo, to twigs and branches. Of these\nlatter insects Mr. Wallace says:[27] \"Some of these are a foot long and as\nthick as one's finger, and their whole colouring, form, rugosity, and the\narrangement of the head, legs, and antennae, are such as to render them\nabsolutely identical in appearance with dry sticks. They hang loosely about\nshrubs in the forest, and have the extraordinary habit of stretching out\ntheir legs unsymmetrically, so as to render the deception more complete.\"\nNow let us suppose that the ancestors of these various animals were all\ndestitute of the very special protections they at present possess, as on\nthe Darwinian hypothesis we must do. Let it also be conceded that small\ndeviations from the antecedent colouring or form would tend to make some of\ntheir ancestors escape destruction by causing them more or less frequently\nto be passed over, or mistaken by their persecutors. Yet the deviation {34}\nmust, as the event has shown, in each case be in some definite direction,\nwhether it be towards some other animal or plant, or towards some dead or\ninorganic matter. But as, according to Mr. Darwin's theory, there is a\nconstant tendency to indefinite variation, and as the minute incipient\nvariations will be in _all directions_, they must tend to neutralize each\nother, and at first to form such unstable modifications that it is\ndifficult, if not impossible, to see how such indefinite oscillations of\ninfinitesimal beginnings can ever build up a sufficiently appreciable\nresemblance to a leaf, bamboo, or other object, for \"Natural Selection\" to\nseize upon and perpetuate. This difficulty is augmented when we consider--a\npoint to be dwelt upon hereafter--how necessary it is that many individuals\nshould be similarly modified simultaneously. This has been insisted on in\nan able article in the _North British Review_ for June 1867, p. 286, and\nthe consideration of the article has occasioned Mr. Darwin to make an\nimportant modification in his views.[28]\n\nIn these cases of mimicry it seems difficult indeed to imagine a reason why\nvariations tending in an _infinitesimal degree_ in any special direction\nshould be preserved. All variations would be preserved which tended to\nobscure the perception of an animal by its enemies, whatever direction\nthose variations might take, and the common preservation of conflicting\ntendencies would greatly favour their mutual neutralization and\nobliteration if we may rely on the many cases recently brought forward by\nMr. Darwin with regard to domestic animals.\n\n[Illustration: THE WALKING-LEAF INSECT.]\n\nMr. Darwin explains the imitation of some species by others more or less\nnearly allied to it, by the common origin of both the mimic and the\nmimicked species, and the consequent possession by both (according to the\ntheory of \"Pangenesis\") of gemmules tending to reproduce ancestral\ncharacters, which characters the mimic must be assumed first to have   {35}\nlost and then to have recovered. Mr. Darwin says,[29] \"Varieties of one\nspecies frequently mimic distinct species, a fact in perfect harmony with\nthe foregoing cases, and explicable _only on the theory of descent_.\" But\nthis at the best is but a partial and very incomplete explanation. It is\none, moreover, which Mr. Wallace does not accept.[30] It is very\nincomplete, because it has no bearing on some of the most striking cases,\nand of course Mr. Darwin does not pretend that it has. We should have to go\nback far indeed to reach the common ancestor of the mimicking          {36}\nwalking-leaf insect and the real leaf it mimics, or the original progenitor\nof both the bamboo insect and the bamboo itself. As these last most\nremarkable cases have certainly nothing to do with heredity,[31] it is\nunwarrantable to make use of that explanation for other protective\nresemblances, seeing that its inapplicability, in certain instances, is so\nmanifest.\n\nAgain, at the other end of the process it is as difficult to account for\nthe last touches of perfection in the mimicry. Some insects which imitate\nleaves extend the imitation even to the very injuries on those leaves made\nby the attacks of insects or of fungi. Thus, speaking of one of the\nwalking-stick insects, Mr. Wallace says:[32] \"One of these creatures\nobtained by myself in Borneo (_Ceroxylus laceratus_) was covered over with\nfoliaceous excrescences of a clear olive-green colour, so as exactly to\nresemble a stick grown over by a creeping moss or jungermannia. The Dyak\nwho brought it me assured me it was grown over with moss although alive,\nand it was only after a most minute examination that I could convince\nmyself it was not so.\" Again, as to the leaf butterfly, he says:[33] \"We\ncome to a still more extraordinary part of the imitation, for we find\nrepresentations of leaves in every stage of decay, variously blotched, and\nmildewed, and pierced with holes, and in many cases irregularly covered\nwith powdery black dots, gathered into patches and spots, so closely\nresembling the various kinds of minute fungi that grow on dead leaves, that\nit is impossible to avoid thinking at first sight that the butterflies\nthemselves have been attacked by real fungi.\"\n\nHere imitation has attained a development which seems utterly beyond the\npower of the mere \"survival of the fittest\" to produce. How this double\nmimicry can importantly aid in the struggle for life seems puzzling indeed,\nbut much more so how the first faint beginnings of the imitation of    {37}\nsuch injuries in the leaf can be developed in the animal into such a\ncomplete representation of them--_a fortiori_ how simultaneous and similar\nfirst beginnings of imitations of such injuries could ever have been\ndeveloped in several individuals, out of utterly indifferent and\nindeterminate infinitesimal variations in all conceivable directions.\n\n[Illustration: PLEURONECTIDAE, WITH THE PECULIARLY PLACED EYE IN DIFFERENT\nPOSITIONS.\n(_From Dr. Traquair's paper in the \"Transactions of the Linnean Society,\n1865.\"_)]\n\nAnother instance which may be cited is the asymmetrical condition of the\nheads of the flat-fishes (Pleuronectidae), such as the sole, the flounder,\nthe brill, the turbot, &c. In all these fishes the two eyes, which in the\nyoung are situated as usual one on each side, come to be placed, in the\nadult, both on the same side of the head. If this condition had appeared at\nonce, if in the hypothetically fortunate common ancestor of these fishes an\neye had suddenly become thus transferred, then the perpetuation of such a\ntransformation by the action of \"Natural Selection\" is conceivable enough.\nSuch sudden changes, however, are not those favoured by the Darwinian\ntheory, and indeed the accidental occurrence of such a spontaneous\ntransformation is hardly conceivable. But if this is not so, if the transit\nwas gradual, then how such transit of one eye a minute fraction of the {38}\njourney towards the other side of the head could benefit the individual is\nindeed far from clear. It seems, even, that such an incipient\ntransformation must rather have been injurious. Another point with regard\nto these flat-fishes is that they appear to be in all probability of recent\norigin--_i.e._ geologically speaking. There is, of course, no great stress\nto be laid on the mere absence of their remains from the secondary strata,\nnevertheless that absence is noteworthy, seeing that existing fish\nfamilies, _e.g._ sharks (Squalidae), have been found abundantly even down so\nfar as the carboniferous rocks, and traces of them in the Upper Silurian.\n\nAnother difficulty seems to be the first formation of the limbs of the\nhigher animals. The lowest Vertebrata[34] are perfectly limbless, and if,\nas most Darwinians would probably assume, the primeval vertebrate creature\nwas also apodal, how are the preservation and development of the first\nrudiments of limbs to be accounted for--such rudiments being, on the\nhypothesis in question, infinitesimal and functionless?\n\nIn reply to this it has been suggested that a mere flattening of the end of\nthe body has been useful, such, _e.g._, as we see in sea-snakes,[35] which\nmay be the rudiment of a tail formed strictly to aid in swimming. Also that\na mere _roughness_ of the skin might be useful to a swimming animal by\nholding the water better, that thus minute processes might be selected and\npreserved, and that, in the same way, these might be gradually increased\ninto limbs. But it is, to say the least, very questionable whether a\nroughness of the skin, or minute processes, would be useful to a       {39}\nswimming animal; the motion of which they would as much impede as aid,\nunless they were at once capable of a suitable and appropriate action,\nwhich is against the hypothesis. Again, the change from mere indefinite and\naccidental processes to two regular pairs of symmetrical limbs, as the\nresult of merely fortuitous, favouring variations, is a step the\nfeasibility of which hardly commends itself to the reason, seeing the very\ndifferent positions assumed by the ventral fins in different fishes. If the\nabove suggestion made in opposition to the views here asserted be true,\nthen the general constancy of position of the limbs of vertebrata may be\nconsidered as due to the position assumed by the primitive rugosities from\nwhich those limbs were generated. Clearly only two pairs of rugosities were\nso preserved and developed, and all limbs (on this view) are descendants of\nthe same two pairs, as all have so similar a fundamental structure. Yet we\nfind in many fishes the pair of fins, which correspond to the hinder limbs\nof other animals, placed so far forwards as to be either on the same level\nwith, or actually in front of, the normally anterior pair of limbs; and\nsuch fishes are from this circumstance called \"thoracic,\" or \"jugular\"\nfishes respectively, as the weaver fishes and the cod. This is a wonderful\ncontrast to the fixity of position of vertebrate limbs generally. If then\nsuch a change can have taken place in the comparatively short time occupied\nby the evolution of these special fish forms, we might certainly expect\nother and far more bizarre structures would (did not some law forbid) have\nbeen developed, from other rugosities, in the manifold exigencies of the\nmultitudinous organisms which must (on the Darwinian hypothesis) have been\ngradually evolved during the enormous period intervening between the first\nappearance of vertebrate life and the present day. Yet, with these\nexceptions, the position of the limbs is constant from the lower fishes up\nto man, there being always an anterior pectoral pair placed in front of a\nposterior or pelvic pair when both are present, and in no single       {40}\ninstance are there more than these two pairs.\n\n[Illustration: MOUTH OF A WHALE.]\n\nThe development of whalebone (baleen) in the mouth of the whale is another\ndifficulty. A whale's mouth is furnished with very numerous horny plates,\nwhich hang down from the palate along each side of the mouth. They thus\nform two longitudinal series, each plate of which is placed transversely to\nthe long axis of the body, and all are very close together. On depressing\nthe lower lip the free outer edges of these plates come into view. Their\ninner edges are furnished with numerous coarse hair-like processes,\nconsisting of some of the constituent fibres of the horny plates--which, as\nit were, fray out--and the mouth is thus lined, except below, by a network\nof countless fibres formed by the inner edges of the two series of plates.\nThis network acts as a sort of sieve. When the whale feeds it takes    {41}\ninto its mouth a great gulp of water, which it drives out again through the\nintervals of the horny plates of baleen, the fluid thus traversing the\nsieve of horny fibres, which retains the minute creatures on which these\nmarine monsters subsist. Now it is obvious, that if this baleen had once\nattained such a size and development as to be at all useful, then its\npreservation and augmentation within serviceable limits, would be promoted\nby \"Natural Selection\" alone. But how to obtain the beginning of such\nuseful development? There are indeed certain animals of exclusively aquatic\nhabits (the dugong and manatee) which also possess more or less horn on the\npalate, and at first sight this might be taken as a mitigation of the\ndifficulty; but it is not so, and the fact does not help us one step\nfurther along the road: for, in the first place, these latter animals\ndiffer so importantly in structure from whales and porpoises that they form\nan altogether distinct order, and cannot be thought to approximate to the\nwhale's progenitors. They are vegetarians, the whales feed on animals; the\nformer never have the ribs articulated in the mode in which they are in\nsome of the latter; the former have pectoral mammae, and the latter are {42}\nprovided with two inguinal mammary glands, and have the nostrils enlarged\ninto blowers, which the former have not. The former thus constitute the\norder Sirenia, while the latter belong to the Cetacea. In the second place,\nthe horny matter on the palates of the dugong and manatee has not, even\ninitially, that \"strainer\" action, which is the characteristic function of\nthe Cetacean \"baleen.\"\n\n[Illustration: FOUR PLATES OF BALEEN SEEN OBLIQUELY FROM WITHIN.]\n\n[Illustration: DUGONG.]\n\nThere is another very curious structure, the origin or the disappearance of\nwhich it seems impossible to account for on the hypothesis of minute\nindefinite variations. It is that of the mouth of the young kangaroo. In\nall mammals, as in ourselves, the air-passage from the lungs opens in the\nfloor of the mouth behind the tongue, and in front of the opening of the\ngullet, so that each particle of food as it is swallowed passes over the\nopening, but is prevented from falling into it (and thus causing death from\nchoking) by the action of a small cartilaginous shield (the epiglottis),\nwhich at the right moment bends back and protects the orifice. Now the\nkangaroo is born in such an exceedingly imperfect and undeveloped\ncondition, that it is quite unable to suck. The mother therefore places the\nminute blind and naked young upon the nipple, and then injects milk into it\nby means of a special muscular envelope of the mammary gland. Did no\nspecial provision exist, the young one must infallibly be choked by the\nintrusion of the milk into the windpipe. But there _is_ a special\nprovision. The larynx is so elongated that it rises up into the posterior\nend of the nasal passage, and is thus enabled to give free entrance to the\nair for the lungs, while the milk passes harmlessly on each side of this\nelongated larynx, and so safely attains the gullet behind it.\n\nNow, on the Darwinian hypothesis, either all mammals descended from\nmarsupial progenitors, or else the marsupials, sprung from animals having\nin most respects the ordinary mammalian structure. [Page 43]\n\nOn the first alternative, how did \"Natural Selection\" remove this (at least\nperfectly innocent and harmless) structure in almost all other mammals,\nand, having done so, again reproduce it in precisely those forms which\nalone require it, namely, the Cetacea? That such a harmless structure _need\nnot_ be removed any Darwinian must confess, since a structure exists in\nboth the crocodiles and gavials, which enables the former to breathe\nthemselves while drowning the prey which they hold in their mouths. On Mr.\nDarwin's hypothesis it could only have been developed where useful,\ntherefore not in the gavials(!) which feed on fish, but which yet retain,\nas we might expect, this, in them superfluous but harmless formation.\n\nOn the second alternative, how did the elongated larynx itself arise,\nseeing that if its development lagged behind that of the maternal\nstructure, the young primeval kangaroo must be choked: while without the\ninjecting power in the mother, it must be starved? The struggle by the sole\naction of which such a form was developed must indeed have been severe!\n\n[Illustration: AN ECHINUS, OR SEA-URCHIN\n(The spines removed from one-half.)]\n\nThe sea-urchins (Echinus) present us also with structures the origin of\nwhich it seems impossible to explain by the action of \"Natural         {44}\nSelection\" only. These lowly animals belong to that group of the star-fish\nclass (Echinodermata), the species of which possess generally spheroidal\nbodies, built up of multitudinous calcareous plates, and constitute the\norder Echinoidea. They are also popularly known as sea-eggs. Utterly devoid\nof limbs, the locomotion of these creatures is effected by means of rows of\nsmall tubular suckers (which protrude through pores in the calcareous\nplates) and by moveable spines scattered over the body.\n\n[Illustration: PEDICELLARIAE. (Immensely enlarged.)]\n\nBesides these spines and suckers there are certain very peculiar\nstructures, termed \"Pedicellariae.\" Each of these consists of a long slender\nstalk, ending in three short limbs--or rather jaws--the whole supported by\na delicate internal skeleton. The three limbs (or jaws), which start from a\ncommon point at the end of the stalk, are in the constant habit of opening\nand closing together again with a snapping action, while the stalk itself\nsways about. The utility of these appendages is, even now, problematical.\nIt may be that they remove from the surface of the animal's body foreign\nsubstances which would be prejudicial to it, and which it cannot otherwise\nget rid of. But granting this, what would be the utility of the _first\nrudimentary beginnings_ of such structures, and how could such incipient\nbuddings have ever preserved the life of a single Echinus? It is true that\non Darwinian principles the ancestral form from which the sea-urchin\ndeveloped was different, and must not be conceived merely as an Echinus\ndevoid of pedicellariae; but this makes the difficulty none the less. It is\nequally hard to imagine that the first rudiments of such structures could\nhave been useful to _any_ animal from which the Echinus might have been{45}\nderived. Moreover, not even the _sudden_ development of the snapping action\ncould have been beneficial without the freely moveable stalk, nor could the\nlatter have been efficient without the snapping jaws, yet no minute merely\nindefinite variations could simultaneously evolve these complex\nco-ordinations of structure; to deny this seems to do no less than to\naffirm a startling paradox.\n\nMr. Darwin explains the appearance of some structures, the utility of which\nis not apparent, by the existence of certain \"laws of correlation.\" By\nthese he means that certain parts or organs of the body are so related to\nother organs or parts, that when the first are modified by the action of\n\"Natural Selection,\" or what not, the second are simultaneously affected,\nand increase proportionally or possibly so decrease. Examples of such are\nthe hair and teeth in the naked Turkish dog, the general deafness of white\ncats with blue eyes, the relation between the presence of more or less down\non young birds when first hatched, and the future colour of their\nplumage,[36] with many others. But the idea that the modification of any\ninternal or external part of the body of an Echinus carries with it the\neffect of producing elongated, flexible, triradiate, snapping processes,\nis, to say the very least, fully as obscure and mysterious as what is here\ncontended for, viz. the efficient presence of an unknown internal natural\nlaw or laws conditioning the evolution of new specific forms from preceding\nones, modified by the action of surrounding conditions, by \"Natural\nSelection\" and by other controlling influences.\n\nThe same difficulty seems to present itself in other examples of\nexceptional structure and action. In the same Echinus, as in many allied\nforms, and also in some more or less remote ones, a very peculiar mode of\ndevelopment exists. The adult is not formed from the egg directly, but {46}\nthe egg gives rise to a creature which swims freely about, feeds, and is\neven somewhat complexly organized. Soon a small lump appears on one side of\nits stomach; this enlarges, and, having established a communication with\nthe exterior, envelopes and appropriates the creature's stomach, with which\nit swims away and develops into the complete adult form, while the\ndispossessed individual perishes.\n\nAgain, certain flies present a mode of development equally bizarre, though\nquite different. In these flies, the grub is, as usual, produced from the\novum, but this grub, instead of growing up into the adult in the ordinary\nway, undergoes a sort of liquefaction of a great part of its body, while\ncertain patches of formative tissue, which are attached to the ramifying\nair tubes, or tracheae (and which patches bear the name of \"imaginal\ndisks\"), give rise to the legs, wings, eyes, &c., respectively; and these\nseverally formed parts grow together, and build up the head and body by\ntheir mutual approximation. Such a process is unknown outside the class of\ninsects, and inside that class it is only known in a few of the two-winged\nflies. Now, how \"Natural Selection,\" or any \"laws of correlation,\" can\naccount for the gradual development of such an exceptional process of\ndevelopment--so extremely divergent from that of other insects--seems\nnothing less than inconceivable. Mr. Darwin himself[37] gives an account of\na very peculiar and abnormal mode of development of a certain beetle, the\nsitaris, as described by M. Fabre. This insect, instead of at first\nappearing in its grub stage, and then, after a time, putting on the adult\nform, is at first active and furnished with six legs, two long antennae, and\nfour eyes. Hatched in the nests of bees, it at first attaches itself to one\nof the males, and then crawls, when the opportunity offers, upon a female\nbee. When the female bee lays her eggs, the young sitaris springs upon them\nand devours them. Then, losing its eyes, legs, and antennae, and        {47}\nbecoming rudimentary, it sinks into an ordinary grub-like form, and feeds\non honey, ultimately undergoing another transformation, re-acquiring its\nlegs, &c., and emerging a perfect beetle! That such a process should have\narisen by the accumulation of minute accidental variations in structure and\nhabit, appears to many minds, quite competent to form an opinion on the\nsubject, absolutely incredible.\n\nIt may be objected, perhaps, that these difficulties are _difficulties of\nignorance_--that we cannot explain them because we do not know _enough_ of\nthe animals. But it is here contended that this is not the case; it is not\nthat we merely fail to see how Natural Selection acted, but that there is a\npositive incompatibility between the cause assigned and the results. It\nwill be stated shortly what wonderful instances of co-ordination and of\nunexpected utility Mr. Darwin has discovered in orchids. The discoveries\nare not disputed or undervalued, but the explanation of their _origin_ is\ndeemed thoroughly unsatisfactory--utterly insufficient to explain the\nincipient, infinitesimal beginnings of structures which are of utility only\nwhen they are considerably developed.\n\nLet us consider the mammary gland, or breast. Is it conceivable that the\nyoung of any animal was ever saved from destruction by accidentally sucking\na drop of scarcely nutritious fluid from an accidentally hypertrophied\ncutaneous gland of its mother? And even if one was so, what chance was\nthere of the perpetuation of such a variation? On the hypothesis of Natural\nSelection itself, we must assume that up to that time the race had been\nwell adapted to the surrounding conditions; the temporary and accidental\ntrial and change of conditions, which caused the so-sucking young one to be\nthe \"fittest to survive\" under the supposed circumstances, would soon cease\nto act, and then the progeny of the mother, with the accidentally\nhypertrophied, sebaceous glands, would have no tendency to survive the {48}\nfar outnumbering descendants of the normal ancestral form. If, on the other\nhand, we assume the change of conditions not to have been temporary but\npermanent, and also assume that this permanent change of conditions was\naccidentally synchronous with the change of structure, we have a\ncoincidence of very remote probability indeed. But if, again, we accept the\npresence of some harmonizing law simultaneously determining the two\nchanges, or connecting the second with the first by causation, then, of\ncourse, we remove the accidental character of the coincidence.\n\nAgain, how explain the external position of the male sexual glands in\ncertain mammals? The utility of the modification, when accomplished, is\nproblematical enough, and no less so the incipient stages of the descent.\n\nAs was said in the first chapter, Mr. Darwin explains the brilliant plumage\nof the peacock or the humming-bird by the action of sexual selection: the\nmore and more brilliant males being selected by the females (which are thus\nattracted) to become the fathers of the next generation, to which\ngeneration they tend to communicate their own bright nuptial vesture. But\nthere are peculiarities of colour and of form which it is exceedingly\ndifficult to account for by any such action. Thus, amongst apes, the female\nis notoriously weaker, and is armed with much less powerful canine tusks\nthan the male. When we consider what is known of the emotional nature of\nthese animals, and the periodicity of its intensification, it is hardly\ncredible that a female would often risk life or limb through her admiration\nof a trifling shade of colour, or an infinitesimally greater though\nirresistibly fascinating degree of wartiness.[38]\n\n                                                                       {49}\n[Illustration: RATTLESNAKE.]\n\nYet the males of some kinds of ape are adorned with quite exceptionally\nbrilliant local decoration, and the male orang is provided with remarkable,\nprojecting, warty lumps of skin upon the cheeks. As we have said, the\nweaker female can hardly be supposed to have developed these by persevering\nand long-continued selection, nor can they be thought to tend to the\npreservation of the individual. On the contrary, the presence of this\nenlarged appendage must occasion a slight increase in the need of\nnutriment, and in so far must be a detriment, although its detrimental\neffect would not be worth speaking of except in relation to \"Darwinism,\"\naccording to which, \"selection\" has acted through unimaginable ages,   {50}\nand has ever tended to suppress any useless development by the struggle for\nlife.[39]\n\n[Illustration: COBRA.\n(_Copied, by permission, from Sir Andrew Smith's \"Reptiles of South\nAfrica.\"_)]\n\nIn poisonous serpents, also, we have structures which, at all events at\nfirst sight, seem positively hurtful to those reptiles. Such are the rattle\nof the rattlesnake, and the expanding neck of the cobra, the former seeming\nto warn the ear of the intended victim, as the latter warns the eye. It is\ntrue we cannot perhaps demonstrate that the victims are alarmed and warned,\nbut, on Darwinian principles, they certainly ought to be so. For the   {51}\nrashest and most incautious of the animals preyed on would always tend to\nfall victims, and the existing individuals being the long-descended progeny\nof the timid and cautious, ought to have an inherited tendency to distrust,\namongst other things, both \"rattling\" and \"expanding\" snakes. As to any\npower of fascination exercised by means of these actions, the most\ndistinguished naturalists, certainly the most distinguished erpetologists,\nentirely deny it, and it is opposed to the careful observations of those\nknown to us.[40]\n\nThe mode of formation of both the eye and the ear of the highest animals is\nsuch that, if it is (as most Darwinians assert processes of development to\nbe) a record of the actual steps by which such structures were first\nevolved in antecedent forms, it almost amounts to a demonstration that\nthose steps were never produced by \"Natural Selection.\"\n\nThe eye is formed by a simultaneous and corresponding ingrowth of one part\nand outgrowth of another. The skin in front of the future eye becomes\ndepressed, the depression increases and assumes the form of a sac, which\nchanges into the aqueous humour and lens. An outgrowth of brain substance,\non the other hand, forms the retina, while a third process is a lateral\ningrowth of connective tissue, which afterwards changes into the vitreous\nhumour of the eye.\n\nThe internal ear is formed by an involution of the integument, and not by\nan outgrowth of the brain. But tissue, in connexion with it, becomes in\npart changed, thus forming the auditory nerve, which places the tegumentary\nsac in direct communication with the brain itself.\n\n                                                                       {52}\nNow, these complex and simultaneous co-ordinations could never have been\nproduced by infinitesimal beginnings, since, until so far developed as to\neffect the requisite junctions, they are useless. But the eye and ear when\nfully developed present conditions which are hopelessly difficult to\nreconcile with the mere action of \"Natural Selection.\" The difficulties\nwith regard to the eye have been well put by Mr. Murphy, especially that of\nthe concordant result of visual development springing from different\nstarting-points and continued on by independent roads.\n\nHe says,[41] speaking of the beautiful structure of the perfect eye, \"The\nhigher the organization, whether of an entire organism or of a single\norgan, the greater is the number of the parts that co-operate, and the more\nperfect is their co-operation; and consequently, the more necessity there\nis for corresponding variations to take place in all the co-operating parts\nat once, and the more useless will be any variation whatever unless it is\naccompanied by corresponding variations in the co-operating parts; while it\nis obvious that the greater the number of variations which are needed in\norder to effect an improvement, the less will be the probability of their\nall occurring at once. It is no reply to this to say, what is no doubt\nabstractedly true, that whatever is possible becomes probable, if only time\nenough be allowed. There are improbabilities so great that the common sense\nof mankind treats them as impossibilities. It is not, for instance, in the\nstrictest sense of the word, impossible that a poem and a mathematical\nproposition should be obtained by the process of shaking letters out of a\nbox; but it is improbable to a degree that cannot be distinguished from\nimpossibility; and the improbability of obtaining an improvement in an\norgan by means of several spontaneous variations, all occurring together,\nis an improbability of the same kind. If we suppose that any single\nvariation occurs on the average once in _m_ times, the probability of  {53}\nthat variation occurring in any individual will be\n\n  1/_m_;\n\nand suppose that _x_ variations must concur in order to make an\nimprovement, then the probability of the necessary variations all occurring\ntogether will be\n\n  1/_m_^x.\n\nNow suppose, what I think a moderate proposition, that the value of _m_ is\n1,000, and the value of _x_ is 10, then\n\n  1/_m_^x = 1/1000^{10} = 1/10^{30}.\n\nA number about ten thousand times as great as the number of waves of light\nthat have fallen on the earth since historical time began. And it is to be\nfurther observed, that no improvement will give its possessor a _certainty_\nof surviving and leaving offspring, but only an _extra chance_, the value\nof which it is quite impossible to estimate.\" This difficulty is, as Mr.\nMurphy points out, greatly intensified by the undoubted fact that the\nwonderfully complex structure has been arrived at quite independently in\nbeasts on the one hand and in cuttle-fishes on the other; while creatures\nof the insect and crab division present us with a third and quite\nseparately developed complexity.\n\nAs to the ear, it would take up too much space to describe its internal\nstructure;[42] it must suffice to say that in its interior there is an\nimmense series of minute rod-like bodies, termed _fibres of Corti_, having\nthe appearance of a key-board, and each fibre being connected with a\nfilament of the auditory nerve, these nerves being like strings to be\nstruck by the keys, _i.e._ by the fibres of Corti. Moreover, this apparatus\nis supposed to be a key-board in function as well as in appearance, the{54}\nvibration of each one fibre giving rise, it is believed, to the sensation\nof one particular tone, and combinations of such vibrations producing\nchords. It is by the action of this complex organ then, that all the\nwonderful intricacy and beauty of Beethoven and Mozart come, most probably,\nto be perceived and appreciated.\n\nNow it can hardly be contended that the preservation of any race of men in\nthe struggle for life ever depended on such an extreme delicacy and\nrefinement of the internal ear,--a perfection only exercised in the\nenjoyment and appreciation of the most perfect musical performances. How,\nthen, could either the minute incipient stages, or the final perfecting\ntouches of this admirable structure, have been brought about by vague,\naimless, and indefinite variations in all conceivable directions of an\norgan, suitable to enable the rudest savage to minister to his necessities,\nbut no more?\n\nMr. Wallace[43] makes an analogous remark with regard to the organ of voice\nin man--the human larynx. He says of singing: \"The habits of savages give\nno indication of how this faculty could have been developed by Natural\nSelection, because it is never required or used by them. The singing of\nsavages is a more or less monotonous howling, and the females seldom sing\nat all. Savages certainly never choose their wives for fine voices, but for\nrude health, and strength, and physical beauty. Sexual selection could not\ntherefore have developed this wonderful power, which only comes into play\namong civilized people.\"\n\nReverting once more to beauty of form and colour, there is one\nmanifestation of it for which no one can pretend that sexual selection can\npossibly account. The instance referred to is that presented by bivalve\nshell-fish.[44] Here we meet with charming tints and elegant forms and\nmarkings of no direct use to their possessors[45] in the struggle for  {55}\nlife, and of no indirect utility as regards sexual selection, for\nfertilization takes place by the mere action of currents of water, and the\nleast beautiful individual has fully as good a chance of becoming a parent\nas has the one which is the most favoured in beauty of form and colour.\n\nAgain, the peculiar outline and coloration of certain orchids--notably of\nour own bee, fly, and spider orchids--seem hardly explicable by any action\nof \"Natural Selection.\" Mr. Darwin says very little on this singular\nresemblance of flowers to insects, and what he does say seems hardly to be\nwhat an advocate of \"Natural Selection\" would require. Surely, for minute\naccidental indefinite variations to have built up such a striking\nresemblance to insects, we ought to find that the preservation of the\nplant, or the perpetuation of its race, depends almost constantly on\nrelations between bees, spiders, and flies respectively and the bee,\nspider, and fly orchids.[46] This process must have continued for ages\nconstantly and perseveringly, and yet what is the fact? Mr. Darwin tells\nus, in his work on the Fertilization of Orchids, that neither the spider\nnor the fly orchids are much visited by insects, while, with regard to the\nbee orchid, he says, \"I have never seen an insect visit these flowers.\" And\nhe shows how this species is even wonderfully and specially modified to\neffect self-fertilization.\n\nIn the work just referred to Mr. Darwin gives a series of the most\nwonderful and minute contrivances by which the visits of insects are\nutilized for the fertilization of orchids,--structures so wonderful    {56}\nthat nothing could well be more so, except the attribution of their origin\nto minute, fortuitous, and indefinite variation.\n\nThe instances are too numerous and too long to quote, but in his \"Origin of\nSpecies\"[47] he describes two which must not be passed over. In one\n(_Coryanthes_) the orchid has its lower lip enlarged into a bucket, above\nwhich stand two water-secreting horns. These latter replenish the bucket\nfrom which, when half-filled, the water overflows by a spout on one side.\nBees visiting the flower fall into the bucket and crawl out at the spout.\nBy the peculiar arrangement of the parts of the flower, the first bee which\ndoes so carries away the pollen-mass glued to his back, and then when he\nhas his next involuntary bath in another flower, as he crawls out the\npollen-mass attached to him comes in contact with the stigma of that second\nflower and fertilizes it. In the other example (_Catasetum_), when a bee\ngnaws a certain part of the flower, he inevitably touches a long delicate\nprojection, which Mr. Darwin calls the antenna. \"This antenna transmits a\nvibration to a certain membrane, which is instantly ruptured; this sets\nfree a spring by which the pollen-mass is shot forth like an arrow in the\nright direction, and adheres by its viscid extremity to the back of the\nbee!\"\n\nAnother difficulty, and one of some importance, is presented by those\ncommunities of ants which have not only a population of sterile females, or\nworkers, but two distinct and very different castes of such. Mr. Darwin\nbelieves that he has got over this difficulty by having found individuals\nintermediate in form and structure[48] between the two working castes;\nothers may think that we have in this belief of Mr. Darwin, an example {57}\nof the unconscious action of volition upon credence. A vast number of\ndifficulties similar to those which have been mentioned might easily be\ncited--those given, however, may suffice.\n\nThere remains, however, to be noticed a very important consideration, which\nwas brought forward in the _North British Review_ for June 1867, p. 286,\nnamely, the necessity for the simultaneous modification of _many\nindividuals_. This consideration seems to have escaped Mr. Darwin, for at\np. 104 of his last (fifth) edition of \"Natural Selection,\" he admits, with\ngreat candour, that until reading this article he did not \"appreciate how\nrarely single variations, whether slight or strongly marked, could be\nperpetuated.\"\n\nThe _North British Review_ (speaking of the supposition that a species is\nchanged by the survival of a few individuals in a century through a similar\nand favourable variation) says: \"It is very difficult to see how this can\nbe accomplished, even when the variation is eminently favourable indeed;\nand still more difficult when the advantage gained is very slight, as must\ngenerally be the case. The advantage, whatever it may be, is utterly\noutbalanced by numerical inferiority. A million creatures are born; ten\nthousand survive to produce offspring. One of the million has twice as good\na chance as any other of surviving; but the chances are fifty to one\nagainst the gifted individuals being one of the hundred survivors. No doubt\nthe chances are twice as great against any one other individual, but this\ndoes not prevent their being enormously in favour of _some_ average\nindividual. However slight the advantage may be, if it is shared by half\nthe individuals produced, it will probably be present in at least fifty-one\nof the survivors, and in a larger proportion of their offspring; but the\nchances are against the preservation of any one 'sport' (_i.e._ sudden,\nmarked variation) in a numerous tribe. The vague use of an imperfectly\nunderstood doctrine of chance has led Darwinian supporters, first, to\nconfuse the two cases above distinguished; and, secondly, to imagine   {58}\nthat a very slight balance in favour of some individual sport must lead to\nits perpetuation. All that can be said is that in the above example the\nfavoured sport would be preserved once in fifty times. Let us consider what\nwill be its influence on the main stock when preserved. It will breed and\nhave a progeny of say 100; now this progeny will, on the whole, be\nintermediate between the average individual and the sport. The odds in\nfavour of one of this generation of the new breed will be, say one and a\nhalf to one, as compared with the average individual; the odds in their\nfavour will, therefore, be less than that of their parents; but owing to\ntheir greater number, the chances are that about one and a half of them\nwould survive. Unless these breed together, a most improbable event, their\nprogeny would again approach the average individual; there would be 150 of\nthem, and their superiority would be, say in the ratio of one and a quarter\nto one; the probability would now be that nearly two of them would survive,\nand have 200 children, with an eighth superiority. Rather more than two of\nthese would survive; but the superiority would again dwindle, until after a\nfew generations it would no longer be observed, and would count for no more\nin the struggle for life than any of the hundred trifling advantages which\noccur in the ordinary organs. An illustration will bring this conception\nhome. Suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by\nnegroes, and to have established himself in friendly relations with a\npowerful tribe, whose customs he has learnt. Suppose him to possess the\nphysical strength, energy, and ability of a dominant white race, and let\nthe food and climate of the island suit his constitution; grant him every\nadvantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native; concede\nthat in the struggle for existence his chance of a long life will be much\nsuperior to that of the native chiefs; yet from all these admissions, there\ndoes not follow the conclusion that, after a limited or unlimited      {59}\nnumber of generations, the inhabitants of the island will be white. Our\nshipwrecked hero would probably become king; he would kill a great many\nblacks in the struggle for existence; he would have a great many wives and\nchildren.\" ... \"In the first generation there will be some dozens of\nintelligent young mulattoes, much superior in average intelligence to the\nnegroes. We might expect the throne for some generations to be occupied by\na more or less yellow king; but can any one believe that the whole island\nwill gradually acquire a white, or even a yellow, population?\"\n\n\"Darwin says that in the struggle for life a grain may turn the balance in\nfavour of a given structure, which will then be preserved. But one of the\nweights in the scale of nature is due to the number of a given tribe. Let\nthere be 7000 A's and 7000 B's, representing two varieties of a given\nanimal, and let all the B's, in virtue of a slight difference of structure,\nhave the better chance of life by 1/7000 part. We must allow that there is\na slight probability that the descendants of B will supplant the\ndescendants of A; but let there be only 7001 A's against 7000 B's at first,\nand the chances are once more equal, while if there be 7002 A's to start,\nthe odds would be laid on the A's. True, they stand a greater chance of\nbeing killed; but then they can better afford to be killed. The grain will\nonly turn the scales when these are very nicely balanced, and an advantage\nin numbers counts for weight, even as an advantage in structure. As the\nnumbers of the favoured variety diminish, so must its relative advantages\nincrease, if the chance of its existence is to surpass the chance of its\nextinction, until hardly any conceivable advantage would enable the\ndescendants of a single pair to exterminate the descendants of many\nthousands if they and their descendants are supposed to breed freely with\nthe inferior variety, and so gradually lose their ascendency.\"\n\nMr. Darwin himself says of the article quoted: \"The justice of these\nremarks cannot, I think, be disputed. If, for instance, a bird of some {60}\nkind could procure its food more easily by having its beak curved, and if\none were born with its beak strongly curved, and which consequently\nflourished, nevertheless there would be a very poor chance of this one\nindividual perpetuating its kind to the exclusion of the common form.\" This\nadmission seems almost to amount to a change of front in the face of the\nenemy!\n\nThese remarks have been quoted at length because they so greatly intensify\nthe difficulties brought forward in this chapter. If the most favourable\nvariations have to contend with such difficulties, what must be thought as\nto the chance of preservation of the slightly displaced eye in a sole or of\nthe incipient development of baleen in a whale?\n\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.\n\nIt has been here contended that a certain few facts, out of many which\nmight have been brought forward, are inconsistent with the origination of\nspecies by \"Natural Selection\" only or mainly.\n\nMr. Darwin's theory requires minute, indefinite, fortuitous variations of\nall parts in all directions, and he insists that the sole operation of\n\"Natural Selection\" upon such is sufficient to account for the great\nmajority of organic forms, with their most complicated structures,\nintricate mutual adaptations and delicate adjustments.\n\nTo this conception has been opposed the difficulties presented by such a\nstructure as the form of the giraffe, which ought not to have been the\nsolitary structure it is; also the minute beginnings and the last\nrefinements of protective mimicry equally difficult or rather impossible to\naccount for by \"Natural Selection.\" Again the difficulty as to the heads of\nflat-fishes has been insisted on, as also the origin, and at the same time\nthe constancy, of the limbs of the highest animals. Reference has also been\nmade to the whalebone of whales, and to the impossibility of           {61}\nunderstanding its origin through \"Natural Selection\" only; the same as\nregards the infant kangaroo, with its singular deficiency of power\ncompensated for by maternal structures on the one hand, to which its own\nbreathing organs bear direct relation on the other. Again, the delicate and\ncomplex pedicellariae of Echinoderms, with a certain process of development\n(through a secondary larva) found in that class, together with certain\nother exceptional modes of development, have been brought forward. The\ndevelopment of colour in certain apes, the hood of the cobra, and the\nrattle of the rattlesnake have also been cited. Again, difficulties as to\nthe process of formation of the eye and ear, and as to the fully developed\ncondition of those complex organs, as well as of the voice, have been\nconsidered. The beauty of certain shell-fish; the wonderful adaptations of\nstructure, and variety of form and resemblance, found in orchids; together\nwith the complex habits and social conditions of certain ants, have been\nhastily passed in review. When all these complications are duly weighed and\nconsidered, and when it is borne in mind how necessary it is for the\npermanence of a new variety that many individuals in each case should be\nsimultaneously modified, the cumulative argument seems irresistible.\n\nThe Author of this book can say that though by no means disposed originally\nto dissent from the theory of \"Natural Selection,\" if only its difficulties\ncould be solved, he has found each successive year that deeper\nconsideration and more careful examination have more and more brought home\nto him the inadequacy of Mr. Darwin's theory to account for the\npreservation and intensification of incipient, specific, and generic\ncharacters. That minute, fortuitous, and indefinite variations could have\nbrought about such special forms and modifications as have been enumerated\nin this chapter, seems to contradict not imagination, but reason. [Page 62]\n\nThat either many individuals amongst a species of butterfly should be\nsimultaneously preserved through a similar accidental and minute variation\nin one definite direction, when variations in many other directions would\nalso preserve; or that one or two so varying should succeed in supplanting\nthe progeny of thousands of other individuals, and that this should by no\nother cause be carried so far as to produce the appearance (as we have\nbefore stated) of spots of fungi, &c.--are alternatives of an improbability\nso extreme as to be practically equal to impossibility.\n\nIn spite of all the resources of a fertile imagination, the Darwinian, pure\nand simple, is reduced to the assertion of a paradox as great as any he\nopposes. In the place of a mere assertion of our ignorance as to the way\nthese phenomena have been produced, he brings forward, as their\nexplanation, a cause which it is contended in this work is demonstrably\ninsufficient.\n\nOf course in this matter, as elsewhere throughout nature, we have to do\nwith the operation of fixed and constant natural laws, and the knowledge of\nthese may before long be obtained by human patience or human genius; but\nthere is, it is believed, already enough evidence to show that these as yet\nunknown natural laws or law will never be resolved into the action of\n\"Natural Selection,\" but will constitute or exemplify a mode and condition\nof organic action of which the Darwinian theory takes no account\nwhatsoever. [Page 63]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CO-EXISTENCE OF CLOSELY SIMILAR STRUCTURES OF DIVERSE ORIGIN.\n\n    Chances against concordant variations.--Examples of discordant\n    ones.--Concordant variations not unlikely on a non-Darwinian\n    evolutionary hypothesis.--Placental and implacental mammals.--Birds and\n    reptiles.--Independent origins of similar sense organs.--The ear.--The\n    eye.--Other coincidences.--Causes besides Natural Selection produce\n    concordant variations in certain geographical regions.--Causes besides\n    Natural Selection produce concordant variations in certain zoological\n    and botanical groups.--There are homologous parts not genetically\n    related.--Harmony in respect of the organic and inorganic\n    worlds.--Summary and conclusion.\n\nThe theory of \"Natural Selection\" supposes that the varied forms and\nstructure of animals and plants have been built up merely by indefinite,\nfortuitous,[49] minute variations in every part and in all\ndirections--those variations only being preserved which are directly or\nindirectly useful to the individual possessing them, or necessarily\ncorrelated with such useful variations.\n\n[Illustration: WINGBONES OF PTERODACTYLE, BAT, AND BIRD.\n(_Copied, by permission, from Mr. Andrew Murray's \"Geographical\nDistribution of Mammals.\"_)]\n\nOn this theory the chances are almost infinitely great against the\nindependent, accidental occurrence and preservation of two similar series\nof minute variations resulting in the independent development of two\nclosely similar forms. In all cases, no doubt (on this same theory), _some_\nadaptation to habit or need would gradually be evolved, but that       {64}\nadaptation would surely be arrived at by different roads. The organic world\nsupplies us with multitudes of examples of similar functional results being\nattained by the most diverse means. Thus the body is sustained in the air\nby birds and by bats. In the first case it is so sustained by a limb in\nwhich the bones of the hand are excessively reduced, but which is provided\nwith immense outgrowths from the skin--namely, the feathers of the wing. In\nthe second case, however, the body is sustained in the air by a limb in\nwhich the bones of the hand are enormously increased in length, and so\nsustain a great expanse of naked skin, which is the flying membrane of the\nbat's wing. Certain fishes and certain reptiles can also flit and take very\nprolonged jumps in the air. The flying-fish, however, takes these by means\nof a great elongation of the rays of the pectoral fins--parts which cannot\nbe said to be of the same nature as the constituents of the wing of either\nthe bat or the bird. The little lizard, which enjoys the formidable name of\n\"flying-dragon,\" flits by means of a structure altogether peculiar--namely,\nby the liberation and great elongation of some of the ribs which support a\nfold of skin. In the extinct pterodactyles--which were _truly_ flying  {65}\nreptiles--we meet with an approximation to the structure of the bat, but in\nthe pterodactyle we have only one finger elongated in each hand: a striking\nexample of how the very same function may be provided for by a modification\nsimilar in principle, yet surely manifesting the independence of its\norigin. When we go to lower animals, we find flight produced by organs, as\nthe wings of insects, which are not even modified limbs at all; or we find\neven the function sometimes subserved by quite artificial means, as in the\naerial spiders, which use their own threads to float with in the air. In\nthe vegetable kingdom the atmosphere is often made use of for the\nscattering of seeds, by their being furnished with special structures of\nvery different kinds. The diverse modes by which such seeds are dispersed\nare well expressed by Mr. Darwin. He says:[50] \"Seeds are disseminated {66}\nby their minuteness,--by their capsule being converted into a light\nballoon-like envelope,--by being embedded in pulp or flesh, formed of the\nmost diverse parts, and rendered nutritious, as well as conspicuously\ncoloured, so as to attract and be devoured by birds,--by having hooks and\ngrapnels of many kinds and serrated awns, so as to adhere to the fur of\nquadrupeds,--and by being furnished with wings and plumes, as different in\nshape as elegant in structure, so as to be wafted by every breeze.\"\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF THE FLYING-DRAGON.\n(Showing the elongated ribs which support the flitting organ.)]\n\nAgain, if we consider the poisoning apparatus possessed by different\nanimals, we find in serpents a perforated--or rather very deeply\nchannelled--tooth. In wasps and bees the sting is formed of modified parts,\naccessory in reproduction. In the scorpion, we have the median terminal\nprocess of the body specially organized. In the spider, we have a specially\nconstructed antenna; and finally in the centipede a pair of modified\nthoracic limbs.\n\n[Illustration: A CENTIPEDE.]\n\nIt would be easy to produce a multitude of such instances of similar ends\nbeing attained by dissimilar means, and it is here contended that by \"the\naction of Natural Selection\" _only_ it is so improbable as to be\npractically impossible for two exactly similar structures to have ever been\nindependently developed. It is so because the number of possible       {67}\nvariations is indefinitely great, and it is therefore an indefinitely great\nnumber to one against a similar series of variations occurring and being\nsimilarly preserved in any two independent instances.\n\nThe difficulty here asserted applies, however, only to pure Darwinism,\nwhich makes use _only_ of indirect modifications through the survival of\nthe fittest.\n\nOther theories (for example, that of Mr. Herbert Spencer) admit the\n_direct_ action of conditions upon animals and plants--in ways not yet\nfully understood--there being conceived to be at the same time a certain\npeculiar but limited power of response and adaptation in each animal and\nplant so acted on. Such theories have not to contend against the difficulty\nproposed, and it is here urged that even very complex extremely similar\nstructures have again and again been developed quite independently one of\nthe other, and this because the process has taken place not by merely\nhaphazard, indefinite variations in all directions, but by the concurrence\nof some other and internal natural law or laws co-operating with external\ninfluences and with Natural Selection in the evolution of organic forms.\n\nIt must never be forgotten that to admit any such constant operation of any\nsuch unknown natural cause is to deny the purely Darwinian theory, which\nrelies upon the survival of the fittest by means of minute fortuitous\nindefinite variations.\n\nAmongst many other obligations which the Author has to acknowledge to\nProfessor Huxley, are the pointing out of this very difficulty, and the\ncalling his attention to the striking resemblance between certain teeth of\nthe dog and of the thylacine as one instance, and certain ornithic\npeculiarities of pterodactyles as another.\n\nMammals[51] are divisible into one great group, which comprises the    {68}\nimmense majority of kinds termed, from their mode of reproduction,\n_placental Mammals_, and into another very much smaller group comprising\nthe pouched-beasts or marsupials (which are the kangaroos, bandicoots,\nphalangers, &c., of Australia), and the true opossums of America, called\n_implacental Mammals_. Now the placental mammals are subdivided into\nvarious orders, amongst which are the flesh-eaters (Carnivora, _i.e._ cats,\ndogs, otters, weasels, &c.), and the insect-eaters (Insectivora, _i.e._\nmoles, hedgehogs, shrew-mice, &c.). The marsupial mammals also present a\nvariety of forms (some of which are carnivorous beasts, whilst others are\ninsectivorous), so marked that it has been even proposed to divide them\ninto orders parallel to the orders of placental beasts.\n\nThe resemblance, indeed, is so striking as, on Darwinian principles, to\nsuggest the probability of genetic affinity; and it even led Professor\nHuxley, in his Hunterian Lectures, in 1866, to promulgate the notion that a\nvast and widely-diffused marsupial fauna may have existed anteriorly to the\ndevelopment of the ordinary placental, non-pouched beasts, and that the\ncarnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous placentals may have\nrespectively descended from the carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous\nmarsupials.\n\n[Illustration: TEETH OF UROTRICHUS AND PERAMELES.]\n\nAmongst other points Professor Huxley called attention to the resemblance\nbetween the anterior molars of the placental dog with those of the\nmarsupial thylacine. These, indeed, are strikingly similar, but there are\nbetter examples still of this sort of coincidence. Thus it has often   {69}\nbeen remarked that the insectivorous marsupials, _e.g. Perameles_,\nwonderfully correspond, as to the form of certain of the grinding teeth,\nwith certain insectivorous placentals, _e.g. Urotrichus_.\n\nAgain, the saltatory insectivores of Africa (_Macroscelides_) not only\nresemble the kangaroo family (_Macropodidae_) in their jumping habits and\nlong hind legs, but also in the structure of their molar teeth, and even\nfurther, as I have elsewhere[52] pointed out, in a certain similarity of\nthe upper cutting teeth, or incisors.\n\nNow these correspondences are the more striking when we bear in mind that a\nsimilar dentition is often put to very different uses. The food of\ndifferent kinds of apes is very different, yet how uniform is their dental\nstructure! Again, who, looking at the teeth of different kinds of bears,\nwould ever suspect that one kind was frugivorous, and another a devourer\nexclusively of animal food?\n\nThe suggestion made by Professor Huxley was therefore one which had much to\nrecommend it to Darwinians, though it has not met with any notable\nacceptance, and though he seems himself to have returned to the older\nnotion, namely, that the pouched-beasts, or marsupials, are a special\nancient offshoot from the great mammalian class.\n\nBut whichever view may be the correct one, we have in either case a number\nof forms similarly modified in harmony with surrounding conditions, and\neloquently proclaiming some natural plastic power, other than mere\nfortuitous variation with survival of the fittest. If, however, the Reader\nthinks that teeth are parts peculiarly qualified for rapid variation (in\nwhich view the Author cannot concur), he is requested to suspend his\njudgment till he has considered the question of the independent evolution\nof the _highest organs of sense_. If this seems to establish the       {70}\nexistence of some other law than that of \"Natural Selection,\" then the\noperation of that other law may surely be also traced in the harmonious\nco-ordinations of dental form.\n\nThe other difficulty, kindly suggested to me by the learned Professor,\nrefers to the structure of birds, and of extinct reptiles more or less\nrelated to them.\n\nThe class of birds is one which is remarkably uniform in its organization.\nSo much is this the case, that the best mode of subdividing the class is a\nproblem of the greatest difficulty. Existing birds, however, present forms\nwhich, though closely resembling in the greater part of their structure,\nyet differ importantly the one from the other. One form is exemplified by\nthe ostrich, rhea, emeu, cassowary, apteryx, dinornis, &c. These are the\n_struthious_ birds. All other existing birds belong to the second division,\nand are called (from the keel on the breast-bone) _carinate_ birds.\n\nNow birds and reptiles have such and so many points in common, that\nDarwinians must regard the former as modified descendants of ancient\nreptilian forms. But on Darwinian principles it is impossible that the\nclass of birds so uniform and homogeneous should have had a double\nreptilian origin. If one set of birds sprang from one set of reptiles, and\nanother set of birds from another set of reptiles, the two sets could\nnever, by \"Natural Selection\" only, have grown into such a perfect\nsimilarity. To admit such a phenomenon would be equivalent to abandoning\nthe theory of \"Natural Selection\" as the sole origin of species.\n\nNow, until recently it has generally been supposed by evolutionists that\nthose ancient flying reptiles, the pterodactyles, or forms allied to them,\nwere the progenitors of the class of birds; and certain parts of their\nstructure especially support this view. Allusion is here made to the\nbladebone (scapula), and the bone which passes down from the shoulder-joint\nto the breast-bone (viz. the coracoid). These bones are such remarkable\nanticipations of the same parts in ordinary (_i.e._ carinate) birds    {71}\nthat it is hardly possible for a Darwinian not to regard the resemblance as\ndue to community of origin. This resemblance was carefully pointed out by\nProfessor Huxley in his \"Hunterian Course\" for 1867, when attention was\ncalled to the existence in _Dimorphodon macronyx_ of even that small\nprocess which in birds gives attachment to the upper end of the\nmerrythought. Also Mr. Seeley[53] has shown that in pterodactyles, as in\nbirds, the optic lobes of the brain were placed low down on each\nside--\"lateral and depressed.\" Nevertheless, the view has been put forward\nand ably maintained by the same Professor,[54] as also by Professor Cope in\nthe United States, that the line of descent from reptiles to birds has not\nbeen from ordinary reptiles, through pterodactyle-like forms, to ordinary\nbirds, but to the struthious ones from certain extinct reptiles termed\nDinosauria; one of the most familiarly known of which is the Iguanodon of\nthe Wealden formation. In these Dinosauria we find skeletal characters\nunlike those of ordinary (_i.e._ carinate) birds, but closely resembling in\ncertain points the osseous structure of the struthious birds. Thus a\ndifficulty presents itself as to the explanation of the three following\nrelationships:--(1) That of the Pterodactyles with carinate birds; (2) that\nof the Dinosauria with struthious birds; (3) that of the carinate and\nstruthious birds with each other.\n\nEither birds must have had two distinct origins whence they grew to their\npresent conformity, or the very same skeletal, and probably cerebral\ncharacters must have spontaneously and independently arisen. Here is a\ndilemma, either horn of which bears a threatening aspect to the exclusive\nsupporter of \"Natural Selection,\" and between which it seems somewhat  {72}\ndifficult to choose.\n\nIt has been suggested to me that this difficulty may be evaded by\nconsidering pterodactyles and carinate birds as independent branches from\none side of an ancient common trunk, while similarly the Dinosauria and\nstruthious birds are taken to be independent branches from the other side\nof the same common trunk; the two kinds of birds resembling each other so\nmuch on account of their later development from that trunk as compared with\nthe development of the reptilian forms. But to this it may be replied that\nthe ancient common stock could not have had at one and the same time a\nshoulder structure of _both kinds_. It must have been that of the\nstruthious birds or that of the carinate birds, or something different from\nboth. If it was that of the struthious birds, how did the pterodactyles and\ncarinate birds independently arrive at the very same divergent structure?\nIf it was that of the carinate birds, how did the struthious birds and\nDinosauria independently agree to differ? Finally, if it was something\ndifferent from either, how did the carinate birds and pterodactyles take on\nindependently one special common structure when disagreeing in so many;\nwhile the struthious birds, agreeing in many points with the Dinosauria,\nagree yet more with the carinate birds? Indeed by no arrangement of\nbranches from a stem can the difficulty be evaded.\n\nProfessor Huxley seems inclined[55] to cut the Gordian knot by considering\nthe shoulder structure of the pterodactyle as independently educed, and\nhaving relation to physiology only. This conception is one which harmonizes\ncompletely with the views here advocated, and with those of Mr. Herbert\nSpencer, who also calls in direct modification to the aid of \"Natural\nSelection.\" That merely minute, indefinite variations in all directions\nshould unaided have independently built up the shoulder structure of   {73}\nthe pterodactyles and carinate birds, and have laterally depressed their\noptic lobes, at a time so far back as the deposition of the Oolite\nstrata,[56] is a coincidence of the highest improbability; but that an\ninnate power and evolutionary law, aided by the corrective action of\n\"Natural Selection,\" should have furnished like needs with like aids, is\nnot at all improbable. The difficulty does not tell against the theory of\nevolution, but only against the specially Darwinian form of it. Now this\nform has never been expressly adopted by Professor Huxley; so far from it,\nin his lecture on this subject at the Royal Institution before referred to,\nhe observes,[57] \"I can testify, from personal experience, it is possible\nto have a complete faith in the general doctrine of evolution, and yet to\nhesitate in accepting the Nebular, or the Uniformitarian, or the Darwinian\nhypotheses in all their integrity and fulness.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE ARCHEOPTERYX (of the Oolite strata).]\n\nIt is quite consistent, then, in the Professor to explain the          {74}\ndifficulty as he does; but it would not be similarly so with an absolute\nand pure Darwinian.\n\nYet stronger arguments of an analogous kind are, however, to be derived\nfrom the highest organs of sense. In the most perfectly organized\nanimals--those namely which, like ourselves, possess a spinal column--the\ninternal organs of hearing consist of two more or less complex membranous\nsacs (containing calcareous particles--otoliths), which are primitively or\npermanently lodged in two chambers, one on each side of the cartilaginous\nskull. The primitive cartilaginous cranium supports and protects the base\nof the brain, and the auditory nerves pass from that brain into the\ncartilaginous chambers to reach the auditory sacs. These complex\narrangements of parts could not have been evolved by \"Natural Selection,\"\n_i.e._ by minute accidental variations, except by the action of such\nthrough a vast period of time; nevertheless, it was fully evolved at the\ntime of the deposition of the upper Silurian rocks.\n\nCuttle-fishes (_Cephalopoda_) are animals belonging to the molluscous\nprimary division of the animal kingdom, which division contains animals\nformed upon a type of structure utterly remote from that on which the\nanimals of the higher division provided with a spinal column are\nconstructed. And indeed no transitional form (tending even to bridge over\nthe chasm between these two groups) has ever yet been discovered, either\nliving or in a fossilized condition.[58]\n\nNevertheless, in the two-gilled Cephalopods (_Dibranchiata_) we find the\nbrain supported and protected by a cartilaginous cranium. In the base of\nthis cranium are two cartilaginous chambers. In each chamber is a\nmembranous sac containing an otolith, and the auditory nerves pass from the\ncerebral ganglia into the cartilaginous chambers to reach the auditory\nsacs. Moreover, it has been suggested by Professor Owen that           {75}\nsinuosities between processes projecting from the inner wall of each\nchamber \"seem to be the first rudiments of those which, in the higher\nclasses (_i.e._ in animals with a spinal column), are extended in the form\nof canals and spiral chambers, within the substance of the dense nidus of\nthe labyrinth.\"[59]\n\n[Illustration: CUTTLE-FISH.\nA. Ventral aspect. B. Dorsal aspect.]\n\nHere, then, we have a wonderful coincidence indeed; two highly complex\nauditory organs, marvellously similar in structure, but which must\nnevertheless have been developed in entire and complete independence one of\nthe other! It would be difficult to calculate the odds against the\nindependent occurrence and conservation of two such complex series of\nmerely accidental and minute haphazard variations. And it can never be {76}\nmaintained that the sense of hearing could not be efficiently subserved\notherwise than by such sacs, in cranial cartilaginous capsules so situated\nin relation to the brain, &c.\n\nOur wonder, moreover, may be increased when we recollect that the\ntwo-gilled cephalopods have not yet been found below the lias, where they\nat once abound; whereas the four-gilled cephalopods are Silurian forms.\nMoreover, the absence is in this case significant in spite of the\nimperfection of the geological record, because when we consider how many\nindividuals of various kinds of four-gilled cephalopods have been found, it\nis fair to infer that at the least a certain small percentage of dibranchs\nwould also have left traces of their presence had they existed. Thus it is\nprobable that some four-gilled form was the progenitor of the dibranch\ncephalopods. Now the four-gilled kinds (judging from the only existing\nform, the nautilus) had the auditory organ in a very inferior condition of\ndevelopment to what we find in the dibranch; thus we have not only evidence\nof the independent high development of the organ in the former, but also\nevidence pointing towards a certain degree of comparative rapidity in its\ndevelopment.\n\nSuch being the case with regard to the organ of hearing, we have another\nyet stronger argument with regard to the organ of sight, as has been well\npointed out by Mr. J. J. Murphy.[60] He calls attention to the fact that\nthe eye must have been perfected in at least \"three distinct lines of\ndescent,\" alluding not only to the molluscous division of the animal\nkingdom, and the division provided with a spinal column, but also to a\nthird primary division, namely, that which includes all insects, spiders,\ncrabs, &c., which are spoken of as Annulosa, and the type of whose\nstructure is as distinct from that of the molluscous type on the one hand,\nas it is from that of the type with a spinal column (_i.e._ the vertebrate\ntype) on the other.\n\n                                                                       {77}\nIn the cuttle-fishes we find an eye even more completely constructed on the\nvertebrate type than is the ear. Sclerotic, retina, choroid, vitreous\nhumour, lens, aqueous humour, all are present. The correspondence is\nwonderfully complete, and there can hardly be any hesitation in saying that\nfor such an exact, prolonged, and correlated series of similar structures\nto have been brought about in two independent instances by merely\nindefinite and minute accidental variations, is an improbability which\namounts practically to impossibility. Moreover, we have here again the same\nimperfection of the four-gilled cephalopod, as compared with the\ntwo-gilled, and therefore (if the latter proceeded from the former) a\nsimilar indication of a certain comparative rapidity of development.\nFinally, and this is perhaps one of the most curious circumstances, the\nprocess of formation appears to have been, at least in some respects, the\nsame in the eyes of these molluscous animals as in the eyes of vertebrates.\nFor in these latter the cornea is at first perforated, while different\ndegrees of perforation of the same part are presented by different adult\ncuttle-fishes--large in the calamaries, smaller in the octopods, and\nreduced to a minute foramen in the true cuttle-fish sepia.\n\nSome may be disposed to object that the conditions requisite for effecting\nvision are so rigid that similar results in all cases must be independently\narrived at. But to this objection it may well be replied that Nature\nherself has demonstrated that there is no such necessity as to the details\nof the process. For in the higher Annulosa, such as the dragon-fly, we meet\nwith an eye of an unquestionably very high degree of efficiency, but formed\non a type of structure only remotely comparable with that of the fish or\nthe cephalopod. The last-named animal might have had an eye as efficient as\nthat of a vertebrate, but formed on a distinct type, instead of being\nanother edition, as it were, of the very same structure.\n\nIn the beginning of this chapter examples have been given of the very  {78}\ndiverse mode in which similar results have in many instances been arrived\nat; on the other hand, we have in the fish and the cephalopod not only the\neye, but at one and the same time the ear also similarly evolved, yet with\ncomplete independence.\n\nThus it is here contended that the similar and complex structures of both\nthe highest organs of sense, as developed in the vertebrates on the one\nhand, and in the mollusks on the other, present us with residuary phenomena\nfor which \"Natural Selection\" alone is quite incompetent to account. And\nthat these same phenomena must therefore be considered as conclusive\nevidence for the action of some other natural law or laws conditioning the\nsimultaneous and independent evolution of these harmonious and concordant\nadaptations.\n\nProvided with this evidence, it may be now profitable to enumerate other\ncorrespondences, which are not perhaps in themselves inexplicable by\nNatural Selection, but which are more readily to be explained by the action\nof the unknown law or laws referred to--which action, as its necessity has\nbeen demonstrated in one case, becomes _a priori_ probable in the others.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF AN ICHTHYOSAURUS.]\n\nThus the great oceanic Mammalia--the whales--show striking resemblances to\nthose prodigious, extinct, marine reptiles, the Ichthyosauria, and this not\nonly in structures readily referable to similarity of habit, but in such\nmatters as greatly elongated premaxillary bones, together with the\nconcealment of certain bones of the skull by other cranial bones. [Page 79]\n\nAgain, the aerial mammals, the bats, resemble those flying reptiles of the\nsecondary epoch, the pterodactyles; not only to a certain extent in the\nbreast-bone and mode of supporting the flying membrane, but also in the\nproportions of different parts of the spinal column and the hinder (pelvic)\nlimbs.\n\nAlso bivalve shell-fish (_i.e._ creatures of the mussel, cockle, and oyster\nclass, which receive their name from the body being protected by a double\nshell, one valve of which is placed on each side) have their two shells\nunited by one or two powerful muscles, which pass directly across from one\nshell to the other, and which are termed \"adductor muscles\" because by\ntheir contraction they bring together the valves and so close the shell.\n\n[Illustration: CYTHERIDEA TOROSA.\n[An ostracod (Crustacean), externally like a bivalve shell-fish\n(Lamellibranch).]\n\nNow there are certain animals which belong to the crab and lobster class\n(Crustacea)--a class constructed on an utterly different type from that on\nwhich the bivalve shell-fish are constructed--which present a very curious\napproximation to both the form and, in a certain respect, the structure of\ntrue bivalves. Allusion is here made to certain small Crustacea--certain\nphyllopods and ostracods--which have the hard outer coat of their thorax so\nmodified as to look wonderfully like a bivalve shell, although its     {80}\nnature and composition are quite different. But this is by no means\nall,--not only is there this external resemblance between the thoracic\narmour of the crustacean and the bivalve shell, but the two sides of the\nostracod and phyllopod thorax are connected together also by an adductor\nmuscle!\n\n[Illustration: A POLYZOON WITH BIRD'S-HEAD PROCESSES.]\n\n                                                                       {81}\nThe pedicellariae of the echinus have been already spoken of, and the\ndifficulty as to their origin from minute, fortuitous, indefinite\nvariations has been stated. But structures essentially similar (called\navicularia, or \"bird's-head processes\") are developed from the surface of\nthe compound masses of certain of the highest of the polyp-like animals\n(viz. the Polyzoa or, as they are sometimes called, the Bryozoa).\n\nThese compound animals have scattered over the surface of their bodies\nminute processes, each of which is like the head of a bird, with an upper\nand lower beak, the whole supported on a slender neck. The beak opens and\nshuts at intervals, like the jaws of the pedicellariae of the echinus, and\nthere is altogether, in general principle, a remarkable similarity between\nthe structures. Yet the echinus can have, at the best, none but the most\ndistant genetic relationship with the Polyzoa. We have here again therefore\ncomplex and similar organs of diverse and independent origin.\n\n[Illustration: BIRD'S-HEAD PROCESSES VERY GREATLY ENLARGED.]\n\nIn the highest class of animals (the Mammalia) we have almost always a\nplacental mode of reproduction, _i.e._ the blood of the foetus is placed in\nnutritive relation with the blood of the mother by means of vascular\nprominences. No trace of such a structure exists in any bird or in any\nreptile, and yet it crops out again in certain sharks. There indeed it\nmight well be supposed to end, but, marvellous as it seems, it reappears in\nvery lowly creatures; namely, in certain of the ascidians, sometimes called\ntunicaries or sea-squirts. [Page 82]\n\nNow, if we were to concede that the ascidians were the common ancestors[61]\nof both these sharks and of the higher mammals, we should be little, if\nany, nearer to an explanation of the phenomenon by means of \"Natural\nSelection,\" for in the sharks in question the vascular prominences are\ndeveloped from one foetal structure (the umbilical vesicle), while in the\nhigher mammals they are developed from quite another part, viz. the\nallantois.\n\n[Illustration: Upper Figure--ANTECHINUS MINUTISSIMUS (_implacental_).\n\nLower Figure--MUS DELICATULUS (_placental_).]\n\nSo great, however, is the number of similar, but apparently independent,\nstructures, that we suffer from a perfect _embarras de richesses_. Thus,\nfor example, we have the convoluted windpipe of the sloth, reminding us{83}\nof the condition of the windpipe in birds; and in another mammal, allied to\nthe sloth, namely the great ant-eater (Myrmecophaga), we have again an\nornithic character in its horny gizzard-like stomach. In man and the\nhighest apes the caecum has a vermiform appendix, as it has also in the\nwombat!\n\nAlso the similar forms presented by the crowns of the teeth in some seals,\nin certain sharks, and in some extinct Cetacea may be referred to; as also\nthe similarity of the beak in birds, some reptiles, in the tadpole, and\ncuttle-fishes. As to entire external form, may be adduced the wonderful\nsimilarity between a true mouse (_Mus delicatulus_) and a small marsupial,\npointed out by Mr. Andrew Murray in his work on the \"Geographical\nDistribution of Mammals,\" p. 53, and represented in the frontispiece by\nfigures copied from Gould's \"Mammals of Australia;\" but instances enough\nfor the present purpose have been already quoted.\n\nAdditional reasons for believing that similarity of structure is produced\nby other causes than merely by \"Natural Selection\" are furnished by certain\nfacts of zoological geography, and by a similarity in the mode of variation\nbeing sometimes extended to several species of a genus, or even to widely\ndifferent groups; while the restriction and the limitation of such\nsimilarity are often not less remarkable. Thus Mr. Wallace says,[62] as to\nlocal influence: \"Larger or smaller districts, or even single islands, give\na special character to the majority of their Papilionidae. For instance:--1.\nThe species of the Indian region (Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) are almost\ninvariably smaller than the allied species inhabiting Celebes and the\nMoluccas. 2. The species of New Guinea and Australia are also, though in a\nless degree, smaller than the nearest species or varieties of the Moluccas.\n3. In the Moluccas themselves the species of Amboyna are the largest. 4.\nThe species of Celebes equal or even surpass in size those of Amboyna. {84}\n5. The species and varieties of Celebes possess a striking character in the\nform of the anterior wings, different from that of the allied species and\nvarieties of all the surrounding islands. 6. Tailed species in India or the\nIndian region become tailless as they spread eastward through the\nArchipelago. 7. In Amboyna and Ceram the females of several species are\ndull-coloured, while in the adjacent islands they are more brilliant.\"\nAgain:[63] \"In Amboyna and Ceram the female of the large and handsome\n_Ornithoptera Helena_ has the large patch on the hind wings constantly of a\npale dull ochre or buff colour; while in the scarcely distinguishable\nvarieties from the adjacent islands, of Bouru and New Guinea, it is of a\ngolden yellow, hardly inferior in brilliancy to its colour in the male sex.\nThe female of _Ornithoptera Priamus_ (inhabiting Amboyna and Ceram\nexclusively) is of a pale dusky brown tint, while in all the allied species\nthe same sex is nearly black, with contracted white markings. As a third\nexample, the female of _Papilio Ulysses_ has the blue colour obscured by\ndull and dusky tints, while in the closely allied species from the\nsurrounding islands, the females are of almost as brilliant an azure blue\nas the males. A parallel case to this is the occurrence, in the small\nislands of Goram, Matabello, Ke, and Aru, of several distinct species of\nEuploea and Diadema, having broad bands or patches of white, which do not\nexist in any of the allied species from the larger islands. These facts\nseem to indicate some local influence in modifying colour, as\nunintelligible and almost as remarkable as that which has resulted in the\nmodifications of form previously described.\"\n\nAfter endeavouring to explain some of the facts in a way to be noticed\ndirectly, Mr. Wallace adds:[64] \"But even the conjectural explanation now\ngiven fails us in the other cases of local modification. Why the species of\nthe Western Islands should be smaller than those further east; why those of\nAmboyna should exceed in size those of Gilolo and New Guinea; why the  {85}\ntailed species of India should begin to lose that appendage in the islands,\nand retain no trace of it on the borders of the Pacific; and why, in three\nseparate cases, the females of Amboyna species should be less gaily attired\nthan the corresponding females of the surrounding islands, are questions\nwhich we cannot at present attempt to answer. That they depend, however, on\nsome general principle is certain, because analogous facts have been\nobserved in other parts of the world. Mr. Bates informs me that, in three\ndistinct groups, Papilios, which, on the Upper Amazon, and in most other\nparts of South America, have spotless upper wings, obtain pale or white\nspots at Para and on the Lower Amazon, and also that the AEneas group of\nPapilios never have tails in the equatorial regions and the Amazon valley,\nbut gradually acquire tails in many cases as they range towards the\nnorthern or southern tropic. Even in Europe we have somewhat similar facts,\nfor the species and varieties of butterflies peculiar to the Island of\nSardinia are generally smaller and more deeply coloured than those of the\nmainland, and the same has been recently shown to be the case with the\ncommon tortoiseshell butterfly in the Isle of Man; while _Papilio\nHospiton_, peculiar to the former island, has lost the tail, which is a\nprominent feature of the closely allied _P. Machaon_.\n\n\"Facts of a similar nature to those now brought forward would no doubt be\nfound to occur in other groups of insects, were local faunas carefully\nstudied in relation to those of the surrounding countries; and they seem to\nindicate that climate and other physical causes have, in some cases, a very\npowerful effect in modifying specific form and colour, and thus directly\naid in producing the endless variety of nature.\"\n\n[Illustration: OUTLINES OF WINGS OF BUTTERFLIES OF CELEBES COMPARED WITH\nTHOSE OF ALLIED SPECIES ELSEWHERE.\n\nOuter outline, _Papilio gigon_, of Celebes. Inner outline, _P. demolion_,\nof Singapore and Java.--2. Outer outline, _P. miletus_, of Celebes. Inner\noutline, _P. sarpedon_, India.--3. Outer outline, _Tachyris zarinda_,\nCelebes. Inner outline, _T. nero_.]\n\nWith regard to butterflies of Celebes belonging to different families, they\npresent \"a peculiarity of outline which distinguishes them at a glance from\nthose of any other part of the world:\"[65] it is that the upper wings  {86}\nare generally more elongated and the anterior margin more curved. Moreover,\nthere is, in most instances, near the base an abrupt bend or elbow, which\nin some species is very conspicuous. Mr. Wallace endeavours to explain {87}\nthis phenomenon by the supposed presence at some time of special\npersecutors of the modified forms, supporting the opinion by the remark\nthat small, obscure, very rapidly flying and mimicked kinds have not had\nthe wing modified. Such an enemy occasioning increased powers of flight, or\nrapidity in turning, he adds, \"one would naturally suppose to be an\ninsectivorous bird; but it is a remarkable fact that most of the genera of\nfly-catchers of Borneo and Java on the one side, and of the Moluccas on the\nother, are almost entirely absent from Celebes. Their place seems to be\nsupplied by the caterpillar-catchers, of which six or seven species are\nknown from Celebes, and are very numerous in individuals. We have no\npositive evidence that these birds pursue butterflies on the wing, but it\nis highly probable that they do so when other food is scarce. Mr. Bates\nsuggested to me that the larger dragon-flies prey upon butterflies, but I\ndid not notice that they were more abundant in Celebes than elsewhere.\"[66]\n\nNow, every opinion or conjecture of Mr. Wallace is worthy of respectful and\nattentive consideration, but the explanation suggested and before referred\nto hardly seems a satisfactory one. What the past fauna of Celebes may have\nbeen is as yet conjectural. Mr. Wallace tells us that now there is a\nremarkable _scarcity_ of fly-catchers, and that their place is supplied by\nbirds of which it can only be said that it is \"highly probable\" that they\nchase butterflies \"when other food is scarce.\" The quick eye of Mr. Wallace\nfailed to detect them in the act, as also to note any unusual abundance of\nother insectivorous forms, which therefore, considering Mr. Wallace's zeal\nand powers of observation, we may conclude do not exist. Moreover, even if\nthere ever has been an abundance of such, it is by no means certain that\nthey would have succeeded in producing the conformation in question, for\nthe effect of this peculiar curvature on flight is by no means clear. We\nhave here, then, a structure hypothetically explained by an uncertain  {88}\nproperty induced by a cause the presence of which is only conjectural.\n\nSurely it is not unreasonable to class this instance with the others before\ngiven, in which a common modification of form or colour coexists with a\ncertain geographical distribution quite independently of the destructive\nagencies of animals. If physical causes connected with locality can\nabbreviate or annihilate the tails of certain butterflies, why may not\nsimilar causes produce an elbow-like prominence on the wings of other\nbutterflies? There are many such instances of simultaneous modification.\nMr. Darwin himself[67] quotes Mr. Gould as believing that birds of the same\nspecies are more brightly coloured under a clear atmosphere, than when\nliving on islands or near the coast. Mr. Darwin also informs us that\nWollaston is convinced that residence near the sea affects the colour of\ninsects; and finally, that Moquin-Tandon gives a list of plants which, when\ngrowing near the sea-shore, have their leaves in some degree fleshy, though\nnot so elsewhere. In his work on \"Animals and Plants under\nDomestication,\"[68] Mr. Darwin refers to M. Costa as having (in _Bull. de\nla Soc. Imp. d'Acclimat_. tome viii. p. 351) stated \"that young shells\ntaken from the shores of England and placed in the Mediterranean at once\naltered their manner of growth, and formed prominent diverging rays _like\nthose on the shells of the proper Mediterranean oyster_;\" also to Mr.\nMeehan, as stating (_Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. of Philadelphia_, Jan. 28, 1862)\n\"that twenty-nine kinds of American trees all differ from their nearest\nEuropean allies in _a similar manner_, leaves less toothed, buds and seeds\nsmaller, fewer branchlets,\" &c. These are striking examples indeed!\n\nBut cases of simultaneous and similar modifications abound on all sides.\nEven as regards our own species there is a very generally admitted opinion\nthat a new type has been developed in the United States, and this in about\na couple of centuries only, and in a vast multitude of individuals of  {89}\ndiverse ancestry. The instances here given, however, must suffice, though\nmore could easily be added.\n\n[Illustration: THE GREAT SHIELDED GRASSHOPPER.]\n\nIt may be well now to turn to groups presenting similar variations, not\nthrough, but independently of, geographical distribution, and, as far as we\nknow, independently of conditions other than some peculiar nature and\ntendency (as yet unexplained) common to members of such groups, which\nnature and tendency seem to induce them to vary in certain definite lines\nor directions which are different in different groups. Thus with regard to\nthe group of insects, of which the walking leaf is a member, Mr. Wallace\nobserves:[69] \"The _whole family_[70] of the Phasmidae, or spectres, to\nwhich this insect belongs, is more or less imitative, and a great number of\nthe species are called 'walking-stick insects,' from their singular    {90}\nresemblance to twigs and branches.\"\n\n[Illustration: THE SIX-SHAFTED BIRD OF PARADISE.]\n\nAgain, Mr. Wallace[71] tells us of no less than four kinds of orioles,\nwhich birds mimic, more or less, four species of a genus of honey-suckers,\nthe weak orioles finding their profit in being mistaken by certain birds of\nprey for the strong, active, and gregarious honey-suckers. Now, many other\nbirds would be benefited by similar mimicry, which is none the less\nconfined, in this part of the world, to the oriole genus. It is true that\nthe absence of mimicry in other forms may be explained by their possessing\nsome other (as yet unobserved) means of preservation. But it is\nnevertheless remarkable, not so much that one species should mimic, as that\nno less than four should do so in different ways and degrees, all these{91}\nfour belonging to _one and the same genus_.\n\n[Illustration: THE LONG-TAILED BIRD OF PARADISE.]\n\nIn other cases, however, there is not even the help of protective action to\naccount for the phenomenon. Thus we have the wonderful birds of\nParadise,[72] which agree in developing plumage unequalled in beauty, but a\nbeauty which, as to details, is of different kinds, and produced in\ndifferent ways in different species. To develop \"beauty and singularity of\nplumage\" is a character of the group, but not of any one definite kind, to\nbe explained merely by inheritance.\n\n                                                                       {92}\n[Illustration]\n\nAgain, we have the very curious horned flies,[73] which agree indeed in a\ncommon peculiarity, but in one singularly different in detail, in different\nspecies and not known to have any protecting effect.\n\nAmongst plants, also, we meet with the same peculiarity. The great group of\nOrchids presents a number of species which offer strange and bizarre   {93}\napproximations to different animal forms, and which have often the\nappearance of cases of mimicry, as it were in an incipient stage.\n\n[Illustration: HORNED FLIES.]\n\n[Illustration: THE MAGNIFICENT BIRD OF PARADISE.]\n\nThe number of similar instances which could be brought forward from amongst\nanimals and plants is very great, but the examples given are, it is    {94}\nhoped, amply sufficient to point towards the conclusion which other facts\nwill, it is thought, establish, viz. that there are causes operating (in\nthe evocation of these harmonious diverging resemblances) other than\n\"Natural Selection,\" or heredity, and other even than merely geographical,\nclimatal, or any simply external conditions.\n\nMany cases have been adduced of striking likenesses between different\nanimals, not due to inheritance; but this should be the less surprising, in\nthat the very same individual presents us with likenesses between different\nparts of its body (_e.g._, between the several joints of the backbone),\nwhich are certainly not so explicable. This, however, leads to a rather\nlarge subject, which will be spoken of in the eighth chapter of the present\nwork. Here it will be enough to affirm (leaving the proof of the assertion\ntill later) that parts are often homologous which have no direct genetic\nrelationship,--a fact which harmonizes well with the other facts here\ngiven, but which \"Natural Selection,\" pure and simple, seems unable to\nexplain.\n\nBut surely the independent appearance of similar organic forms is what we\nmight expect, _a priori_, from the independent appearance of similar\ninorganic ones. As Mr. G. H. Lewes well observes,[74] \"We do not suppose\nthe carbonates and phosphates found in various parts of the globe--we do\nnot suppose that the families of alkaloids and salts have any nearer\nkinship than that which consists in the similarity of their elements, and\nthe conditions of their combination. Hence, in organisms, as in salts,\nmorphological identity may be due to a community of causal connexion,\nrather than community of descent.\n\n\"Mr. Darwin justly holds it to be incredible that individuals identically\nthe same should have been produced through Natural Selection from parents\n_specifically distinct_, but he will not deny that identical forms may\nissue from parents _genetically distinct_, when these parent forms and {95}\nthe conditions of production are identical. To deny this would be to deny\nthe law of causation.\"\n\nProfessor Huxley has, however, suggested[75] that such mineral identity may\nbe explained by applying also to minerals a law of descent; that is, by\nconsidering such similar forms as the descendants of atoms which inhabited\none special part of the primitive nebular cosmos, each considerable space\nof which may be supposed to have been under the influence of somewhat\ndifferent conditions.\n\nSurely, however, there can be no real parity between the relationship of\nexisting minerals to nebular atoms, and the relationship of existing\nanimals and plants to the earliest organisms. In the first place, the\nlatter have produced others by generative multiplication, which mineral\natoms never did. In the second, existing animals and plants spring from the\nliving tissues of preceding animals and plants, while existing minerals\nspring from the chemical affinity of separate elements. Carbonate of soda\nis not formed, by a process of reproduction, from other carbonate of soda,\nbut directly by the suitable juxtaposition of carbon, oxygen, and sodium.\n\nInstead of approximating animals and minerals in the mode suggested, it may\nbe that they are to be approximated in quite a contrary fashion; namely, by\nattributing to mineral species an internal innate power. For, as we must\nattribute to each elementary atom an innate power and tendency to form\n(under the requisite external conditions) certain unions with other atoms,\nso we may attribute to certain mineral species--as crystals--an innate\npower and tendency to exhibit (the proper conditions being supplied) a\ndefinite and symmetrical external form. The distinction between animals and\nvegetables on the one hand, and minerals on the other, is that, while in\nthe organic world close similarity is the result sometimes of inheritance,\nsometimes of direct production independently of parental action, in the{96}\ninorganic world the latter is the constant and only mode in which such\nsimilarity is produced.\n\nWhen we come to consider the relations of species to space--in other words,\nthe geographical distribution of organisms--it will be necessary to return\nsomewhat to the subject of the independent origin of closely similar forms,\nin regard to which some additional remarks will be found towards the end of\nthe seventh chapter.\n\nIn this third chapter an effort has been made to show that while on the\nDarwinian theory concordant variations are extremely improbable, yet Nature\npresents us with abundant examples of such; the most striking of which are,\nperhaps, the higher organs of sense. Also that an important influence is\nexercised by conditions connected with geographical distribution, but that\na deeper-seated influence is at work, which is hinted at by those special\ntendencies in definite directions, which are the properties of certain\ngroups. Finally, that these facts, when taken together, afford strong\nevidence that \"Natural Selection\" has not been the exclusive or predominant\ncause of the various organic structural peculiarities. This conclusion has\nalso been re-enforced by the consideration of phenomena presented to us by\nthe inorganic world. [Page 97]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nMINUTE AND GRADUAL MODIFICATIONS.\n\n    There are difficulties as to minute modifications, even if not\n    fortuitous.--Examples of sudden and considerable modifications of\n    different kinds.--Professor Owen's view.--Mr. Wallace.--Professor\n    Huxley.--Objections to sudden\n    changes.--Labyrinthodont.--Potto.--Cetacea.--As to origin of bird's\n    wing.--Tendrils of climbing plants.--Animals once supposed to be\n    connecting links.--Early specialization of\n    structure.--Macrauchenia.--Glyptodon.--Sabre-toothed\n    tiger.--Conclusion.\n\nNot only are there good reasons against the acceptance of the exclusive\noperation of \"Natural Selection\" as the one means of specific origination,\nbut there are difficulties in the way of accounting for such origination by\nthe sole action of modifications which are infinitesimal and minute,\nwhether fortuitous or not.\n\nArguments may yet be advanced in favour of the view that new species have\nfrom time to time manifested themselves with suddenness, and by\nmodifications appearing at once (as great in degree as are those which\nseparate _Hipparion_ from _Equus_), the species remaining stable in the\nintervals of such modifications: by stable being meant that their\nvariations only extend for a certain degree in various directions, like\noscillations in a stable equilibrium. This is the conception of Mr.\nGalton,[76] who compares the development of species with a many        {98}\nfacetted spheroid tumbling over from one facet, or stable equilibrium, to\nanother. The existence of internal conditions in animals corresponding with\nsuch facets is denied by pure Darwinians, but it is contended in this work,\nthough not in this chapter, that something may also be said for their\nexistence.\n\nThe considerations brought forward in the last two chapters, namely, the\ndifficulties with regard to incipient and closely similar structures\nrespectively, together with palaeontological considerations to be noticed\nlater, appear to point strongly in the direction of sudden and considerable\nchanges. This is notably the case as regards the young oysters already\nmentioned, which were taken from the shores of England and placed in the\nMediterranean, and at once altered their mode of growth and formed\nprominent diverging rays, _like those of the proper Mediterranean oyster_;\nas also the twenty-nine kinds of American trees, all differing from their\nnearest European allies _similarly_--\"leaves less toothed, buds and seeds\nsmaller, fewer branchlets,\" &c. To these may be added other facts given by\nMr. Darwin. Thus he says, \"that climate, to a certain extent, directly\nmodifies the form of dogs.\"[77]\n\nThe Rev. R. Everett found that setters at Delhi, though most carefully\npaired, yet had young with \"nostrils more contracted, noses more pointed,\nsize inferior, and limbs more slender.\" Again, cats at Mombas, on the coast\nof Africa, have short stiff hairs instead of fur, and a cat at Algoa Bay,\nwhen left only eight weeks at Mombas, \"underwent a complete metamorphosis,\nhaving parted with its sandy-coloured fur.\"[78] The conditions of life seem\nto produce a considerable effect on horses, and instances are given by Mr.\nDarwin of pony breeds[79] having independently arisen in different parts of\nthe world, possessing a certain similarity in their physical           {99}\nconditions. Also changes due to climate may be brought about at once in a\nsecond generation, though no appreciable modification is shown by the\nfirst. Thus \"Sir Charles Lyell mentions that some Englishmen, engaged in\nconducting the operations of the Real del Monte Company in Mexico, carried\nout with them some greyhounds of the best breed to hunt the hares which\nabound in that country. It was found that the greyhounds could not support\nthe fatigues of a long chase in this attenuated atmosphere, and before they\ncould come up with their prey they lay down gasping for breath; but these\nsame animals have produced whelps, which have grown up, and are not in the\nleast degree incommoded by the want of density in the air, but run down the\nhares with as much ease as do the fleetest of their race in this\ncountry.\"[80]\n\nWe have here no action of \"Natural Selection;\" it was not that certain\npuppies happened accidentally to be capable of enduring more rarefied air,\nand so survived, but the offspring were directly modified by the action of\nsurrounding conditions. Neither was the change elaborated by minute\nmodifications in many successive generations, but appeared at once in the\nsecond.\n\nWith regard once more to sudden alterations of form, Nathusius is said to\nstate positively as to pigs,[81] that the result of common experience and\nof his experiments was that rich and abundant food, given during youth,\ntends by some direct action to make the head broader and shorter. Curious\njaw appendages often characterize Normandy pigs, according to M. Eudes\nDeslongchamps. Richardson figures these appendages on the old \"Irish\ngreyhound pig,\" and they are said by Nathusius to appear occasionally in\nall the long-eared races. Mr. Darwin observes,[82] \"As no wild pigs are\nknown to have analogous appendages, we have at present no reason to   {100}\nsuppose that their appearance is due to reversion; and if this be so, we\nare forced to admit that somewhat complex, though apparently useless\nstructures may be suddenly developed without the aid of selection.\" Again,\n\"Climate directly affects the thickness of the skin and hair\" of\ncattle.[83] In the English climate an individual Porto Santo rabbit[84]\nrecovered the proper colour of its fur in rather less than four years. The\neffect of the climate of India on the turkey is considerable. Mr. Blyth[85]\ndescribes it as being much degenerated in size, \"utterly incapable of\nrising on the wing,\" of a black colour, and \"with long pendulous appendages\nover the beak enormously developed.\" Mr. Darwin again tells us that there\nhas suddenly appeared in a bed of common broccoli a peculiar variety,\nfaithfully transmitting its newly acquired and remarkable characters;[86]\nalso that there have been a rapid transformation and transplantation of\nAmerican varieties of maize with a European variety;[87] that certainly\n\"the Ancon and Manchamp breeds of sheep,\" and that (all but certainly)\nNiata cattle, turnspit and pug dogs, jumper and frizzled fowls, short-faced\ntumbler pigeons, hook-billed ducks, &c., and a multitude of vegetable\nvarieties, have suddenly appeared in nearly the same state as we now see\nthem.[88] Lastly, Mr. Darwin tells us, that there has been an occasional\ndevelopment (in five distinct cases) in England of the \"japanned\" or\n\"black-shouldered peacock\" (_Pavo nigripennis_), a distinct species,\naccording to Dr. Sclater,[89] yet arising in Sir J. Trevelyan's flock\ncomposed entirely of the common kind, and increasing, \"_to the extinction\nof the previously existing breed_.\"[90] Mr. Darwin's only explanation of\nthe phenomena (on the supposition of the species being distinct) is by{101}\nreversion, owing to a supposed ancestral cross. But he candidly admits, \"I\nhave heard of no other such case in the animal or vegetable kingdom.\" On\nthe supposition of its being only a variety, he observes, \"The case is the\nmost remarkable ever recorded of the abrupt appearance of a new form, which\nso closely resembles a true species, that it has deceived one of the most\nexperienced of living ornithologists.\"\n\nAs to plants, M. C. Naudin[91] has given the following instances of the\nsudden origination of apparently permanent forms. \"The first case mentioned\nis that of a poppy, which took on a remarkable variation in its fruit--a\ncrown of secondary capsules being added to the normal central capsule. A\nfield of such poppies was grown, and M. Goeppert, with seed from this field,\nobtained still this monstrous form in great quantity. Deformities of ferns\nare sometimes sought after by fern-growers. They are now always obtained by\ntaking spores from the abnormal parts of the monstrous fern; from which\nspores ferns presenting the same peculiarities invariably grow.... The most\nremarkable case is that observed by Dr. Godron, of Nancy. In 1861 that\nbotanist observed, amongst a sowing of _Datura tatula_, the fruits of which\nare very spinous, a single individual of which the capsule was perfectly\nsmooth. The seeds taken from this plant all furnished plants having the\ncharacter of this individual. The fifth and sixth generations are now\ngrowing without exhibiting the least tendency to revert to the spinous\nform. More remarkable still, when crossed with the normal _Datura tatula_,\nhybrids were produced, which, in the second generation, reverted to the\noriginal types, as true hybrids do.\"\n\nThere are, then, abundant instances to prove that considerable        {102}\nmodifications may suddenly develop themselves, either due to external\nconditions or to obscure internal causes in the organisms which exhibit\nthem. Moreover, these modifications, from whatever cause arising, are\ncapable of reproduction--the modified individuals \"breeding true.\"\n\nThe question is whether new species have been developed by non-fortuitous\nvariations which are insignificant and minute, or whether such variations\nhave been comparatively sudden, and of appreciable size and importance?\nEither hypothesis will suit the views here maintained equally well (those\nviews being opposed only to fortuitous, indefinite variations), but the\nlatter is the more remote from the Darwinian conception, and yet has much\nto be said in its favour.\n\nProfessor Owen considers, with regard to specific origination, that natural\nhistory \"teaches that the change would be sudden and considerable: it\nopposes the idea that species are transmitted by minute and slow\ndegrees.\"[92] \"An innate tendency to deviate from parental type, operating\nthrough periods of adequate duration,\" being \"the most probable nature, or\nway of operation of the secondary law, whereby species have been derived\none from the other.\"[93]\n\nNow, considering the number of instances adduced of sudden modifications in\ndomestic animals, it is somewhat startling to meet with Mr. Darwin's\ndogmatic assertion that it is \"a _false belief_\" that natural species have\noften originated in the same abrupt manner. The belief _may_ be false, but\nit is difficult to see how its falsehood can be positively asserted.\n\nIt is demonstrated by Mr. Darwin's careful weighings and measurements,\nthat, though little used parts in domestic animals get reduced in weight\nand somewhat in size, yet that they show no inclination to become truly\n\"rudimentary structures.\" Accordingly he asserts[94] that such        {103}\nrudimentary parts are formed \"suddenly, by arrest of development\" in\ndomesticated animals, but in wild animals slowly. The latter assertion,\nhowever, is a _mere assertion_; necessary, perhaps, for the theory of\n\"Natural Selection,\" but as yet unproved by facts.\n\nBut why should not these changes take place suddenly in a state of nature?\nAs Mr. Murphy says,[95] \"It may be true that we have no evidence of the\norigin of wild species in this way. But this is not a case in which\nnegative evidence proves anything. We have never witnessed the origin of a\nwild species by any process whatever; and if a species were to come\nsuddenly into being in the wild state, as the Ancon Sheep did under\ndomestication, how could you ascertain the fact? If the first of a\nnewly-begotten species were found, the fact of its discovery would tell\nnothing about its origin. Naturalists would register it as a very rare\nspecies, having been only once met with, but they would have no means of\nknowing whether it were the first or the last of its race.\"\n\nTo this Mr. Wallace has replied (in his review of Mr. Murphy's work in\n_Nature_[96]), by objecting that sudden changes could very rarely be\nuseful, because each kind of animal is a nicely balanced and adjusted\nwhole, any one sudden modification of which would in most cases be hurtful\nunless accompanied by other simultaneous and harmonious modifications. If,\nhowever, it is not unlikely that there is an innate tendency to deviate at\ncertain times, and under certain conditions, it is no more unlikely that\nthat innate tendency should be an harmonious one, calculated to\nsimultaneously adjust the various parts of the organism to their new\nrelations. The objection as to the sudden abortion of rudimentary organs\nmay be similarly met.\n\nProfessor Huxley seems now disposed to accept the, at least           {104}\noccasional, intervention of sudden and considerable variations. In his\nreview of Professor Koelliker's[97] criticisms, he himself says,[98] \"We\ngreatly suspect that she\" (_i.e._ Nature) \"does make considerable jumps in\nthe way of variation now and then, and that these saltations give rise to\nsome of the gaps which appear to exist in the series of known forms.\"\n\n[Illustration: MUCH ENLARGED HORIZONTAL SECTION OF THE TOOTH OF A\nLABYRINTHODON.]\n\nIn addition to the instances brought forward in the second chapter against\nthe minute action of Natural Selection, may be mentioned such         {105}\nstructures as the wonderfully folded teeth of the labyrinthodonts. The\nmarvellously complex structure of these organs is not merely unaccountable\nas due to Natural \"Selection,\" but its production by insignificant\nincrements of complexity is hardly less difficult to comprehend.\n\nSimilarly the aborted index of the Potto (_Perodicticus_) is a structure\nnot likely to have been induced by minute changes; while, as to \"Natural\nSelection,\" the reduction of the fore-finger to a mere rudiment is\ninexplicable indeed! \"How this mutilation can have aided in the struggle\nfor life, we must confess, baffles our conjectures on the subject; for that\nany very appreciable gain to the individual can have resulted from the\nslightly lessened degree of required nourishment thence resulting (_i.e._\nfrom the suppression), seems to us to be an almost absurd proposition.\"[99]\n\n[Illustration: HAND OF THE POTTO (PERODICTICUS), FROM LIFE.]\n\nAgain, to anticipate somewhat, the great group of whales (Cetacea) was\nfully developed at the deposition of the Eocene strata. On the other hand,\nwe may pretty safely conclude that these animals were absent as late as the\nlatest secondary rocks, so that their development could not have been so\nvery slow, unless geological time is (although we shall presently see there\nare grounds to believe it is not) practically infinite. It is quite true\nthat it is, in general, very unsafe to infer the absence of any animal\nforms during a certain geological period, because no remains of them  {106}\nhave as yet been found in the strata then deposited: but in the case of the\nCetacea it is safe to do so; for, as Sir Charles Lyell remarks,[100] they\nare animals, the remains of which are singularly likely to have been\npreserved had they existed, in the same way that the remains were preserved\nof the Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri, which appear to have represented the\nCetacea during the secondary geological period.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF A PLESIOSAURUS.]\n\nAs another example, let us take the origin of wings, such as exist in\nbirds. Here we find an arm, the bones of the hand of which are atrophied\nand reduced in number, as compared with those of most other Vertebrates.\nNow, if the wing arose from a terrestrial or subaerial organ, this abortion\nof the bones could hardly have been serviceable--hardly have preserved\nindividuals in the struggle for life. If it arose from an aquatic organ,\nlike the wing of the penguin, we have then a singular divergence from the\nordinary vertebrate fin-limb. In the ichthyosaurus, in the plesiosaurus, in\nthe whales, in the porpoises, in the seals, and in others, we have\nshortening of the bones, but no reduction in the number either of the\nfingers or of their joints, which are, on the contrary, multiplied in\nCetacea and the ichthyosaurus. And even in the turtles we have eight carpal\nbones and five digits, while no finger has less than two phalanges. It{107}\nis difficult, then, to believe that the Avian limb was developed in any\nother way than by a comparatively sudden modification of a marked and\nimportant kind.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF AN ICHTHYOSAURUS.]\n\nHow, once more, can we conceive the peculiar actions of the tendrils of\nsome climbing plants to have been produced by minute modifications? These,\naccording to Mr. Darwin,[101] oscillate till they touch an object, and then\nembrace it. It is stated by that observer, \"that a thread weighing no more\nthan the thirty-second of a grain, if placed on the tendril of the\n_Passiflora gracilis_, will cause it to bend; and merely to touch the\ntendril with a twig causes it to bend; but if the twig is at once removed,\nthe tendril soon straightens itself. But the contact of other tendrils of\nthe plant, or of the falling of drops of rain, do not produce these\neffects.\"[102] But some of the zoological and anatomical discoveries of\nlate years tend rather to diminish than to augment the evidence in favour\nof minute and gradual modification. Thus all naturalists now admit that\ncertain animals, which were at one time supposed to be connecting links\nbetween groups, belong altogether to one group, and not at all to the\nother. For example, the aye-aye[103] (_Chiromys Madagascariensis_).   {108}\nwas till lately considered to be allied to the squirrels, and was often\nclassed with them in the rodent order, principally on account of its\ndentition; at the same time that its affinities to the lemurs and apes were\nadmitted. The thorough investigation into its anatomy that has now been\nmade, demonstrates that it has no more essential affinity to rodents than\nany other lemurine creature has.\n\n[Illustration: THE AYE-AYE.]\n\nBats were, by the earliest observers, naturally supposed to have a close\nrelationship to birds, and cetaceans to fishes. It is almost superfluous to\nobserve that all now agree that these mammals make not even an approach to\neither one or other of the two inferior classes.\n\n                                                                      {109}\nIn the same way it has been recently supposed that those extinct flying\nsaurians, the pterodactyles, had an affinity with birds more marked than\nany other known animals. Now, however, as has been said earlier, it is\ncontended that not only had they no such close affinity, but that other\nextinct reptiles had a far closer one.\n\nThe _amphibia_ (_i.e._ frogs, toads, and efts) were long considered (and\nare so still by some) to be reptiles, showing an affinity to fishes. It now\nappears that they form with the latter one great group--the ichthyopsida of\nProfessor Huxley--which differs widely from reptiles; while its two\ncomponent classes (fishes and amphibians) are difficult to separate from\neach other in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.\n\nIf we admit the hypothesis of gradual and minute modification, the\nsuccession of organisms on this planet must have been a progress from the\nmore general to the more special, and no doubt this has been the case in\nthe majority of instances. Yet it cannot be denied that some of the most\nrecently formed fossils show a structure singularly more generalized than\nany exhibited by older forms; while others are more specialized than are\nany allied creatures of the existing creation.\n\nA notable example of the former circumstance is offered by macrauchenia--a\nhoofed animal, which was at first supposed to be a kind of great llama\n(whence its name)--the llama being a ruminant, which, like all the rest,\nhas two toes to each foot. Now hoofed animals are divisible into two very\ndistinct series, according as the number of functional toes on each hind\nfoot is odd or even. And many other characters are found to go with this\nobvious one. Even the very earliest Ungulata show this distinction, which\nis completely developed and marked even in the Eocene palaeotherium and\nanoplotherium found in Paris by Cuvier. The former of these has the toes\nodd (perissodactyle), the other has them even (artiodactyle).\n\nNow, the macrauchenia, from the first relics of it which were found,  {110}\nwas thought to belong, as has been said, to the even-toed division.\nSubsequent discoveries, however, seemed to give it an equal claim to rank\namongst the perissodactyle forms. Others again inclined the balance of\nprobability towards the artiodactyle. Finally, it appears that this very\nrecently extinct beast presents a highly generalized type of structure,\nuniting in one organic form both artiodactyle and perissodactyle\ncharacters, and that in a manner not similarly found in any other known\ncreature living, or fossil. At the same time the differentiation of\nartiodactyle and perissodactyle forms existed as long ago as in the period\nof the Eocene ungulata, and that in a marked degree, as has been before\nobserved.\n\nAgain, no armadillo _now living_ presents nearly so remarkable a speciality\nof structure as was possessed by the _extinct_ glyptodon. In that singular\nanimal the spinal column had most of its joints fused together, forming a\nrigid cylindrical rod, a modification, as far as yet known, absolutely\npeculiar to it.\n\n[Illustration: DENTITION OF THE SABRE-TOOTHED TIGER (MACHAIRODUS).]\n\nIn a similar way the _extinct_ machairodus, or sabre-toothed tiger, is\ncharacterized by a more highly differentiated and specially carnivorous\ndentition than is shown by any predacious beast of the _present day_. {111}\nThe specialization is of this kind. The grinding teeth (or molars) of\nbeasts are divided into premolars and true molars. The premolars are molars\nwhich have deciduous vertical predecessors (or milk teeth), and any which\nare in front of such, _i.e._ between such and the canine tooth. The true\nmolars are those placed behind the molars having deciduous vertical\npredecessors. Now, as a dentition becomes more distinctly carnivorous, so\nthe hindmost molars and the foremost premolars disappear. In the existing\ncats this process is carried so far that in the upper jaw only one true\nmolar is left on each side. In the machairodus there is no upper true molar\nat all, while the premolars are reduced to two, there being only these two\nteeth above, on each side, behind the canine.\n\nNow, with regard to these instances of early specialization, as also with\nregard to the changed estimate of the degrees of affinity between forms, it\nis not pretended for a moment that such facts are irreconcilable with\n\"Natural Selection.\" Nevertheless, they point in an opposite direction. Of\ncourse not only is it conceivable that certain antique types arrived at a\nhigh degree of specialization and then disappeared; but it is manifest they\ndid do so. Still the fact of this early degree of excessive specialization\ntells to a certain, however small, extent against a progress through\nexcessively minute steps, whether fortuitous or not; as also does the\ndistinctness of forms formerly supposed to constitute connecting links.\nFor, it must not be forgotten, that if species have manifested themselves\ngenerally by gradual and minute modifications, then the absence, not in one\nbut in _all cases_, of such connecting links, is a phenomenon which remains\nto be accounted for.\n\nIt appears then that, apart from fortuitous changes, there are certain\ndifficulties in the way of accepting extremely minute modifications of any\nkind, although these difficulties may not be insuperable. Something, at all\nevents, is to be said in favour of the opinion that sudden and        {112}\nappreciable changes have from time to time occurred, however they may have\nbeen induced. Marked _races_ have undoubtedly so arisen (some striking\ninstances having been here recorded), and it is at least conceivable that\nsuch may be the mode of _specific_ manifestation generally, the possible\nconditions as to which will be considered in a later chapter. [Page 113]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nAS TO SPECIFIC STABILITY.\n\n    What is meant by the phrase \"specific stability;\" such stability to be\n    expected _a priori_, or else considerable changes at once.--Rapidly\n    increasing difficulty of intensifying race characters; alleged causes\n    of this phenomenon; probably an internal cause co-operates.--A certain\n    definiteness in variations.--Mr. Darwin admits the principle of\n    specific stability in certain cases of unequal variability.--The\n    goose.--The peacock.--The guinea fowl.--Exceptional causes of variation\n    under domestication.--Alleged tendency to\n    reversion.--Instances.--Sterility of hybrids.--Prepotency of pollen of\n    same species, but of different race.--Mortality in young gallinaceous\n    hybrids.--A bar to intermixture exists\n    somewhere.--Guinea-pigs.--Summary and conclusion.\n\nAs was observed in the preceding chapters, arguments may yet be advanced in\nfavour of the opinion that species are stable (at least in the intervals of\ntheir comparatively sudden successive manifestations); that the organic\nworld consists, according to Mr. Galton's before-mentioned conception, of\nmany facetted spheroids, each of which can repose upon any one facet, but,\nwhen too much disturbed, rolls over till it finds repose in stable\nequilibrium upon another and distinct facet. Something, it is here\ncontended, may be urged, in favour of the existence of such facets--of such\nintermitting conditions of stable equilibrium.\n\nA view as to the stability of species, in the intervals of change, has been\nwell expressed in an able article, before quoted from, as follows:[104]--\"A\ngiven animal or plant appears to be contained, as it were, within a   {114}\nsphere of variation: one individual lies near one portion of the surface;\nanother individual, of the same species, near another part of the surface;\nthe average animal at the centre. Any individual may produce descendants\nvarying in any direction, but is more likely to produce descendants varying\ntowards the centre of the sphere, and the variations in that direction will\nbe greater in amount than the variations towards the surface.\" This might\nbe taken as the representation of the normal condition of species (_i.e._\nduring the periods of repose of the several facets of the spheroids), on\nthat view which, as before said, may yet be defended.\n\nJudging the organic world from the inorganic, we might expect, _a priori_,\nthat each species of the former, like crystallized species, would have an\napproximate limit of form, and even of size, and at the same time that the\norganic, like the inorganic forms, would present modifications in\ncorrespondence with surrounding conditions; but that these modifications\nwould be, not minute and insignificant, but definite and appreciable,\nequivalent to the shifting of the spheroid on to another facet for support.\n\nMr. Murphy says,[105] \"Crystalline formation is also dependent in a very\nremarkable way on the medium in which it takes place.\" \"Beudant has found\nthat common salt crystallizing from pure water forms cubes, but if the\nwater contains a little boracic acid, the angles of the cubes are\ntruncated. And the Rev. E. Craig has found that carbonate of copper,\ncrystallizing from a solution containing sulphuric acid, forms hexagonal\ntubular prisms; but if a little ammonia is added, the form changes to that\nof a long rectangular prism, with secondary planes in the angles. If a\nlittle more ammonia is added, several varieties of rhombic octahedra\nappear; if a little nitric acid is added, the rectangular prism appears\nagain. The changes take place not by the addition of new crystals, but by\nchanging the growth of the original ones.\" These, however, may be said{115}\nto be the same species, after all; but recent researches by Dr. H.\nCharlton-Bastian seem to show that modifications in the conditions may\nresult in the evolution of forms so diverse as to constitute different\norganic species.\n\nMr. Murphy observes[106] that \"it is scarcely possible to doubt that the\nvarious forms of fungi which are characteristic of particular situations\nare not really distinct species, but that the same germ will develop into\ndifferent forms, according to the soil on which it falls;\" but it is\npossible to interpret the facts differently, and it may be that these are\nthe manifestations of really different and distinct species, developed\naccording to the different and distinct circumstances in which each is\nplaced. Mr. Murphy quotes Dr. Carpenter[107] to the effect that \"No\n_Puccinia_ but the _Puccinia rosae_ is found upon rose bushes, and this is\nseen nowhere else; _Omygena exigua_ is said to be never seen but on the\nhoof of a dead horse; and _Isaria felina_ has only been observed upon the\ndung of cats, deposited in humid and obscure situations.\" He adds, \"We can\nscarcely believe that the air is full of the germs of distinct species of\nfungi, of which one never vegetates until it falls on the hoof of a dead\nhorse, and another till it falls on cat's dung in a damp and dark place.\"\nThis is true, but it does not quite follow that they are necessarily the\nsame species if, as Dr. Bastian seems to show, thoroughly different and\ndistinct organic forms[108] can be evolved one from another by modifying\nthe conditions. This observer has brought forward arguments and facts from\nwhich it would appear that such definite, sudden, and considerable\ntransformations may take place in the lowest organisms. If such is really\nthe case, we might expect, _a priori_, to find in the highest organisms a\ntendency (much more impeded and rare in its manifestations) to        {116}\nsimilarly appreciable and sudden changes, under certain stimuli; but a\ntendency to continued stability, under normal and ordinary conditions. The\nproposition that species have, under ordinary circumstances, a definite\nlimit to their variability, is largely supported by facts brought forward\nby the zealous industry of Mr. Darwin himself. It is unquestionable that\nthe degrees of variation which have been arrived at in domestic animals\nhave been obtained more or less readily in a moderate amount of time, but\nthat further development in certain desired directions is in some a matter\nof extreme difficulty, and in others appears to be all but, if not quite,\nan impossibility. It is also unquestionable that the degree of divergence\nwhich has been attained in one domestic species is no criterion of the\namount of divergence which has been attained in another. It is contended on\nthe other side that we have no evidence of any limits to variation other\nthan those imposed by physical conditions, such, _e.g._, as those which\ndetermine the greatest degree of speed possible to any animal (of a given\nsize) moving over the earth's surface; also it is said that the differences\nin degree of change shown by different domestic animals depend in great\nmeasure upon the abundance or scarcity of individuals subjected to man's\nselection, together with the varying direction and amount of his attention\nin different cases; finally, it is said that the changes found in nature\nare within the limits to which the variation of domestic animals\nextends,--it being the case that when changes of a certain amount have\noccurred to a species under nature, it becomes _another species_, or\nsometimes _two or more other species_ by divergent variations, each of\nthese species being able again to vary and diverge in any useful direction.\n\nBut the fact of the rapidly increasing difficulty found in producing by\never such careful selection, any further extreme in some charge already\ncarried very far (such as the tail of the \"fan-tailed pigeon\" or the crop\nof the \"pouter\"), is certainly, so far as it goes, on the side of the {117}\nexistence of definite limits to variability. It is asserted in reply, that\nphysiological conditions of health and life may bar any such further\ndevelopment. Thus, Mr. Wallace says[109] of these developments: \"Variation\nseems to have reached its limits in these birds. But so it has in nature.\nThe fantail has not only more tail-feathers than any of the three hundred\nand forty existing species of pigeons, but more than any of the eight\nthousand known species of birds. There is, of course, some limit to the\nnumber of feathers of which a tail useful for flight can consist, and in\nthe fantail we have probably reached that limit. Many birds have the\noesophagus or the skin of the neck more or less dilatable, but in no known\nbird is it so dilatable as in the pouter pigeon. Here again the possible\nlimit, compatible with a healthy existence, has probably been reached. In\nlike manner, the differences in the size and form of the beak in the\nvarious breeds of the domestic pigeon, is greater than that between the\nextreme forms of beak in the various genera and sub-families of the whole\npigeon tribe. From these facts, and many others of the same nature, we may\nfairly infer, that if rigid selection were applied to any organ, we could\nin a comparatively short time produce a much greater amount of change than\nthat which occurs between species and species in a state of nature, since\nthe differences which we do produce are often comparable with those which\nexist between distinct genera or distinct families.\"\n\nBut in a domestic bird like the fantail where Natural Selection does not\ncome into play, the tail-feathers could hardly be limited by \"utility for\nflight,\" yet two more tail-feathers could certainly exist in a fancy breed\nif \"utility for flight\" were the only obstacle. It seems probable that the\nreal barrier is an _internal_ one in the nature of the organism, and the\nexistence of such is just what is contended for in this chapter. As to{118}\nthe differences between domestic races being greater than those between\nspecies or even genera, that is not enough for the argument. For upon the\ntheory of \"Natural Selection\" all birds have a common origin, from which\nthey diverged by infinitesimal changes, so that we ought to meet with\nsufficient changes to warrant the belief that a hornbill could be produced\nfrom a humming-bird, proportionate time being allowed.\n\nBut not only does it appear that there are barriers which oppose change in\ncertain directions, but that there are positive tendencies to development\nalong certain special lines. In a bird which has been kept and studied like\nthe pigeon, it is difficult to believe that any remarkable spontaneous\nvariations would pass unnoticed by breeders, or that they would fail to be\nattended to and developed by some one fancier or other. On the hypothesis\nof _indefinite_ variability, it is then hard to say why pigeons with bills\nlike toucans, or with certain feathers lengthened like those of trogans, or\nthose of birds of paradise, have never been produced. This, however, is a\nquestion which may be settled by experiment. Let a pigeon be bred with a\nbill like a toucan's, and with the two middle tail-feathers lengthened like\nthose of the king bird of paradise, or even let individuals be produced\nwhich exhibit any marked tendency of the kind, and indefinite variability\nshall be at once conceded.\n\nAs yet all the changes which have taken place in pigeons are of a few\ndefinite kinds only, such as may be well conceived to be compatible with a\nspecies possessed of a certain inherent capacity for considerable yet\ndefinite variation, a capacity for the ready production of certain degrees\nof abnormality, which then cannot be further increased.\n\nMr. Darwin himself has already acquiesced in the proposition here\nmaintained, inasmuch as he distinctly affirms the existence of a marked\ninternal barrier to change in certain cases. And if this is admitted in one\ncase, the _principle_ is conceded, and it immediately becomes probable that\nsuch internal barriers exist in all, although enclosing a much larger {119}\nfield for variation in some cases than in others. Mr. Darwin abundantly\ndemonstrates the variability of dogs, horses, fowls, and pigeons, but he\nnone the less shows clearly the _very small_ extent to which the goose, the\npeacock, and the guinea-fowl have varied.[110] Mr. Darwin attempts to\nexplain this fact as regards the goose by the animal being valued only for\nfood and feathers, and from no pleasure having been felt in it on other\naccounts. He adds, however, at the end the striking remark,[111] which\nconcedes the whole position, \"but the goose seems to have _a singularly\ninflexible organization_.\" This is not the only place in which such\nexpressions are used. He elsewhere makes use of phrases which quite\nharmonize with the conception of a normal specific constancy, but varying\ngreatly and suddenly at intervals. Thus he speaks[112] of a _whole\norganization seeming to have become plastic, and tending to depart from the\nparental type_. That different organisms should have different degrees of\nvariability, is only what might have been expected _a priori_ from the\nexistence of parallel differences in inorganic species, some of these\nhaving but a single form, and others being polymorphic.\n\nTo return to the goose, however, it may be remarked that it is at least as\nprobable that its fixity of character is the cause of the neglect, as the\nreverse. It is by no means unfair to assume that _had_ the goose shown a\ntendency to vary similar in degree to the tendency to variation of the fowl\nor pigeon, it would have received attention at once on that account.\n\nAs to the peacock it is excused on the pleas (1), that the individuals\nmaintained are so few in number, and (2) that its beauty is so great it can\nhardly be improved. But the individuals maintained _have not been too few_\nfor the independent origin of the black-shouldered form, or for the\nsupplanting of the commoner one by it. As to any neglect in selection,{120}\nit can hardly be imagined that with regard to this bird (kept as it is all\nbut exclusively for its beauty), any spontaneous beautiful variation in\ncolour or form would have been neglected. On the contrary, it would have\nbeen seized upon with avidity and preserved with anxious care. Yet apart\nfrom the black-shouldered and white varieties, no tendency to change has\nbeen known to show itself. As to its being too beautiful for improvement,\nthat is a proposition which can hardly be maintained. Many consider the\nJavan bird as much handsomer than the common peacock, and it would be easy\nto suggest a score of improvements as regards either species.\n\nThe guinea-fowl is excused, as being \"no general favourite, and scarcely\nmore common than the peacock;\" but Mr. Darwin himself shows and admits that\nit is a noteworthy instance of constancy under very varied conditions.\n\nThese instances alone (and there are yet others) seem sufficient to\nestablish the assertion, that degree of change is different in different\ndomestic animals. It is, then, somewhat unwarrantable in any Darwinian to\nassume that _all_ wild animals have a capacity for change similar to that\nexisting in _some_ of the domestic ones. It seems more reasonable to assert\nthe opposite, namely, that if, as Mr. Darwin says, the capacity for change\nis different in different domestic animals, it must surely be limited in\nthose which have it least, and _a fortiori_ limited in wild animals.\n\nIndeed, it cannot be reasonably maintained that wild species certainly vary\nas much as do domestic races; it is possible that they may do so, but at\nleast this has not been yet shown. Indeed, the much greater degree of\nvariation amongst domestic animals than amongst wild ones is asserted over\nand over again by Mr. Darwin, and his assertions are supported by an\noverwhelming mass of facts and instances.\n\nOf course, it may be asserted that a tendency to indefinite change exists\nin all cases, and that it is only the circumstances and conditions of {121}\nlife which modify the effects of this tendency to change so as to produce\nsuch different results in different cases. But assertion is not proof, and\nthis assertion has not been proved. Indeed, it may be equally asserted (and\nthe statement is more consonant with some of the facts given), that\ndomestication in certain animals induces and occasions a capacity for\nchange which is wanting in wild animals--the introduction of new causes\noccasioning new effects. For, though a certain degree of variability\n(normally, in all probability, only oscillation) exists in all organisms,\nyet domestic ones are exposed to new and different causes of variability,\nresulting in such striking divergencies as have been observed. Not even in\nthis latter case, however, is it necessary to believe that the variability\nis indefinite, but only that the small oscillations become in certain\ninstances intensified into large and conspicuous ones. Moreover, it is\npossible that some of our domestic animals have been in part chosen and\ndomesticated through possessing variability in an eminent degree.\n\nThat each species exhibits certain oscillations of structure is admitted on\nall hands. Mr. Darwin asserts that this is the exhibition of a tendency to\nvary which is absolutely indefinite. If this indefinite variability _does_\nexist, of course no more need be said. But we have seen that there are\narguments _a priori_ and _a posteriori_ against it, while the occurrence of\nvariations in certain domestic animals greater in degree than the\ndifferences between many wild species, is no argument in favour of its\nexistence, until it can be shown that the causes of variability in the one\ncase are the same as in the other. An argument against it, however, may be\ndrawn from the fact, that certain animals, though placed under the\ninfluence of those exceptional causes of variation to which domestic\nanimals are subject, have yet never been known to vary, even in a degree\nequal to that in which certain wild kinds have been ascertained to vary.\n\nIn addition to this immutability of character in some animals, it is  {122}\nundeniable, that domestic varieties have little stability, and much\ntendency to reversion, whatever be the true explanation of such phenomena.\n\nIn controverting the generally received opinion as to \"reversion,\" Mr.\nDarwin has shown that it is not all breeds which in a few years revert to\nthe original form; but he has shown no more. Thus, the feral rabbits of\nPorto Santo, Jamaica, and the Falkland Islands, have not yet so reverted in\nthose several localities.[113] Nevertheless, a Porto Santo rabbit brought\nto England reverted in a manner the most striking, recovering the proper\ncolour of its fur \"in rather less than four years.\"[114] Again, the white\nsilk fowl, in our climate, \"reverts to the ordinary colour of the common\nfowl in its skin and bones, due care having been taken to prevent any\ncross.\"[115] This reversion taking place in spite of careful selection, is\nvery remarkable.\n\nNumerous other instances of reversion are given by Mr. Darwin, both as\nregards plants and animals; amongst others, the singular fact of bud\nreversion.[116] The curiously recurring development of black sheep, in\nspite of the most careful breeding, may also be mentioned, though, perhaps,\nreversion has no part in the phenomenon.\n\nThese facts seem certainly to tell in favour of limited variability, while\nthe cases of non-reversion do not contradict it, as it is not contended\nthat all species have the same tendency to revert, but rather that their\ncapacities in this respect, as well as for change, are different in\ndifferent kinds, so that often reversion may only show itself at the end of\nvery long periods indeed.\n\nYet some of the instances given as probable or possible causes of reversion\nby Mr. Darwin, can hardly be such. He cites, for example, the occasional\npresence of supernumerary digits in man.[117] For this notion, however, he\nis not responsible, as he rests his remark on the authority of a      {123}\npassage published by Professor Owen. Again, he refers[118] to \"the greater\nfrequency of a monster proboscis in the pig than in any other animal.\" But\nwith the exception of the peculiar muzzle of the Saiga (or European\nantelope), the only known proboscidian Ungulates are the elephants and\ntapirs, and to neither of these has the pig any close affinity. It is\nrather in the horse than in the pig that we might look for the appearance\nof a reversionary proboscis, as both the elephants and the tapirs have the\ntoes of the hind foot of an odd number. It is true that the elephants are\ngenerally considered to form a group apart from both the odd and the\neven-toed Ungulata. But of the two, their affinities with the odd-toed\ndivision are more marked.[119]\n\nAnother argument in favour of the, at least intermitting, constancy of\nspecific forms and of sudden modification, may be drawn from the absence of\nminute transitional forms, but this will be considered in the next chapter.\n\nIt remains now to notice in favour of specific stability, that the\nobjection drawn from physiological difference between \"species\" and \"races\"\nstill exists unrefuted.\n\nMr. Darwin freely admits difficulties regarding the sterility of different\nspecies when crossed, and shows satisfactorily that it could never have\narisen from the action of \"Natural Selection.\" He remarks[120] also: \"With\nsome few exceptions, in the case of plants, domesticated varieties, such as\nthose of the dog, fowl, pigeon, several fruit trees, and culinary\nvegetables, which differ from each other in external characters more than\nmany species, are perfectly fertile when crossed, or even fertile in  {124}\nexcess, whilst closely allied species are almost invariably in some degree\nsterile.\"\n\nAgain, after speaking of \"the general law of good being, derived from the\nintercrossing of distinct individuals of the same species,\" and the\nevidence that the pollen of a distinct _variety_ or race is prepotent over\na flower's own pollen, adds the very significant remark,[121] \"When\ndistinct _species_ are crossed, the case is directly the reverse, for a\nplant's own pollen is almost always prepotent over foreign pollen.\"\n\nAgain he adds:[122] \"I believe from observations communicated to me by Mr.\nHewitt, who has had great experience in hybridizing pheasants and fowls,\nthat the early death of the embryo is a very frequent cause of sterility in\nfirst crosses. Mr. Salter has recently given the results of an examination\nof about 500 eggs produced from various crosses between three species of\nGallus and their hybrids. The majority of these eggs had been fertilized,\nand in the majority of the fertilized eggs the embryos either had been\npartially developed and had then aborted, or had become nearly mature, but\nthe young chickens had been unable to break through the shell. Of the\nchickens which were born, more than four-fifths died within the first few\ndays, or at latest weeks, 'without any obvious cause, apparently from mere\ninability to live,' so that from 500 eggs only twelve chickens were reared.\nThe early death of hybrid embryos probably occurs in like manner with\nplants, at least it is known that hybrids raised from very distinct species\nare sometimes weak and dwarfed, and perish at an early age, of which fact\nMax Wichura has recently given some striking cases with hybrid willows.\"\n\nMr. Darwin objects to the notion that there is any special sterility\nimposed to check specific intermixture and change, saying,[123] \"To grant\nto species the special power of producing hybrids, and then to stop   {125}\ntheir further propagation by different degrees of sterility, not strictly\nrelated to the facility of the first union between their parents, seems a\nstrange arrangement.\"\n\nBut this only amounts to saying that the author himself would not have so\nacted had he been the Creator. A \"strange arrangement\" must be admitted\nanyhow, and all who acknowledge teleology at all, must admit that the\nstrange arrangement was designed. Mr. Darwin says, as to the sterility of\nspecies, that the cause lies exclusively in their sexual constitution; but\nall that need be affirmed is that sterility is brought about somehow, and\nit is undeniable that \"crossing\" _is_ checked. All that is contended for is\nthat there _is_ a bar to the intermixture of _species_, but not of\n_breeds_; and if the conditions of the generative products are that bar, it\nis enough for the argument, no special kind of barring action being\ncontended for.\n\nHe, however, attempts to account for the modification of the sexual\nproducts of species as compared with those of varieties, by the exposure of\nthe former to more uniform conditions during longer periods of time than\nthose to which varieties are exposed, and that as wild animals, when\ncaptured, are often rendered sterile by captivity, so the influence of\nunion with another species may produce a similar effect. It seems to the\nauthor an unwarrantable assumption that a cross with what, on the Darwinian\ntheory, can only be a slightly diverging descendant of a common parent,\nshould produce an effect equal to that of captivity, and consequent change\nof habit, as well as considerable modification of food.\n\nNo clear case has been given by Mr. Darwin in which mongrel animals,\ndescended from the same undoubted species, have been persistently infertile\n_inter se_; nor any clear case in which hybrids between animals, generally\nadmitted to be distinct species, have been continuously fertile _inter se_.\n\nIt is true that facts are brought forward tending to establish the\nprobability of the doctrine of Pallas, that species may sometimes be  {126}\nrendered fertile by domestication. But even if this were true, it would be\nno approximation towards proving the converse, _i.e._ that races and\nvarieties may become sterile when wild. And whatever may be the preference\noccasionally shown by certain breeds to mate with their own variety, no\nsterility is recorded as resulting from unions with other varieties.\nIndeed, Mr. Darwin remarks,[124] \"With respect to sterility from the\ncrossing of domestic races, I know of no well-ascertained case with\nanimals. This fact (seeing the great difference in structure between some\nbreeds of pigeons, fowls, pigs, dogs, &c.) is extraordinary when contrasted\nwith the sterility, of many closely-allied natural species when crossed.\"\n\nIt has been alleged that the domestic and wild guinea-pig do not breed\ntogether, but the specific identity of these forms is very problematical.\nMr. A. D. Bartlett, superintendent of the Zoological Gardens, whose\nexperience is so great, and observation so quick, believes them to be\ndecidedly distinct species.\n\nThus, then, it seems that a certain normal specific stability in species,\naccompanied by occasional sudden and considerable modifications, might be\nexpected _a priori_ from what we know of crystalline inorganic forms and\nfrom what we may anticipate with regard to the lowest organic ones. This\npresumption is strengthened by the knowledge of the increasing difficulties\nwhich beset any attempt to indefinitely intensify any race characteristics.\nThe obstacles to this indefinite intensification, as well as to certain\nlines of variation in certain cases, appear to be not only external, but to\ndepend on internal causes or an internal cause. We have seen that Mr.\nDarwin himself implicitly admits the principle of specific stability in\nasserting the singular inflexibility of the organization of the goose. We\nhave also seen that it is not fair to conclude that all wild races can vary\nas much as the most variable domestic ones. It has also been shown    {127}\nthat there are grounds for believing in a tendency to reversion generally,\nas it is distinctly present in certain instances. Also that specific\nstability is confirmed by the physiological obstacles which oppose\nthemselves to any considerable or continued intermixture of species, while\nno such barriers oppose themselves to the blending of varieties. All these\nconsiderations taken together may fairly be considered as strengthening the\nbelief that specific manifestations are relatively stable. At the same time\nthe view advocated in this book does not depend upon, and is not identified\nwith, any such stability. All that the Author contends for is that specific\nmanifestation takes place along certain lines, and according to law, and\nnot in an exceedingly minute, indefinite, and fortuitous manner. Finally,\nhe cannot but feel justified, from all that has been brought forward, in\nreiterating the opening assertion of this chapter that something is still\nto be said for the view which maintains that species are stable, at least\nin the intervals of their comparatively rapid successive              {128}\nmanifestations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSPECIES AND TIME.\n\n    Two relations of species to time.--No evidence of past existence of\n    minutely intermediate forms when such might be expected _a\n    priori_.--Bats, Pterodactyles, Dinosauria, and Birds.--Ichthyosauria,\n    Chelonia, and Anoura.--Horse ancestry.--Labyrinthodonts and\n    Trilobites.--Two subdivisions of the second relation of species to\n    time.--Sir William Thomson's views.---Probable period required for\n    ultimate specific evolution from primitive ancestral\n    forms.--Geometrical increase of time required for rapidly multiplying\n    increase of structural differences.--Proboscis monkey.--Time required\n    for deposition of strata necessary for Darwinian evolution.--High\n    organization of Silurian forms of life.--Absence of fossils in oldest\n    rocks.--Summary and conclusion.\n\nTwo considerations present themselves with regard to the necessary relation\nof species to time if the theory of \"Natural Selection\" is valid and\nsufficient.\n\nThe first is with regard to the evidences of the past existence of\nintermediate form, their duration and succession.\n\nThe second is with regard to the total amount of time required for the\nevolution of all organic forms from a few original ones, and the bearing of\nother sciences on this question of time.\n\nAs to the first consideration, evidence is as yet against the modification\nof species by \"Natural Selection\" alone, because not only are minutely\ntransitional forms generally absent, but they are absent in cases where we\nmight certainly _a priori_ have expected them to be present. [Page 129]\n\nNow it has been said:[125] \"If Mr. Darwin's theory be true, the number of\nvarieties differing one from another a very little must have been\nindefinitely great, so great indeed as probably far to exceed the number of\nindividuals which have existed of any one variety. If this be true, it\nwould be more probable that no two specimens preserved as fossils should be\nof one variety than that we should find a great many specimens collected\nfrom a very few varieties, provided, of course, the chances of preservation\nare equal for all individuals.\" \"It is really strange that vast numbers of\nperfectly similar specimens should be found, the chances against their\nperpetuation as fossils are so great; but it is also very strange that the\nspecimens should be so exactly alike as they are, if, in fact, they came\nand vanished by a gradual change.\"\n\nMr. Darwin attempts[126] to show cause why we should believe _a priori_\nthat intermediate varieties would exist in lesser numbers than the more\nextreme forms; but though they would doubtless do so sometimes, it seems\ntoo much to assert that they would do so generally, still less universally.\nNow little less than universal and very marked inferiority in numbers would\naccount for the absence of certain series of minutely intermediate fossil\nspecimens. The mass of palaeontological evidence is indeed overwhelmingly\nagainst minute and gradual modification. It is true that when once an\nanimal has obtained powers of flight its means of diffusion are\nindefinitely increased, and we might expect to find many relics of an\naerial form and few of its antecedent state--with nascent wings just\ncommencing their suspensory power. Yet had such a slow mode of origin, as\nDarwinians contend for, operated exclusively in all cases, it is absolutely\nincredible that birds, bats, and pterodactyles should have left the remains\nthey have, and yet not a single relic be preserved in any one instance{130}\nof any of these different forms of wing in their incipient and relatively\nimperfect functional condition!\n\n[Illustration: WING-BONES OF PTERODACTYLE, BAT, AND BIRD.]\n\nWhenever the remains of bats have been found they have presented the exact\ntype of existing forms, and there is as yet no indication of the conditions\nof an incipient elevation from the ground.\n\nThe pterodactyles, again, though a numerous group, are all true and perfect\npterodactyles, though surely _some_ of the many incipient forms, which on\nthe Darwinian theory have existed, must have had a good chance of\npreservation.\n\nAs to birds, the only notable instance in which discoveries recently made\nappear to fill up an important hiatus, is the interpretation given by\nProfessor Huxley[127] to the remains of Dinosaurian reptiles, and which\nwere noticed in the third chapter of this work. The learned Professor has\n(as also has Professor Cope in America) shown that in very important  {131}\nand significant points the skeletons of the Iguanodon and of its allies\napproach very closely to that existing in the ostrich, emeu, rhea, &c. He\nhas given weighty reasons for thinking that the line of affinity between\nbirds and reptiles passes to the birds last named from the Dinosauria\nrather than from the Pterodactyles, through Archeopteryx-like forms to the\nordinary birds. Finally, he has thrown out the suggestion that the\ncelebrated footsteps left by some extinct three-toed creatures on the very\nancient sandstone of Connecticut were made, not, as hitherto supposed, by\ntrue birds, but by more or less ornithic reptiles. But even supposing all\nthat is asserted or inferred on this subject to be fully proved, it would\nnot approach to a demonstration of specific origin by _minute_\nmodification. And though it harmonizes well with \"Natural Selection,\" it is\nequally consistent with the rapid and sudden development of new specific\nforms of life. Indeed, Professor Huxley, with a laudable caution and\nmoderation too little observed by some Teutonic Darwinians, guarded himself\ncarefully from any imputation of asserting dogmatically the theory of\n\"Natural Selection,\" while upholding fully the doctrine of evolution.\n\nBut, after all, it is by no means certain, though very probable, that the\nConnecticut footsteps were made by very ornithic reptiles, or extremely\nsauroid birds. And it must not be forgotten that a completely carinate[128]\nbird (the Archeopteryx) existed at a time, when, as yet, we have no\nevidence of some of the Dinosauria having come into being. Moreover, if the\nremarkable and minute similarity of the coracoid of a pterodactyle to that\nof a bird be merely the result of function and no sign of genetic affinity,\nit is not inconceivable that pelvic and leg resemblances of Dinosauria to\nbirds may be functional likewise, though such an explanation is, of   {132}\ncourse, by no means necessary to support the view maintained in this book.\n\n[Illustration: THE ARCHEOPTERYX (OF THE OOLITE STRATA).]\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF AN ICHTHYOSAURUS.]\n\nBut the number of forms represented by many individuals, yet by _no\ntransitional ones_, is so great that only two or three can be selected as\nexamples. Thus those remarkable fossil reptiles, the Ichthyosauria and\nPlesiosauria, extended, through the secondary period, probably over the\ngreater part of the globe. Yet no single transitional form has yet been met\nwith in spite of the multitudinous individuals preserved. Again, with their\nmodern representatives the Cetacea, one or two aberrant forms alone   {133}\nhave been found, but no series of transitional ones indicating minutely the\nline of descent. This group, the whales, is a very marked one, and it is\ncurious, on Darwinian principles, that so few instances tending to indicate\nits mode of origin should have presented themselves. Here, as in the bats,\nwe might surely expect that some relics of unquestionably incipient stages\nof its development would have been left.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF A PLESIOSAURUS.]\n\nThe singular order Chelonia, including the tortoises, turtles, and\nterrapins (or fresh-water tortoises), is another instance of an extreme\nform without any, as yet known, transitional stages. Another group may be\nfinally mentioned, viz. the frogs and toads, anourous Batrachians, of which\nwe have at present no relic of any kind linking them on to the Eft group on\nthe one hand, or to reptiles on the other.\n\nThe only instance in which an approach towards a series of nearly related\nforms has been obtained is the existing horse, its predecessor Hipparion\nand other extinct forms. But even here there is no proof whatever of\nmodification by minute and infinitesimal steps; _a fortiori_ no approach to\na proof of modification by \"Natural Selection,\" acting upon indefinite\nfortuitous variations. On the contrary, the series is an admirable example\nof successive modification in one special direction along one beneficial\nline, and the teleologist must here be allowed to consider that one   {134}\nmotive of this modification (among probably an indefinite number of motives\ninconceivable to us) was the relationship in which the horse was to stand\nto the human inhabitants of this planet. These extinct forms, as Professor\nOwen, remarks,[129] \"differ from each other in a greater degree than do the\nhorse, zebra, and ass,\" which are not only good _zoological_ species as to\nform, but are species _physiologically_, _i.e._ they cannot produce a race\nof hybrids fertile _inter se_.\n\nAs to the mere action of surrounding conditions, the same Professor\nremarks:[130] \"Any modification affecting the density of the soil might so\nfar relate to the changes of limb-structure, as that a foot with a pair of\nsmall hoofs dangling by the sides of the large one, like those behind the\ncloven hoof of the ox, would cause the foot of Hipparion, _e.g._, and _a\nfortiori_ the broader based three-hoofed foot of the Palaeothere, to sink\nless deeply into swampy soil, and be more easily withdrawn than the more\nconcentratively simplified and specialized foot of the horse. Rhinoceroses\nand zebras, however, tread together the arid plains of Africa in the\npresent day; and the horse has multiplied in that half of America where two\nor more kinds of tapir still exist. That the continents of the Eocene or\nMiocene periods were less diversified in respect of swamp and sward, pampas\nor desert, than those of the Pliocene period, has no support from\nobservation or analogy.\"\n\nNot only, however, do we fail to find any traces of the incipient stages of\nnumerous very peculiar groups of animals, but it is undeniable that there\nare instances which appeared at first to indicate a _gradual transition_,\nyet which instances have been shown by further investigation and discovery\nnot to indicate truly anything of the kind. Thus at one time the remains of\nLabyrinthodonts, which up till then had been discovered, seemed to justify\nthe opinion that as time went on, forms had successively appeared with{135}\nmore and more complete segmentation and ossification of the backbone, which\nin the earliest forms was (as it is in the lowest fishes now) a soft\ncontinuous rod or notochord. Now, however, it is considered probable that\nthe soft back-boned Labyrinthodont Archegosaurus, was an immature or larval\nform,[131] while Labyrinthodonts with completely developed vertebrae have\nbeen found to exist amongst the very earliest forms yet discovered. The\nsame may be said regarding the eyes of the trilobites, some of the oldest\nforms having been found as well furnished in that respect as the very last\nof the group which has left its remains accessible to observation.\n\n[Illustration: TRILOBITE.]\n\nSuch instances, however, as well as the way in which marked and special\nforms (as the Pterodactyles, &c., before referred to) appear at once in and\nsimilarly disappear from the geological record, are of course explicable on\nthe Darwinian theory, provided a sufficiently enormous amount of past time\nbe allowed. The alleged extreme, and probably great, imperfection of that\nrecord may indeed be pleaded in excuse. But it _is_ an excuse.[132]   {136}\nNor is it possible to deny the _a priori_ probability of the preservation\nof at least a few _minutely transitional_ forms in some instances if\n_every_ species without exception has arisen exclusively by such minute and\ngradual transitions.\n\nIt remains, then, to turn to the other considerations with regard to the\nrelation of species to time: namely (1) as to the total amount of time\nallowable by other sciences for organic evolution; and (2) the proportion\nexisting, on Darwinian principles, between the time anterior to the earlier\nfossils, and the time since; as evidenced by the proportion between the\namount of evolutionary change during the latter epoch and that which must\nhave occurred anteriorly.\n\nSir William Thomson has lately[133] advanced arguments from three distinct\nlines of inquiry, and agreeing in one approximate result. The three lines\nof inquiry were--1. The action of the tides upon the earth's rotation. 2.\nThe probable length of time during which the sun has illuminated this\nplanet; and 3. The temperature of the interior of the earth. The result\narrived at by these investigations is a conclusion that the existing state\nof things on the earth, life on the earth, all geological history showing\ncontinuity of life, must be limited within some such period of past time as\none hundred million years. The first question which suggests itself,\nsupposing Sir W. Thomson's views to be correct, is, Is this period anything\nlike enough for the evolution of all organic forms by \"Natural Selection\"?\nThe second is, Is this period anything like enough for the deposition of\nthe strata which must have been deposited if all organic forms have been\nevolved by _minute_ steps, according to the Darwinian theory?\n\nIn the first place, as to Sir William Thomson's views, the Author of this\nbook cannot presume to advance any opinion; but the fact that they have not\nbeen refuted, pleads strongly in their favour when we consider how    {137}\nmuch they tell against the theory of Mr. Darwin. The last-named author only\nremarks that \"many of the elements in the calculation are more or less\ndoubtful,\"[134] and Professor Huxley[135] does not attempt to _refute_ Sir\nW. Thomson's arguments, but only to show cause for suspense of judgment,\ninasmuch as the facts _may be_ capable of other explanations.\n\nMr. Wallace, on the other hand,[136] seems more disposed to accept them,\nand, after considering Sir William's objections and those of Mr. Croll,\nputs the probable date of the beginning of the Cambrian deposits[137] at\nonly twenty-four million years ago. On the other hand, he seems to consider\nthat specific change has been more rapid than generally supposed, and\nexceptionally stable during the last score or so of thousand years.\n\nNow, first, with regard to the time required for the evolution of all\norganic forms by merely accidental, minute, and fortuitous variations, the\nuseful ones of which have been preserved:\n\nMr. Murphy[138] is distinctly of opinion that there has not been time\nenough. He says, \"I am inclined to think that geological time is too short\nfor the evolution of the higher forms of life out of the lower by that\naccumulation of imperceptibly slow variations, to which alone Darwin\nascribes the whole process.\"\n\n\"Darwin justly mentions the greyhound as being equal to any natural species\nin the perfect co-ordination of its parts, 'all adapted for extreme\nfleetness and for running down weak prey.'\" \"Yet it is an artificial\nspecies (and not _physiologically_ a species _at all_), formed by\nlong-continued selection under domestication; and there is no reason to\nsuppose that any of the variations which have been selected to form it have\nbeen other than gradual and almost imperceptible. Suppose that it has {138}\ntaken five hundred years to form the greyhound out of his wolf-like\nancestor. This is a mere guess, but it gives the order of the magnitude.\"\nNow, if so, \"how long would it take to obtain an elephant from a protozoon,\nor even from a tadpole-like fish? Ought it not to take much more than a\nmillion times as long?\"[139]\n\nMr. Darwin[140] would compare with the natural origin of a species\n\"unconscious selection, that is, the preservation of the most useful or\nbeautiful animals, with no intention of modifying the breed.\" He adds: \"But\nby this process of unconscious selection, various breeds have been sensibly\nchanged in the course of two or three centuries.\"\n\n\"Sensibly changed!\" but not formed into \"new species.\" Mr. Darwin, of\ncourse, could not mean that species _generally_ change so rapidly, which\nwould be strangely at variance with the abundant evidence we have of the\nstability of animal forms as represented on Egyptian monuments and as shown\nby recent deposits. Indeed, he goes on to say,--\"Species, however, probably\nchange much more slowly, and within the same country only a few change at\nthe same time. This slowness follows from all the inhabitants of the same\ncountry being already so well adapted to each other, that places in the\npolity of nature do not occur until after long intervals, when changes of\nsome kind in the physical conditions, or through immigration, have\noccurred, and individual differences and variations of the right nature, by\nwhich some of the inhabitants might be better fitted to their new places\nunder altered circumstances, might not at once occur.\" This is true, and\nnot only will these changes occur at distant intervals, but it must be\nborne in mind that in tracing back an animal to a remote ancestry, we pass\nthrough modifications of such rapidly increasing number and importance that\na geometrical progression can alone indicate the increase of periods  {139}\nwhich such profound alterations would require for their evolution through\n\"Natural Selection\" only.\n\nThus let us take for an example the proboscis monkey of Borneo\n(_Semnopithecus nasalis_). According to Mr. Darwin's own opinion, this form\nmight have been \"sensibly changed\" in the course of two or three centuries.\nAccording to this, to evolve it as a true and perfect species one thousand\nyears would be a very moderate period. Let ten thousand years be taken to\nrepresent approximately the period of substantially constant conditions\nduring which no considerable change would be brought about. Now, if one\nthousand years may represent the period required for the evolution of the\nspecies _S. nasalis_, and of the other species of the genus Semnopithecus;\nten times that period should, I think, be allowed for the differentiation\nof that genus, the African Cercopithecus and the other genera of the family\nSimiidae--the differences between the genera being certainly more than\ntenfold greater than those between the species of the same genus. Again we\nmay perhaps interpose a period of ten thousand years' comparative repose.\n\nFor the differentiation of the families Simiidae and Cebidae--so very much\nmore distinct and different than any two genera of either family--a period\nten times greater should, I believe, be allowed than that required for the\nevolution of the subordinate groups. A similarly increasing ratio should be\ngranted for the successive developments of the difference between the\nLemuroid and the higher forms of primates; for those between the original\nprimate and other root-forms of placental mammals; for those between\nprimary placental and implacental mammals, and perhaps also for the\ndivergence of the most ancient stock of these and of the monotremes, for in\nall these cases modifications of structure appear to increase in complexity\nin at least that ratio. Finally, a vast period must be granted for the\ndevelopment of the lowest mammalian type from the primitive stock of the\nwhole vertebrate sub-kingdom. Supposing this primitive stock to have  {140}\narisen directly from a very lowly organized animal indeed (such as a\nnematoid worm, or an ascidian, or a jelly-fish), yet it is not easy to\nbelieve that less than two thousand million years would be required for the\ntotality of animal development by no other means than minute, fortuitous,\noccasional, and intermitting variations in all conceivable directions. If\nthis be even an approximation to the truth, then there seem to be strong\nreasons for believing that geological time is not sufficient for such a\nprocess.\n\nThe second question is, whether there has been time enough for the\ndeposition of the strata which must have been deposited, if all organic\nforms have been evolved according to the Darwinian theory?\n\nNow this may at first seem a question for geologists only, but, in fact, in\nthis matter geology must in some respects rather take its time from zoology\nthan the reverse; for if Mr. Darwin's theory be true, past time down to the\ndeposition of the Upper Silurian strata can have been but a very small\nfraction of that during which strata have been deposited. For when those\nUpper Silurian strata were formed, organic evolution had already run a\ngreat part of its course, perhaps the longest, slowest, and most difficult\npart of that course.\n\nAt that ancient epoch not only were the vertebrate, molluscous, and\narthropod types distinctly and clearly differentiated, but highly developed\nforms had been produced in each of these sub-kingdoms. Thus in the\nVertebrata there were fishes not belonging to the lowest but to the very\nhighest groups which are known to have ever been developed, namely, the\nElasmobranchs (the highly organized sharks and rays) and the Ganoids, a\ngroup now poorly represented, but for which the sturgeon may stand as a\ntype, and which in many important respects more nearly resemble higher\nVertebrata than do the ordinary or osseous fishes. Fishes in which the\nventral fins are placed in front of the pectoral ones (_i.e._ jugular\nfishes) have been generally considered to be comparatively modern forms.\nBut Professor Huxley has kindly informed me that he has discovered a  {141}\njugular fish in the Permian deposits.\n\nAmongst the molluscous animals we have members of the very highest known\nclass, namely, the Cephalopods, or cuttle-fish class; and amongst\narticulated animals we find Trilobites and Eurypterida, which do not belong\nto any incipient worm-like group, but are distinctly differentiated\nCrustacea of no low form.\n\n[Illustration: CUTTLE-FISH.\nA. Ventral aspect. B. Dorsal aspect.]\n\nWe have in all these animal types nervous systems differentiated on\ndistinctly different patterns, fully formed organs of circulation,\ndigestion, excretion, and generation, complexly constructed eyes and other\nsense organs; in fact, all the most elaborate and complete animal\nstructures built up, and not only once, for in the fishes and mollusca we\nhave (as described in the third chapter of this work) the coincidence of\nthe independently developed organs of sense attaining a nearly similar\ncomplexity in two quite distinct forms. If, then, so small an advance {142}\nhas been made in fishes, molluscs, and arthropods since the Upper Silurian\ndeposits, it will probably be within the mark to consider that the period\nbefore those deposits (during which all these organs would, on the\nDarwinian theory, have slowly built up their different perfections and\ncomplexities) occupied time at least a hundredfold greater.\n\nNow it will be a moderate computation to allow 25,000,000 years for the\ndeposition of the strata down to and including the Upper Silurian. If,\nthen, the evolutionary work done during this deposition, only represents a\nhundredth part of the sum total, we shall require 2,500,000,000 (two\nthousand five hundred million) years for the complete development of the\nwhole animal kingdom to its present state. Even one quarter of this,\nhowever, would far exceed the time which physics and astronomy seem able to\nallow for the completion of the process.\n\nFinally, a difficulty exists as to the reason of the absence of rich\nfossiliferous deposits in the oldest strata--if life was then as abundant\nand varied as, on the Darwinian theory, it must have been. Mr. Darwin\nhimself admits[141] \"the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may\nbe truly urged as a valid argument against the views\" entertained in his\nbook.\n\nThus, then, we find a wonderful (and on Darwinian principles an all but\ninexplicable) absence of minutely transitional forms. All the most marked\ngroups, bats, pterodactyles, chelonians, ichthyosauria, anoura, &c., appear\nat once upon the scene. Even the horse, the animal whose pedigree has been\nprobably best preserved, affords no conclusive evidence of specific origin\nby infinitesimal, fortuitous variations; while some forms, as the\nlabyrinthodonts and trilobites, which seemed to exhibit gradual change, are\nshown by further investigation to do nothing of the sort. As regards the\ntime required for evolution (whether estimated by the probably minimum{143}\nperiod required for organic change or for the deposition of strata which\naccompanied that change), reasons have been suggested why it is likely that\nthe past history of the earth does not supply us with enough. First,\nbecause of the prodigious increase in the importance and number of\ndifferences and modifications which we meet with as we traverse\nsuccessively greater and more primary zoological groups; and, secondly,\nbecause of the vast series of strata necessarily deposited if the period\nsince the Lower Silurian marks but a small fraction of the period of\norganic evolution. Finally, the absence or rarity of fossils in the oldest\nrocks is a point at present inexplicable, and not to be forgotten or\nneglected.\n\nNow all these difficulties are avoided if we admit that new forms of animal\nlife of all degrees of complexity appear from time to time with comparative\nsuddenness, being evolved according to laws in part depending on\nsurrounding conditions, in part internal--similar to the way in which\ncrystals (and, perhaps from recent researches, the lowest forms of life)\nbuild themselves up according to the internal laws of their component\nsubstance, and in harmony and correspondence with all environing influences\nand conditions. [Page 144]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nSPECIES AND SPACE.\n\n    The geographical distribution of animals presents difficulties.--These\n    not insurmountable in themselves; harmonize with other\n    difficulties.--Fresh-water fishes.--Forms common to Africa and India;\n    to Africa and South America; to China and Australia; to North America\n    and China; to New Zealand and South America; to South America and\n    Tasmania; to South America and Australia.--Pleurodont\n    lizards.--Insectivorous mammals.--Similarity of European and South\n    American frogs--Analogy between European salmon and fishes of New\n    Zealand, &c. An ancient Antarctic continent probable.--Other modes of\n    accounting for facts of distribution.--Independent origin of closely\n    similar forms.--Conclusion.\n\nThe study of the distribution of animals over the earth's surface presents\nus with many facts having certain not unimportant bearings on the question\nof specific origin. Amongst these are instances which, at least at first\nsight, appear to conflict with the Darwinian theory of \"Natural Selection.\"\nIt is not, however, here contended that such facts do by any means\nconstitute by themselves obstacles which cannot be got over. Indeed it\nwould be difficult to imagine any obstacles of the kind which could not be\nsurmounted by an indefinite number of terrestrial modifications of\nsurface--submergences and emergences--junctions and separations of\ncontinents in all directions and combinations of any desired degree of\nfrequency. All this being supplemented by the intercalation of armies of\nenemies, multitudes of ancestors of all kinds, and myriads of connecting\nforms, whose _raison d'etre_ may be simply their utility or necessity {145}\nfor the support of the theory of \"Natural Selection.\"\n\nNevertheless, when brought in merely to supplement and accentuate\nconsiderations and arguments derived from other sources, in that case\ndifficulties connected with the geographical distribution of animals are\nnot without significance, and are worthy of mention even though, by\nthemselves, they constitute but feeble and more or less easily explicable\npuzzles which could not alone suffice either to sustain or to defeat any\ntheory of specific origination.\n\nMany facts as to the present distribution of animal life over the world are\nvery readily explicable by the hypothesis of slight elevations and\ndepressions of larger and smaller parts of its surface, but there are\nothers the existence of which it is much more difficult so to explain.\n\nThe distribution either of animals possessing the power of flight, or of\ninhabitants of the ocean, is, of course, easily to be accounted for; the\ndifficulty, if there is really any, must mainly be with strictly\nterrestrial animals of moderate or small powers of locomotion and with\ninhabitants of fresh water. Mr. Darwin himself observes,[142] \"In regard to\nfish, I believe that the same species never occur in the fresh waters of\ndistant continents.\" Now, the Author is enabled, by the labours and through\nthe kindness of Dr. Guenther, to show that this belief cannot be maintained;\nhe having been so obliging as to call attention to the following facts with\nregard to fish-distribution. These facts show that though only one species\nwhich is absolutely and exclusively an inhabitant of fresh water is as yet\nknown to be found in distant continents, yet that in several other\ninstances the same species _is_ found in the fresh water of distant\ncontinents, and that very often the same _genus_ is so distributed.\n\nThe genus _Mastacembelus_ belongs to a family of fresh-water Indian   {146}\nfishes. Eight species of this genus are described by Dr. Guenther in his\ncatalogue.[143] These forms extend from Java and Borneo on the one hand, to\nAleppo on the other. Nevertheless, a new species (_M. cryptacanthus_) has\nbeen described by the same author,[144] which is an inhabitant of the\nCamaroon country of _Western_ Africa. He observes, \"The occurrence of\nIndian forms on the West Coast of Africa, such as _Periophthalmus_,\n_Psettus_, _Mastacembelus_, is of the highest interest, and an almost new\nfact in our knowledge of the geographical distribution of fishes.\"\n\n_Ophiocephalus_, again, is a truly Indian genus, there being no less than\ntwenty-five species,[145] all from the fresh waters of the East Indies. Yet\nDr. Guenther informs me that there is a species in the Upper Nile and in\nWest Africa.\n\nThe acanthopterygian family (_Labyrinthici_) contains nine freshwater\ngenera, and these are distributed between the East Indies and South and\nCentral Africa.\n\nThe Carp fishes (Cyprinoids) are found in India, Africa, and Madagascar,\nbut there are none in South America.\n\nThus existing fresh-water fishes point to an immediate connexion between\nAfrica and India, harmonizing with what we learn from Miocene mammalian\nremains.\n\nOn the other hand, the Characinidae (a family of the physostomous fishes)\nare found in Africa and South America, and not in India, and even its\ncomponent groups are so distributed,--namely, the _Tetragonopterina_[146]\nand the _Hydrocyonina_.[147]\n\nAgain, we have similar phenomena in that almost exclusively fresh-water\ngroup the Siluroids.\n\nThus the genera _Clarias_[148] and _Heterobranchus_[149] are found    {147}\nboth in Africa and the East Indies. _Plotosus_ is found in Africa, India,\nand Australia, and the species _P. anguillaris_[150] has been brought from\nboth China and Moreton Bay. Here, therefore, we have the same species in\ntwo distinct geographical regions. It is however a coast fish, which,\nthough entering rivers, yet lives in the sea.\n\n_Eutropius_[151] is an African genus, but _E. obtusirostris_ comes from\nIndia. On the other hand, _Amiurus_ is a North American form; but one\nspecies, _A. cantonensis_,[152] comes from China.\n\nThe genus _Galaxias_[153] has at least one species common to New Zealand\nand South America, and one common to South America and Tasmania. In this\ngenus we thus have an absolutely and completely fresh-water form _of the\nvery same species_ distributed between different and distinct geographical\nregions.\n\nOf the lower fishes, a lamprey, _Mordacia mordax_,[154] is common to South\nAustralia and Chile; while another form of the same family, namely,\n_Geotria chilensis_,[155] is found not only in South America and Australia,\nbut in New Zealand also. These fishes, however, probably pass part of their\nlives in the sea.\n\nWe thus certainly have several species which _are_ common to the fresh\nwaters of distant continents, although it cannot be certainly affirmed that\nthey are exclusively and entirely fresh-water fishes throughout all their\nlives except in the case of _Galaxias_.\n\nExisting forms point to a close union between South America and Africa on\nthe one hand, and between South America, Australia, Tasmania, and New\nZealand on the other; but these unions were not synchronous any more than\nthe unions indicated between India and Australia, China and Australia,\nChina and North America, and India and Africa.\n\nPleurodont lizards are such as have the teeth attached by their sides {148}\nto the inner surface of the jaw, in contradistinction to acrodont lizards,\nwhich have the bases of their teeth anchylosed to the summit of the margin\nof the jaw. Now pleurodont iguanian lizards abound in the South American\nregion; but nowhere else, and are not as yet known to inhabit any part of\nthe present continent of Africa. Yet pleurodont lizards, strange to say,\nare found in Madagascar. This is the more remarkable, inasmuch as we have\nno evidence yet of the existence in Madagascar of fresh-water fishes common\nto Africa and South America.\n\n[Illustration: INNER SIDE OF LOWER JAW OF PLEURODONT LIZARD.\n(Showing the teeth attached to the inner surface of its side.)]\n\nAgain, that remarkable island Madagascar is the home of very singular and\nspecial insectivorous beasts of the genera Centetes, Ericulus, and\nEchinops; while the only other member of the group to which they belong is\nSolenodon, which is a resident in the West Indian Islands, Cuba and Hayti.\nThe connexion, however, between the West Indies and Madagascar must surely\nhave been at a time when the great lemurine group was absent; for it is\ndifficult to understand the spread of such a form as Solenodon, and at the\nsame time the non-extension of the active lemurs, or their utter\nextirpation, in such a congenial locality as the West Indian Archipelago.\n\nThe close connexion of South America and Australia is demonstrated (on the\nDarwinian theory), not only from the marsupial fauna of both, but also from\nthe frogs and toads which respectively inhabit those regions. A truly\nremarkable similarity and parallelism exist, however, between certain of\nthe same animals inhabiting South Western America and Europe. Thus Dr.{149}\nGuenther has described[156] a frog from Chile by the name of cacotus, which\nsingularly resembles the European bombinator.\n\n[Illustration: SOLENODON.]\n\nAgain of the salmons, two genera from South America, New Zealand, and\nAustralia, are analogous to European salmons.\n\nIn addition to this may be mentioned a quotation from Professor Dana, given\nby Mr. Darwin,[157] to the effect that \"it is certainly a wonderful fact\nthat New Zealand should have a closer resemblance in its crustacea to Great\nBritain, its antipode, than to any other part of the world:\" and Mr. Darwin\nadds \"Sir J. Richardson also speaks of the reappearance on the shores of\nNew Zealand, Tasmania, &c. of northern forms of fish. Dr. Hooker informs me\nthat twenty-five species of algae are common to New Zealand and to     {150}\nEurope, but have not been found in the intermediate tropical seas.\"\n\nMany more examples of the kind could easily be brought, but these must\nsuffice. As to the last-mentioned cases Mr. Darwin explains them by the\ninfluence of the glacial epoch, which he would extend actually across the\nequator, and thus account, amongst other things, for the appearance in\nChile of frogs having close genetic relations with European forms. But it\nis difficult to understand the persistence and preservation of such\nexceptional forms with the extirpation of all the others which probably\naccompanied them, if so great a migration of northern kinds had been\noccasioned by the glacial epoch.\n\nMr. Darwin candidly says,[158] \"I am far from supposing that all\ndifficulties in regard to the distribution and affinities of the identical\nand allied species, which now live so widely separated in the north and\nsouth, and sometimes on the intermediate mountain-ranges, are removed.\" ...\n\"We cannot say why certain species and not others have migrated; why\ncertain species have been modified and have given rise to new forms, whilst\nothers have remained unaltered.\" Again he adds, \"Various difficulties also\nremain to be solved; for instance, the occurrence, as shown by Dr. Hooker,\nof the same plants at points so enormously remote as Kerguelen Land, New\nZealand, and Fuegia; but icebergs, as suggested by Lyell, may have been\nconcerned in their dispersal. The existence, at these and other distant\npoints of the southern hemisphere, of species which, though distinct,\nbelong to genera exclusively confined to the south, is a more remarkable\ncase. Some of these species are so distinct that we cannot suppose that\nthere has been time since the commencement of the last glacial period for\ntheir migration and subsequent modification to the necessary degree.\" Mr.\nDarwin goes on to account for these facts by the probable existence of a\nrich antarctic flora in a warm period anterior to the last glacial    {151}\nepoch. There are indeed many reasons for thinking that a southern\ncontinent, rich in living forms, once existed. One such reason is the way\nin which struthious birds are, or have been, distributed around the\nantarctic region: as the ostrich in Africa, the rhea in South America, the\nemeu in Australia, the apteryx, dinornis, &c. in New Zealand, the epiornis\nin Madagascar. Still the existence of such a land would not alone explain\nthe various geographical cross relations which have been given above. It\nwould not, for example, account for the resemblance between the crustacea\nor fishes of New Zealand and of England. It would, however, go far to\nexplain the identity (specific or generic) between fresh water and other\nforms now simultaneously existing in Australia and South America, or in\neither or both of these, and New Zealand.\n\nAgain, mutations of elevation small and gradual (but frequent and\nintermitting), through enormous periods of time--waves, as it were, of land\nrolling many times in many directions--might be made to explain many\ndifficulties as to geographical distribution, and any cases that remained\nwould probably be capable of explanation, as being isolated but allied\nanimal forms, now separated indeed, but being merely remnants of extensive\ngroups which, at an earlier period, were spread over the surface of the\nearth. Thus none of the facts here given are any serious difficulty to the\ndoctrine of \"evolution,\" but it is contended in this book that if other\nconsiderations render it improbable that the manifestation of the\nsuccessive forms of life has been brought about by minute, indefinite, and\nfortuitous variations, then these facts as to geographical distribution\nintensify that improbability, and are so far worthy of attention.\n\nAll geographical difficulties of the kind would be evaded if we could\nconcede the probability of the independent origin, in different localities,\nof the same organic forms in animals high in the scale of nature.     {152}\nSimilar causes must produce similar results, and new reasons have been\nlately adduced for believing, as regards the _lowest organisms_, that the\nsame forms can arise and manifest themselves independently. The difficulty\nas to higher animals is, however, much greater, as (on the theory of\nevolution) one acting force must always be the ancestral history in each\ncase, and this force must always tend to go on acting in the same groove\nand direction in the future as it has in the past. So that it is difficult\nto conceive that individuals, the ancestral history of which is very\ndifferent, can be acted upon by all influences, external and internal, in\nsuch diverse ways and proportions that the results (unequals being added to\nunequals) shall be equal and similar. Still, though highly improbable, this\ncannot be said to be impossible; and if there _is_ an innate law of any\nkind helping to determine specific evolution, this may more or less, or\nentirely, neutralize or even reverse the effect of ancestral habit. Thus,\nit is quite conceivable that a pleurodont lizard might have arisen in\nMadagascar in perfect independence of the similarly-formed American\nlacertilia: just as certain teeth of carnivorous and insectivorous\nmarsupial animals have been seen most closely to resemble those of\ncarnivorous and insectivorous placental beasts; just as, again, the paddles\nof the Cetacea resemble, in the fact of a multiplication in the number of\nthe phalanges, the many-jointed feet of extinct marine reptiles, and as the\nbeak of the cuttle-fish or of the tadpole resembles that of birds. We have\nalready seen (in Chapter III.) that it is impossible, upon any hypothesis,\nto escape admitting the independent origins of closely similar forms, It\nmay be that they are both more frequent and more important than is\ngenerally thought.\n\nThat closely similar structures may arise without a genetic relationship\nhas been lately well urged by Mr. Ray Lankester.[159] He has brought  {153}\nthis notion forward even as regards the bones of the skull in osseous\nfishes and in mammals. He has done so on the ground that the probable\ncommon ancestor of mammals and of osseous fishes was a vertebrate animal of\nso low a type that it could not be supposed to have possessed a skull\ndifferentiated into distinct bony elements--even if it was bony at all. If\nthis was so, then the cranial bones must have had an independent origin in\neach class, and in this case we have the most strikingly harmonious and\nparallel results from independent actions. For the bones of the skull in an\nosseous fish are so closely conformed to those of a mammal, that \"both\ntypes of skull exhibit many bones in common,\" though \"in each type some of\nthese bones acquire special arrangements and very different\nmagnitudes.\"[160] And no investigator of homologies doubts that a\nconsiderable number of the bones which form the skull of any osseous fish\nare distinctly homologous with the cranial bones of man. The occipital, the\nparietal, and frontal, the bones which surround the internal ear, the\nvomer, the premaxilla, and the quadrate bones, may be given as examples.\nNow, if such close relations of homology can be brought about independently\nof any but the most remote genetic affinity, it would be rash to affirm\ndogmatically that there is any impossibility in the independent origin of\nsuch forms as centetes and solenodon, or of genetically distinct\nbatrachians, as similar to each other as are some of the frogs of South\nAmerica and of Europe. At the same time such phenomena must at present be\nconsidered as very improbable, from the action of ancestral habit, as\nbefore stated.\n\nWe have seen, then, that the geographical distribution of animals presents\ndifficulties, though not insuperable ones, for the Darwinian hypothesis.\nIf, however, other reasons against it appear of any weight--if, especially,\nthere is reason to believe that geological time has not been          {154}\nsufficient for it, then it will be well to bear in mind the facts here\nenumerated. These facts, however, are not opposed to the doctrine of\nevolution; and if it could be established that closely similar forms had\nreally arisen in complete independence one of the other, they would rather\ntend to strengthen and to support that theory. [Page 155]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nHOMOLOGIES.\n\n    Animals made-up of parts mutually related in various ways.--What\n    homology is.--Its various kinds.--Serial homology.--Lateral\n    homology.--Vertical homology.--Mr. Herbert Spencer's explanations.--An\n    internal power necessary, as shown by facts of comparative anatomy.--Of\n    teratology.--M. St. Hilaire.--Professor Burt\n    Wilder.--Foot-wings.--Facts of pathology.--Mr. James Paget.--Dr.\n    William Budd.--The existence of such an internal power of individual\n    development diminishes the improbability of an analogous law of\n    specific origination.\n\nThat concrete whole which is spoken of as \"an individual\" (such, _e.g._, as\na bird or a lobster) is formed of a more or less complex aggregation of\nparts which are actually (from whatever cause or causes) grouped, together\nin a harmonious interdependency, and which have a multitude of complex\nrelations amongst themselves.\n\nThe mind detects a certain number of these relations as it contemplates the\nvarious component parts of an individual in one or other direction--as it\nfollows up different lines of thought. These perceived relations, though\nsubjective, _as relations_, have nevertheless an objective foundation as\nreal parts, or conditions of parts, of real wholes; they are, therefore,\ntrue relations, such, _e.g._, as those between the right and left hand,\nbetween the hand and the foot, &c.\n\nThe component parts of each concrete whole have also a relation of\nresemblance to the parts of other concrete wholes, whether of the same{156}\nor of different kinds, as the resemblance between the hands of two men, or\nthat between the hand of a man and the fore-paw of a cat.\n\nNow, it is here contended that the relationships borne one to another by\nvarious component parts, imply the existence of some innate, internal\ncondition, conveniently spoken of as a power or tendency, which is quite as\nmysterious as is any innate condition, power, or tendency, resulting in the\norderly evolution of successive specific manifestations. These\nrelationships, as also this developmental power, will doubtless, in a\ncertain sense, be somewhat further explained as science advances. But the\nresult will be merely a shifting of the inexplicability a point backwards,\nby the intercalation of another step between the action of the internal\ncondition or power and its external result. In the meantime, even if by\n\"Natural Selection\" we could eliminate the puzzles of the \"origin of\nspecies,\" yet other phenomena, not less remarkable (namely, those noticed\nin this chapter), would still remain unexplained and as yet inexplicable.\nIt is not improbable that, could we arrive at the causes conditioning all\nthe complex inter-relations between the several parts of one animal, we\nshould at the same time obtain the key to unlock the secrets of specific\norigination.\n\nIt is desirable, then, to see what facts there are in animal organization\nwhich point to innate conditions (powers and tendencies), as yet\nunexplained, and upon which the theory of \"Natural Selection\" is unable to\nthrow any explanatory light.\n\nThe facts to be considered are the phenomena of \"homology,\" and especially\nof serial, bilateral, and vertical homology.\n\nThe word \"homology\" indicates such a relation between two parts that they\nmay be said in some sense to be \"the same,\" or at least \"of similar\nnature.\" This similarity, however, does not relate to the _use_ to which\nparts are put, but only to their relative position with regard to other\nparts, or to their mode of origin. There are many kinds of            {157}\nhomology,[161] but it is only necessary to consider the three kinds above\nenumerated.\n\n[Illustration: WINGBONES OF PTERODACTYLE, BAT, AND BIRD.]\n\nThe term \"homologous\" may be applied to parts in two individual animals of\ndifferent kinds, or to different parts of the same individual. Thus \"the\nright and left hands,\" or \"joints of the backbone,\" or \"the teeth of the\ntwo jaws,\" are homologous parts of the same individual. But the arm of a\nman, the fore-leg of the horse, the paddle of the whale, and the wing of\nthe bat and the bird are all also homologous parts, yet of another kind,\n_i.e._ they are the same parts existing in animals of different species.\n\nOn the other hand, the wing of the humming-bird and the wing of the\nhumming-bird moth are not homologous at all, or in any sense; for the\nresemblance between them consists solely in the use to which they are put,\nand is therefore only a relation of _analogy_. There is no relation of\n_homology_ between them, because they have no common resemblance as to\ntheir relations to surrounding parts, or as to their mode of origin.\nSimilarly, there is no homology between the wing of the bat and that  {158}\nof the flying-dragon, for the latter is formed of certain ribs, and not of\nlimb bones.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF THE FLYING DRAGON.\n(Showing the elongated ribs which support the flitting organ.)]\n\nHomology may be further distinguished into (1) a relationship which, on\nevolutionary principles, would be due to descent from a common ancestor, as\nthe homological relation between the arm-bone of the horse and that of the\nox, or between the singular ankle bones of the two lemurine genera,\ncheirogaleus and galago, and which relation has been termed by Mr. Ray\nLankester \"homogeny;\"[162] and (2) a relationship induced, not\nderived--such as exists between parts closely similar in relative position,\nbut with no genetic affinity, or only a remote one, as the homological\nrelation between the chambers of the heart of a bat and those of a    {159}\nbird, or the similar teeth of the thylacine and the dog before spoken of.\nFor this relationship Mr. Bay Lankester has proposed the term \"homoplasy.\"\n\n[Illustration: TARSAL BONES OF DIFFERENT LEMUROIDS.\n(Right tarsus of Galago; left tarsus of Cheirogaleus.)]\n\n[Illustration: A CENTIPEDE.]\n\n\"Serial homology\" is a relation of resemblance existing between two or more\nparts placed in series one behind the other in the same individual.\nExamples of such homologues are the ribs, or joints of the backbone of{160}\na horse, or the limbs of a centipede. The latter animal is a striking\nexample of serial homology. The body (except at its two ends) consists of a\nlongitudinal series of similar segments. Each segment supports a pair of\nlimbs, and the appendages of all the segments (except as before) are\ncompletely alike.\n\n[Illustration: SQUILLA.]\n\nA less complete case of serial homology is presented by Crustacea (animals\nof the crab class), notably by the squilla and by the common lobster. In\nthe latter animal we have a six-jointed abdomen (the so-called tail), {161}\nin front of which is a large solid mass (the cephalo-thorax), terminated\nanteriorly by a jointed process (the rostrum). On the under surface of the\nbody we find a quantity of moveable appendages. Such are, _e.g._, feelers\n(Fig. 9), jaws (Figs. 6, 7, and 8), foot-jaws (Fig. 5), claws and legs\n(Figs. 3 and 4), beneath the cephalo-thorax; and flat processes (Fig. 2),\ncalled \"swimmerets,\" beneath the so-called tail or abdomen.\n\n[Illustration: PART OF THE SKELETON OF THE LOBSTER.]\n\nNow, these various appendages are distinct and different enough as we {162}\nsee them in the adult, but they all appear in the embryo as buds of similar\nform and size, and the thoracic limbs at first consist each of two members,\nas the swimmerets always do.\n\nThis shows what great differences may exist in size, in form, and in\nfunction, between parts which are developmentally the same, for all these\nappendages are modifications of one common kind of structure, which becomes\ndifferently modified in different situations; in other words, they are\nserial homologues.\n\nThe segments of the body, as they follow one behind the other, are also\nserially alike, as is plainly seen in the abdomen or tail. In the\ncephalo-thorax of the lobster, however, this is disguised. It is therefore\nvery interesting to find that in the other crustacean before mentioned, the\nsquilla, the segmentation of the body is more completely preserved, and\neven the first three segments, which go to compose the head, remain\npermanently distinct.\n\n[Illustration: SPINE OF GALAGO ALLENII.]\n\nSuch an obvious and unmistakeable serial repetition of parts does not\nobtain in the highest, or backboned animals, the Vertebrata. Thus in man\nand other mammals, nothing of the kind is _externally_ visible, and we have\nto penetrate to his skeleton to find such a series of homologous parts.\n\nThere, indeed, we discover a number of pairs of bones, each pair so\nobviously resembling the others, that they all receive a common name--the\nribs. There also (_i.e._ in the skeleton) we find a still more remarkable\nseries of similar parts, the joints of the spine or backbone (vertebrae),\nwhich are admitted by all to possess a certain community of structure.{163}\n\nIt is in their limbs, however, that the Vertebrata present the most obvious\nand striking serial homology--almost the only serial homology noticeable\nexternally.\n\nThe facts of serial homology seem hardly to have excited the amount of\ninterest they certainly merit.\n\nVery many writers, indeed, have occupied themselves with investigations and\nspeculations as to what portions of the leg and foot answer to what parts\nof the arm and hand, a question which has only recently received a more or\nless satisfactory solution through the successive concordant efforts of\nProfessor Humphry,[163] Professor Huxley,[164] the Author of this\nwork,[165] and Professor Flower.[166] Very few writers, however, have\ndevoted much time or thought to the question of serial homology in general.\nMr. Herbert Spencer, indeed, in his very interesting \"First Principles of\nBiology,\" has given forth ideas on this subject, which are well worthy\ncareful perusal and consideration, and some of which apply also to the\nother kinds of homology mentioned above. He would explain the serial\nhomologies of such creatures as the lobster and centipede thus: Animals of\na very low grade propagate themselves by spontaneous fission. If certain\ncreatures found benefit from this process of division remaining incomplete,\nsuch creatures (on the theory of \"Natural Selection\") would transmit their\nselected tendency to such incomplete division to their posterity. In this\nway, it is conceivable, that animals might arise in the form of long chains\nof similar segments, each of which chains would consist of a number of\nimperfectly separated individuals, and be equivalent to a series of\nseparate individuals belonging to kinds in which the fission was complete.\nIn other words, Mr. Spencer would explain it as the coalescence of    {164}\norganisms of a lower degree of aggregation in one longitudinal series,\nthrough survival of the fittest aggregations. This may be so. It is\ncertainly an ingenious speculation, but facts have not yet been brought\nforward which demonstrate it. Had they been so, this kind of serial\nhomology might be termed \"homogenetic.\"\n\nThe other kind of serial repetitions, namely, those of the vertebral\ncolumn, are explained by Mr. Spencer as the results of alternate strains\nand compressions acting on a primitively homogeneous cylinder. The serial\nhomology of the fore and hind limbs is explained by the same writer as the\nresult of a similarity in the influences and conditions to which they are\nexposed. Serial homologues so formed might be called, as Mr. Ray Lankester\nhas proposed, \"homoplastic.\" But there are, it is here contended, abundant\nreasons for thinking that the predominant agent in the production of the\nhomologies of the limbs is an _internal_ force or tendency. And if such a\npower can be shown to be necessary in this instance, it may also be\nlegitimately used to explain such serial homologies as those of the\ncentipede's segments and of the joints of the backbone. At the same time it\nis not, of course, pretended that external conditions do not contribute\ntheir own effects in addition. The presence of this internal power will be\nrendered more probable if valid arguments can be brought forward against\nthe explanations which Mr. Herbert Spencer has offered.\n\n_Lateral homology_ (or bilateral symmetry) is the resemblance between the\nright and left sides of an animal, or of part of an animal; as, _e.g._,\nbetween our right hand and our left. It exists more or less at one or other\ntime of life in all animals, except some very lowly organized creatures. In\nthe highest animals this symmetry is laid down at the very dawn of life,\nthe first trace of the future creature being a longitudinal streak--the\nembryonic \"primitive groove.\" This kind of homology is explained by Mr.\nSpencer as the result of the similar way in which conditions affect   {165}\nthe right and left sides respectively.\n\n[Illustration: VERTEBRAE OF AXOLOTL.]\n\n_Vertical homology_ (or vertical symmetry) is the resemblance existing\nbetween parts which are placed one above the other beneath. It is much less\ngeneral and marked than serial, or lateral homology. Nevertheless, it is\nplainly to be seen in the tail region of most fishes, and in the\nfar-extending dorsal (back) and ventral (belly) fins of such kinds as the\nsole and the flounder.\n\nIt is also strikingly shown in the bones of the tail of certain efts, as in\n_Chioglossa_, where the complexity of the upper (neural) arch is closely\nrepeated by the inferior one. Again, in _Spelerpes rubra_, where almost\nvertically ascending articular processes above are repeated by almost\nvertically descending articular processes below. Also in the axolotl, where\nthere are douple pits, placed side by side, not only superiorly but at the\nsame time inferiorly.[167]\n\nThis kind of homology is also explained by Mr. Spencer as the result of the\nsimilarity of conditions affecting the two parts. Thus he explains the very\ngeneral absence of symmetry between the dorsal and ventral surfaces of\nanimals by the different conditions to which these two surfaces are\nrespectively exposed, and in the same way he explains the asymmetry of the\nflat-fishes (_Pleuronectidae_), of snails, &c.\n\nNow, first, as regards Mr. Spencer's explanation of animal forms by means\nof the influence of external conditions, the following observations may be\nmade. Abundant instances are brought forward by him of admirable adaptation\nof structure to circumstances, but as to the immense majority of these it\nis very difficult, if not impossible, to see _how_ external conditions{166}\ncan have produced, or even tended to have produced them. For example, we\nmay take the migration of one eye of the sole to the other side of its\nhead. What is there here either in the darkness, or the friction, or in any\nother conceivable external cause, to have produced the first beginning of\nsuch an unprecedented displacement of the eye? Mr. Spencer has beautifully\nillustrated that correlation which all must admit to exist between the\nforms of organisms and their surrounding external conditions, but by no\nmeans proved that the latter are _the cause_ of the former.\n\n[Illustration: PLEURONECTIDAE, WITH THE PECULIARLY PLACED EYE IN DIFFERENT\nPOSITIONS.]\n\nSome internal conditions (or in ordinary language some internal power and\nforce) must be conceded to living organisms, otherwise incident forces must\nact upon them and upon non-living aggregations of matter in the same way\nand with similar effects.\n\nIf the mere presence of these incident forces produces so ready a response\nin animals and plants, it must be that there are, in their case, conditions\ndisposing and enabling them so to respond, according to the old maxim,\n_Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis_, as the same rays of\nlight which bleach a piece of silk, blacken nitrate of silver. If,\ntherefore, we attribute the forms of organisms to the action of       {167}\nexternal conditions, _i.e._ of incident forces on their modifiable\nstructure, we give but a partial account of the matter, removing a step\nback, as it were, the action of the internal condition, power, or force\nwhich must be conceived as occasioning such ready modifiability. But indeed\nit is not at all easy to see how the influence of the surface of the ground\nor any conceivable condition or force can produce the difference which\nexists between the ventral and dorsal shields of the carapace of a\ntortoise, or by what differences of merely external causes the ovaries of\nthe two sides of the body can be made equal in a bat and unequal in a bird.\n\n[Illustration: AN ECHINUS, OR SEA-URCHIN.\n(The spines removed from one-half.)]\n\nThere is, on the other hand, an _a priori_ reason why we should expect to\nfind that the symmetrical forms of all animals are due to internal causes.\nThis reason is the fact that the symmetrical forms of minerals are\nundoubtedly due to such causes. It is unnecessary here to do more than\nallude to the beautiful and complex forms presented by inorganic\nstructures. With regard to organisms, however, the wonderful Acanthometrae\nand the Polycystina may be mentioned as presenting complexities of form\nwhich can hardly be thought to be due to other than _internal_ causes. The\nsame may be said of the great group of Echinoderms, with their amazing{168}\nvariety of component parts. If then internal forces can so build up the\nmost varied structures, they are surely capable of producing the serial,\nlateral, and vertical symmetries which higher animal forms exhibit. Mr.\nSpencer is the more bound to admit this, inasmuch as in his doctrine of\n\"physiological units\" he maintains that these organic atoms of his have an\ninnate power of building up and evolving the whole and perfect animal from\nwhich they were in each case derived. To build up and evolve the various\nsymmetries here spoken of is not one whit more mysterious. Directly to\nrefute Mr. Spencer's assertion, however, would require the bringing forward\nof examples of organisms which are ill-adapted to their positions, and out\nof harmony with their surroundings--a difficult task indeed.[168]\n\nSecondly, as regards the last-mentioned author's explanation of such serial\nhomology as exists in the centipede and its allies, the very groundwork is\nopen to objection. Multiplication by spontaneous fission seems from some\nrecent researches to be much less frequent than has been supposed, and more\nevidence is required as to the fact of the habitual propagation of _any_\nplanariae in this fashion.[169] But even if this were as asserted,     {169}\nnevertheless it fails to explain the peculiar condition presented by\n_Syllis_ and some other annelids, where a new head is formed at intervals\nin certain segments of the body. Here there is evidently an innate tendency\nto the development at intervals of a complex whole. It is not the budding\nout or spontaneous fission of certain segments, but the transformation in a\ndefinite and very peculiar manner of parts which already exist into other\nand more complex parts. Again, the processes of development presented by\nsome of these creatures do not by any means point to an origin through{170}\nthe linear coalescence of primitively distinct animals by means of\nimperfect segmentation. Thus in certain Diptera (two winged flies) the\nlegs, wings, eyes, &c., are derived from masses of formative tissue (termed\nimaginal disks), which by their mutual approximation together build up\nparts of the head and body,[170] recalling to mind the development of\nEchinoderms.\n\n[Illustration: AN ANNELID DIVIDING SPONTANEOUSLY.\n(A new head having been formed towards the hinder end of the body of the\nparent.)]\n\nAgain, Nicholas Wagner found in certain other Diptera, the Hessian flies,\nthat the larva gives rise to secondary larvae within it, which develop and\nburst the body of the primary larva. The secondary larvae give rise,\nsimilarly, to another set within them, and these again to another[171] set.\n\nAgain, the fact that in _Taenia echinococcus_ one egg produces numerous\nindividuals, tends to invalidate the argument that the increase of segments\nduring development is a relic of specific genesis.\n\nMr. H. Spencer seems to deny serial homology to the mollusca, but it is\ndifficult to see why the shell segments of chiton are not such homologues\nbecause the segmentation is superficial. Similarly the external processes\nof eolis, doris, &c., are good examples of serial homology, as also are\nplainly the successive chambers of the orthoceratidae. Nor are parts of a\nseries less serial, because arranged spirally, as in most gasteropods. Mr.\nSpencer observes of the molluscous as of the vertebrate animal, \"You cannot\ncut it into transverse slices, each of which contains a digestive organ, a\nrespiratory organ, a reproductive organ, &c.\"[172] But the same may be said\nof every single arthropod and annelid if it be meant that all these organs\nare not contained in every possible slice. While if it be meant that parts\nof all such organs are contained in certain slices, then some of the\nmollusca may also be included.\n\nAnother objection to Mr. Spencer's speculation is derived from\nconsiderations which have already been stated, as to past time. For if{171}\nthe annulose animals have been formed by aggregation, we ought to find this\nprocess much less perfect in the oldest form. But a complete development,\nsuch as already obtains in the lobster, &c., was reached by the Eurypterida\nand Trilobites of the palaeozoic strata; and annelids, probably formed\nmainly like those of the present day, abounded during the deposition of the\noldest fossiliferous rocks.\n\n[Illustration: TRILOBITE.]\n\nThirdly, and lastly, as regards such serial homology as is exemplified by\nthe backbone of man, there are also several objections to Mr. Spencer's\nmechanical explanation.\n\nOn the theory of evolution most in favour, the first Vertebrata were\naquatic. Now, as natation is generally effected by repeated and vigorous\nlateral flexions of the body, we ought to find the segmentation much more\ncomplete laterally than on the dorsal and ventral aspects of the spinal\ncolumn. Nevertheless, in those species which, taken together, constitute a\nseries of more and more distinctly segmented forms, the segmentation\ngradually increases _all round_ the central part of the spinal column.\n\nMr. Spencer[173] thinks it probable that the sturgeon has retained the\nnotochordal (that is, the primitive, unsegmented) structure because it{172}\nis sluggish. But Dr. Guenther informs me that the sluggishness of the common\ntope (_Galeus vulgaris_) is much like that of the sturgeon, and yet the\nbodies of its vertebrae are distinct and well-ossified. Moreover, the great\nsalamander of Japan is much more inert and sluggish than either, and yet it\nhas a well-developed, bony spine.\n\nI can learn nothing of the habits of the sharks _Hexanchus_, _Heptanchus_,\nand _Echinorhinus_, but Mueller describes them as possessing a persistent\n_chorda dorsalis_.[174] It may be they have the habits of the tope, but\nother sharks are amongst the very swiftest and most active of fishes.\n\nIn the bony pike (_lepidosteus_), the rigidity of the bony scales by which\nit is completely enclosed must prevent any excessive flexion of the body,\nand yet its vertebral column presents a degree of ossification and\nvertebral completeness greater than that found in any other fish whatever.\n\nMr. Spencer supports his argument by the non-segmentation of the anterior\nend of the skeletal axis, _i.e._ by the non-segmentation of the skull. But\nin fact the skull _is_ segmented, and, according to the quasi-vertebral\ntheory of the skull put forward by Professor Huxley,[175] is probably\nformed of a number of coalesced segments, of some of which the trabeculae\ncranii and the mandibular and hyoidean arches are indications. What is,\nperhaps, most remarkable however is, that the segmentation of the\nskull--its separation into the three occipital, parietal, and frontal\nelements--is most complete and distinct in the highest class, and this can\nhave nothing, however remotely, to do with the cause suggested by Mr.\nSpencer.\n\nThus, then, there is something to be said in opposition to both the\naggregational and the mechanical explanations of serial homology. The\nexplanations suggested are very ingenious, yet repose upon a very     {173}\nsmall basis of fact. Not but that the process of vertebral segmentation may\nhave been sometimes assisted by the mechanical action suggested.\n\nIt remains now to consider what are the evidences in support of the\nexistence of an internal power, by the action of which these homological\nmanifestations are evolved. It is here contended that there _is_ good\nevidence of the existence of some such special internal power, and that not\nonly from facts of comparative anatomy, but also from those of\nteratology[176] and pathology. These facts appear to show, not only that\nthere are homological internal relations, but that they are so strong and\nenergetic as to re-assert and re-exhibit themselves in creatures which, on\nthe Darwinian theory, are the descendants of others in which they were much\nless marked. They are, in fact, sometimes even more plain and distinct in\nanimals of the highest types than in inferior forms, and, moreover, this\ndeep-seated tendency acts even in diseased and abnormal conditions.\n\nMr. Darwin recognizes[177] these homological relations, and does \"not doubt\nthat they may be mastered more or less completely by Natural Selection.\" He\ndoes not, however, give any explanation of these phenomena other than the\nimposition on them of the name \"laws of correlation;\" and indeed he says,\n\"The nature of the bond of correlation is frequently quite obscure.\" Now,\nit is surely more desirable to make use, if possible, of one conception\nthan to imagine a number of, to all appearance, separate and independent\n\"laws of correlation\" between different parts of each animal.\n\n[Illustration: THE AARD-VARK (ORYCTEROPUS).]\n\n[Illustration: THE PANGOLIN (MANIS).]\n\nBut even some of these alleged laws hardly appear well founded. Thus Mr.\nDarwin, in support of such a law of concomitant variation as regards hair\nand teeth, brings forward the case of Julia Pastrana,[178] and a man  {174}\nof the Burmese Court, and adds,[179] \"These cases and those of the hairless\ndogs forcibly call to mind the fact that the two orders of mammals, namely,\nthe Edentata and Cetacea, which are the most abnormal in their dermal\ncovering, are likewise the most abnormal either by deficiency or redundancy\nof teeth.\" The assertion with regard to these orders is certainly true, but\nit should be borne in mind at the same time that the armadillos, which are\nmuch more abnormal than are the American anteaters as regards their dermal\ncovering, in their dentition are less so. The Cape ant-eater, on the other\nhand, the Aard-vark (Orycteropus), has teeth formed on a type quite\ndifferent from that existing in any other mammal; yet its hairy coat is not\nknown to exhibit any such strange peculiarity. Again, those remarkable\nscaly ant-eaters of the Old World--the pangolins (Manis)--stand alone\namongst mammals as regards their dermal covering; having been classed {175}\nwith lizards by early naturalists on account of their clothing of scales,\nyet their mouth is like that of the hairy ant-eaters of the New World. On\nthe other hand, the duck-billed platypus of Australia (Ornithorhynchus) is\nthe only mammal which has teeth formed of horn, yet its furry coat is\nnormal and ordinary. Again, the Dugong and Manatee are dermally alike, yet\nextremely different as regards the structure and number of their teeth. The\nporcupine also, in spite of its enormous armature of quills, is furnished\nwith as good a supply of teeth as are the hairy members of the same family,\nbut not with a better one; and in spite of the deficiency of teeth in the\nhairless dogs, no converse redundancy of teeth has, it is believed, been\nremarked in Angora cats and rabbits. To say the least, then, this law {176}\nof correlation presents numerous and remarkable exceptions.\n\n[Illustration: DUGONG.]\n\nTo return, however, to the subject of homological relations: it is surely\ninconceivable that indefinite variation with survival of the fittest can\never have built up these serial, bilateral, and vertical homologies,\nwithout the action of some special innate power or tendency so to build up,\npossessed by the organism itself in each case. By \"special tendency\" is\nmeant one the laws and conditions of which are as yet unknown, but which is\nanalogous to the innate power and tendency possessed by crystals similarly,\nto build up certain peculiar and very definite forms.\n\nFirst, with regard to comparative anatomy. The correspondence between the\nthoracic and pelvic limbs is notorious. Professor Gegenbaur has lately\nendeavoured[180] to explain this resemblance by the derivation of each limb\nfrom a primitive form of fin. This fin is supposed to have had a marginal\nexternal (radial) series of cartilages, each of which supported a series of\nsecondary cartilages, starting from the inner (ulnar) side of the distal\npart of the supporting marginal piece. The root marginal piece would become\nthe humerus or femur, as the case might be: the second marginal piece, with\nthe piece attached to the inner side of the distal end of the root marginal\npiece, would together form either the radius and ulna or the tibia and\nfibula, and so on.\n\nNow there is little doubt (from _a priori_ considerations) but that the\nspecial differentiation of the limb bones of the higher Vertebrates has\nbeen evolved from anterior conditions existing in some fish-like form or\nother. But the particular view advocated by the learned Professor is open\nto criticism. Thus, it may be objected against this view, first, that it\ntakes no account of the radial ossicle which becomes so enormous in the\nmole; secondly, that it does not explain the extra series of ossicles {177}\nwhich are formed on the _outer_ (radial or marginal) side of the paddle in\nthe Ichthyosaurus; and thirdly, and most importantly, that even if this had\nbeen the way in which the limbs had been differentiated, it would not be at\nall inconsistent with the possession of an innate power of producing, and\nan innate tendency to produce similar and symmetrical homological\nresemblances. It would not be so because resemblances of the kind are found\nto exist, which, on the Darwinian theory, must be subsequent and secondary,\nnot primitive and ancestral. Thus we find in animals of the eft kind\n(certain amphibians), in which the tarsus is cartilaginous, that the carpus\nis cartilaginous likewise. And we shall see in cases of disease and of\nmalformation what a tendency there is to a similar affection of homologous\nparts. In efts, as Professor Gegenbaur himself has pointed out,[181] there\nis a striking correspondence between the bones or cartilages supporting the\narm, wrist, and fingers, and those sustaining the leg, ankle, and toes,\nwith the exception that the toes exceed the fingers in number by one.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF AN ICHTHYOSAURUS.]\n\n[Illustration: A. SKELETON OF ANTERIOR EXTREMITY OF AN EFT.\nB. SKELETON OF POSTERIOR EXTREMITY OF THE SAME.]\n\nYet these animals are far from being the root-forms from which all the\nVertebrata have diverged, as is evidenced from the degree of specialization\nwhich their structure presents. If they have descended from such      {178}\nprimitive forms as Professor Gegenbaur imagines, then they have built up a\nsecondary serial homology--a repetition of similar modifications--fully as\nremarkable as if it were primary. The Plesiosauria--those extinct marine\nreptiles of the Secondary period, with long necks, small heads, and\npaddle-like limbs--are of yet higher organization than are the efts and\nother Amphibia. Nevertheless they present us with a similarity of structure\nbetween the fore and hind limb, which is so great as almost to be     {179}\nidentity. But the Amphibia and Plesiosauria, though not themselves\nprimitive vertebrate types, may be thought by some to have derived their\nlimb-structure by direct descent from such. Tortoises, however, must be\nadmitted to be not only highly differentiated organisms, but to be far\nindeed removed from primeval vertebrate structure. Yet certain\ntortoises[182] (notably _Chelydra Temminckii_) exhibit such a remarkable\nuniformity in fore and hind limb structure (extending even up to the\nproximal ends of the humerus and femur) that it is impossible to doubt its\nindependent development in these forms.\n\n[Illustration: SKELETON OF A PLESIOSAURUS.]\n\nAgain in the Potto (Perodicticus) there is an extra bone in the foot,\nsituated in the transverse ligament enclosing the flexor tendons. It is\nnoteworthy that in the _hand_ of the same animal a serially homologous\nstructure should also be developed.[183] In the allied form called the slow\nlemur (Nycticebus) we have certain arrangements of the muscles and tendons\nof the hand which reproduce in great measure those of the foot and _vice\nversa_.[184] And in the Hyrax another myological resemblance appears.[185]\nIt is, however, needless to multiply instances which can easily be produced\nin large numbers if required.\n\nSecondly, with regard to teratology, it is notorious that similar\nabnormalities are often found to co-exist in both the pelvic and thoracic\nlimbs.\n\nM. Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire remarks,[186] \"L'anomalie se repete d'un\nmembre thoracique au membre abdominal du meme cote.\" And he afterwards\nquotes from Weitbrecht,[187] who had \"observe dans un cas l'absence\nsimultanee aux deux mains et aux deux pieds, de quelques doigts, de   {180}\nquelques metacarpiens et metatarsiens, enfin de quelques os du carpe et du\ntarse.\"\n\n[Illustration: LONG FLEXOR MUSCLES AND TENDONS OF THE HAND.\n\n_P.t._ Pronator teres. _F.s._ Flexor sublimis digitorum. _F.p._ Flexor\nprofundus digitorum. _F.l.p._ Flexor longus pollicis.]\n\nProfessor Burt G. Wilder, in his paper on extra digits,[188] has      {181}\nrecorded no less than twenty-four cases where such excess coexisted in both\nlittle fingers; also one case in which the right little finger and little\ntoe were so affected; six in which it was both the little fingers and both\nthe little toes; and twenty-two other cases more or less the same, but in\nwhich the details were not accurately to be obtained.\n\nMr. Darwin cites[189] a remarkable instance of what he is inclined to\nregard as the development in the foot of birds of a sort of representation\nof the wing-feathers of the hand. He says: \"In several distinct breeds of\nthe pigeon and fowl the legs and the two outer toes are heavily feathered,\nso that, in the trumpeter pigeon, they appear like little wings. In the\nfeather-legged bantam, the 'boots,' or feathers, which grow from the\noutside of the leg, and generally from the two outer toes, have, according\nto the excellent authority of Mr. Hewitt, been seen to exceed the\nwing-feathers in length, and in one case were actually nine and a half\ninches in length! As Mr. Blyth has remarked to me, these leg-feathers\nresemble the primary wing-feathers, and are totally unlike the fine down\nwhich naturally grows on the legs of some birds, such as grouse and owls.\nHence it may be suspected that excess of food has first given redundancy to\nthe plumage, and then that the law of homologous variation has led to the\ndevelopment of feathers on the legs, in a position corresponding with those\non the wing, namely, on the outside of the tarsi and toes. I am\nstrengthened in this belief by the following curious case of correlation,\nwhich for a long time seemed to me utterly inexplicable,--namely, that in\npigeons of any breed, if the legs are feathered, the two outer toes are\npartially connected by skin. These two outer toes correspond with our third\nand fourth toes. Now, in the wing of the pigeon, or any other bird, the\nfirst and fifth digits are wholly aborted; the second is rudimentary, and\ncarries the so-called 'bastard wing;' whilst the third and fourth     {182}\ndigits are completely united and enclosed by skin, together forming the\nextremity of the wing. So that in feather-footed pigeons not only does the\nexterior surface support a row of long feathers like wing-feathers, but the\nvery same digits which in the wing are completely united by skin become\npartially united by skin in the feet; and thus, by the law of the\ncorrelated variation of homologous parts, we can understand the curious\nconnexion of feathered legs and membrane between the outer toes.\"\n\nIrregularities in the circulating system are far from uncommon, and\nsometimes illustrate this homological tendency. My friend and colleague Mr.\nGeorge G. Gascoyen, assistant surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital, has supplied\nme with two instances of symmetrical affections which have come under his\nobservation.\n\nIn the first of these the brachial artery bifurcated almost at its origin,\nthe two halves re-uniting at the elbow-joint, and then dividing into the\nradial and ulnar arteries in the usual manner. In the second case an\naberrant artery was given off from the radial side of the brachial artery,\nagain almost at its origin. This aberrant artery anastomosed below the\nelbow-joint with the radial side of the radial artery. In each of these\ncases the right and left sides varied in precisely the same manner.\n\nThirdly, as to pathology. Mr. James Paget,[190] speaking of symmetrical\ndiseases, says: \"A certain morbid change of structure on one side of the\nbody is repeated in the exactly corresponding part of the other side.\" He\nthen quotes and figures a diseased lion's pelvis from the College of\nSurgeons Museum, and says of it: \"Multiform as the pattern is in which the\nnew bone, the product of some disease comparable with a human rheumatism,\nis deposited--a pattern more complex and irregular than the spots upon a\nmap--there is not one spot or line on one side which is not represented, as\nexactly as it would be in a mirror, on the other. The likeness has more\nthan daguerreotype exactness.\" He goes on to observe: \"I need not     {183}\ndescribe many examples of such diseases. Any out-patients' room will\nfurnish abundant instances of exact symmetry in the eruptions of eczema,\nlepra, and psoriasis; in the deformities of chronic rheumatism, the\nparalyses from lead; in the eruptions excited by iodide of potassium or\ncopaiba. And any large museum will contain examples of equal symmetry in\nsyphilitic ulcerations of the skull; in rheumatic and syphilitic deposits\non the tibiae and other bones; in all the effects of chronic rheumatic\narthritis, whether in the bones, the ligaments, or the cartilages; in the\nfatty and earthy deposits in the coats of arteries.\"[191]\n\nHe also considered it to be proved that, \"Next to the parts which are\nsymmetrically placed, none are so nearly identical in composition as those\nwhich are homologous. For example, the backs of the hands and of the feet,\nor the palms and soles, are often not only symmetrically, but similarly,\naffected with psoriasis. So are the elbows and the knees; and similar\nportions of the thighs and the arms may be found affected with ichthyosis.\nSometimes also specimens of fatty and earthy deposits in the arteries\noccur, in which exact similarity is shown in the plan, though not in the\ndegree, with which the disease affects severally the humeral and femoral,\nthe radial and peroneal, the ulnar and posterior tibial arteries.\"\n\nDr. William Budd[192] gives numerous instances of symmetry in disease, both\nlateral and serial. Thus, amongst others, we have one case (William\nGodfrey), in which the hands and feet were distorted. \"The distortion of\nthe right hand is greater than that of the left, of the right foot greater\nthan that of the left foot.\" In another (Elizabeth Alford) lepra affected\nthe extensor surfaces of the thoracic and pelvic limbs. Again, in the case\nof skin disease illustrated in Plate III., \"The analogy between the   {184}\nelbows and knees is clearly expressed in the fact that these were the only\nparts affected with the disease.\"[193]\n\nProfessor Burt Wilder,[194] in his paper on \"Pathological Polarities,\"\nstrongly supports the philosophical importance of these peculiar relations,\nadding arguments in favour of antero-posterior homologies, which it is here\nunnecessary to discuss, enough having been said, it is believed, to\nthoroughly demonstrate the existence of these deep internal relations which\nare named lateral and serial homologies.\n\nWhat explanation can be offered of these phenomena? To say that they\nexhibit a \"nutritional relation\" brought about by a \"balancing of forces\"\nis merely to give a new denomination to the unexplained fact. The changes\nare, _of course_, brought about by a \"nutritional\" process, and the\nsymmetry is undoubtedly the result of a \"balance of forces,\" but to say so\nis a truism. The question is, what is the cause of this \"nutritional\nbalancing\"? It is here contended that it must be due to an internal cause\nwhich at present science is utterly incompetent to explain. It is an\ninternal property possessed by each living organic whole as well as by each\nnon-living crystalline mass, and that there is such internal power or\ntendency, which may be spoken of as a \"polarity,\" seems to be demonstrated\nby the instances above given, which can easily be multiplied indefinitely.\nMr. Herbert Spencer[195] (speaking of the reproduction, by budding, of a\nBegonia-leaf) recognizes a power of the kind. He says, \"We have, therefore,\nno alternative but to say that the living particles composing one of these\nfragments have an innate tendency to arrange themselves into the shape of\nthe organism to which they belong. We must infer that a plant or animal of\nany species is made up of special units, in all of which there dwells the\nintrinsic aptitude to aggregate into the form of that species; just as{185}\nin the atoms of a salt, there dwells the intrinsic aptitude to crystallize\nin a particular way. It seems difficult to conceive that this can be so;\nbut we see that it _is_ so.\" ... \"For this property there is no fit term.\nIf we accept the word polarity as a name for the force by which inorganic\nunits are aggregated into a form peculiar to them, we may apply this word\nto the analogous force displayed by organic limits.\"\n\nDr. Jeffries Wyman,[196] in his paper on the \"Symmetry and Homology of\nLimbs,\" has a distinct chapter on the \"Analogy between Symmetry and\nPolarity,\" illustrating it by the effects of magnets on \"particles in a\npolar condition.\"\n\nMr. J. J. Murphy, after noticing[197] the power which crystals have to\nrepair injuries inflicted on them and the modifications they undergo\nthrough the influence of the medium in which they may be formed, goes on to\nsay:[198] \"It needs no proof that in the case of spheres and crystals the\nforms and the structures are the effect, and not the cause, of the\nformative principles. Attraction, whether gravitative or capillary,\nproduces the spherical form; the spherical form does not produce\nattraction. And crystalline polarities produce crystalline structure and\nform; crystalline structure and form do not produce crystalline polarities.\nThe same is not quite so evident of organic forms, but it is equally true\nof them also.\" ... \"It is not conceivable that the microscope should reveal\npeculiarities of structure corresponding to peculiarities of habitual\ntendency in the embryo, which at its first formation has no structure\nwhatever;\"[199] and he adds that \"there is something quite inscrutable and\nmysterious\" in the formation of a new individual from the germinal    {186}\nmatter of the embryo. In another place[200] he says: \"We know that in\ncrystals, notwithstanding the variability of form within the limits of the\nsame species, there are definite and very peculiar formative laws, which\ncannot possibly depend on anything like organic functions, because crystals\nhave no such functions; and it ought not to surprise us if there are\nsimilar formative or morphological laws among organisms, which, like the\nformative laws of crystallization, cannot be referred to any relation of\nform or structure to function. Especially, I think, is this true of the\nlowest organisms, many of which show great beauty of form, of a kind that\nappears to be altogether due to symmetry of growth; as the beautiful\nstar-like rayed forms of the _acanthometrae_, which are low animal organisms\nnot very different from the Foraminifera.\" Their \"definiteness of form does\nnot appear to be accompanied by any corresponding differentiation of\nfunction between different parts; and, so far as I can see, the beautiful\nregularity and symmetry of their radiated forms are altogether due to\nunknown laws of symmetry of growth, just like the equally beautiful and\nsomewhat similar forms of the compound six-rayed, star-shaped crystals of\nsnow.\"\n\nAltogether, then, it appears that each organism has an innate tendency to\ndevelop in a symmetrical manner, and that this tendency is controlled and\nsubordinated by the action of external conditions, and not that this\nsymmetry is superinduced only _ab externo_. In fact, that each organism has\nits own internal and special laws of growth and development.\n\nIf, then, it is still necessary to conceive an internal law or \"substantial\nform,\" moulding each organic being,[201] and directing its development{187}\nas a crystal is built up, only in an indefinitely more complex manner, it\nis congruous to imagine the existence of some internal law accounting at\nthe same time for specific divergence as well as for specific identity.\n\nA principle regulating the successive evolution of different organic forms\nis not one whit more mysterious than is the mysterious power by which a\nparticle of structureless sarcode develops successively into an egg, a\ngrub, a chrysalis, a butterfly, when all the conditions, cosmical,\nphysical, chemical, and vital, are supplied, which are the requisite\naccompaniments to determine such evolution. [Page 188]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nEVOLUTION AND ETHICS.\n\n    The origin of morals an inquiry not foreign to the subject of this\n    book.--Modern utilitarian view as to that origin.--Mr. Darwin's\n    speculation as to the origin of the abhorrence of incest.--Cause\n    assigned by him insufficient.--Care of the aged and infirm opposed by\n    \"Natural Selection;\" also self-abnegation and asceticism.--Distinctness\n    of the ideas \"right\" and \"useful.\"--Mr. John Stuart\n    Mill.--Insufficiency of \"Natural Selection\" to account for the origin\n    of the distinction between duty and profit.---Distinction of moral acts\n    into \"material\" and \"formal.\"--No ground for believing that formal\n    morality exists in brutes.--Evidence that it does exist in\n    savages.--Facility with which savages may be misunderstood.--Objections\n    as to diversity of customs.--Mr. Hutton's review of Mr. Herbert\n    Spencer.--Anticipatory character of morals.--Sir John Lubbock's\n    explanation.--Summary and conclusion.\n\nAny inquiry into the origin of the notion of \"morality\"--the conception of\n\"right\"--may, perhaps, be considered as somewhat remote from the question\nof the Genesis of Species; the more so, since Mr. Darwin, at one time,\ndisclaimed any pretension to explain the origin of the higher psychical\nphenomena of man. His disciples, however, were never equally reticent, and\nindeed he himself is now not only about to produce a work on man (in which\nthis question must be considered), but he has distinctly announced the\nextension of the application of his theory to the very phenomena in\nquestion. He says:[202] \"In the distant future I see open fields for  {189}\nfar more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new\nfoundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and\ncapacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his\nhistory.\" It may not be amiss then to glance slightly at the question, so\nmuch disputed, concerning the origin of ethical conceptions and its bearing\non the theory of \"Natural Selection.\"\n\nThe followers of Mr. John Stuart Mill, of Mr. Herbert Spencer, and\napparently, also, of Mr. Darwin, assert that in spite of the great\n_present_ difference between the ideas \"useful\" and \"right,\" yet that they\nare, nevertheless, one in _origin_, and that that origin consisted\nultimately of pleasurable and painful sensations.\n\nThey say that \"Natural Selection\" has evolved moral conceptions from\nperceptions of what was useful, _i.e._ pleasurable, by having through long\nages preserved a predominating number of those individuals who have had a\nnatural and spontaneous liking for practices and habits of mind useful to\nthe race, and that the same power has destroyed a predominating number of\nthose individuals who possessed a marked tendency to contrary practices.\nThe descendants of individuals so preserved have, they say, come to inherit\nsuch a liking and such useful habits of mind, and that at last (finding\nthis inherited tendency thus existing in themselves, distinct from their\ntendency to conscious self-gratification) they have become apt to regard it\nas fundamentally distinct, _innate_, and independent of all experience. In\nfact, according to this school, the idea of \"right\" is only the result of\nthe gradual accretion of useful predilections which, from time to time,\narose in a series of ancestors naturally selected. In this way, \"morality\"\nis, as it were, the congealed past experience of the race, and \"virtue\"\nbecomes no more than a sort of \"retrieving,\" which the thus improved human\nanimal practises by a perfected and inherited habit, regardless of\nself-gratification, just as the brute animal has acquired the habit of\nseeking prey and bringing it to his master, instead of devouring it   {190}\nhimself.\n\nThough Mr. Darwin has not as yet expressly advocated this view, yet some\nremarks made by him appear to show his disposition to sympathise with it.\nThus, in his work on \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\"[203] he\nasserts that \"the savages of Australia and South America hold the crime of\nincest in abhorrence;\" but he considers that this abhorrence has probably\narisen by \"Natural Selection,\" the ill effects of close interbreeding\ncausing the less numerous and less healthy offspring of incestuous unions\nto disappear by degrees, in favour of the descendants (greater both in\nnumber and strength) of individuals who naturally, from some cause or\nother, as he suggests, preferred to mate with strangers rather than with\nclose blood-relations; this preference being transmitted and becoming thus\ninstinctive, or habitual, in remote descendants.\n\nBut on Mr. Darwin's own ground, it maybe objected that this notion fails to\naccount for \"abhorrence,\" and \"moral reprobation;\" for, as no stream can\nrise higher than its source, the original \"slight feeling\" which was\n_useful_ would have been perpetuated, but would never have been augmented\nbeyond the degree requisite to ensure this beneficial preference, and\ntherefore would not certainly have become magnified into \"abhorrence.\" It\nwill not do to assume that the union of males and females, each possessing\nthe required \"slight feeling,\" must give rise to offspring with an\nintensified feeling of the same kind; for, apart from reversion, Mr. Darwin\nhas called attention to the unexpected modifications which sometimes result\nfrom the union of _similarly_ constituted parents. Thus, for example, he\ntells us:[204] \"If two top-knotted canaries are matched, the young, instead\nof having very fine top-knots, are generally bald.\" From examples of this\nkind, it is fair, on Darwinian principles, to infer that the union of {191}\nparents who possessed a similar inherited aversion might result in\nphenomena quite other than the augmentation of such aversion, even if the\ntwo aversions should be altogether similar; while, very probably, they\nmight be so different in their nature as to tend to neutralize each other.\nBesides, the union of parents so similarly emotional would be rare indeed\namongst savages, where marriages would be owing to almost anything rather\nthan to congeniality of mind between the spouses. Mr. Wallace tells\nus,[205] that they choose their wives for \"rude health and physical\nbeauty,\" and this is just what might be naturally supposed. Again, we must\nbear in mind the necessity there is that _many individuals_ should be\nsimilarly and simultaneously affected with this aversion from\nconsanguineous unions; as we have seen in the second chapter, how\ninfallibly variations presented by only a few individuals, tend to be\neliminated by mere force of numbers. Mr. Darwin indeed would throw back\nthis aversion, if possible, to a pre-human period; since he speculates as\nto whether the gorillas or orang-utans, in effecting their matrimonial\nrelations, show any tendency to respect the prohibited degrees of\naffinity.[206] No tittle of evidence, however, has yet been adduced\npointing in any such direction, though surely if it were of such importance\nand efficiency as to result (through the aid of \"Natural Selection\" alone)\nin that \"abhorrence\" before spoken of, we might expect to be able to detect\nunmistakeable evidence of its incipient stages. On the contrary, as regards\nthe ordinary apes (for with regard to the highest there is no evidence of\nthe kind) as we see them in confinement, it would be difficult to name any\nanimals less restricted, by even a generic bar, in the gratification of the\nsexual instinct. And although the conditions under which they have been\nobserved are abnormal, yet these are hardly the animals to present us in a\nstate of nature, with an extraordinary and exceptional sensitiveness in\nsuch matters. [Page 192]\n\nTo take an altogether different case. Care of, and tenderness towards, the\naged and infirm are actions on all hands admitted to be \"right;\" but it is\ndifficult to see how such actions could ever have been so useful to a\ncommunity as to have been seized on and developed by the exclusive action\nof the law of the \"survival of the fittest.\" On the contrary, it seems\nprobable that on strict utilitarian principles the rigid political economy\nof Tierra del Fuego would have been eminently favoured and diffused by the\nimpartial action of \"Natural Selection\" alone. By the rigid political\neconomy referred to, is meant that destruction and utilization of \"useless\nmouths\" which Mr. Darwin himself describes in his highly interesting\n\"Journal of Researches.\"[207] He says: \"It is certainly true, that when\npressed in winter by hunger, they kill and devour their old women before\nthey kill their dogs. The boy being asked why they did this, answered,\n'Doggies catch otters, old women no.' They often run away into the\nmountains, but they are pursued by the men and brought back to the\nslaughter-house at their own firesides.\" Mr. Edward Bartlett, who has\nrecently returned from the Amazons, reports that at one Indian village\nwhere the cholera made its appearance, the whole population immediately\ndispersed into the woods, leaving the sick to perish uncared for and alone.\nNow, had the Indians remained, undoubtedly far more would have died; as\ndoubtless, in Tierra del Fuego, the destruction of the comparatively\nuseless old women has often been the means of preserving the healthy and\nreproductive young. Such acts surely must be greatly favoured by the stern\nand unrelenting action of exclusive \"Natural Selection.\"\n\nIn the same way that admiration which all feel for acts of self-denial done\nfor the good of others, and tending even towards the destruction of the\nactor, could hardly be accounted for on Darwinian principles alone; for\nself-immolators must but rarely leave direct descendants, while the\ncommunity they benefit must by their destruction tend, so far, to     {193}\nmorally deteriorate. But devotion to others of the same community is by no\nmeans _all_ that has to be accounted for. Devotion to the whole human race,\nand devotion to God--in the form of asceticism--have been and are very\ngenerally recognized as \"good;\" and the Author contends that it is simply\nimpossible to conceive that such ideas and sanctions should have been\ndeveloped by \"Natural Selection\" alone, from only that degree of\nunselfishness necessary for the preservation of brutally barbarous\ncommunities in the struggle for life. That degree of unselfishness once\nattained, further improvement would be checked by the mutual opposition of\ndiverging moral tendencies and spontaneous variations in all directions.\nAdded to which, we have the principle of reversion and atavism, tending\npowerfully to restore and reproduce that more degraded anterior condition\nwhence the later and better state painfully emerged.\n\nVery few, however, dispute the complete distinctness, here and now, of the\nideas of \"duty\" and \"interest\" whatever may have been the origin of those\nideas. No one pretends that ingratitude may, in any past abyss of time,\nhave been a virtue, or that it may be such now in Arcturus or the Pleiades.\nIndeed, a certain eminent writer of the utilitarian school of ethics has\namusingly and very instructively shown how radically distinct even in his\nown mind are the two ideas which he nevertheless endeavours to identify.\nMr. John Stuart Mill, in his examination of \"Sir William Hamilton's\nPhilosophy,\" says,[208] if \"I am informed that the world is ruled by a\nbeing whose attributes are infinite, but what they are we cannot learn, nor\nwhat the principles of his government, except that 'the highest human\nmorality which we are capable of conceiving' does not sanction them;\nconvince me of it, and I will bear my fate as I may. But when I am told\nthat I must believe this, and at the same time call this being by the {194}\nnames which express and affirm the highest human morality, I say in plain\nterms that I will not. Whatever power such a being may have over me, there\nis one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him.\nI will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet\nto my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not\nso calling him, to hell I will go.\"\n\nThis is unquestionably an admirable sentiment on the part of Mr. Mill (with\nwhich every absolute moralist will agree), but it contains a complete\nrefutation of his own position, and is a capital instance[209] of the\nvigorous life of moral intuition in one who professes to have eliminated\nany fundamental distinction between the \"right\" and the \"expedient.\" For if\nan action is morally good, and to be done, merely in proportion to the\namount of pleasure it secures, and morally bad and to be avoided as tending\nto misery, and if it could be _proved_ that by calling God good--whether He\nis so or not, in our sense of the term,--we could secure a maximum of\npleasure, and by refusing to do so we should incur endless torment,\nclearly, on utilitarian principles, the flattery would be good.\n\nMr. Mill, of course, must also mean that, in the matter in question, all\nmen would do well to act with him. Therefore, he must mean that it would be\nwell for all to accept (on the hypothesis above given) infinite and final\nmisery for all as the result of the pursuit of happiness as the only end.\n\nIt must be recollected that in consenting to worship this unholy God, Mr.\nMill is not asked to do harm to his neighbour, so that his refusal reposes\nsimply on his perception of the immorality of the requisition. It is also\nnoteworthy that an omnipotent Deity is supposed incapable of altering Mr.\nMill's mind and moral perceptions.\n\nMr. Mill's decision is right, but it is difficult indeed to see how,  {195}\nwithout the recognition of an \"absolute morality,\" he can justify so utter\nand final an abandonment of all utility in favour of a clear and distinct\nmoral perception.\n\nThese two ideas, the \"right\" and the \"useful,\" being so distinct here and\nnow, a greater difficulty meets us with regard to their origin from some\ncommon source, than met us before when considering the first beginnings of\ncertain bodily structures. For the distinction between the \"right\" and the\n\"useful\" is so fundamental and essential that not only does the idea of\nbenefit not enter into the idea of duty, but we see that the very fact of\nan act _not_ being beneficial to us makes it the more praiseworthy, while\ngain tends to diminish the merit of an action. Yet this idea, \"right,\" thus\nexcluding, as it does, all reference to utility or pleasure, has\nnevertheless to be constructed and evolved from utility and pleasure, and\nultimately from pleasurable sensations, if we are to accept pure\nDarwinianism: if we are to accept, that is, the evolution of man's\npsychical nature and highest powers, by the exclusive action of \"Natural\nSelection,\" from such faculties as are possessed by brutes; in other words,\nif we are to believe that the conceptions of the highest human morality\narose through minute and fortuitous variations of brutal desires and\nappetites in all conceivable directions.\n\nIt is here contended, on the other hand, that no conservation of any such\nvariations could ever have given rise to the faintest beginning of any such\nmoral perceptions; that by \"Natural Selection\" alone the maxim _fiat\njustitia, ruat coelum_ could never have been excogitated, still less have\nfound a widespread acceptance; that it is impotent to suggest even an\napproach towards an explanation of the _first beginning_ of the idea of\n\"right.\" It need hardly be remarked that acts may be distinguished not only\nas pleasurable, useful, or beautiful, but also as good in two different\nsenses: (1) _materially_ moral acts, and (2) acts which are _formally_\nmoral. The first are acts good in themselves, _as acts_, apart from any\nintention of the agent which may or may not have been directed towards{196}\n\"right.\" The second are acts which are good not only in themselves, as\nacts, but also in the deliberate _intention_ of the agent who recognizes\nhis actions as being \"right.\" Thus acts may be _materially_ moral or\nimmoral, in a very high degree, without being in the least _formally_ so.\nFor example, a person may tend and minister to a sick man with scrupulous\ncare and exactness, having in view all the time nothing but the future\nreception of a good legacy. Another may, in the dark, shoot his own father,\ntaking him to be an assassin, and so commit what is _materially_ an act of\nparricide, though _formally_ it is only an act of self-defence of more or\nless culpable rashness. A woman may innocently, because ignorantly, marry a\nmarried man, and so commit a _material_ act of adultery. She may discover\nthe facts, and persist, and so make her act _formal_ also.\n\nActions of brutes, such as those of the bee, the ant, or the beaver,\nhowever materially good as regards their relation to the community to which\nsuch animals belong, are absolutely destitute of the most incipient degree\nof real, _i.e._ formal \"goodness,\" because unaccompanied by mental acts of\nconscious will directed towards the fulfilment of duty. Apology is due for\nthus stating so elementary a distinction, but the statement is not\nsuperfluous, for confusion of thought, resulting from confounding together\nthese very distinct things, is unfortunately far from uncommon.\n\nThus some Darwinians assert that the germs of morality exist in brutes, and\nwe have seen that Mr. Darwin himself speculates on the subject as regards\nthe highest apes. It may safely be affirmed, however, that there is no\ntrace in brutes of any actions simulating morality which are not explicable\nby the fear of punishment, by the hope of pleasure, or by personal\naffection. No sign of moral reprobation is given by any brute, and yet had\nsuch existed in germ through Darwinian abysses of past time, some evidence\nof its existence must surely have been rendered perceptible through\n\"survival of the fittest\" in other forms besides man, if that         {197}\n\"survival\" has alone and exclusively produced it in him.\n\nAbundant examples may, indeed, be brought forward of useful acts which\nsimulate morality, such as parental care of the young, &c. But did the most\nundeviating habits guide all brutes in such matters, were even aged and\ninfirm members of a community of insects or birds carefully tended by young\nwhich benefited by their experience, such acts would not indicate even the\nfaintest rudiment of real, _i.e._ formal, morality. \"Natural Selection\"\nwould, of course, often lead to the prevalence of acts beneficial to a\ncommunity, and to acts _materially_ good; but unless they can be shown to\nbe _formally_ so, they are not in the least to the point, they do not offer\nany explanation of the origin of an altogether new and fundamentally\ndifferent motive and conception.\n\nIt is interesting, on the other hand, to note Mr. Darwin's statement as to\nthe existence of a distinct moral feeling, even in, perhaps, the very\nlowest and most degraded of all the human races known to us. Thus in the\nsame \"Journal of Researches\"[210] before quoted, bearing witness to the\nexistence of moral reprobation on the part of the Fuegians, he says: \"The\nnearest approach to religious feeling which I heard of was shown by York\nMinster (a Fuegian so named), who, when Mr. Bynoe shot some very young\nducklings as specimens, declared in the most solemn manner, 'Oh, Mr. Bynoe,\nmuch rain, snow, blow much.' This was evidently a retributive punishment\nfor wasting human food.\"\n\nMr. Wallace gives the most interesting testimony, in his \"Malay\nArchipelago,\" to the existence of a very distinct, and in some instances\nhighly developed moral sense in the natives with whom he came in contact.\nIn one case,[211] a Papuan who had been paid in advance for bird-skins and\nwho had not been able to fulfil his contract before Mr. Wallace was on{198}\nthe point of starting, \"came running down after us holding up a bird, and\nsaying with great satisfaction, 'Now I owe you nothing!'\" And this though\nhe could have withheld payment with complete impunity.\n\nMr. Wallace's observations and opinions on this head seem hardly to meet\nwith due appreciation in Sir John Lubbock's recent work on Primitive\nMan.[212] But considering the acute powers of observation and the industry\nof Mr. Wallace, and especially considering the years he passed in familiar\nand uninterrupted intercourse with natives, his opinion and testimony\nshould surely carry with it great weight. He has informed the Author that\nhe found a strongly marked and widely diffused modesty, in sexual matters,\namongst all the tribes with which he came in contact. In the same way Mr.\nBonwick, in his work on the Tasmanians, testifies to the modesty exhibited\nby the naked females of that race, who by the decorum of their postures\ngave evidence of the possession in germ of what under circumstances would\nbecome the highest chastity and refinement.\n\nHasty and incomplete observations and inductions are prejudicial enough to\nphysical science, but when their effect is to degrade untruthfully our\ncommon humanity, there is an additional motive to regret them. A hurried\nvisit to a tribe, whose language, traditions and customs are unknown, is\nsometimes deemed sufficient for \"smart\" remarks as to \"ape characters,\"\n&c., which are as untrue as irrelevant. It should not be forgotten how\nextremely difficult it is to enter into the ideas and feelings of an alien\nrace. If in the nineteenth century a French theatrical audience can witness\nwith acquiescent approval, as a type of English manners and ideas, the\nrepresentation of a marquis who sells his wife at Smithfield, &c. &c., it\nis surely no wonder if the ideas of a tribe of newly visited savages  {199}\nshould be more or less misunderstood. To enter into such ideas requires\nlong and familiar intimacy, like that experienced by the explorer of the\nMalay Archipelago. From him, and others, we have abundant evidence that\nmoral ideas exist, at least in germ, in savage races of men, while they\nsometimes attain even a highly developed state. No amount of evidence as to\nacts of moral depravity is to the point, as the object here aimed at is to\nestablish that moral intuitions _exist_ in savages, not that their actions\nare good.\n\nObjections, however, are sometimes drawn from the different notions as to\nthe moral value of certain acts, entertained by men of various countries or\nof different epochs; also from the difficulty of knowing what particular\nactions in certain cases are the right ones, and from the effects which\nprejudice, interest, passion, habit, or even, indirectly, physical\nconditions, may have upon our moral perceptions. Thus Sir John Lubbock\nspeaks[213] of certain Feejeeans, who, according to the testimony of Mr.\nHunt,[214] have the custom of piously choking their parents under certain\ncircumstances, in order to insure their happiness in a future life. Should\nany one take such facts as telling _against_ the belief in an absolute\nmorality, he would show a complete misapprehension of the point in dispute;\nfor such facts tell in _favour_ of it.\n\nWere it asserted that man possesses a distinct innate power and faculty by\nwhich he is made intuitively aware what acts considered in and by\nthemselves are right and what wrong,--an infallible and universal internal\ncode,--the illustration would be to the point. But all that need be\ncontended for is that the intellect perceives not only truth, but also a\nquality of \"higher\" which ought to be followed, and of \"lower\" which ought\nto be avoided; when two lines of conduct are presented to the will for\nchoice, the intellect so acting being the conscience.\n\n                                                                      {200}\nThis has been well put by Mr. James Martineau in his excellent essay on\nWhewell's Morality. He says,[215] \"If moral good were a quality resident in\neach action, as whiteness in snow, or sweetness in fruits; and if the moral\nfaculty was our appointed instrument for detecting its presence; many\nconsequences would ensue which are at variance with fact. The wide range of\ndifferences observable in the ethical judgments of men would not exist; and\neven if they did, could no more be reduced and modified by discussion than\nconstitutional differences of hearing or of vision. And, as the quality of\nmoral good either must or must not exist in every important operation of\nthe will, we should discern its presence or absence separately in each; and\neven though we never had the conception of more than one insulated action,\nwe should be able to pronounce upon its character. This, however, we have\nplainly no power to do. Every moral judgment is relative, and involves a\ncomparison of two terms. When we praise what _has been_ done, it is with\nthe coexistent conception of something _else_ that _might have been_ done;\nand when we resolve on a course as right, it is to the exclusion of some\nother that is wrong. This fact, that every ethical decision is in truth a\n_preference_, an election of one act as higher than another, appears of\nfundamental importance in the analysis of the moral sentiments.\"\n\nFrom this point of view it is plain how trifling are arguments drawn from\nthe acts of a savage, since an action highly immoral in us might be one\nexceedingly virtuous in him--being the highest presented to his choice in\nhis degraded intellectual condition and peculiar circumstances.\n\nIt need only be contended, then, that there _is_ a perception of \"right\"\nincapable of further analysis; not that there is any infallible internal\nguide as to all the complex actions which present themselves for      {201}\nchoice. The _principle_ is given in our nature, the _application_ of the\nprinciple is the result of a thousand educational influences.\n\nIt is no wonder, then, that, in complex \"cases of conscience,\" it is\nsometimes a matter of exceeding difficulty to determine which of two\ncourses of action is the less objectionable. This no more invalidates the\ntruth of moral principles than does the difficulty of a mathematical\nproblem cast doubt on mathematical principles. Habit, education, and\nintellectual gifts facilitate the correct application of both.\n\nAgain, if our moral insight is intensified or blunted by our habitual\nwishes or, indirectly, by our physical condition, the same may be said of\nour perception of the true relations of physical facts one to another. An\neager wish for marriage has led many a man to exaggerate the powers of a\nlimited income, and a fit of dyspepsia has given an unreasonably gloomy\naspect to more than one balance-sheet.\n\nConsidering that moral intuitions have to do with _insensible_ matters,\nthey cannot be expected to be more clear than the perception of physical\nfacts. And if the latter perceptions may be influenced by volition, desire,\nor health, our moral views may also be expected to be so influenced, and\nthis in a higher degree because they so often run counter to our desires. A\nbottle or two of wine may make a sensible object appear double; what\nwonder, then, if our moral perceptions are sometimes warped and distorted\nby such powerful agencies as an evil education or an habitual absence of\nself-restraint. In neither case does occasional distortion invalidate the\naccuracy of normal and habitual perception.\n\nThe distinctness here and now of the ideas of \"right\" and \"useful\" is\nhowever, as before said, fully conceded by Mr. Herbert Spencer, although he\ncontends that these conceptions are one in root and origin.\n\nHis utilitarian Genesis of Morals, however, has been recently combated{202}\nby Mr. Richard Holt Hutton in a paper which appeared in _Macmillan's\nMagazine_.[216]\n\nThis writer aptly objects an _argumentum ad hominem_, applying to morals\nthe same argument that has been applied in this work to our sense of\nmusical harmony, and by Mr. Wallace to the vocal organs of man.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer's notions on the subject are thus expressed by himself:\n\"To make my position fully understood, it seems needful to add that,\ncorresponding to the fundamental propositions of a developed moral science,\nthere have been, and still are developing in the race certain fundamental\nmoral intuitions; and that, though these moral intuitions are the result of\naccumulated experiences of utility gradually organized and inherited, they\nhave come to be quite independent of conscious experience. Just in the same\nway that I believe the intuition of space possessed by any living\nindividual to have arisen from organized and consolidated experiences of\nall antecedent individuals, who bequeathed to him their slowly developed\nnervous organizations; just as I believe that this intuition, requiring\nonly to be made definite and complete by personal experiences, has\npractically become a form of thought quite independent of experience;--so\ndo I believe that the experiences of utility, organized and consolidated\nthrough all past generations of the human race, have been producing\ncorresponding nervous modifications which, by continued transmissions and\naccumulation, have become in us certain faculties of moral intuition,\nactive emotions responding to right and wrong conduct, which have no\napparent basis in the individual experiences of utility. I also hold that,\njust as the space intuition responds to the exact demonstrations of\ngeometry, and has its rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them,\nso will moral intuitions respond to the demonstrations of moral science,\nand will have their rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them.\"\n\n                                                                      {203}\nAgainst this view of Mr. Herbert Spencer, Mr. Hutton objects--\"1. That even\nas regards Mr. Spencer's illustration from geometrical intuitions, his\nprocess would be totally inadequate, since you could not deduce the\nnecessary space intuition of which he speaks from any possible\naccumulations of familiarity with space relations.... We cannot _inherit_\nmore than our fathers _had_: no amount of experience of facts, however\nuniversal, can give rise to that particular characteristic of intuitions\nand _a priori_ ideas, which compels us to deny the possibility that in any\nother world, however otherwise different, our experience (as to space\nrelations) could be otherwise.\n\n\"2. That the case of moral intuitions is very much stronger.\n\n\"3. That if Mr. Spencer's theory accounts for anything, it accounts not for\nthe deepening of a sense of utility and inutility into right and wrong, but\nfor the drying up of the sense of utility and inutility into mere inherent\ntendencies, which would exercise over us not _more_ authority but _less_,\nthan a rational sense of utilitarian issues.\n\n\"4. That Mr. Spencer's theory could not account for the intuitional\nsacredness now attached to _individual_ moral rules and principles, without\naccounting _a fortiori_ for the general claim of the greatest happiness\nprinciple over us as the final moral intuition---which is conspicuously\ncontrary to the fact, as not even the utilitarians themselves plead any\ninstinctive or intuitive sanction for their great principle.\n\n\"5. That there is no trace of positive evidence of any single instance of\nthe transformation of a utilitarian rule of right into an intuition, since\nwe find no utilitarian principle of the most ancient times which is now an\naccepted moral intuition, nor any moral intuition, however sacred, which\nhas not been promulgated thousands of years ago, and which has not\nconstantly had to stop the tide of utilitarian _objections_ to its\nauthority--and this age after age, in our own day quite as much as in days\ngone by.... Surely, if anything is remarkable in the history of       {204}\nmorality, it is the _anticipatory_ character, if I may use the expression,\nof moral principles--the intensity and absoluteness with which they are\nlaid down ages before the world has approximated to the ideal thus\nasserted.\"\n\nSir John Lubbock, in his work on Primitive Man before referred to, abandons\nMr. Spencer's explanation of the genesis of morals while referring to Mr.\nHutton's criticisms on the subject. Sir John proposes to substitute\n\"deference to authority\" instead of \"sense of interest\" as the origin of\nour conception of \"duty,\" saying that what has been found to be beneficial\nhas been traditionally inculcated on the young, and thus has become to be\ndissociated from \"interest\" in the mind, though the inculcation itself\noriginally sprung from that source. This, however, when analysed, turns out\nto be a distinction without a difference. It is nothing but utilitarianism,\npure and simple, after all. For it can never be intended that authority is\nobeyed because of an intuition that it _should be deferred to_, for that\nwould be to admit the very principle of absolute morality which Sir John\ncombats. It must be meant, then, that authority is obeyed through fear of\nthe consequences of disobedience, or through pleasure felt in obeying the\nauthority which commands. In the latter case we have \"pleasure\" as the end\nand no rudiment of the conception \"duty.\" In the former we have fear of\npunishment, which appeals directly to the sense of \"utility to the\nindividual,\" and no amount of such a sense will produce the least germ of\n\"ought\" which is a conception different _in kind_, and in which the notion\nof \"punishment\" has no place. Thus, Sir John Lubbock's explanation only\nconcerns a _mode_ in which the sense of \"duty\" may be stimulated or\nappealed to, and makes no approximation to an explanation of its origin.\n\nCould the views of Mr. Herbert Spencer, of Mr. Mill, or of Mr. Darwin on\nthis subject be maintained, or should they come to be generally accepted,\nthe consequences would be disastrous indeed! Were it really the case that\nvirtue was a _mere kind of \"retrieving,\"_ then certainly we should    {205}\nhave to view with apprehension the spread of intellectual cultivation,\nwhich would lead the human \"retrievers\" to regard from a new point of view\ntheir fetching and carrying. We should be logically compelled to acquiesce\nin the vociferations of some continental utilitarians, who would banish\naltogether the senseless words \"duty\" and \"merit;\" and then, one important\ninfluence which has aided human progress being withdrawn, we should be\nreduced to hope that in this case the maxim _cessante causa cessat ipse\neffectus_ might through some incalculable accident fail to apply.\n\nIt is true that Mr. Spencer tries to erect a safeguard against such moral\ndisruption, by asserting that for every immoral act, word, or thought, each\nman during this life receives minute and exact retribution, and that thus a\nregard for individual self-interest will effectually prevent any moral\ncatastrophe. But by what means will he enforce the acceptance of a dogma\nwhich is not only incapable of proof, but is opposed to the commonly\nreceived opinion of mankind in all ages? Ancient literature, sacred and\nprofane, teems with protests against the successful evil-doer, and\ncertainly, as Mr. Hutton observes,[217] \"Honesty must have been associated\nby our ancestors with many unhappy as well as many happy consequences, and\nwe know that in ancient Greece dishonesty was openly and actually\nassociated with happy consequences.... When the concentrated experience of\nprevious generations was held, _not_ indeed to justify, but to excuse by\nutilitarian considerations, craft, dissimulation, sensuality, selfishness.\"\n\nThis dogma is opposed to the moral consciousness of many as to the events\nof their own lives; and the Author, for one, believes that it is absolutely\ncontrary to fact.\n\nHistory affords multitudes of instances, but an example may be selected\nfrom one of the most critical periods of modern times. Let it be      {206}\ngranted that Lewis the Sixteenth of France and his queen had all the\ndefects attributed to them by the most hostile of serious historians; let\nall the excuses possible be made for his predecessor, Lewis the Fifteenth,\nand also for Madame de Pompadour, can it be pretended that there are\ngrounds for affirming that the vices of the two former so far exceeded\nthose of the latter, that their respective fates were plainly and evidently\njust? that while the two former died in their beds, after a life of the\nmost extreme luxury, the others merited to stand forth through coming time\nas examples of the most appalling and calamitous tragedy?\n\nThis theme, however, is too foreign to the immediate matter in hand to be\nfurther pursued, tempting as it is. But a passing protest against a\nsuperstitious and deluding dogma may stand,--a dogma which may, like any\nother dogma, be vehemently asserted and maintained, but which is remarkable\nfor being destitute, at one and the same time, of both authoritative\nsanction and the support of reason and observation.\n\nTo return to the bearing of moral conceptions on \"Natural Selection,\" it\nseems that, from the reasons given in this chapter, we may safely\naffirm--1. That \"Natural Selection\" could not have produced, from the\nsensations of pleasure and pain experienced by brutes, a higher degree of\nmorality than was useful; therefore it could have produced any amount of\n\"beneficial habits,\" but not abhorrence of certain acts as impure and\nsinful.\n\n2. That it could not have developed that high esteem for acts of care and\ntenderness to the aged and infirm which actually exists, but would rather\nhave perpetuated certain low social conditions which obtain in some savage\nlocalities.\n\n3. That it could not have evolved from ape sensations the noble virtue of a\nMarcus Aurelius, or the loving but manly devotion of a St. Lewis.\n\n4. That, alone, it could not have given rise to the maxim _fiat justitia,\nruat coelum_. [Page 207]\n\n5. That the interval between material and formal morality is one altogether\nbeyond its power to traverse.\n\nAlso, that the anticipatory character of moral principles is a fatal bar to\nthat explanation of their origin which is offered to us by Mr. Herbert\nSpencer. And, finally, that the solution of that origin proposed recently\nby Sir John Lubbock is a mere version of simple utilitarianism, appealing\nto the pleasure or safety of the individual, and therefore utterly\nincapable of solving the riddle it attacks.\n\nSuch appearing to be the case as to the power of \"Natural Selection,\" we,\nnevertheless, find moral conceptions--_formally_ moral ideas--not only\nspread over the civilized world, but manifesting themselves unmistakeably\n(in however rudimentary a condition, and however misapplied) amongst the\nlowest and most degraded of savages. If from amongst these, individuals can\nbe brought forward who seem to be destitute of any moral conception,\nsimilar cases also may easily be found in highly civilized communities.\nSuch cases tell no more against moral intuitions than do cases of\ncolour-blindness or idiotism tell against sight and reason. We have thus a\nmost important and conspicuous fact, the existence of which is fatal to the\ntheory of \"Natural Selection,\" as put forward of late by Mr. Darwin and his\nmost ardent followers. It must be remarked, however, that whatever force\nthis fact may have against a belief in the origination of man from brutes\nby minute, fortuitous variations, it has no force whatever against the\nconception of the orderly evolution and successive manifestation of\nspecific forms by ordinary natural law--even if we include amongst such the\nupright frame, the ready hand and massive brain of man himself. [Page 208]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nPANGENESIS.\n\n    A provisional hypothesis supplementing \"Natural Selection.\"--Statement\n    of the hypothesis.--Difficulty as to multitude of gemmules.--As to\n    certain modes of reproduction.--As to formations without the requisite\n    gemmules.--Mr. Lewes and Professor Delpino.--Difficulty as to\n    developmental force of gemmules.--As to their spontaneous\n    fission.--Pangenesis and Vitalism.--Paradoxical reality.--Pangenesis\n    scarcely superior to anterior hypotheses.--Buffon.--Owen.--Herbert\n    Spencer.--\"Gemmules\" as mysterious as \"physiological\n    units.\"--Conclusion.\n\nIn addition to the theory of \"Natural Selection,\" by which it has been\nattempted to account for the origin of species, Mr. Darwin has also put\nforward what he modestly terms \"a provisional hypothesis\" (that of\n_Pangenesis_), by which to account for the origin of each and every\nindividual form.\n\nNow, though the hypothesis of Pangenesis is no necessary part of \"Natural\nSelection,\" still any treatise on specific origination would be incomplete\nif it did not take into consideration this last speculation of Mr. Darwin.\nThe hypothesis in question may be stated as follows: That each living\norganism is ultimately made up of an almost infinite number of minute\nparticles, or organic atoms, termed \"gemmules,\" each of which has the power\nof reproducing its kind. Moreover, that these particles circulate freely\nabout the organism which is made up of them, and are derived from all the\nparts of all the organs of the less remote ancestors of each such     {209}\norganism during all the states and stages of such several ancestors'\nexistence; and therefore of the several states of each of such ancestors'\norgans. That such a complete collection of gemmules is aggregated in each\novum and spermatozoon in most animals, and in each part capable of\nreproducing by gemmation (budding) in the lowest animals and in plants.\nTherefore in many of such lower organisms such a congeries of ancestral\ngemmules must exist in every part of their bodies, since in them every part\nis capable of reproducing by gemmation. Mr. Darwin must evidently admit\nthis, since he says: \"It has often been said by naturalists that each cell\nof a plant has the actual or potential capacity of reproducing the whole\nplant; but it has this power only in virtue of containing gemmules _derived\nfrom every part_.\"[218]\n\nMoreover, these gemmules are supposed to tend to aggregate themselves, and\nto reproduce in certain definite relations to other gemmules. Thus, when\nthe foot of an eft is cut off, its reproduction is explained by Mr. Darwin\nas resulting from the aggregation of those floating gemmules which come\nnext in order to those of the cut surface, and the successive aggregations\nof the other kinds of gemmules which come after in regular order. Also, the\nmost ordinary processes of repair are similarly accounted for, and the\nsuccessive development of similar parts and organs in creatures in which\nsuch complex evolutions occur is explained in the same way, by the\nindependent action of separate gemmules.\n\nIn order that each living creature may be thus furnished, the number of\nsuch gemmules in each must be inconceivably great. Mr. Darwin says:[219]\n\"In a highly organized and complex animal, the gemmules thrown off from\neach different cell or unit throughout the body must be inconceivably\nnumerous and minute. Each unit of each part, as it changes during\ndevelopment--and we know that some insects undergo at least twenty    {210}\nmetamorphoses--must throw off its gemmules. All organic beings, moreover,\ninclude many dormant gemmules derived from their grandparents and more\nremote progenitors, but not from all their progenitors. These _almost\ninfinitely numerous_ and minute gemmules must be included in each bud,\novule, spermatozoon, and pollen grain.\" We have seen also that in certain\ncases a similar multitude of gemmules must be included also in every\nconsiderable part of the whole body of each organism, but where are we to\nstop? There must be gemmules not only from every organ, but from every\ncomponent part of such organ, from every subdivision of such component\npart, and from every cell, thread, or fibre entering into the composition\nof such subdivision. Moreover, not only from all these, but from each and\nevery successive stage of the evolution and development of such\nsuccessively more and more elementary parts. At the first glance this new\natomic theory has charms from its apparent simplicity, but the attempt thus\nto follow it out into its ultimate limits and extreme consequences seems to\nindicate that it is at once insufficient and cumbrous.\n\nMr. Darwin himself is, of course, fully aware that there must be _some_\nlimit to this aggregation of gemmules. He says:[220] \"Excessively minute\nand numerous as they are believed to be, an infinite number derived, during\na long course of modification and descent, from each cell of each\nprogenitor, could not be supported and nourished by the organism.\"\n\nBut apart from these matters, which will be more fully considered further\non, the hypothesis not only does not appear to account for certain\nphenomena which, in order to be a valid theory, it ought to account for;\nbut it seems absolutely to conflict with patent and notorious facts.\n\nHow, for example, does it explain the peculiar reproduction which is  {211}\nfound to take place in certain marine worms--certain annelids?\n\n[Illustration: AN ANNELID DIVIDING SPONTANEOUSLY.\n(A new head having been formed towards the hinder end of the body of the\nparent.)]\n\nIn such creatures we see that, from time to time, one of the segments of\nthe body gradually becomes modified till it assumes the condition of a\nhead, and this remarkable phenomenon is repeated again and again, the body\nof the worm thus multiplying serially into new individuals which\nsuccessively detach themselves from the older portion. The development of\nsuch a mode of reproduction by \"Natural Selection\" seems not less\ninexplicable than does its continued performance through the aid of   {212}\n\"pangenesis.\" For how can gemmules attach themselves to others to which\nthey do not normally or generally succeed? Scarcely less difficult to\nunderstand is the process of the stomach-carrying-off mode of metamorphosis\nbefore spoken of as existing in the Echinoderms. Next, as to certain patent\nand notorious facts: On the hypothesis of pangenesis, no creature can\ndevelop an organ unless it possesses the component gemmules which serve for\nits formation. No creature can possess such gemmules unless it inherits\nthem from its parents, grandparents, or its less remote ancestors. Now, the\nJews are remarkably scrupulous as to marriage, and rarely contract such a\nunion with individuals not of their own race. This practice has gone on for\nthousands of years, and similarly also for thousands of years the rite of\ncircumcision has been unfailingly and carefully performed. If then the\nhypothesis of pangenesis is well founded, that rite ought to be now\nabsolutely or nearly superfluous from the necessarily continuous absence of\ncertain gemmules through so many centuries and so many generations. Yet it\nis not at all so, and this fact seems to amount almost to an experimental\ndemonstration that the hypothesis of pangenesis is an insufficient\nexplanation of individual evolution.\n\nTwo exceedingly good criticisms of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis have appeared.\nOne of these is by Mr. G. H. Lewes,[221] the other by Professor Delpino of\nFlorence.[222] The latter gentleman gives a report of an observation made\nby him upon a certain plant, which observation adds force to what has just\nbeen said about the Jewish race. He says:[223] \"If we examine and compare\nthe numerous species of the genus _Salvia_, commencing with _Salvia\nofficinalis_, which may pass as the main state of the genus, and      {213}\nconcluding with _Salvia verticillata_, which may be taken as the most\nhighly developed form, and as the most distant from the type, we observe a\nsingular phenomenon. The lower cell of each of the two fertile anthers,\nwhich is much reduced and different from the superior even in _Salvia\nofficinalis_, is transmuted in other _salviae_ into an organ (nectarotheca)\nhaving a very different form and function, and finally disappears entirely\nin _Salvia verticillata_.\n\n\"Now, on one occasion, in a flower belonging to an individual of _Salvia\nverticillata_, and only on the left stamen, I observed a perfectly\ndeveloped and pollinigerous lower cell, perfectly homologous with that\nwhich is normally developed in _Salvia officinalis_. This case of atavism\nis truly singular. According to the theory of Pangenesis, it is necessary\nto assume that all the gemmules of this anomalous formation, and therefore\nthe mother-gemmule of the cell, and the daughter-gemmules of the special\nepidermic tissue, and of the very singular subjacent tissue of the\nendothecium, have been perpetuated, and transmitted from parent to\noffspring in a dormant state, and through a number of generations, such as\nstartles the imagination, and leads it to refuse its consent to the theory\nof Pangenesis, however seductive it may be.\" This seems a strong\nconfirmation of what has been here advanced.\n\nThe main objection raised against Mr. Darwin's hypothesis is that it\n(Pangenesis) requires so many subordinate hypotheses for its support, and\nthat some of these are not tenable.\n\nProfessor Delpino considers[224] that as many as eight of these subordinate\nhypotheses are required, namely, that--\n\n\"1. The emission of the gemmules takes place, or may take place in all\nstates of the cell.\n\n\"2. The quantity of gemmules emitted from every cell is very great.\n\n\"3. The minuteness of the gemmules is extreme.\n\n                                                                      {214}\n\"4. The gemmules possess two sorts of affinity, one of which might be\ncalled _propagative_, and the other _germinative_ affinity.\n\n\"5. By means of the propagative affinity all the gemmules emitted by all\nthe cells of the individual flow together and become condensed in the cells\nwhich compose the sexual organs, whether male or female (embryonal vesicle,\ncells of the embryo, pollen grains, fovilla, antherozoids, spermatozoids),\nand likewise flow together and become condensed in the cells which\nconstitute the organs of a sexual or agamic reproduction (buds, spores,\nbulbilli, portions of the body separated by scission, &c.).\n\n\"6. By means of the germinative affinity, every gemmule (except in cases of\nanomalies or monstrosities) can be developed only in cells homologous with\nthe mother-cells of the cell from which they originated. In other words,\nthe gemmules from any cell can only be developed in unison with the cell\npreceding it in due order of succession, and whilst in a nascent state.\n\n\"7. Of each kind of gernmule a great number perishes; a great number\nremains in a dormant state through many generations in the bodies of\ndescendants; the remainder germinate and reproduce the mother-cell.\n\n\"8. Every gemmule may multiply itself by a process of scission into any\nnumber of equivalent gemmules.\"\n\nMr. Darwin has published a short notice in reply to Professor Delpino, in\n_Scientific Opinion_ of October 20, 1869, p. 426. In this reply he admits\nthe justice of Professor Delpino's attack, but objects to the alleged\nnecessity of the first subordinate hypothesis, namely, that the emission of\ngemmules takes place in all states of the cell. But if this is not the\ncase, then a great part of the utility and distinction of pangenesis is\ndestroyed, or as Mr. Lewes justly says,[225] \"If gemmules produce whole\ncells, we have the very power which was pronounced mysterious in larger\norganisms.\"\n\n                                                                      {215}\nMr. Darwin also does not see the force of the objection to the power of\nself-division which must be asserted of the gemmules themselves if\nPangenesis be true. The objection, however, appears to many to be\nformidable. To admit the power of spontaneous division and multiplication\nin such rudimentary structures, seems a complete contradiction. The\ngemmules, by the hypothesis of Pangenesis, are the ultimate organized\ncomponents of the body, the absolute organic atoms of which each body is\ncomposed; how then _can_ they be divisible? Any part of a gemmule would be\nan impossible (because a _less_ than possible) quantity. If it is divisible\ninto still smaller organic wholes, as a germ-cell is, it must be made up as\nthe germ-cell is, of subordinate component atoms, which are then the _true_\ngemmules. This process may be repeated _ad infinitum_, unless we get to\ntrue organic atoms, the true gemmules, whatever they may be, and they\nnecessarily will be incapable of any process of spontaneous fission. It is\nremarkable that Mr. Darwin brings forward in support of gemmule fission,\nthe observation that \"Thuret has seen the zoospore of an alga divide\nitself, and both halves germinate.\" Yet on the hypothesis of Pangenesis,\nthe zoospore of an alga must contain gemmules from all the cells of the\nparent algae, and from all the parts of all their less remote ancestors in\nall their stages of existence. What wonder then that such an excessively\ncomplex body should divide and multiply; and what parity is there between\nsuch a body and a gemmule? A steam-engine and a steel-filing might equally\nwell be compared together.\n\nProfessor Delpino makes a further objection which, however, will only be of\nweight in the eyes of Vitalists. He says,[226] Pangenesis is not to be\nreceived because \"it leads directly to the negation of a specific vital\nprinciple, co-ordinating and regulating all the movements, acts, and\nfunctions of the individuals in which it is incarnated. For Pangenesis of\nthe individual is a term without meaning. If, in contemplating an     {216}\nanimal of high organization, we regard it purely as an aggregation of\ndeveloped gemmules, although these gemmules have been evolved successively\none after the other, and one within the other, notwithstanding they elude\nthe conception of the _real and true individual_, these problematical and\ninvisible gemmules must be regarded as so many individuals. Now, that real,\ntrue, living individuals exist in nature, is a truth which is persistently\nattested to us by our consciousness. But how, then, can we explain that a\ngreat quantity of dissimilar elements, like the atoms of matter, can unite\nto form those perfect unities which we call individuals, if we do not\nsuppose the existence of a specific principle, proper to the individual but\nforeign to the component atoms, which aggregates these said atoms, groups\nthem into molecules, and then moulds the molecules into cells, the cells\ninto tissues, the tissues into organs, and the organs into apparatus?\"\n\n\"But, it may be urged in opposition by the Pangenesists, your vital\nprinciple is an unknown and irresolute _x_. This is true; but, on the other\nhand, let us see whether Pangenesis produces a clearer formula, and one\nfree from unknown elements. The existence of the gemmules is a first\nunknown element; the propagative affinity of the gemmules is a second;\ntheir germinative affinity is a third; their multiplication by fission is a\nfourth--and what an unknown element!\"\n\n\"Thus, in Pangenesis, everything proceeds by force of unknown elements, and\nwe may ask whether it is more logical to prefer a system which assumes a\nmultitude of unknown elements to a system which assumes only a single one?\"\n\nMr. Darwin appears, by \"Natural Selection,\" to destroy the reality of\nspecies, and by Pangenesis that of the individual. Mr. Lewes observes[227]\nof the individual that \"This whole is only a subjective conception which\nsummarizes the parts, and that in point of fact it is the parts which {217}\nare reproduced.\" But the parts are also, from the same point of view,\nmerely subjective until we come to the absolute organic atoms. These atoms,\non the other hand, are utterly invisible, intangible; indeed, in the words\nof Mr. Darwin, inconceivable. Thus, then, it results from the theories in\nquestion, that the organic world is reduced to utter unreality as regards\nall that can be perceived by the senses or distinctly imagined by the mind;\nwhile the only reality consists of the invisible, the insensible, the\ninconceivable; in other words, nothing is known that really is, and only\nthe nonexistent can be known. A somewhat paradoxical outcome of the\nspeculations of those who profess to rely exclusively on the testimony of\nsense. \"_Les extremes se touchent_,\" and extreme sensationalism shakes\nhands with the \"das seyn ist das nichts\" of Hegel.\n\nAltogether the hypothesis of Pangenesis seems to be little, if at all,\nsuperior to anterior hypotheses of a more or less similar nature.\n\nApart from the atoms of Democritus, and apart also from the speculations of\nmediaeval writers, the molecules of Bonnet and of Buffon almost anticipated\nthe hypothesis of Pangenesis. According to the last-named author,[228]\norganic particles from every part of the body assemble in the sexual\nsecretions, and by their union build up the embryo, each particle taking\nits due place, and occupying in the offspring a similar position to that\nwhich it occupied in the parents. In 1849 Professor Owen, in his treatise\non \"Parthenogenesis,\" put forward another conception. According to this,\nthe cells resulting from the subdivision of the germ-cell preserve their\ndevelopmental force, unless employed in building up definite organic\nstructures. In certain creatures, and in certain parts of other creatures,\ngerm-cells unused are stored up, and by their agency lost limbs and   {218}\nother mutilations are repaired. Such unused products of the germ-cell are\nalso supposed to become located in the generative products.\n\nAccording to Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his \"Principles of Biology,\" each\nliving organism consists of certain so-called \"physiological units.\" Each\nof these units has an innate power and capacity, by which it tends to build\nup and reproduce the entire organism of which it forms a part, unless in\nthe meantime its force is exhausted by its taking part in the production of\nsome distinct and definite tissue--a condition somewhat similar to that\nconceived by Professor Owen.\n\nNow, at first sight, Mr. Darwin's atomic theory appears to be more simple\nthan any of the others. It has been objected that while Mr. Spencer's\ntheory requires the assumption of an innate power and tendency in each\nphysiological unit, Mr. Darwin's, on the other hand, requires nothing of\nthe kind, but explains the evolution of each individual by purely\nmechanical conceptions. In fact, however, it is not so. Each gemmule,\naccording to Mr. Darwin, is really the seat of powers, elective affinities,\nand special tendencies as marked and mysterious as those possessed by the\nphysiological unit of Mr. Spencer, with the single exception that the\nformer has no tendency to build up the whole living, complex organism of\nwhich it forms a part. Some may think this an important distinction, but it\ncan hardly be so, for Mr. Darwin considers that his gemmule has the innate\npower and tendency to build up and transform itself into the whole living,\ncomplex cell of which it forms a part; and the one tendency is, in\nprinciple, fully as difficult to understand, fully as mysterious, as is the\nother. The difference is but one of degree, not of kind. Moreover, the one\nmystery in the case of the \"physiological unit\" explains all, while with\nregard to the gemmule, as we have seen, it has to be supplemented by other\npowers and tendencies, each distinct, and each in itself inexplicable and\nprofoundly mysterious. [Page 219]\n\nThat there should be physiological units possessed of the power attributed\nto them, harmonizes with what has recently been put forward by Dr. H.\nCharlton Bastian; who maintains that under fit conditions the simplest\norganisms develop themselves into relatively large and complex ones. This\nis not supposed by him to be due to any inheritance of ancestral gemmules,\nbut to direct growth and transformation of the most minute and the simplest\norganisms, which themselves, by all reason and analogy, owe their existence\nto immediate transformation from the inorganic world.\n\nThus, then, there are grave difficulties in the way of the reception of the\nhypothesis of Pangenesis, which moreover, if established, would leave the\nevolution of individual organisms, when thoroughly analysed, little if at\nall less mysterious or really explicable than it is at present.\n\nAs was said at the beginning of this chapter, \"Pangenesis\" and \"Natural\nSelection\" are quite separable and distinct hypotheses. The fall of one of\nthese by no means necessarily includes that of the other. Nevertheless, Mr.\nDarwin has associated them closely together, and, therefore, the refutation\nof Pangenesis may render it advisable for those who have hitherto accepted\n\"Natural Selection\" to reconsider that theory. [Page 220]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSPECIFIC GENESIS.\n\n    Review of the statements and arguments of preceding\n    chapters.--Cumulative argument against predominant action of \"Natural\n    Selection.\"--Whether anything positive as well as negative can be\n    enunciated.--Constancy of laws of nature does not necessarily imply\n    constancy of specific evolution.--Possible exceptional stability of\n    existing epoch.--Probability that an internal cause of change\n    exists.--Innate powers must be conceived as existing somewhere or\n    other.--Symbolism of molecular action under vibrating\n    impulses.--Professor Owen's statement.--Statement of the Author's\n    view.--It avoids the difficulties which oppose \"Natural Selection.\"--It\n    harmonizes apparently conflicting conceptions.--Summary and conclusion.\n\nHaving now severally reviewed the principal biological facts which bear\nupon specific manifestation, it remains to sum up the results, and to\nendeavour to ascertain what, if anything, can be said _positively_, as well\nas negatively, on this deeply interesting question.\n\nIn the preceding chapters it has been contended, in the first place, that\nno mere survival of the fittest accidental and minute variations can\naccount for the incipient stages of useful structures, such as, _e.g._, the\nheads of flat-fishes, the baleen of whales, vertebrate limbs, the laryngeal\nstructures of the newborn kangaroo, the pedicellariae of Echinoderms, or for\nmany of the facts of mimicry, and especially those last touches of mimetic\nperfection, where an insect not only mimics a leaf, but one worm-eaten and\nattacked by fungi. [Page 221]\n\nAlso, that structures like the hood of the cobra and the rattle of the\nrattlesnake seem to require another explanation.\n\nAgain, it has been contended that instances of colour, as in some apes; of\nbeauty, as in some shell-fish; and of utility, as in many orchids, are\nexamples of conditions which are quite beyond the power of Natural\nSelection to originate and develop.\n\nNext, the peculiar mode of origin of the eye (by the simultaneous and\nconcurrent modification of distinct parts), with the wonderful refinement\nof the human ear and voice, have been insisted on; as also, that the\nimportance of all these facts is intensified through the necessity\n(admitted by Mr. Darwin) that many individuals should be similarly and\nsimultaneously modified in order that slightly favourable variations may\nhold their own in the struggle for life, against the overwhelming force and\ninfluence of mere number.\n\nAgain, we have considered, in the third chapter, the great improbability\nthat from minute variations in all directions alone and unaided, save by\nthe survival of the fittest, closely similar structures should\nindependently arise; though, on a non-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis,\ntheir development might be expected _a priori_. We have seen, however, that\nthere are many instances of wonderfully close similarity which are not due\nto genetic affinity; the most notable instance, perhaps, being that brought\nforward by Mr. Murphy, namely, the appearance of the same eye-structure in\nthe vertebrate and molluscous sub-kingdoms. A curious resemblance, though\nless in degree, has also been seen to exist between the auditory organs of\nfishes and of Cephalopods. Remarkable similarities between certain\nplacental and implacental mammals, between the bird's-head processes of\nPolyzoa and the pedicellariae of Echinoderms, between Ichthyosauria and\nCetacea, with very many other similar coincidences, have also been pointed\nout.\n\nEvidence has also been brought forward to show that similarity is sometimes\ndirectly induced by very obscure conditions, at present quite         {222}\ninexplicable, _e.g._ by causes immediately connected with geographical\ndistribution; as in the loss of the tail in certain forms of Lepidoptera\nand in simultaneous modifications of colour in others, and in the direct\nmodification of young English oysters, when transported to the shore of the\nMediterranean.\n\nAgain, it has been asserted that certain groups of organic forms seem to\nhave an innate tendency to remarkable developments of some particular kind,\nas beauty and singularity of plumage in the group of birds of paradise.\n\nIt has also been contended that there is something to be said in favour of\nsudden, as opposed to exceedingly minute and gradual, modifications, even\nif the latter are not fortuitous. Cases were brought forward, in Chapter\nIV., such as the bivalve just mentioned, twenty-seven kinds of American\ntrees simultaneously and similarly modified, also the independent\nproduction of pony breeds, and the case of the English greyhounds in\nMexico, the offspring of which produced directly acclimated progeny.\nBesides these, the case of the Normandy pigs, of _Datura tatula_, and also\nof the black-shouldered peacock, have been spoken of. The teeth of the\nlabyrinthodon, the hand of the potto, the whalebone of whales, the wings of\nbirds, the climbing tendrils of some plants, &c. have also been adduced as\ninstances of structures, the origin and production of which are probably\ndue rather to considerable modifications than to minute increments.\n\nIt has also been shown that certain forms which were once supposed to be\nespecially transitional and intermediate (as, _e.g._, the aye-aye) are\nreally by no means so; while the general rule, that the progress of forms\nhas been \"from the more general to the more special,\" has been shown to\npresent remarkable exceptions, as, _e.g._, Macrauchenia, the Glyptodon, and\nthe sabre-toothed tiger (Machairodus).\n\nNext, as to specific stability, it has been seen that there may be a  {223}\ncertain limit to normal variability, and that if changes take place they\nmay be expected _a priori_ to be marked and considerable ones, from the\nfacts of the inorganic world, and perhaps also of the lowest forms of the\norganic world. It has also been seen that with regard to minute spontaneous\nvariations in races, there is a rapidly increasing difficulty in\nintensifying them, in any one direction, by ever such careful breeding.\nMoreover, it has appeared that different species show a tendency to\nvariability in special directions, and probably in different degrees, and\nthat at any rate Mr. Darwin himself concedes the existence of an internal\nbarrier to change when he credits the goose with \"a singularly inflexible\norganization;\" also, that he admits the presence of an _internal_\nproclivity to change when he speaks of \"a whole organization seeming to\nhave become plastic, and tending to depart from the parental type.\"\n\nWe have seen also that a marked tendency to reversion does exist, inasmuch\nas it sometimes takes place in a striking manner, as exemplified in the\nwhite silk fowl in England, _in spite of_ careful selection in breeding.\n\nAgain, we have seen that a tendency exists in nature to eliminate hybrid\nraces, by whatever means that elimination is effected, while no similar\ntendency bars the way to an indefinite blending of varieties. This has also\nbeen enforced by statements as to the prepotency of certain pollen of\nidentical species, but of distinct races.\n\nTo all the preceding considerations have been added others derived from the\nrelations of species to past time. It has been contended that we have as\nyet no evidence of minutely intermediate forms connecting uninterruptedly\ntogether undoubtedly distinct species. That while even \"horse ancestry\"\nfails to supply such a desideratum, in very strongly marked and exceptional\nkinds (such as the Ichthyosauria, Chelonia, and Anoura), the absence of\nlinks is very important and significant. For if every species, without{224}\nexception, has arisen by minute modifications, it seems incredible that a\nsmall percentage of such transitional forms should not have been preserved.\nThis, of course, is especially the case as regards the marine Ichthyosauria\nand Plesiosauria, of which such numbers of remains have been discovered.\n\nSir William Thomson's great authority has been seen to oppose itself to\n\"Natural Selection,\" by limiting, on astronomical and physical grounds, the\nduration of life on this planet to about one hundred million years. This\nperiod, it has been contended, is not nearly enough on the one hand for the\nevolution of all organic forms by the exclusive action of mere minute,\nfortuitous variations; on the other hand, for the deposition of all the\nstrata which must have been deposited, if minute fortuitous variation was\nthe manner of successive specific manifestation.\n\nAgain, the geographical distribution of existing animals has been seen to\npresent difficulties which, though not themselves insurmountable, yet have\na certain weight when taken in conjunction with all the other objections.\n\nThe facts of homology, serial, bilateral and vertical, have also been\npassed in review. Such facts, it has been contended, are not explicable\nwithout admitting the action of what may most conveniently be spoken of as\nan _internal_ power, the existence of which is supported by facts not only\nof comparative anatomy but of teratology and pathology also. \"Natural\nSelection\" also has been shown to be impotent to explain these phenomena,\nwhile the existence of such an internal power of homologous evolution\ndiminishes the _a priori_ improbability of an analogous law of specific\norigination.\n\nAll these various considerations have been supplemented by an endeavour to\nshow the utter inadequacy of Mr. Darwin's theory with regard to the higher\npsychical phenomena of man (especially the evolution of moral conceptions),\nand with regard to the evolution of individual organisms by the action{225}\nof Pangenesis. And it was implied that if Mr. Darwin's latter hypothesis\ncan be shown to be untenable, an antecedent doubt is thus thrown upon his\nother conception, namely, the theory of \"Natural Selection.\"\n\nA cumulative argument thus arises against the prevalent action of \"Natural\nSelection,\" which, to the mind of the Author, is conclusive. As before\nobserved, he was not originally disposed to reject Mr. Darwin's fascinating\ntheory. Reiterate endeavours to solve its difficulties have, however, had\nthe effect of convincing him that that theory as the one or as the leading\nexplanation of the successive evolution and manifestation of specific\nforms, is untenable. At the same time he admits fully that \"Natural\nSelection\" acts and must act, and that it plays in the organic world a\ncertain though a secondary and subordinate part.\n\nThe one _modus operandi_ yet suggested having been found insufficient, the\nquestion arises, Can another be substituted in its place? If not, can\nanything that is positive, and if anything, what, be said as to the\nquestion of specific origination?\n\nNow, in the first place, it is of course axiomatic that the laws which\nconditioned the evolution of extinct and of existing species are of as much\nefficacy at this moment as at any preceding period, that they _tend_ to the\nmanifestation of new forms as much now as ever before. It by no means\nnecessarily follows, however, that this tendency is actually being carried\ninto effect, and that new species of the higher animals and plants are\nactually now produced. They may be so or they may not, according as\nexisting circumstances favour, or conflict with, the action of those laws.\nIt is possible that lowly organized creatures may be continually evolved at\nthe present day, the requisite conditions being more or less easily\nsupplied. There is, however, no similar evidence at present as to higher\nforms; while, as we have seen in Chapter VII., there are _a priori_\nconsiderations which militate against their being similarly evolved.  {226}\n\nThe presence of wild varieties and the difficulty which often exists in the\ndetermination of species are sometimes adduced as arguments that high forms\nare now in process of evolution. These facts, however, do not necessarily\nprove more than that some species possess a greater variability than\nothers, and (what is indeed unquestionable) that species have often been\nunduly multiplied by geologists and botanists. It may be, for example, that\nWagner was right, and that all the American monkeys of the genus cebus may\nbe reduced to a single species or to two.\n\nWith regard to the lower organisms, and supposing views recently advanced\nto become fully established, there is no reason to think that the forms\nsaid to be evolved were new species, but rather reappearances of definite\nkinds which had appeared before and will appear again under the same\nconditions. In the same way, with higher forms similar conditions must\neduce similar results, but here practically similar conditions can rarely\nobtain because of the large part which \"descent\" and \"inheritance\" always\nplay in such highly organized forms.\n\nStill it is conceivable that different combinations at different times may\nhave occasionally the same outcome just as the multiplications of different\nnumbers may have severally the same result.\n\nThere are reasons, however, for thinking it possible that the human race is\na witness of an exceptionally unchanging and stable condition of things, if\nthe calculations of Mr. Croll are valid as to how far variations in the\neccentricity in the earth's orbit together with the precession of the\nequinoxes have produced changes in climate. Mr. Wallace has pointed\nout[229] that the last 60,000 years having been exceptionally unchanging as\nregards these conditions, specific evolution may have been            {227}\nexceptionally rare. It becomes then possible to suppose that for a similar\nperiod stimuli to change in the manifestation of animal forms may have been\nexceptionally few and feeble,--that is, if the conditions of the earth's\norbit have been as exceptional as stated. However, even if new species are\nactually now being evolved as actively as ever, or if they have been so\nquite recently, no conflict thence necessarily arises with the view here\nadvocated. For it by no means follows that if some examples of new species\nhave recently been suddenly produced from individuals of antecedent\nspecies, we ought to be able to put our fingers on such cases; as Mr.\nMurphy well observes[230] in a passage before quoted, \"If a species were to\ncome suddenly into being in the wild state, as the Ancon sheep did under\ndomestication, how could we ascertain the fact? If the first of a\nnewly-born species were found, the fact of its discovery would tell nothing\nabout its origin. Naturalists would register it as a very rare species,\nhaving been only once met with, but they would have no means of knowing\nwhether it were the first or the last of its race.\"\n\nBut are there any grounds for thinking that in the genesis of species an\n_internal_ force or tendency interferes, co-operates with and controls the\naction of external conditions?\n\nIt is here contended that there are such grounds, and that though\ninheritance, reversion, atavism, Natural Selection, &c., play a part not\nunimportant, yet that such an internal power is a great, perhaps the main,\ndetermining agent.\n\nIt will, however, be replied that such an entity is no _vera causa_; that\nif the conception is accepted, it is no real explanation; and that it is\nmerely a roundabout way of saying that the facts are as they are, while the\ncause remains unknown. To this it may be rejoined that for all who believe\nin the existence of the abstraction \"force\" at all, other than will,  {228}\nthis conception of an internal force must be accepted and located\nsomewhere--cannot be eliminated altogether; and that therefore it may as\nreasonably be accepted in this mode as in any other.\n\nIt was urged at the end of the third chapter that it is congruous to credit\nmineral species with an internal power or force. By such a power it may be\nconceived that crystals not only assume their external symmetry, but even\nrepair it when injured. Ultimate chemical elements must also be conceived\nas possessing an innate tendency to form certain unions, and to cohere in\nstable aggregations. This was considered towards the end of Chapter VIII.\n\nTurning to the organic world, even on the hypothesis of Mr. Herbert Spencer\nor that of Mr. Darwin, it is impossible to escape the conception of innate\ninternal forces. With regard to the physiological units of the former, Mr.\nSpencer himself, as we have seen, distinctly attributes to them \"an\n_innate_ tendency\" to evolve the parent form from which they sprang. With\nregard to the gemmules of Mr. Darwin, we have seen, in Chapter X., with how\nmany innate powers, tendencies, and capabilities they must each be\nseverally endowed, to reproduce their kind, to evolve complex organisms or\ncells, to exercise germinative affinity, &c.\n\nIf then (as was before said at the end of Chapter VIII.) such innate powers\nmust be attributed to chemical atoms, to mineral species, to gemmules, and\nto physiological units, it is only reasonable to attribute such to each\nindividual organism.\n\nThe conception of such internal and latent capabilities is somewhat like\nthat of Mr. Galton, before mentioned, according to which the organic world\nconsists of entities, each of which is, as it were, a spheroid with many\nfacets on its surface, upon one of which it reposes in stable equilibrium.\nWhen by the accumulated action of incident forces this equilibrium is {229}\ndisturbed, the spheroid is supposed to turn over until it settles on an\nadjacent facet once more in stable equilibrium.\n\nThe internal tendency of an organism to certain considerable and definite\nchanges would correspond to the facets on the surface of the spheroid.\n\nIt may be objected that we have no knowledge as to how terrestrial,\ncosmical and other forces can affect organisms so as to stimulate and\nevolve these latent, merely potential forms. But we have had evidence that\nsuch mysterious agencies _do_ affect organisms in ways as yet inexplicable,\nin the very remarkable effects of geographical conditions which were\ndetailed in the third chapter.\n\nIt is quite conceivable that the material organic world may be so\nconstituted that the simultaneous action upon it of all known forces,\nmechanical, physical, chemical, magnetic, terrestrial, and cosmical,\ntogether with other as yet unknown forces which probably exist, may result\nin changes which are harmonious and symmetrical, just as the internal\nnature of vibrating plates causes particles of sand scattered over them to\nassume definite and symmetrical figures when made to oscillate in different\nways by the bow of a violin being drawn along their edges. The results of\nthese combined internal powers and external influences might be represented\nunder the symbol of complex series of vibrations (analogous to those of\nsound or light) forming a most complex harmony or a display of most varied\ncolours. In such a way the reparation of local injuries might be symbolized\nas a filling up and completion of an interrupted rhythm. Thus also\nmonstrous aberrations from typical structure might correspond to a discord,\nand sterility from crossing be compared with the darkness resulting from\nthe interference of waves of light.\n\nSuch symbolism will harmonize with the peculiar reproduction, before\nmentioned, of heads in the body of certain annelids, with the facts of\nserial homology, as well as those of bilateral and vertical symmetry. {230}\nAlso, as the atoms of a resonant body may be made to give out sound by the\njuxtaposition of a vibrating tuning-fork, so it is conceivable that the\nphysiological units of a living organism may be so influenced by\nsurrounding conditions (organic and other) that the accumulation of these\nconditions may upset the previous rhythm of such units, producing\nmodifications in them--a fresh chord in the harmony of nature--a new\nspecies!\n\nBut it may be again objected that to say that species arise by the help of\nan innate power possessed by organisms is no explanation, but is a\nreproduction of the absurdity, _l'opium endormit parcequ'il a une vertu\nsoporifique_. It is contended, however, that this objection does not apply,\neven if it be conceded that there is that force in Moliere's ridicule which\nis generally attributed to it.[231] Much, however, might be said in\nopposition to more than one of that brilliant dramatist's smart\nphilosophical epigrams, just as to the theological ones of Voltaire, or to\nthe biological one of that other Frenchman who for a time discredited a\ncranial skeletal theory by the phrase \"Vertebre pensante.\"[232]\n\nIn fact, however, it is a real explanation of how a man lives to say that\nhe lives independently, on his own income, instead of being supported by\nhis relatives and friends. In the same way, there is fully as real a\ndistinction between the production of new specific manifestations entirely\n_ab externo_, and by the production of the same through an innate force and\ntendency, the determination of which into action is occasioned by     {231}\nexternal circumstances.\n\nTo say that organisms possess this innate power, and that by it new species\nare from time to time produced, is by no means a mere assertion that they\n_are_ produced, and in an unknown mode. It is the negation of that view\nwhich deems external forces alone sufficient, and at the same time the\nassertion of something positive, to be arrived at by the process of\n_reductio ad absurdum_.\n\nAll physical explanations result ultimately in such conceptions of innate\npower, or else in that of will force. The far-famed explanation of the\ncelestial motions ends in the conception that every particle of matter has\nthe innate power of attracting every other particle directly as the mass,\nand inversely as the square of the distance.\n\nWe are logically driven to this positive conception if we do not accept the\nview that there is no force but volition, and that all phenomena whatever\nare the immediate results of the action of intelligent and self-conscious\nwill.\n\nWe have seen that the notion of sudden changes--saltatory actions in\nnature--has received countenance from Professor Huxley.[233] We must\nconceive that these jumps are orderly, and according to law, inasmuch as\nthe whole cosmos is such. Such orderly evolution harmonizes with a\nteleology derived, not indeed from external nature directly, but from the\nmind of man. On this point, however, more will be said in the next chapter.\nBut, once more, if new species are not manifested by the action of external\nconditions upon minute indefinite individual differences, in what precise\nway may we conceive that manifestation to have taken place?\n\nAre new species now evolving, as they have been from time to time evolved?\nIf so, in what way and by what conceivable means?\n\n                                                                      {232}\nIn the first place, they must be produced by natural action in pre-existing\nmaterial, or by supernatural action.\n\nFor reasons to be given in the next chapter, the second hypothesis need not\nbe considered.\n\nIf, then, new species are and have been evolved from pre-existing material,\nmust that material have been organic or inorganic?\n\nAs before said, additional arguments have lately been brought forward to\nshow that individual organisms _do_ arise from a basis of _in_-organic\nmaterial only. As, however, this at the most appears to be the case, if at\nall, only with the lowest and most minute organisms exclusively, the\nprocess cannot be observed, though it may perhaps be fairly inferred.\n\nWe may therefore, if for no other reason, dismiss the notion that highly\norganized animals and plants can be suddenly or gradually built up by any\ncombination of physical forces and natural powers acting externally and\ninternally upon and in merely inorganic material as a base.\n\nBut the question is, how have the highest kinds of animals and plants\narisen? It seems impossible that they can have appeared otherwise than by\nthe agency of antecedent organisms not greatly different from them.\n\nA multitude of facts, ever increasing in number and importance, all point\nto such a mode of specific manifestation.\n\nOne very good example has been adduced by Professor Flower in the\nintroductory lecture of his first Hunterian Course.[234] It is the\nreduction in size, to a greater or less degree, of the second and third\ndigits of the foot in Australian marsupials, and this, in spite of the very\ndifferent form and function of the foot in different groups of those\nanimals.\n\nA similarly significant evidence of relationship is afforded by processes\nof the zygomatic region of the skull in certain edentates existing and\nextinct.\n\n                                                                      {233}\nAgain, the relation between existing and recent faunas of the different\nregions of the world, and the predominating (though by no means exclusive)\nmarch of organization, from the more general to the more special, point in\nthe same direction.\n\nAlmost all the facts brought forward by the patient industry of Mr. Darwin\nin support of his theory of \"Natural Selection,\" are of course available as\nevidence in favour of the agency of pre-existing and similar animals in\nspecific evolution.\n\nNow the new forms must be produced by changes taking place in organisms in,\nafter or before their birth, either in their embryonic, or towards or in\ntheir adult, condition.\n\nExamples of strange births are sufficiently common, and they may arise\neither from direct embryonic modifications or apparently from some obscure\nchange in the parental action. To the former category belong the hosts of\ninstances of malformation through arrest of development, and perhaps\ngenerally monstrosities of some sort are the result of such affections of\nthe embryo. To the second category belong all cases of hybridism, of cross\nbreed, and in all probability the new varieties and forms, such as the\nmemorable one of the black-shouldered peacock. In all these cases we do not\nhave abortions or monstrosities, but more or less harmonious forms often of\ngreat functional activity, endowed with marked viability and generative\nprepotency, except in the case of hybrids, when we often find even a more\nmarked generative impotency.\n\nIt seems probable therefore that new species may arise from some\nconstitutional affection of parental forms--an affection mainly, if not\nexclusively, of their generative system. Mr. Darwin has carefully\ncollected[235] numerous instances to show how excessively sensitive to\nvarious influences this system is. He says:[236] \"Sterility is independent\nof general health, and is often accompanied by excess of size, or     {234}\ngreat luxuriance,\" and, \"No one can tell, till he tries; whether any\nparticular animal will breed under confinement, or any exotic plant seed\nfreely under culture.\" Again, \"When a new character arises, whatever its\nnature may be, it generally tends to be inherited, at least in a temporary\nand sometimes in a most persistent manner.\"[237] Yet the obscure action of\nconditions will alter characters long inherited, as the grandchildren of\nAylesbury ducks, removed to a distant part of England, completely lost\ntheir early habit of incubation, and hatched their eggs at the same time\nwith the common ducks of the same place.[238]\n\nMr. Darwin quotes Mr. Bartlett as saying: \"It is remarkable that lions\nbreed more freely in travelling collections than in the zoological gardens;\nprobably the constant excitement and irritation produced by moving from\nplace to place, or change of air, may have considerable influence in the\nmatter.\"[239]\n\nMr. Darwin also says: \"There is reason to believe that insects are affected\nby confinement like the higher animals,\" and he gives examples.[240]\n\nAgain, he gives examples of change of plumage in the linnet, bunting,\noriole, and other birds, and of the temporary modification of the horns of\na male deer during a voyage.[241]\n\nFinally, he adds that these changes cannot be attributed to loss of health\nor vigour, \"when we reflect how healthy, long-lived, and vigorous many\nanimals are under captivity, such as parrots, and hawks when used for\nhawking, chetahs when used for hunting, and elephants. The reproductive\norgans themselves are not diseased; and the diseases from which animals in\nmenageries usually perish, are not those which in any way affect their\nfertility. No domestic animal is more subject to disease than the sheep,\nyet it is remarkably prolific.... It would appear that any change in  {235}\nthe habits of life, whatever these habits may be, if great enough, tends to\naffect in an inexplicable manner the powers of reproduction.\"\n\nSuch, then, is the singular sensitiveness of the generative system.\n\nAs to the means by which that system is affected, we see that a variety of\nconditions affect it; but as to the modes in which they act upon it, we\nhave as yet little if any clue.\n\nWe have also seen the singular effects (in tailed Lepidoptera, &c.) of\ncauses connected with geographical distribution, the mode of action of\nwhich is as yet quite inexplicable; and we have also seen the innate\ntendency which there appears to be in certain groups (birds of paradise,\n&c.) to develop peculiarities of a special kind.\n\nIt is, to say the least, probable that other influences exist, terrestrial\nand cosmical, as yet un-noted. The gradually accumulating or diversely\ncombining actions of all these on highly sensitive structures, which are\nthemselves possessed of internal responsive powers and tendencies, may well\nresult in occasional repeated productions of forms harmonious and vigorous,\nand differing from the parental forms in proportion to the result of the\ncombining or conflicting action of all external and internal influences.\n\nIf, in the past history of this planet, more causes ever intervened, or\nintervened more energetically than at present, we might _a priori_ expect a\nricher and more various evolution of forms more radically differing than\nany which could be produced under conditions of more perfect equilibrium.\nAt the same time, if it be true that the last few thousand years have been\na period of remarkable and exceptional uniformity as regards this planet's\nastronomical relations, there are then some grounds for thinking that\norganic evolution may have been exceptionally depressed during the same\nepoch.\n\nNow, as to the fact that sudden changes and sudden developments have  {236}\noccurred, and as to the probability that such changes are likely to occur,\nevidence was given in Chapter IV.\n\nIn Chapter V. we also saw that minerals become modified suddenly and\nconsiderably by the action of incident forces--as, _e.g._, the production\nof hexagonal tabular crystals of carbonate of copper by sulphuric acid, and\nof long rectangular prisms by ammonia, &c.\n\nWe have thus a certain antecedent probability that if changes are produced\nin specific manifestation through incident forces, these changes will be\nsensible and considerable, not minute and infinitesimal.\n\nConsequently, it is probable that new species have appeared from time to\ntime with comparative suddenness, and that they still continue so to arise\nif all the conditions necessary for specific evolution now obtain.\n\nThis probability will be increased if the observations of Dr. Bastian are\nconfirmed by future investigation. According to his report, when the\nrequisite conditions were supplied, the transformations which appeared to\ntake place (from very low to higher organisms) were sudden, definite, and\ncomplete.\n\nTherefore, if this is so, there must probably exist in higher forms a\nsimilar tendency to such change. That tendency may indeed be long\nsuppressed, and ultimately modified by the action of heredity--an action\nwhich would increase in force with the increase in the perfection and\ncomplexity of the organism affected. Still we might expect that such\nchanges as do take place would be also sudden, definite, and complete.\n\nMoreover, as the same causes produce the same effects, several individual\nparent forms must often have been similarly and simultaneously affected.\nThat they should be so affected--at least that several similarly modified\nindividuals should simultaneously arise--has been seen to be a generally\nnecessary circumstance for the permanent duration of such new\nmodifications.\n\nIt is also conceivable that such new forms may be endowed with        {237}\nexcessive constitutional strength and viability, and with generative\nprepotency, as was the case with the black-shouldered peacock in Sir J.\nTrevelyan's flock. This flock was entirely composed of the common kind, and\nyet the new form rapidly developed itself \"_to the extinction of the\npreviously existing breed_.\"[242]\n\nIndeed, the notion accepted by both Mr. Darwin and Mr. Herbert Spencer, and\nwhich is plainly the fact (namely, that changes of conditions and incident\nforces, within limits, augment the viability and fertility of individuals),\nharmonizes well with the suggested possibility as to an augmented viability\nand prepotency in new organic forms evolved by peculiar consentaneous\nactions of conditions and forces, both external and internal.\n\nThe remarkable series of changes noted by Dr. Bastian were certainly not\nproduced by external incident forces _only_, but by these acting on a\npeculiar _materia_, having special properties and powers. Therefore, the\nchanges were induced by the consentaneous action of internal and external\nforces.[243] In the same way then, we may expect changes in higher forms to\nbe evolved by similar united action of internal and external forces.\n\nOne other point may here be alluded to. When the remarkable way in which\nstructure and function simultaneously change, is borne in mind; when those\nnumerous instances in which nature has supplied similar wants by similar\nmeans, as detailed in Chapter III., are remembered; when also all the\nwonderful contrivances of orchids, of mimicry, and the strange complexity\nof certain instinctive actions are considered: then the conviction forces\nitself on many minds that the organic world is the expression of an\nintelligence of some kind. This view has been well advocated by Mr. Joseph\nJohn Murphy, in his recent work so often here referred to.\n\n                                                                      {238}\nThis intelligence, however, is evidently not altogether such as ours, or\nelse has other ends in view than those most obvious to us. For the end is\noften attained in singularly roundabout ways, or with a prodigality of\nmeans which seems out of all proportion with the result: not with the\nsimple action directed to one end which generally marks human activity.\n\nOrganic nature then speaks clearly to many minds of the action of an\nintelligence resulting, on the whole and in the main, in order, harmony,\nand beauty, yet of an intelligence the ways of which are not such as ours.\n\nThis view of evolution harmonizes well with Theistic conceptions; not, of\ncourse, that this harmony is brought forward as an argument in its favour\ngenerally, but it will have weight with those who are convinced that Theism\nreposes upon solid grounds of reason as _the_ rational view of the\nuniverse. To such it may be observed that, thus conceived, the Divine\naction has that slight amount of resemblance to, and that wide amount of\ndivergence from what human action would be, which might be expected _a\npriori_--might be expected, that is, from a Being whose nature and aims are\nutterly beyond our power to imagine, however faintly, but whose truth and\ngoodness are the fountain and source of our own perceptions of such\nqualities.\n\nThe view of evolution maintained in this work, though arrived at in\ncomplete independence, yet seems to agree in many respects with the views\nadvocated by Professor Owen in the last volume of his \"Anatomy of\nVertebrates,\" under the term \"derivation.\" He says:[244] \"Derivation holds\nthat every species changes in time, by virtue of inherent tendencies\nthereto. 'Natural Selection' holds that no such change can take place\nwithout the influence of altered external circumstances.[245]         {239}\n'Derivation' sees among the effects of the innate tendency to change\nirrespective of altered circumstances, a manifestation of creative power in\nthe variety and beauty of the results; and, in the ultimate forthcoming of\na being susceptible of appreciating such beauty, evidence of the\npre-ordaining of such relation of power to the appreciation. 'Natural\nSelection' acknowledges that if ornament or beauty, in itself, should be a\npurpose in creation, it would be absolutely fatal to it as a hypothesis.\"\n\n\"'Natural Selection' sees grandeur in the view of life, with its several\npowers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or\ninto one. 'Derivation' sees therein a narrow invocation of a special\nmiracle and an unworthy limitation of creative power, the grandeur of which\nis manifested daily, hourly, in calling into life many forms, by conversion\nof physical and chemical into vital modes of force, under as many\ndiversified conditions of the requisite elements to be so combined.\"\n\nThe view propounded in this work allows, however, a greater and more\nimportant part to the share of external influences, it being believed by\nthe Author, however, that these external influences equally with the\ninternal ones are the results of one harmonious action underlying the whole\nof nature, organic and inorganic, cosmical, physical, chemical,\nterrestrial, vital, and social.\n\nAccording to this view, an internal law presides over the actions of every\npart of every individual, and of every organism as a unit, and of the\nentire organic world as a whole. It is believed that this conception of an\ninternal innate force will ever remain necessary, however much its\nsubordinate processes and actions may become explicable:\n\nThat by such a force, from time to time, new species are manifested by\nordinary generation just as _Pavo nigripennis_ appeared suddenly, these new\nforms not being monstrosities but harmonious self-consistent wholes. That\nthus, as specific distinctness is manifested by obscure sexual        {240}\nconditions, so in obscure sexual modifications specific distinctions arise.\n\nThat these \"jumps\" are considerable in comparison with the minute\nvariations of \"Natural Selection\"--are in fact sensible steps, such as\ndiscriminate species from species.\n\nThat the latent tendency which exists to these sudden evolutions is\ndetermined to action by the stimulus of external conditions.\n\nThat \"Natural Selection\" rigorously destroys monstrosities, and abortive\nand feeble attempts at the performance of the evolutionary process.\n\nThat \"Natural Selection\" removes the antecedent species rapidly when the\nnew one evolved is more in harmony with surrounding conditions.\n\nThat \"Natural Selection\" favours and develops useful variations, though it\nis impotent to originate them or to erect the physiological barrier which\nseems to exist between species.\n\nBy some such conception as this, the difficulties here enumerated, which\nbeset the theory of \"Natural Selection\" pure and simple, are to be got\nover.\n\nThus, for example, the difficulties discussed in the first chapter--namely,\nthose as to the origins and first beginnings of certain structures--are\ncompletely evaded.\n\nAgain, as to the independent origin of closely similar structures, such as\nthe eyes of the Vertebrata and cuttle-fishes, the difficulty is removed if\nwe may adopt the conception of an innate force similarly directed in each\ncase, and assisted by favourable external conditions.\n\nSpecific stability, limitation to variability, and the facts of reversion,\nall harmonize with the view here put forward. The same may be said with\nregard to the significant facts of homology, and of organic symmetry; and\nour consideration of the hypothesis of Pangenesis in Chapter X., has seemed\nto result in a view as to innate powers which accords well with what is\nhere advocated. [Page 241]\n\nThe evolutionary hypothesis here advocated also serves to explain all those\nremarkable facts which were stated in the first chapter to be explicable by\nthe theory of Natural Selection, namely, the relation of existing to recent\nfaunas and floras; the phenomena of homology and of rudimentary structures;\nalso the processes gone through in development; and lastly, the wonderful\nfacts of mimicry.\n\nFinally, the view adopted is the synthesis of many distinct and, at first\nsight, conflicting conceptions, each of which contains elements of truth,\nand all of which it appears to be able more or less to harmonize.\n\nThus it has been seen that \"Natural Selection\" is accepted. It acts and\nmust act, though alone it does not appear capable of fulfilling the task\nassigned to it by Mr. Darwin.\n\nPangenesis has probably also much truth in it, and has certainly afforded\nvaluable and pregnant suggestions, but unaided and alone it seems\ninadequate to explain the evolution of the individual organism.\n\nThose three conceptions of the organic world which may be spoken of as the\nteleological, the typical, and the transmutationist, have often been\nregarded as mutually antagonistic and conflicting.\n\nThe genesis of species as here conceived, however, accepts, locates, and\nharmonizes all the three.\n\nTeleology concerns the ends for which organisms were designed. The\nrecognition, therefore, that their formation took place by an evolution not\nfortuitous, in no way invalidates the acknowledgment of their final causes\nif on other grounds there are reasons for believing that such final causes\nexist.\n\nConformity to type, or the creation of species according to certain \"divine\nideas,\" is in no way interfered with by such a process of evolution as is\nhere advocated. Such \"divine ideas\" must be accepted or declined upon quite\nother grounds than the mode of their realization, and of their\nmanifestation in the world of sensible phenomena. [Page 242]\n\nTransmutationism (an old name for the evolutionary hypothesis), which was\nconceived at one time to be the very antithesis to the two preceding\nconceptions, harmonizes well with them if the evolution be conceived to be\norderly and designed. It will in the next chapter be shown to be completely\nin harmony with conceptions, upon the acceptance of which \"final causes\"\nand \"divine ideal archetypes\" alike depend.\n\nThus then, if the cumulative argument put forward in this book is valid, we\nmust admit the insufficiency of Natural Selection both on account of the\nresiduary phenomena it fails to explain, and on account of certain other\nphenomena which seem actually to conflict with that theory. We have seen\nthat though the laws of nature are constant, yet some of the conditions\nwhich determine specific change may be exceptionally absent at the present\nepoch of the world's history; also that it is not only possible, but highly\nprobable, that an internal power or tendency is an important if not the\nmain agent in evoking the manifestation of new species on the scene of\nrealized existence, and that in any case, from the facts of homology,\ninnate internal powers to the full as mysterious must anyhow be accepted,\nwhether they act in specific origination or not. Besides all this, we have\nseen that it is probable that the action of this innate power is\nstimulated, evoked, and determined by external conditions, and also that\nthe same external conditions, in the shape of \"Natural Selection,\" play an\nimportant part in the evolutionary process: and finally, it has been\naffirmed that the view here advocated, while it is supported by the facts\non which Darwinism rests, is not open to the objections and difficulties\nwhich oppose themselves to the reception of \"Natural Selection,\" as the\nexclusive or even as the main agent in the successive and orderly evolution\nof organic forms in the _genesis of species_. [Page 243]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION.\n\n    Prejudiced opinions on the subject.--\"Creation\" sometimes denied from\n    prejudice.---The unknowable.--Mr. Herbert Spencer's objections to\n    theism; to creation.--Meanings of term \"creation.\"--Confusion from not\n    distinguishing between \"primary\" and \"derivative\" creation.--Mr.\n    Darwin's objections.--Bearing of Christianity on the theory of\n    evolution.--Supposed opposition, the result of a\n    misconception.--Theological authority not opposed to evolution.--St.\n    Augustin.--St. Thomas Aquinas.--Certain consequences of want of\n    flexibility of mind.--Reason and imagination.--The first cause and\n    demonstration.--Parallel between Christianity and natural\n    theology.--What evolution of species is.--Professor Agassiz.--Innate\n    powers must be recognized.--Bearing of evolution on religious\n    belief.--Professor Huxley.--Professor Owen.--Mr. Wallace.--Mr.\n    Darwin.--_A priori_ conception of Divine action.--Origin of\n    man.--Absolute creation and dogma.--Mr. Wallace's view.--A supernatural\n    origin for man's body not necessary.--Two orders of being in man.--Two\n    modes of origin.--Harmony of the physical, hyperphysical, and\n    supernatural.--Reconciliation of science and religion as regards\n    evolution.--Conclusion.\n\nThe special \"Darwinian Theory\" and that of an evolutionary process neither\nexcessively minute nor fortuitous, having now been considered, it is time\nto turn to the important question, whether both or either of these\nconceptions may have any bearing, and if any, what, upon Christian belief?\n\nSome readers will consider such an inquiry to be a work of supererogation.\nSeeing clearly themselves the absurdity of prevalent popular views, and the\nshallowness of popular objections, they may be impatient of any discussion,\non the subject. But it is submitted that there are many minds worthy  {244}\nof the highest esteem and of every consideration, which have regarded the\nsubject hitherto almost exclusively from one point of view; that there are\nsome persons who are opposed to the progress (in their own minds or in that\nof their children or dependents) of physical scientific truth--the natural\nrevelation--through a mistaken estimate of its religious bearings, while\nthere are others who are zealous in its promotion from a precisely similar\nerror. For the sake of both these then the Author may perhaps be pardoned\nfor entering slightly on very elementary matters relating to the question,\nwhether evolution or Darwinism have any, and if any, what, bearing on\ntheology?\n\nThere are at least two classes of men who will certainly assert that they\nhave a very important and highly significant bearing upon it.\n\nOne of these classes consists of persons zealous for religion indeed, but\nwho identify orthodoxy with their own private interpretation of Scripture\nor with narrow opinions in which they have been brought up--opinions\ndoubtless widely spread, but at the same time destitute of any distinct and\nauthoritative sanction on the part of the Christian Church.\n\nThe other class is made up of men hostile to religion, and who are glad to\nmake use of any and every argument which they think may possibly be\navailable against it.\n\nSome individuals within this latter class may not believe in the existence\nof God, but may yet abstain from publicly avowing this absence of belief,\ncontenting themselves with denials of \"creation\" and \"design,\" though these\ndenials are really consequences of their attitude of mind respecting the\nmost important and fundamental of all beliefs.\n\nWithout a distinct belief in a personal God it is impossible to have any\nreligion worthy of the name, and no one can at the same time accept the\nChristian religion and deny the dogma of creation. [Page 245]\n\n\"I believe in God,\" \"the Creator of Heaven and Earth,\" the very first\nclauses of the Apostles' Creed, formally commit those who accept them to\nthe assertion of this belief. If, therefore, any theory of physical science\nreally conflicts with such an authoritative statement, its importance to\nChristians is unquestionable.\n\nAs, however, \"creation\" forms a part of \"revelation,\" and as \"revelation\"\nappeals for its acceptance to \"reason\" which has to prepare a basis for it\nby an intelligent acceptance of theism on _purely rational grounds_, it is\nnecessary to start with a few words as to the reasonableness of belief in\nGod, which indeed are less superfluous than some readers may perhaps\nimagine; \"a few words,\" because this is not the place where the argument\ncan be drawn out, but only one or two hints given in reply to certain\nmodern objections.\n\nNo better example perhaps can be taken, as a type of these objections, than\na passage in Mr. Herbert Spencer's First Principles.[246] This author\nconstantly speaks of the \"ultimate cause of things\" as \"the Unknowable,\" a\nterm singularly unfortunate, and as Mr. James Martineau has pointed\nout,[247] even self-contradictory: for that entity, the knowledge of  {246}\nthe existence of which presses itself ever more and more upon the\ncultivated intellect, cannot be the unknown, still less _the unknowable_,\nbecause we certainly know it, in that we know for certain that it exists.\nNay more, to predicate incognoscibility of it, is even a certain knowledge\nof the mode of its existence. Mr. H. Spencer says:[248] \"The consciousness\nof an Inscrutable Power manifested to us through all phenomena has been\ngrowing ever clearer; and must eventually be freed from its imperfections.\nThe certainty that on the one hand such a Power exists, while on the other\nhand its nature transcends intuition, and is beyond imagination, is the\ncertainty towards which intelligence has from the first been progressing.\"\nOne would think then that the familiar and accepted word \"the Inscrutable\"\n(which is in this passage actually employed, and to which no theologian\nwould object) would be an indefinitely better term than \"the unknowable.\"\nThe above extract has, however, such a theistic aspect that some readers\nmay think the opposition here offered superfluous; it may be well,\ntherefore, to quote two other sentences. In another place he observes,[249]\n\"Passing over the consideration of credibility, and confining ourselves to\nthat of conceivability, we see that atheism, pantheism, and theism, when\nrigorously analysed, severally prove to be absolutely unthinkable;\" and\nspeaking of \"every form of religion,\" he adds,[250] \"The analysis of every\npossible hypothesis proves, not simply that no hypothesis is sufficient but\nthat no hypothesis is even thinkable.\" The unknowable is admitted to be a\npower which cannot be regarded as having sympathy with us, but as one to\nwhich no emotion whatever can be ascribed, and we are expressly       {247}\nforbidden \"by _duty_,\" to affirm personality of God as much as to deny it\nof Him. How such a being can be presented as an object on which to exercise\nreligious emotion it is difficult indeed to understand.[251] Aspiration,\nlove, devotion to be poured forth upon what we can never know, upon what we\ncan never affirm to know, or care for, us, our thoughts or actions, or to\npossess the attributes of wisdom and goodness! The worship offered in such\na religion must be, as Professor Huxley says,[252] \"for the most part of\nthe silent sort\"--silent not only as to the spoken word, but silent as to\nthe mental conception also. It will be difficult to distinguish the\nfollower of this religion from the follower of none, and the man who\ndeclines either to assert or to deny the existence of God, is practically\nin the position of an atheist. For theism enjoins the cultivation of\nsentiments of love and devotion to God, and the practice of their external\nexpression. Atheism forbids both, while the simply non-theist abstains in\nconformity with the prohibition of the atheist and thus practically sides\nwith him. Moreover, since man cannot imagine that of which he has no\nexperience in any way whatever, and since he has experience only of _human_\nperfections and of the powers and properties of _inferior_ existences; if\nhe be required to deny human perfections and to abstain from making use of\nsuch conceptions, he is thereby necessarily reduced to others of an\ninferior order. Mr. H. Spencer says,[253] \"Those who espouse this     {248}\nalternative position, make the erroneous assumption that the choice is\nbetween personality and something lower than personality; whereas the\nchoice is rather between personality and something higher. Is it not just\npossible that there is a mode of being as much transcending intelligence\nand will, as these transcend mechanical motion?\"\n\n\"It is true we are totally unable to conceive any such higher mode of\nbeing. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather\nthe reverse.\" \"May we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to the\n'ultimate cause' any attributes whatever, on the ground that such\nattributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not\nelevations but degradations?\" The way however to arrive at the object aimed\nat (_i.e_. to obtain the best attainable conception of the First Cause) is\nnot to refrain from _the only conceptions possible to us_, but to seek the\nvery highest of these, and then declare their utter inadequacy; and this is\nprecisely the course which has been pursued by theologians. It is to be\nregretted that before writing on this matter Mr. Spencer did not more\nthoroughly acquaint himself with the ordinary doctrine on the subject. It\nis always taught in the Church schools of divinity, that nothing, not even\n_existence_, is to be predicated _univocally_ of \"God\" and \"creatures;\"\nthat after exhausting ingenuity to arrive at the loftiest possible\nconceptions, we must declare them to be _utterly inadequate_; that, after\nall, they are but accommodations to human infirmity; that they are in a\nsense objectively false (because of their inadequacy), though subjectively\nand very practically true. But the difference between this mode of\ntreatment and that adopted by Mr. Spencer is wide indeed; for the practical\nresult of the mode inculcated by the Church is that each one may freely\naffirm and act upon the highest human conceptions he can attain of the{249}\npower, wisdom, and goodness of God, His watchful care, His loving\nprovidence for every man, at every moment and in every need; for the\nChristian knows that the falseness of his conceptions lies only in their\n_inadequacy_; he may therefore strengthen and refresh himself, may rejoice\nand revel in conceptions of the goodness of God, drawn from the tenderest\nhuman images of fatherly care and love, or he may chasten and abase himself\nby consideration of the awful holiness and unapproachable majesty of the\nDivinity derived from analogous sources, knowing that no thought of man can\never be _true enough_, can ever attain the incomprehensible reality, which\nnevertheless really _is_ all that can be conceived, _plus_ an inconceivable\ninfinity beyond.\n\nA good illustration of what is here meant, and of the difference between\nthe theistic position and Mr. Spencer's, may be supplied by an example he\nhas himself proposed. Thus,[254] he imagines an intelligent watch\nspeculating as to its maker, and conceiving of him in terms of watch-being,\nand figuring him as furnished with springs, escapements, cogged wheels,\n&c., his motions facilitated by oil--in a word, like himself. It is assumed\nby Mr. Spencer that this necessary watch conception would be completely\nfalse, and the illustration is made use of to show \"the presumption of\ntheologians\"--the absurdity and unreasonableness of those men who figure\nthe incomprehensible cause of all phenomena as a Being in some way\ncomparable with man. Now, putting aside for the moment all other\nconsiderations, and accepting the illustration, surely the example\ndemonstrates rather the unreasonableness of the _objector himself_! It is\ntrue, indeed, that a man is an organism indefinitely more complex and\nperfect than any watch; but if the watch could only conceive of its maker\nin watch terms, or else in terms altogether inferior, the watch would\nplainly be right in speaking of its maker as a, to it, inconceivably  {250}\nperfect kind of watch, acknowledging at the same time, that this, its\nconception of him, was _utterly inadequate_, although the best its inferior\nnature allowed it to form. For if, instead of so conceiving of its maker,\nit refused to make use of these relative perfections as a makeshift, and so\nnecessarily thought of him as amorphous metal, or mere oil, or by the help\nof any other inferior conception which a watch might be imagined capable of\nentertaining, that watch would he wrong indeed. For man can much more\nproperly be compared with, and has much more affinity to, a perfect watch\nin full activity than to a mere piece of metal, or drop of oil. But the\nwatch is even more in the right still, for its maker, man, virtually _has_\nthe cogged wheels, springs, escapements, oil, &c., which the watch's\nconception has been supposed to attribute to him; inasmuch as all these\nparts must have existed as distinct ideas in the human watchmaker's mind\nbefore he could actually construct the clock formed by him. Nor is even\nthis all, for, by the hypothesis, the watch _thinks_. It must, therefore,\nthink of its maker as \"a thinking being,\" and in this it is _absolutely and\ncompletely right_.[255] Either, therefore, the hypothesis is _absurd_ or it\nactually _demonstrates the very position it was chosen to refute_.\nUnquestionably, then, on the mere ground taken by Mr. Herbert Spencer\nhimself, if we are compelled to think of the First Cause either in human\nterms (but with human imperfections abstracted and human perfections\ncarried to the highest conceivable degree), or, on the other hand, in terms\ndecidedly inferior, such as those are driven to who think of Him, but\ndecline to accept as a help the term \"personality;\" there can be no\nquestion but that the first conception is immeasurably nearer the truth\nthan the second. Yet the latter is the one put forward and advocated by\nthat author in spite of its unreasonableness, and in spite also of its{251}\nconflicting with the whole moral nature of man and all his noblest\naspirations.\n\nAgain, Mr. Herbert Spencer objects to the conception of God as \"first\ncause,\" on the ground that \"when our symbolic conceptions are such that no\ncumulative or indirect processes of thought can enable us to ascertain that\nthere are corresponding actualities, nor any predictions be made whose\nfulfilment can prove this, then they are altogether vicious and illusive,\nand in no way distinguishable from pure fictions.\"[256]\n\nNow, it is quite true that \"symbolic conceptions,\" which are not to be\njustified either (1) by presentations of sense, or (2) by intuitions, are\ninvalid as representations of real truth. Yet the conception of God\nreferred to _is_ justified by our primary intuitions, and we can assure\nourselves that it _does_ stand for an actuality by comparing it with (1)\nour intuitions of free-will and causation, and (2) our intuitions of\nmorality and responsibility. That we _have_ these intuitions is a point on\nwhich the Author joins issue with Mr. Spencer, and confidently affirms that\nthey cannot logically be denied without at the same time complete and\nabsolute scepticism resulting from such denial--scepticism wherein vanishes\nany certainty as to the existence both of Mr. Spencer and his critic, and\nby which it is equally impossible to have a thought free from doubt, or to\ngo so far as to affirm the existence of that very doubt or of the doubter\nwho doubts it.\n\nIt may not be amiss here to protest against the intolerable assumption of a\ncertain school, who are continually talking in lofty terms of \"science,\"\nbut who actually speak of primary religious conceptions as \"unscientific,\"\nand habitually employ the word \"science,\" when they should limit it by the\nprefix \"physical.\" This is the more amazing as not a few of this school\nadopt the idealist philosophy, and affirm that \"matter and force\" are but\nnames for certain \"modes of consciousness.\" It might be expected of them at\nleast to admit that opinions which repose on primary and fundamental  {252}\nintuitions, are especially and _par excellence_ scientific.\n\nSuch are some of the objections to the Christian conception of God. We may\nnow turn to those which are directed against God as the Creator, _i.e._ as\nthe absolute originator of the universe, without the employment of any\npre-existing means or material. This is again considered by Mr. Spencer as\na thoroughly illegitimate symbolic conception, as much so as the atheistic\none--the difficulty as to a _self-existent Creator_ being in his opinion\nequal to that of a _self-existent universe_. To this it may be replied that\nboth are of course equally _unimaginable_, but that it is not a question of\nfacility of conception--not which is easiest to conceive, but which best\naccounts for, and accords with, psychological facts; namely, with the\nabove-mentioned intuitions. It is contended that _we have_ these primary\nintuitions, and that with these the conception of a self-existent Creator\nis perfectly harmonious. On the other hand, the notion of a self-existent\nuniverse--that there is no real distinction between the finite and the\ninfinite--that the universe and ourselves are one and the same things with\nthe infinite and the self-existent; these assertions, in _addition to_\nbeing unimaginable, _contradict_ our primary intuitions.\n\nMr. Darwin's objections to \"Creation\" are of quite a different kind, and,\nbefore entering upon them, it will be well to endeavour clearly to\nunderstand what we mean by \"Creation,\" in the various senses in which the\nterm may be used.\n\nIn the strictest and highest sense \"Creation\" is the absolute origination\nof anything by God without pre-existing means or material, and is a\n_supernatural_ act.[257]\n\nIn the secondary and lower sense, \"Creation\" is the formation of anything\nby God _derivatively_; that is, that the preceding matter has been created\nwith the potentiality to evolve from it, under suitable conditions,   {253}\nall the various forms it subsequently assumes. And this power having been\nconferred by God in the first instance, and those laws and powers having\nbeen instituted by Him, through the action of which the suitable conditions\nare supplied, He is said in this lower sense to create such various\nsubsequent forms. This is the _natural_ action of God in the physical\nworld, as distinguished from His direct, or, as it may be here called,\nsupernatural action.\n\nIn yet a third sense, the word \"Creation\" may be more or less improperly\napplied to the construction of any complex formation or state by a\nvoluntary self-conscious being who makes use of the powers and laws which\nGod has imposed, as when a man is spoken of as the creator of a museum, or\nof \"his own fortune,\" &c. Such action of a created conscious intelligence\nis purely natural, but more than physical, and may be conveniently spoken\nof as hyperphysical.\n\nWe have thus (1) direct or supernatural action; (2) physical action; and\n(3) hyperphysical action---the two latter both belonging to the order of\nnature.[258] Neither the physical nor the hyperphysical actions, however,\nexclude the idea of the Divine concurrence, and with every consistent\ntheist that idea is necessarily included. Dr. Asa Gray has given expression\nto this.[259] He says, \"Agreeing that plants and animals were produced by\nOmnipotent fiat, does not exclude the idea of natural order and what we\ncall secondary causes. The record of the fiat--'Let the earth bring forth\ngrass, the herb yielding seed,' &c., 'let the earth bring forth the living\ncreature after his kind'--seems even to imply them,\" and leads to the\nconclusion that the various kinds were produced through natural agencies.\n\n                                                                      {254}\nNow, much confusion has arisen from not keeping clearly in view this\ndistinction between _absolute_ creation and _derivative_ creation. With the\nfirst, physical science has plainly nothing whatever to do, and is impotent\nto prove or to refute it. The second is also safe from any attack on the\npart of physical science, for it is primarily derived from psychical not\nphysical phenomena. The greater part of the apparent force possessed by\nobjectors to creation, like Mr. Darwin, lies in their treating the\nassertion of derivative creation as if it was an assertion of absolute\ncreation, or at least of supernatural action. Thus, he asks whether some of\nhis opponents believe \"that at innumerable periods in the earth's history,\ncertain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living\ntissues.\"[260] Certain of Mr. Darwin's objections, however, are not\nphysical, but _metaphysical_, and really attack the dogma of secondary or\nderivative creation, though to some perhaps they may appear to be directed\nagainst absolute creation only.\n\nThus he uses, as an illustration, the conception of a man who builds an\nedifice from fragments of rock at the base of a precipice, by selecting for\nthe construction of the various parts of the building the pieces which are\nthe most suitable owing to the shape they happen to have broken into.\nAfterwards, alluding to this illustration, he says,[261] \"The shape of the\nfragments of stone at the base of our precipice may be called accidental,\nbut this is not strictly correct, for the shape of each depends on a long\nsequence of events, all obeying natural laws, on the nature of the rock, on\nthe lines of stratification or cleavage, on the form of the mountain which\ndepends on its upheaval and subsequent denudation, and lastly, on the storm\nand earthquake which threw down the fragments. But in regard to the use to\nwhich the fragments may be put, their shape may strictly be said to be{255}\naccidental. And here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to\nwhich I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province.\"\n\n\"An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results\nfrom the laws imposed by Him; but can it be reasonably maintained that the\nCreator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense,\nthat certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes, so that the\nbuilder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined\nthe shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder's sake,\ncan it with any greater probability be maintained that He specially\nordained, for the sake of the breeder, each of the innumerable variations\nin our domestic animals and plants--many of these variations being of no\nservice to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the\ncreatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the\npigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might make his grotesque\npouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of\nthe dog to vary, in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable\nferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?\nBut, if we give up the principle in one case---if we do not admit that the\nvariations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided, in order that the\ngreyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might\nbe formed,--no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that the\nvariations, alike in nature, and the result of the same general laws, which\nhave been the groundwork through Natural Selection of the formation of the\nmost perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were\nintentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can\nhardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief that 'variation has been led\nalong certain beneficial lines,' like a stream 'along definite and useful\nlines of irrigation.'\"\n\n\"If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of{256}\nall time pre-ordained, the plasticity of the organization, which leads to\nmany injurious deviations of structure, as well as that redundant power of\nreproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a\nconsequence, to the Natural Selection and survival of the fittest, must\nappear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent\nand omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we\nare brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of\nfreewill and predestination.\"\n\nBefore proceeding to reply to this remarkable passage, it may be well to\nremind some readers that belief in the existence of God, in His primary\ncreation of the universe, and in His derivative creation of all kinds of\nbeing, inorganic and organic, do not repose upon physical phenomena, but,\nas has been said, on primary intuitions. To deny or ridicule any of these\nbeliefs on physical grounds is to commit the fallacy of _ignoratio\nelenchi_. It is to commit an absurdity analogous to that of saying a blind\nchild could not recognize his father because he could not _see_ him,\nforgetting that he could _hear_ and _feel_ him. Yet there are some who\nappear to find it unreasonable and absurd that men should regard phenomena\nin a light not furnished by or deducible from the very phenomena\nthemselves, although the men so regarding them avow that the light in which\nthey do view them comes from quite another source. It is as if a man, A,\ncoming into B's room and finding there a butterfly, should insist that B\nhad no right to believe that the butterfly had not flown in at the open\nwindow, inasmuch as there was nothing about the room or insect to lead to\nany other belief; while B can well sustain his right so to believe, he\nhaving met C, who told him he brought in the chrysalis and, having seen the\ninsect emerge, took away the skin.\n\nBy a similarly narrow and incomplete view the assertion that human\nconceptions, such as \"the vertebrate idea,\" &c., are ideas in the mind of\nGod, is sometimes ridiculed; as if the assertors either on the one    {257}\nhand pretended to some prodigious acuteness of mind--a far-reaching genius\nnot possessed by most naturalists--or, on the other hand, as if they\ndetected in the very phenomena furnishing such special conception evidences\nof Divine imaginings. But let the idea of God, according to the highest\nconceptions of Christianity, be once accepted, and then it becomes simply a\ntruism to say that the mind of the Deity contains all that is _good_ and\n_positive_ in the mind of man, _plus_, of course, an absolutely\ninconceivable infinity beyond. That thus such human conceptions may, nay\nmust, be asserted to be at the same time ideas in the Divine mind also, as\nevery real and separate individual that has been, is, or shall be, is\npresent to the same mind. Nay, more, that such human conceptions are but\nfaint and obscure adumbrations of corresponding ideas which exist in the\nmind of God in perfection and fulness.[262]\n\nThe theist, having arrived at his theistic convictions from quite other\nsources than a consideration of zoological or botanical phenomena,    {258}\nreturns to the consideration of such phenomena and views them in a theistic\nlight without of course asserting or implying that such light has been\nderived _from them_, or that there is an obligation of reason so to view\nthem on the part of others who refuse to enter upon or to accept those\nother sources whence have been derived the theistic convictions of the\ntheist.\n\nBut Mr. Darwin is not guilty of arguing against metaphysical ideas on\nphysical grounds only, for he employs very distinctly metaphysical ones;\nnamely, his conceptions of the nature and attributes of the First Cause.\nBut what conceptions does he offer us? Nothing but that low\nanthropomorphism which, unfortunately, he so often seems to treat as the\nnecessary result of Theism. It is again the dummy, helpless and deformed,\nset up merely for the purpose of being knocked down.\n\nIt must once more be insisted on, that though man is indeed compelled to\nconceive of God in human terms, and to speak of Him by epithets objectively\nfalse, from their hopeless inadequacy, yet nevertheless the Christian\nthinker declares that inadequacy in the strongest manner, and vehemently\nrejects from his idea of God all terms distinctly implying infirmity or\nlimitation.\n\nNow, Mr. Darwin speaks as if all who believe in the Almighty were compelled\nto accept as really applicable to the Deity conceptions which affirm limits\nand imperfections. Thus he says: \"Can it be reasonably maintained that the\nCreator intentionally ordered\" \"that certain fragments of rock should\nassume certain shapes, so that the builder might erect his edifice?\"\n\nWhy, surely every theist must maintain that in the first foundation of the\nuniverse--the primary and absolute creation--God saw and knew every purpose\nwhich every atom and particle of matter should ever subserve in all suns\nand systems, and throughout all coming aeons of time. It is almost\nincredible, but nevertheless it seems necessary to think that the\ndifficulty thus proposed rests on a sort of notion that amidst the\nboundless profusion of nature there is too much for God to superintend;\nthat the number of objects is too great for an infinite and           {259}\n_omnipresent_ being to attend singly to each and all in their due\nproportions and needs! In the same way Mr. Darwin asks whether God can have\nordered the race variations referred to in the passage last quoted, for the\nconsiderations therein mentioned. To this it may be at once replied that\neven man often has _several_ distinct intentions and motives for a _single_\naction, and the theist has no difficulty in supposing that, out of an\ninfinite number of motives, the motive mentioned in each case may have been\nan exceedingly subordinate one. The theist, though properly attributing to\nGod what, for want of a better term, he calls \"purpose\" and \"design,\" yet\naffirms that the limitations of human purposes and motives are by no means\napplicable to the Divine \"purposes.\" Out of many, say a thousand million,\nreasons for the institution of the laws of the physical universe, some few\nare to a certain extent conceivable by us; and amongst these the benefits,\nmaterial and moral, accruing from them to men, and to each individual man\nin every circumstance of his life, play a certain, perhaps a very\nsubordinate, part.[263] As Baden Powell observes, \"How can we         {260}\nundertake to affirm, amid all the possibilities of things of which we\nconfessedly know so little, that a thousand ends and purposes may not be\nanswered, because we can trace none, or even imagine none, which seem to\nour short-sighted faculties to be answered in these particular\narrangements?\"[264]\n\nThe objection to the bull-dog's ferocity in connexion with \"man's brutal\nsport\" opens up the familiar but vast question of the existence of evil, a\nproblem the discussion of which would be out of place here. Considering,\nhowever, the very great stress which is laid in the present day on the\nsubject of animal suffering by so many amiable and excellent people, one or\ntwo remarks on that matter may not be superfluous. To those who accept the\nbelief in God, the soul and moral responsibility; and recognize the full\nresults of that acceptance--to such, physical suffering and moral evil are\nsimply incommensurable. To them the placing of non-moral beings in the same\nscale with moral agents will be utterly unendurable. But even considering\nphysical pain only, all must admit that this depends greatly on the mental\ncondition of the sufferer. Only during consciousness does it exist, and\nonly in the most highly-organized men does it reach its acme. The Author\nhas been assured that lower races of men appear less keenly sensitive to\nphysical pain than do more cultivated and refined human beings. Thus only\nin man can there really be any intense degree of suffering, because only in\nhim is there that intellectual recollection of past moments and that\nanticipation of future ones, which constitute in great part the bitterness\nof suffering.[265] The momentary pang, the present pain, which beasts\nendure, though real enough, is yet, doubtless, not to be compared as  {261}\nto its intensity with the suffering which is produced in man through his\nhigh prerogative of self-consciousness.[266]\n\nAs to the \"beneficial lines\" (of Dr. Asa Gray, before referred to), some of\nthe facts noticed in the preceding chapters seem to point very decidedly in\nthat direction, but all must admit that the actual existing outcome is far\nmore \"beneficial\" than the reverse. The natural universe has resulted in\nthe development of an unmistakable harmony and beauty, and in a decided\npreponderance of good and of happiness over their opposites.\n\nEven if \"laws of nature\" did appear, on the theistic hypothesis, to be\n\"superfluous\" (which it is by no means intended here to admit), it would be\nnothing less than puerile to prefer rejecting the hypothesis to conceiving\nthat the appearance of superfluity was probably due to human ignorance; and\nthis especially might be expected from naturalists to whom the\ninterdependence of nature and the harmony and utility of obscure phenomena\nare becoming continually more clear, as, _e.g._, the structure of orchids\nto their illustrious expositor.\n\nHaving now cleared the ground somewhat, we may turn to the question what\nbearing Christian dogma has upon evolution, and whether Christians, as\nsuch, need take up any definite attitude concerning it.\n\nAs has been said, it is plain that physical science and \"evolution\" _can_\nhave nothing whatever to do with absolute or primary creation. The Rev.\nBaden Powell well expresses this, saying: \"Science demonstrates incessant\npast changes, and dimly points to yet earlier links in a more vast series\nof development of material existence; but the idea of a _beginning_, or of\n_creation_, in the sense of the original operation of the Divine volition\nto constitute nature and matter, is beyond the province of physical   {262}\nphilosophy.\"[267]\n\nWith secondary or derivative creation, physical science is also incapable\nof conflict; for the objections drawn by some writers seemingly from\nphysical science, are, as has been already argued, rather metaphysical than\nphysical.\n\nDerivative creation is not a supernatural act, but is simply the Divine\naction by and through natural laws. To recognize such action in such laws\nis a religious mode of regarding phenomena, which a consistent theist must\nnecessarily accept, and which an atheistic believer must similarly reject.\nBut this conception, if deemed superfluous by any naturalist, can never be\nshown to be _false_ by any investigations concerning natural laws, the\nconstant action of which it presupposes.\n\nThe conflict has arisen through a misunderstanding. Some have supposed that\nby \"creation\" was necessarily meant either primary, that is, absolute\ncreation, or, at least, some supernatural action; they have therefore\nopposed the dogma of \"creation\" in the imagined interest of physical\nscience.\n\nOthers have supposed that by \"evolution\" was necessarily meant a denial of\nDivine action, a negation of the providence of God. They have therefore\ncombated the theory of \"evolution\" in the imagined interest of religion.\n\nIt appears plain then that Christian thinkers are perfectly free to accept\nthe general evolution theory. But are there any theological authorities to\njustify this view of the matter?\n\nNow, considering how extremely recent are these biological speculations, it\nmight hardly be expected _a priori_ that writers of earlier ages should\nhave given expression to doctrines harmonizing in any degree with such very\nmodern views,[268] nevertheless such most certainly is the case, and  {263}\nit would be easy to give numerous examples. It will be better, however,\nonly to cite one or two authorities of weight. Now, perhaps no writer {264}\nof the earlier Christian ages could be quoted whose authority is more\ngenerally recognized than that of St. Augustin. The same may be said of the\nmediaeval period, for St. Thomas Aquinas; and, since the movement of Luther,\nSuarez may be taken as a writer widely venerated as an authority and one\nwhose orthodoxy has never been questioned.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that for a considerable time after even the last\nof these writers no one had disputed the generally received view as to the\nsmall age of the world or at least of the kinds of animals and plants\ninhabiting it. It becomes therefore much more striking if views formed\nunder such a condition of opinion are found to harmonize with modern ideas\nregarding \"Creation\" and organic life.\n\nNow St. Augustin insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely\nderivative sense in which God's creation of organic forms is to be\nunderstood; that is, that God created them by conferring on the material\nworld the power to evolve them under suitable conditions. He says in his\nbook on Genesis:[269] \"Terrestria animalia, tanquam ex ultimo elemento\nmundi ultima; nihilominus _potentialiter_, quorum numeros tempus postea\nvisibiliter explicaret.\"\n\nAgain he says:--\n\n\"Sicut autem in ipso grano invisibiliter erant omnia simul, quae per tempora\nin arborem surgerent; ita ipse mundus cogitandus est, cum Deus _simul omnia\ncreavit_, habuisse simul omnia quae in illo et cum illo facta sunt quando\nfactus est dies; non solum coelum cum sole et luna et sideribus ... ; sed\netiam illa quae aqua et terra produxit potentialiter atque causaliter,\npriusquam per temporum moras ita exorirentur, quomodo nobis jam nota sunt\nin eis operibus, quae Deus usque nunc operatur.\"[270]\n\n\"Omnium quippe rerum quae corporaliter visibiliterque nascuntur,       {265}\nocculta quaedam semina in istis corporeis mundi hujus elementis\nlatent.\"[271]\n\nAnd again: \"Ista quippe originaliter ac primordialiter in quadam textura\nelementorum cuncta jam creata sunt; sed acceptis opportunitatibus\nprodeunt.\"[272]\n\nSt. Thomas Aquinas, as was said in the first chapter, quotes with approval\nthe saying of St. Augustin that in the first institution of nature we do\nnot look for _Miracles_, but for the _laws of Nature_: \"In prima\ninstitutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat,\nut Augustinus dicit.\"[273]\n\nAgain, he quotes with approval St. Augustin's assertion that the kinds were\ncreated only derivatively, \"_potentialiter tantum_.\"[274]\n\nAlso he says, \"In prima autem rerum institutione fuit principium activum\nverbum Dei, quod de materia elementari produxit animalia, vel in actu vel\n_virtute_, secundum Aug. lib. 5 de Gen. ad lit. c. 5.\"[275]\n\nSpeaking of \"kinds\" (in scholastic phraseology \"substantial forms\") latent\nin matter, he says: \"Quas quidam posuerunt non incipere per actionem naturae\nsed prius in materia exstitisse, ponentes latitationem formarum. Et hoc\naccidit eis ex ignorantia materiae, quia nesciebant distinguere inter\npotentiam et actum. Quia enim formae praeexistunt eas simpliciter\npraeexistere.\"[276]\n\nAlso Cornelius a Lapide[277] contends that at least certain animals were\nnot absolutely, but only derivatively created, saying of them, \"Non fuerunt\ncreata formaliter, sed potentialiter.\"\n\nAs to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv., 2, n. 9, p. 508, t.\ni. Edition _Vives_, Paris; also Nos. 13--15, and many other references{266}\nto the same effect could easily be given, but these may suffice.\n\nIt is then evident that ancient and most venerable theological authorities\ndistinctly assert _derivative_ creation, and thus harmonize with all that\nmodern science can possibly require.\n\nIt may indeed truly be said with Roger Bacon, \"The saints never condemned\nmany an opinion which the moderns think ought to be condemned.\"[278]\n\nThe various extracts given show clearly how far \"evolution\" is from any\nnecessary opposition to the most orthodox theology. The same may be said of\nspontaneous generation. The most recent form of it, lately advocated by Dr.\nH. Charlton Bastian,[279] teaches that matter exists in two different\nforms, the crystalline (or statical) and the colloidal (or dynamical)\nconditions. It also teaches that colloidal matter, when exposed to certain\nconditions, presents the phenomena of life, and that it can be formed from\ncrystalline matter, and thus that the _prima materia_ of which these are\ndiverse forms contains potentially all the multitudinous kinds of animal\nand vegetable existence. This theory moreover harmonizes well with the\nviews here advocated, for just as crystalline matter builds itself, under\nsuitable conditions, along _certain definite lines_, so analogously\ncolloidal matter has _its definite lines and directions_ of development. It\nis not collected in haphazard, accidental aggregations, but evolves\naccording to its proper laws and special properties.\n\nThe perfect orthodoxy of these views is unquestionable. Nothing is plainer\nfrom the venerable writers quoted, as well as from a mass of other    {267}\nauthorities, than that \"the supernatural\" is not to be looked for or\nexpected in the sphere of mere nature. For this statement there is a\ngeneral _consensus_ of theological authority.\n\nThe teaching which the Author has received is, that God is indeed\ninscrutable and incomprehensible to us from the infinity of His attributes,\nso that our minds can, as it were, only take in, in a most fragmentary and\nindistinct manner (as through a glass darkly), dim conceptions of\ninfinitesimal portions of His inconceivable perfection. In this way the\npartial glimpses obtained by us in different modes differ from each other;\nnot that God is anything but the most perfect unity, but that apparently\nconflicting views arise from our inability to apprehend Him, except in this\nimperfect manner, _i.e._ by successive slight approximations along\ndifferent lines of approach. Sir William Hamilton has said,[280] \"Nature\nconceals God, and man reveals Him.\" It is not, according to the teaching\nspoken of, exactly thus; but rather that physical nature reveals to us one\nside, one aspect of the Deity, while the moral and religious worlds bring\nus in contact with another, and at first, to our apprehension, a very\ndifferent one. The difference and discrepancy, however, which is at first\nfelt, is soon seen to proceed not from the reason but from a want of\nflexibility in the imagination. This want is far from surprising. Not only\nmay a man naturally be expected to be an adept in his own art, but at the\nsame time to show an incapacity for a very different mode of activity.[281]\nWe rarely find an artist who takes much interest in jurisprudence, or {268}\na prizefighter who is an acute metaphysician. Nay, more than this, a\npositive distaste may grow up, which, in the intellectual order, may amount\nto a spontaneous and unreasoning disbelief in that which appears to be in\nopposition to the more familiar concept, and this at all times. It is often\nand truly said, \"that past ages were pre-eminently credulous as compared\nwith our own, yet the difference is not so much in the amount of the\ncredulity, as in the direction which it takes.\"[282]\n\nDr. Newman observes: \"Any one study, of whatever kind, exclusively pursued,\ndeadens in the mind the interest, nay the perception of any other. Thus\nCicero says, that Plato and Demosthenes, Aristotle and Isocrates, might\nhave respectively excelled in each other's province, but that each was\nabsorbed in his own. Specimens of this peculiarity occur every day. You can\nhardly persuade some men to talk about anything but their own pursuit; they\nrefer the whole world to their own centre, and measure all matters by their\nown rule, like the fisherman in the drama, whose eulogy on his deceased\nlord was 'he was so fond of fish.'\"[283]\n\nThe same author further says:[284] \"When anything, which comes before us,\nis very unlike what we commonly experience, we consider it on that account\nuntrue; not because it really shocks our reason as improbable, but because\nit startles our imagination as strange. Now, revelation presents to us a\nperfectly different aspect of the universe from that presented by the\nsciences. The two informations are like the distinct subjects represented\nby the lines of the same drawing, which, accordingly as they are read {269}\non their concave or convex side, exhibit to us now a group of trees with\nbranches and leaves, and now human faces.\" ... \"While then reason and\nrevelation are consistent in fact, they often are inconsistent in\nappearance; and this seeming discordance acts most keenly on the\nimagination, and may suddenly expose a man to the temptation, and even\nhurry him on to the commission of definite acts of unbelief, in which\nreason itself really does not come into exercise at all.\"[285]\n\nThus we find in fact just that distinctness between the ideas derived from\nphysical science on the one hand and from religion on the other, which we\nmight _a priori_ expect if there exists that distinctness between the\nnatural and the miraculous which theological authorities lay down.\n\nAssuming, for argument's sake, the truth of Christianity, it evidently has\nnot been the intention of its Author to make the evidence for it so plain\nthat its rejection would be the mark of intellectual incapacity. Conviction\nis not forced upon men in the way that the knowledge that the government of\nEngland is constitutional, or that Paris is the capital of France, is\nforced upon all who choose to inquire into those subjects. The Christian\nsystem is one which puts on the strain, as it were, _every_ faculty of\nman's nature, and the intellect is not (any more than we should _a priori_\nexpect it to be) exempted from taking part in the probationary trial. A\nmoral element enters into the acceptance of that system.\n\nAnd so with natural religion--with those ideas of the supernatural, viz.\nGod, Creation, and Morality, which are anterior to revelation and repose\nupon reason. Here again it evidently has not been the intention of the\nCreator to make the evidence of His existence so plain that its\nnon-recognition would be the mark of intellectual incapacity.         {270}\nConviction, as to theism, is not forced upon men as is the conviction of\nthe existence of the sun at noon-day.[286] A moral element enters also\nhere, and the analogy there is in this respect between Christianity and\ntheism speaks eloquently of their primary derivation from one common\nauthor.\n\nThus we might expect that it would be a vain task to seek anywhere in\nnature for evidence of Divine action, such that no one could sanely deny\nit. God will not allow Himself to be caught at the bottom of any man's\ncrucible, or yield Himself to the experiments of gross-minded and\nirreverent inquirers. The natural, like the supernatural, revelation\nappeals to _the whole_ of man's mental nature and not to the _reason\nalone_.[287]\n\nNone, therefore, need feel disappointed that evidence of the direct action\nof the first cause in merely natural phenomena ever eludes our grasp; for\nassuredly those same phenomena will ever remain fundamentally inexplicable\nby physical science alone.\n\nThere being then nothing in either authority or reason which makes\n\"evolution\" repugnant to Christianity, is there anything in the Christian\ndoctrine of \"Creation\" which is repugnant to the theory of \"evolution\"?\n\nEnough has been said as to the distinction between absolute and derivative\n\"creation.\" It remains to consider the successive \"evolution\" (Darwinian\nand other) of \"specific forms,\" in a theological light.\n\nAs to what \"evolution\" is, we cannot of course hope to explain it\ncompletely, but it may be enough to define it as the manifestation to the\nintellect, by means of sensible impressions, of some ideal entity (power,\nprinciple, nature, or activity) which before that manifestation was in{271}\na latent, unrealized, and merely \"potential\" state--a state that is capable\nof becoming realized, actual, or manifest, the requisite conditions being\nsupplied.\n\n\"Specific forms,\" kinds or species, are (as was said in the introductory\nchapter) \"peculiar congeries of characters or attributes, innate powers and\nqualities, and a certain nature realized in individuals.\"\n\nThus, then, the \"evolution of specific forms\" means the actual\nmanifestation of special powers, or natures, which before were latent, in\nsuch a successive manner that there is in some way a genetic relation\nbetween posterior manifestations and those which preceded them.\n\nOn the special Darwinian hypothesis the manifestation of these forms is\ndetermined simply by the survival of the fittest of many indefinite\nvariations.\n\nOn the hypothesis here advocated the manifestation is controlled and helped\nby such survival, but depends on some unknown internal law or laws which\ndetermine variation at special times and in special directions.\n\nProfessor Agassiz objects to the evolution theory, on the ground that\n\"species, genera, families, &c., exist as thoughts, individuals as\nfacts,\"[288] and he offers the dilemma, \"If species do not exist at all, as\nthe supporters of the transmutation theory maintain, how can they vary? and\nif individuals alone exist, how can the differences which may be observed\namong them prove the variability of species?\"\n\nBut the supporter of \"evolution\" need only maintain that the several\n\"kinds\" become manifested gradually by slight differences among the various\nindividual embodiments of one specific idea. He might reply to the dilemma\nby saying, species do not exist _as species_ in the sense in which they are\nsaid to vary (variation applying only to the concrete embodiments of  {272}\nthe specific idea), and the evolution of species is demonstrated not by\nindividuals _as individuals_, but as embodiments of different specific\nideas.\n\nSome persons seem to object to the term \"creation\" being applied to\nevolution, because evolution is an \"exceedingly slow and gradual process.\"\nNow even if it were demonstrated that such is really the case, it may be\nasked, what is \"slow and gradual\"? The terms are simply relative, and the\nevolution of a specific form in ten thousand years would be instantaneous\nto a being whose days were as hundreds of millions of years.\n\nThere are others again who are inclined absolutely to deny the existence of\nspecies altogether, on the ground that their evolution is so gradual that\nif we could see all the stages it would be impossible to say _when_ the\nmanifestation of the old specific form ceased and that of the new one\nbegan. But surely it is no approach to a reason against the existence of a\nthing that we cannot determine the exact moment of its first manifestation.\nWhen watching \"dissolving views,\" who can tell, whilst closely observing\nthe gradual changes, exactly at what moment a new picture, say St. Mark's,\nVenice, can be said to have commenced its manifestation, or have begun to\ndominate a preceding representation of \"Dotheboys' Hall\"? That, however, is\nno reason for denying the complete difference between the two pictures and\nthe ideas they respectively embody.\n\nThe notion of a special nature, a peculiar innate power and activity--what\nthe scholastics called a \"substantial form\"--will be distasteful to many.\nThe objection to the notion seems, however, to be a futile one, for it is\nabsolutely impossible to altogether avoid such a conception and such an\nassumption. If we refuse it to the individuals which embody the species, we\nmust admit it as regards their component parts--nay, even if we accept the\nhypothesis of pangenesis, we are nevertheless compelled to attribute to\neach gemmule that peculiar power of reproducing its own nature (its own\n\"substantial form\"), with its special activity, and that remarkable   {273}\npower of annexing itself to certain other well-defined gemmules whose\nnature it is also to plant themselves in a certain definite vicinity. So\nthat in each individual, instead of one such peculiar power and activity\ndominating and controlling all the parts, you have an infinity of separate\npowers and activities limited to the several minute component gemmules.\n\nIt is possible that in some minds, the notion may lurk that such powers are\nsimpler and easier to understand, because the bodies they affect are so\nminute! This absurdity hardly bears stating. We can easily conceive a being\nso small, that a gemmule would be to it as large as St. Paul's would be to\nus.\n\nAdmitting then the existence of species, and of their successive evolution,\nis there anything in these ideas hostile to Christian belief?\n\nWriters such as Vogt and Buchner will of course contend that there is; but\nnaturalists, generally, assume that God acts in and by the various laws of\nnature. And this is equivalent to admitting the doctrine of \"derivative\ncreation.\" With very few exceptions, none deny such Divine concurrence.\nEven \"design\" and \"purpose\" are recognized as quite compatible with\nevolution, and even with the special \"nebular\" and Darwinian forms of it.\nProfessor Huxley well says,[289] \"It is necessary to remark that there is a\nwider teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but is\nactually based upon the fundamental proposition of evolution.\" ... \"The\nteleological and the mechanical views of nature are not necessarily\nmutually exclusive; on the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the\nspeculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular\narrangement, of which all the phenomena of the universe are the\nconsequences; and the more completely thereby is he at the mercy of the\nteleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial {274}\nmolecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the\nuniverse.\"[290]\n\nProfessor Owen says, that natural evolution, through secondary causes, \"by\nmeans of slow physical and organic operations through long ages, is not the\nless clearly recognizable as the act of all adaptive mind, because we have\nabandoned the old error of supposing it to be the result[291] of a primary,\ndirect, and sudden act of creational construction.\" ... \"The succession of\nspecies by continuously operating law, is not necessarily a 'blind\noperation.' Such law, however discerned in the properties and successions\nof natural objects, intimates, nevertheless, a preconceived progress.\nOrganisms may be evolved in orderly succession, stage after stage, towards\na foreseen goal, and the broad features of the course may still show the\nunmistakable impress of Divine volition.\"\n\nMr. Wallace[292] declares that the opponents of evolution present a less\nelevated view of the Almighty. He says: \"Why should we suppose the machine\ntoo complicated to have been designed by the Creator so complete that it\nwould necessarily work out harmonious results? The theory of 'continual\ninterference' is a limitation of the Creator's power. It assumes that He\ncould not work by pure law in the organic, as He has done in the inorganic\nworld.\" Thus, then, there is not only no necessary antagonism between the\ngeneral theory of \"evolution\" and a Divine action, but the compatibility\nbetween the two is recognized by naturalists who cannot be suspected of any\nstrong theological bias.\n\n                                                                      {275}\nThe very same may be said as to the special Darwinian form of the theory of\nevolution.\n\nIt is true Mr. Darwin writes sometimes as if he thought that his theory\nmilitated against even _derivative creation_.[293] This, however, there is\nno doubt, was not really meant; and indeed, in the passage before quoted\nand criticised, the possibility of the Divine ordination of each variation\nis spoken of as a tenable view. He says (\"Origin of Species,\" p. 569), \"I\nsee no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the\nreligious feelings of anyone;\" and he speaks of life \"having been\noriginally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,\" which is\n_more_ than the dogma of creation actually requires. We find then that no\n_in_compatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers worthy of mention)\nbetween \"evolution\" and the co-operation of the Divine will; while the same\n\"evolution\" has been shown to be thoroughly acceptable to the most orthodox\ntheologians who repudiate the intrusion of the supernatural into the domain\nof nature. A more complete harmony could scarcely be desired.\n\nBut if we may never hope to find, in physical nature, evidence of\nsupernatural action, what sort of action might we expect to find there,\nlooking at it from a theistic point of view? Surely an action the results\nof which harmonize with man's reason,[294] which is orderly, which    {276}\ndisaccords with the action of blind chance and with the \"fortuitous\nconcourse of atoms\" of Democritus; but at the same time an action which, as\nto its modes, ever, in parts, and in ultimate analysis, eludes our grasp,\nand the modes of which are different from those by which we should have\nattempted to accomplish such ends.\n\nNow, this is just what we _do_ find. The harmony, the beauty, and the order\nof the physical universe are the themes of continual panegyrics on the part\nof naturalists, and Mr. Darwin, as the Duke of Argyll remarks,[295]\n\"exhausts every form of words and of illustration by which intention or\nmental purpose can be described\"[296] when speaking of the wonderfully\ncomplex adjustments to secure the fertilization of orchids. Also, we find\nco-existing with this harmony a mode of proceeding so different from that\nof man as (the direct supernatural action eluding us) to form a\nstumbling-block to many in the way of their recognition of Divine action at\nall: although nothing can be more inconsistent than to speak of the first\ncause as utterly inscrutable and incomprehensible, and at the same time to\nexpect to find traces of a mode of action exactly similar to our own. It is\nsurely enough if the results harmonize on the whole and preponderatingly\nwith the rational, moral, and aesthetic instincts of man.\n\nMr. J. J. Murphy[297] has brought strongly forward the evidence of\n\"intelligence\" throughout organic nature. He believes \"that there is\nsomething in organic progress which mere Natural Selection among\nspontaneous variations will not account for,\" and that \"this something is\nthat organizing intelligence which guides the action of the inorganic\nforces, and forms structures which neither Natural Selection nor any other\nunintelligent agency could form.\"\n\n                                                                      {277}\nThis intelligence, however, Mr. Murphy considers may be unconscious, a\nconception which it is exceedingly difficult to understand, and which to\nmany minds appears to be little less than a contradiction in terms; the\nvery first condition of an intelligence being that, if it knows anything,\nit should at least know its own existence.\n\nSurely the evidence from physical facts agrees well with the overruling,\nconcurrent action of God in the order of nature; which is no miraculous\naction, but the operation of laws which owe their foundation, institution,\nand maintenance to an omniscient Creator of whose intelligence our own is a\nfeeble adumbration, inasmuch as it is created in the \"image and likeness\"\nof its Maker.\n\nThis leads to the final consideration, a difficulty by no means to be\npassed over in silence, namely the ORIGIN OF MAN. To the general theory of\nEvolution, and to the special Darwinian form of it, no exception, it has\nbeen shown, need be taken on the ground of orthodoxy. But in saying this,\nit has not been meant to include the soul of man.\n\nIt is a generally received doctrine that the soul of every individual man\nis absolutely created in the strict and primary sense of the word, that it\nis produced by a direct or supernatural[298] act, and, of course, that by\nsuch an act the soul of the first man was similarly created. It is\ntherefore important to inquire whether \"evolution\" conflicts with this\ndoctrine.\n\nNow the two beliefs are in fact perfectly compatible, and that either on\nthe hypothesis--1. That man's body was created in a manner different in\nkind from that by which the bodies of other animals were created; or 2.\nThat it was created in a similar manner to theirs.\n\nOne of the authors of the Darwinian theory, indeed, contends that even{278}\nas regards man's body, an action took place different from that by which\nbrute forms were evolved. Mr. Wallace[299] considers that \"Natural\nSelection\" alone could not have produced so large a brain in the savage, in\npossessing which he is furnished with an organ beyond his needs. Also that\nit could not have produced that peculiar distribution of hair, especially\nthe nakedness of the back, which is common to all races of men, nor the\npeculiar construction of the feet and hands. He says,[300] after speaking\nof the prehensile foot, common without a single exception to all the apes\nand lemurs, \"It is difficult to see why the prehensile power should have\nbeen taken away\" by the mere operation of Natural Selection. \"It must\ncertainly have been useful in climbing, and the case of the baboons shows\nthat it is quite compatible with terrestrial locomotion. It may not be\ncompatible with perfectly easy erect locomotion; but, then, how can we\nconceive that early man, _as an animal_, gained anything by purely erect\nlocomotion? Again, the hand of man contains latent capacities and powers\nwhich are unused by savages, and must have been even less used by\npalaeolithic man and his still ruder predecessors. It has all the appearance\nof an organ prepared for the use of civilized man, and one which was\nrequired to render civilization possible.\" Again speaking of the \"wonderful\npower, range, flexibility, and sweetness of the musical sounds producible\nby the human larynx,\" he adds, \"The habits of savages give no indication of\nhow this faculty could have been developed by Natural Selection; because it\nis never required or used by them. The singing of savages is a more or less\nmonotonous howling, and the females seldom sing at all. Savages certainly\nnever choose their wives for fine voices, but for rude health, and strength\nand physical beauty. Sexual selection could not therefore have developed\nthis wonderful power, which only comes into play among civilized people. It\nseems as if the organ had been prepared in anticipation of the future {279}\nprogress of man, since it contains latent capacities which are useless to\nhim in his earlier condition. The delicate correlations of structure that\ngive it such marvellous powers, could not therefore have been acquired by\nmeans of Natural Selection.\"\n\n[Illustration: FIBRES OF CORTI.]\n\nTo this may be added the no less wonderful faculty in the ear of\nappreciating delicate musical tones, and the harmony of chords.\n\nIt matters not what part of the organ subserves this function, but it has\nbeen supposed that it is ministered to by the fibres _of Corti_.[301] Now\nit can hardly be contended that the preservation of any race of men in the\nstruggle for life could have depended on such an extreme delicacy and\nrefinement of the internal ear,[302]--a perfection only fully exercised in\nthe enjoyment and appreciation of the most exquisite musical performances.\nHere, surely, we have an instance of an organ preformed, ready beforehand\nfor such action as could never by itself have been the cause of its\ndevelopment,--the action having only been subsequent, not anterior. The\nAuthor is not aware what may be the minute structure of the internal ear in\nthe highest apes, but if (as from analogy is probable) it is much as in\nman, then _a fortiori_ we have an instance of _anticipatory_ development of\na most marked and unmistakable kind. And this is not all. There is no {280}\nreason to suppose that any animal besides man appreciates musical\n_harmony_. It is certain that no other one _produces_ it.\n\nMr. Wallace also urges objections drawn from the origin of some of man's\nmental faculties, such as \"the capacity to form ideal conceptions of space\nand time, of eternity and infinity--the capacity for intense artistic\nfeelings of pleasure, in form, colour and composition--and for those\nabstract notions of form and number which render geometry and arithmetic\npossible,\" also from the origin of the moral sense.[303]\n\nThe validity of these objections is fully conceded by the Author of this\nbook, but he would push it much further, and contend (as has been now\nrepeatedly said), that another law, or other laws, than \"Natural Selection\"\nhave determined the evolution of _all_ organic forms, and of inorganic\nforms also. And it must be contended that Mr. Wallace, in order to be quite\nself-consistent, should arrive at the very same conclusion, inasmuch as he\nis inclined to trace all phenomena to the action of superhuman WILL. He\nsays:[304] \"If therefore we have traced one force, however minute, to an\norigin in our own WILL, while we have no knowledge of any other primary\ncause of force, it does not seem an improbable conclusion that all force\nmay be will-force; and thus, that the whole universe is not merely\ndependent on, but actually _is_, the WILL of higher intelligences, or of\none Supreme Intelligence.\"\n\nIf there is really evidence, as Mr. Wallace believes, of the action of an\noverruling intelligence in the evolution of the \"human form divine;\" if we\nmay go so far as this, then surely an analogous action may well be traced\nin the production of the horse, the camel, or the dog, so largely\nidentified with human wants and requirements. And if from other than\nphysical considerations we may believe that such action, though\nundemonstrable, has been and is; then (reflecting on sensible         {281}\nphenomena the theistic light derived from psychical facts) we may, in the\nlanguage of Mr. Wallace, \"see indications of that power in facts which, by\nthemselves, would not serve to prove its existence.\"[305]\n\nMr. Murphy, as has been said before, finds it necessary to accept the\nwide-spread action of \"intelligence\" as the agent by which _all_ organic\nforms have been called forth from the inorganic. But all science tends to\nunity, and this tendency makes it reasonable to extend to all physical\nexistences a mode of formation which we may have evidence for in any _one_\nof them. It therefore makes it reasonable to extend, if possible, the very\nsame agency which we find operating in the field of biology, also to the\ninorganic world. If on the grounds brought forward the action of\nintelligence may be affirmed in the production of man's bodily structure,\nit becomes probable _a priori_ that it may also be predicated of the\nformative action by which has been produced the animals which minister to\nhim, and all organic life whatsoever. Nay more, it is then congruous to\nexpect analogous action in the development of crystalline and colloidal\nstructures, and in that of all chemical compositions, in geological\nevolutions, and the formation not only of this earth, but of the solar\nsystem and whole sidereal universe.\n\nIf such really be the direction in which physical science, philosophically\nconsidered, points; if intelligence may thus be seen to preside over the\nevolution of each system of worlds and the unfolding of every blade of\ngrass--this grand result harmonizes indeed with the teachings of faith that\nGod acts and concurs, in the natural order, with those laws of the material\nuniverse which were not only instituted by His will, but are sustained by\nHis concurrence; and we are thus enabled to discern in the natural order,\nhowever darkly, the Divine Author of nature--Him in whom \"we live, and\nmove, and have our being.\"\n\nBut if this view is accepted, then it is no longer absolutely         {282}\nnecessary to suppose that any action different in kind took place in the\nproduction of man's body, from that which took place in the production of\nthe bodies of other animals, and of the whole material universe.\n\nOf course, if it _can_ be demonstrated that that difference which Mr.\nWallace asserts really exists, it is plain that we then have to do with\nfacts not only harmonizing with religion, but, as it were, preaching and\nproclaiming it.\n\nIt is not, however, necessary for Christianity that any such view should\nprevail. Man, according to the old scholastic definition, is \"a rational\nanimal\" (_animal rationale_), and his animality is distinct in nature from\nhis rationality, though inseparably joined, during life, in one common\npersonality. This animal body must have had a different source from that of\nthe spiritual soul which informs it, from the distinctness of the two\norders to which those two existences severally belong.\n\nScripture seems plainly to indicate this when it says that \"God made man\nfrom the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of\nlife.\" This is a plain and direct statement that man's _body_ was _not_\ncreated in the primary and absolute sense of the word, but was evolved from\npre-existing material (symbolized by the term \"dust of the earth\"), and was\ntherefore only _derivatively created_, i.e. by the operation of secondary\nlaws. His _soul_, on the other hand, was created in quite a different way,\nnot by any pre-existing means, external to God himself, but by the direct\naction of the Almighty, symbolized by the term \"breathing:\" the very form\nadopted by Christ, when conferring the _supernatural_ powers and graces of\nthe Christian dispensation, and a form still daily used in the rites and\nceremonies of the Church.\n\nThat the first man should have had this double origin agrees with what we\nnow experience. For supposing each human soul to be directly and\nimmediately created, yet each human body is evolved by the ordinary\noperation of natural physical laws. [Page 283]\n\nProfessor Flower in his Introductory Lecture[306] (p. 20) to his course of\nHunterian Lectures for 1870 well observes: \"Whatever man's place may be,\neither _in_ or _out_ of nature, whatever hopes, or fears or feelings about\nhimself or his race he may have, we all of us admit that these are quite\nuninfluenced by our knowledge of the fact that each individual man comes\ninto the world by the ordinary processes of generation, according to the\nsame laws which apply to the development of all organic beings whatever,\nthat every part of him which can come under the scrutiny of the anatomist\nor naturalist, has been evolved according to these regular laws from a\nsimple minute ovum, indistinguishable to our senses from that of any of the\ninferior animals. If this be so--if man is what he is, notwithstanding the\ncorporeal mode of origin of the individual man, so he will assuredly be\nneither less nor more than man, whatever may be shown regarding the\ncorporeal origin of the whole race, whether this was from the dust of the\nearth, or by the modification of some pre-existing animal form.\"\n\nMan is indeed compound, in him two distinct orders of being impinge and\nmingle; and with this an origin from two concurrent modes of action is\ncongruous, and might be expected _a priori_. At the same time as the \"soul\"\nis \"the form of the body,\" the former might be expected to modify the\nlatter into a structure of harmony and beauty standing alone in the organic\nworld of nature. Also that, with the full perfection and beauty of that\nsoul, attained by the concurrent action of \"Nature\" and \"Grace,\" a\ncharacter would be formed like nothing else which is visible in this world,\nand having a mode of action different, inasmuch as complementary to all\ninferior modes of action.\n\nSomething of this is evident even to those who approach the subject from\nthe point of view of physical science only. Thus Mr. Wallace observes,[307]\nthat on his view man is to be placed \"apart, as not only the head and {284}\nculminating point of the grand series of organic nature, but as in some\ndegree _a new and distinct order of being_.[308] From those infinitely\nremote ages when the first rudiments of organic life appeared upon the\nearth, every plant and every animal has been subject to one great law of\nphysical change. As the earth has gone through its grand cycles of\ngeological, climatal, and organic progress, every form of life has been\nsubject to its irresistible action, and has been continually but\nimperceptibly moulded into such new shapes as would preserve their harmony\nwith the ever-changing universe. No living thing could escape this law of\nits being; none (except, perhaps, the simplest and most rudimentary\norganisms) could remain unchanged and live amid the universal change around\nit.\"\n\n\"At length, however, there came into existence a being in whom that subtle\nforce we term _mind_, became of greater importance than his mere bodily\nstructure. Though with a naked and unprotected body, _this_ gave him\nclothing against the varying inclemencies of the seasons. Though unable to\ncompete with the deer in swiftness, or with the wild bull in strength,\n_this_ gave him weapons with which to capture or overcome both. Though less\ncapable than most other animals of living on the herbs and the fruits that\nunaided nature supplies, this wonderful faculty taught him to govern and\ndirect nature to his own benefit, and make her produce food for him when\nand where he pleased. From the moment when the first skin was used as a\ncovering; when the first rude spear was formed to assist in the chase; when\nfire was first used to cook his food; when the first seed was sown or shoot\nplanted, a grand revolution was effected in nature, a revolution which in\nall the previous ages of the earth's history had had no parallel, for a\nbeing had arisen who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the\nchanging universe, a being who was in some degree superior to nature,\ninasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate her action, and could {285}\nkeep himself in harmony with her, not by a change in body, but by an\nadvance in mind.\"\n\n\"On this view of his special attributes, we may admit 'that he is indeed a\nbeing apart.' Man has not only escaped 'Natural Selection' himself, but he\nis actually able to take away some of that power from nature which before\nhis appearance she universally exercised. We can anticipate the time when\nthe earth will produce only cultivated plants and domestic animals; when\nman's selection shall have supplanted 'Natural Selection;' and when the\nocean will be the only domain in which that power can be exerted.\"\n\nBaden Powell[309] observes on this subject: \"The relation of the animal man\nto the intellectual, moral, and spiritual man, resembles that of a crystal\nslumbering in its native quarry to the same crystal mounted in the\npolarizing apparatus of the philosopher. The difference is not in physical\nnature, but in investing that nature with a new and higher application. Its\ncontinuity with the material world remains the same, but a new relation is\ndeveloped in it, and it claims kindred with ethereal matter and with\ncelestial light.\"\n\nThis well expresses the distinction between the merely physical and the\nhyperphysical natures of man, and the subsumption of the former into the\nlatter which dominates it.\n\nThe same author in speaking of man's moral and spiritual nature says,[310]\n\"The assertion in its very nature and essence refers wholly to a DIFFERENT\nORDER OF THINGS, apart from and transcending any material ideas\nwhatsoever.\" Again[311] he adds, \"In proportion as man's _moral_\nsuperiority is held to consist in attributes _not_ of a _material_ or\ncorporeal kind or origin, it can signify little how his _physical_ nature\nmay have originated.\"\n\nNow physical science, as such, has nothing to do with the soul of man which\nis hyperphysical. That such an entity exists, that the correlated     {286}\nphysical forces go through their Protean transformations, have their\npersistent ebb and flow outside of the world of WILL and SELF-CONSCIOUS\nMORAL BEING, are propositions the proofs of which have no place in this\nwork. This at least may however be confidently affirmed, that no reach of\nphysical science in any coming century will ever approach to a\ndemonstration that countless modes of being, as different from each other\nas are the force of gravitation and conscious maternal love, may not\nco-exist. Two such modes are made known to us by our natural faculties\nonly: the physical, which includes the first of these examples; the\nhyperphysical, which embraces the other. For those who accept revelation, a\nthird and a distinct mode of being and of action is also made known,\nnamely, the direct and immediate or, in the sense here given to the term,\nthe supernatural. An analogous relationship runs through and connects all\nthese modes of being and of action. The higher mode in each case employs\nand makes use of the lower, the action of which it occasionally suspends or\nalters, as gravity is suspended by electro-magnetic action, or the living\nenergy of an organic being restrains the inter-actions of the chemical\naffinities belonging to its various constituents.\n\nThus conscious will controls and directs the exercise of the vital\nfunctions according to desire, and moral consciousness tends to control\ndesire in obedience to higher dictates.[312] The action of living     {287}\norganisms depends upon and subsumes the laws of inorganic matter. Similarly\nthe actions of animal life depend upon and subsume the laws of organic\nmatter. In the same way the actions of a self-conscious moral agent, such\nas man, depend upon and subsume the laws of animal life. When a part or the\nwhole series of these natural actions is altered or suspended by the\nintervention of action of a still higher order, we have then a \"miracle.\"\n\nIn this way we find a perfect harmony in the double nature of man, his\nrationality making use of and subsuming his animality; his soul arising\nfrom direct and immediate creation, and his body being formed at first (as\nnow in each separate individual) by derivative or secondary creation,\nthrough natural laws. By such secondary creation, _i.e._ by natural laws,\nfor the most part as yet unknown but controlled by \"Natural Selection,\" all\nthe various kinds of animals and plants have been manifested on this\nplanet. That Divine action has concurred and concurs in these laws we know\nby deductions from our primary intuitions; and physical science, if unable\nto demonstrate such action, is at least as impotent to disprove it.\nDisjoined from these deductions, the phenomena of the universe present an\naspect devoid of all that appeals to the loftiest aspirations of man, that\nwhich stimulates his efforts after goodness, and presents consolations for\nunavoidable shortcomings. Conjoined with these same deductions, all the\nharmony of physical nature and the constancy of its laws are preserved\nunimpaired, while the reason, the conscience, and the aesthetic instincts\nare alike gratified. We have thus a true reconciliation of science and\nreligion, in which each gains and neither loses, one being complementary to\nthe other.\n\nSome apology is due to the reader for certain observations and arguments\nwhich have been here advanced, and which have little in the shape of\nnovelty to recommend them. But after all, novelty can hardly be predicated\nof the views here criticised and opposed. Some of these seem almost a {288}\nreturn to the \"fortuitous concourse of atoms\" of Democritus, and even the\nvery theory of \"Natural Selection\" itself--a \"survival of the fittest\"--was\nin part thought out not hundreds but _thousands_ of years ago. Opponents of\nAristotle maintained that by the accidental occurrence of combinations,\norganisms have been preserved and perpetuated such as final causes, did\nthey exist, would have brought about, disadvantageous combinations or\nvariations being speedily exterminated. \"For when the very same\ncombinations happened to be produced which the law of final causes would\nhave called into being, those combinations which proved to be advantageous\nto the organism were preserved; while those which were not advantageous\nperished, and still perished like the minotaurs and sphinxes of\nEmpedocles.\"[313]\n\nIn conclusion, the Author ventures to hope that this treatise may not be\ndeemed useless, but have contributed, however slightly, towards clearing\nthe way for peace and conciliation and for a more ready perception, of the\nharmony which exists between those deductions from our primary intuitions\nbefore alluded to, and the teachings of physical science, as far, that is,\nas concerns the evolution of organic forms--_the genesis of species_.\n\nThe aim has been to support the doctrine that these species have been\nevolved by ordinary _natural laws_ (for the most part unknown) controlled\nby the _subordinate_ action of \"Natural Selection,\" and at the same time to\nremind some that there is and can be absolutely nothing in physical science\nwhich forbids them to regard those natural laws as acting with the Divine\nconcurrence and in obedience to a creative fiat originally imposed on the\nprimeval Cosmos, \"in the beginning,\" by its Creator, its Upholder, and its\nLord.\n\n                                                                      {289}\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n              A.\n  Aard-Vark, 174.\n  Absolute creation, 252.\n  Acanthometrae, 186.\n  Acrodont teeth, 148.\n  Acts formally moral, 195.\n  Acts materially moral, 195.\n  Adductor muscles, 79.\n  Agassiz, Professor, 271.\n  Aged, care of, 192.\n  Aggregational theory, 163.\n  Algoa Bay, cat of, 98.\n  Allantois, 82.\n  Amazons, butterflies of, 85.\n  Amazons, cholera in the, 192.\n  American butterflies, 29.\n  American maize, 100.\n  American monkeys, 226.\n  Amiurus, 147.\n  Amphibia, 109.\n  Analogical relations, 157.\n  Ancon sheep, 100, 103, 227.\n  Andrew Murray, Mr., 83.\n  Angora cats, 175.\n  Animal's sufferings, 260.\n  Ankle bones, 158.\n  Annelids undergoing fission, 169, 211.\n  Annulosa, eye of, 76.\n  Anoplotherium, 109.\n  Anteater, 83.\n  Antechinus, 82.\n  Antenna, of orchid, 56.\n  Anthropomorphism, 258.\n  Ape's sexual characters, 49.\n  Apostles' Creed, 245.\n  Appendages of lobster, 161.\n  Appendages of Normandy pigs, 99.\n  Appendages of turkey, 100.\n  Appendix, vermiform, 83.\n  Appreciation of Mr. Darwin, 10.\n  Apteryx, 7, 70.\n  Aqueous humour, 76.\n  Aquinas, St. Thomas, 17, 263, 265.\n  Archegosaurus, 135.\n  Archeopteryx, 73.\n  Arcturus, 193.\n  Argyll, Duke of, 14, 276.\n  Aristotle, 288.\n  Armadillo, extinct kind, 110.\n  Arthritis, rheumatic, 183.\n  Artiodactyle foot, 109.\n  Asa Gray, Dr., 253, 255, 261.\n  Asceticism, 193.\n  Ascidians, placental structure, 81.\n  Assumptions of Mr. Darwin, 16.\n  Astronomical objections, 136.\n  Auditory organ, 74.\n  Augustin, St., 17, 263, 264.\n  Aurelius, Marcus, 206.\n  Avian limb, 106.\n  Avicularia, 80.\n  Axolotl, 165.\n  Aye-Aye, 107.\n  Aylesbury ducks, 234.\n\n              B.\n  Backbone, 135, 162.\n  Bacon, Roger, 266.\n  Baleen, 40.\n  Bamboo insect, 33.\n  Bandicoot, 67.\n  Bartlett, Mr. A. D., 126, 234.\n  Bartlett, Mr. E., 192.\n  Basil, St., 17.\n  Bastian, Dr. H. Charlton, 115, 219, 237, 266.\n  Bat, wing of, 64.\n  Bates, Mr., 29, 85, 87.\n  [Page 290]\n  Bats, 108.\n  Beaks, 83.\n  Beasts, sufferings of, 260.\n  Beauty of shell-fish, 54.\n  Bee orchid, 55.\n  Bird, wings of, 64.\n  Birds compared with reptiles, 70.\n  Bird's-head processes, 80.\n  Birds of Paradise, 90.\n  Birth of individual and species, 2.\n  Bivalves, 79.\n  Black sheep, 122.\n  Black-shouldered peacock, 100.\n  Bladebone, 70.\n  Blood-vessels, 182.\n  Blyth, Mr., 100, 181.\n  Bones of skull, 153.\n  Bonnet, M., 217.\n  Borwick, Mr., 198.\n  \"Boots\" of pigeons, 181.\n  Breathing, modified power of, 99.\n  Breeding of lions, 234.\n  Brill, 37.\n  Broccoli, variety of, 100.\n  Bryozoa, 81.\n  Buchner, Dr., 273.\n  Budd, Dr. W., 183.\n  Buffon, 217.\n  Bull-dog's instinct, 260.\n  Burt, Prof. Wilder, 180, 184.\n  Butterflies, 29.\n  Butterflies, Amazonian, 85.\n  Butterflies, American, 29.\n  Butterflies of Indian region, 83.\n  Butterflies, tails of, 85.\n  Butterfly, Leaf, 31.\n\n              C.\n  Cacotus, 149.\n  Caecum, 83.\n  Calamaries, 77.\n  Cambrian deposits, 137.\n  Cape ant-eater, 174.\n  Care of aged, 192.\n  Carinate birds, 70.\n  Carnivora, 68.\n  Carnivorous dentition, 110.\n  Carp fishes, 146.\n  Carpal bones, 106, 178.\n  Carpenter, Dr., 115.\n  Carpus, 177, 178.\n  Cases of conscience, 201.\n  Cassowary, 70.\n  Catasetum, 56.\n  Causes of spread of Darwinism, 10.\n  Cebus, 226.\n  Celebes, butterflies of, 85.\n  Centetes, 148.\n  Centipede, 66, 159.\n  Cephalopoda, 74.\n  Ceroxylus laceratus, 36.\n  Cetacea, 42, 83, 105, 108, 174.\n  Chances against few individuals, 57.\n  Characinidae, 146.\n  Cheirogaleus, 158.\n  Chetahs, 234.\n  Chickens, mortality of hybrids, 124.\n  Chioglossa, 165.\n  Chiromys, 107.\n  Cholera, 192.\n  Choroid, 76.\n  Chronic rheumatism, 183.\n  Circumcision, 212.\n  Clarias, 146.\n  Climate, effects of, 98.\n  Climbing plants, 107.\n  Clock-thinking illustration, 249.\n  Cobra, 50.\n  Cockle, 79.\n  Cod, 39.\n  Colloidal matter, 266.\n  Conceptions, symbolic, 251.\n  Connecticut footsteps, 131.\n  Connecting links, supposed, 107.\n  Conscience, cases of, 201.\n  Conscientious Papuan, 197.\n  Cope, Professor, 71, 130.\n  Coracoid, of birds and reptiles, 70.\n  Cornea, 77.\n  Cornelius a Lapide, 265.\n  Correlation, laws of, 173.\n  Corti, fibres of, 53, 279.\n  Coryanthes, 56.\n  Costa, M., 88.\n  Cranial segments, 172.\n  Creation, 245, 252.\n  Creator, 15, 252.\n  Creed, Apostles', 245.\n  Crocodile, 43.\n  Croll, Mr., 137.\n  Crustacea, 79, 160.\n  Cryptacanthus, 146.\n  Crystalline matter, 266.\n  Crystals of snow, 186.\n  Cuttle-fishes, 74, 75.\n  Cuvier, 109.\n  Cyprinoids, 146.\n  Cytheridea, 79.\n  [Page 291]\n\n              D.\n  Dana, Professor, 149.\n  Darwin, Mr. Charles, 2, 10, 12, 14-21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 43, 45, 47, 48,\n      55-57, 59, 65, 88, 94, 98-100, 107, 118-126, 129, 138, 142, 145, 149,\n      150, 181, 188-190, 196, 208, 209, 214-216, 218, 223, 233, 234, 252,\n      254, 258, 259, 275, 276.\n  Datura tatula, 101.\n  Delhi, days at, 98.\n  Delpino, Signor, 212, 213, 215.\n  Democritus, 217, 275, 288.\n  Density of air for breathing, 99.\n  Dentition, carnivorous, 110.\n  Derivation, 238.\n  Derivative creation, 252, 282.\n  Design, 259.\n  Devotion, 193.\n  Dibranchiata, 74.\n  Difficulties of problem of specific origin, 1.\n  Digits, supernumerary, 122, 181.\n  Digits, turtle's, 106.\n  Dimorphodon, 71.\n  Dinornis, 70.\n  Dinosauria, 71.\n  Diseased pelvis, 182.\n  Dissemination of seeds, 65.\n  Doris, 170.\n  Dotheboys' Hall, 272.\n  Dragon, the flying, 64, 158.\n  Dragon-fly, 77.\n  Droughts, 25.\n  Duck-billed platypus, 175.\n  Dugong, 41, 175.\n  Duke of Argyll, 14, 276.\n  Dyspepsia, 201.\n\n              E.\n  Ear, 74.\n  Ear, formation of, 51.\n  Early specialization, 111.\n  Echinodermata, 44.\n  Echinoidea, 44.\n  Echinops, 148.\n  Echinorhinus, 172.\n  Echinus, 43.\n  Economy, Fuegian political, 192.\n  Eczema, 183.\n  Edentata, 174.\n  Egyptian monuments, 138.\n  Elasmobranchs, 140.\n  Elbow and knee affections, 183.\n  Empedocles, 288.\n  Eocene ungulata, 110.\n  Eolis, 170.\n  Equus, 97.\n  Ericulus, 148.\n  Ethics, 188.\n  Eudes Deslongchamps, 99.\n  Eurypterida, 141, 171.\n  Eutropius, 147.\n  Everett, Rev. R., 98.\n  Evolution requires geometrical increase of time, 139.\n  Eye, 76.\n  Eye, formation of, 51.\n  Eye of trilobites, 135.\n\n              F.\n  Fabre, M., 46.\n  Feather-legged breeds, 181.\n  Feejeans, 199.\n  Fertilization of orchids, 55.\n  \"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum,\" 195.\n  Fibres of Corti, 53, 279.\n  Final misery, 194.\n  Finger of Potto, 105.\n  Fish, flying, 64.\n  Fishes, fresh-water, 145.\n  Fishes, thoracic and jugular, 39, 140.\n  Fixity of position of limbs, 39.\n  Flat-fishes, 37, 166.\n  Flexibility of bodily organization, degrees of, 119.\n  Flexibility of mind, 267.\n  Flies, horned, 93.\n  Flight of spiders, 65.\n  Flounder, 37.\n  Flower, Professor, 163, 232, 283.\n  Fly, orchid, 55.\n  Flying-dragon, 64, 158.\n  Flying fish, 64.\n  Foetal teeth of whales, 7.\n  Food, effects on pigs, 99.\n  Footsteps of Connecticut, 131.\n  Foraminifera, 186.\n  Formally moral acts, 195.\n  Formation of eye and ear, 51.\n  Forms, substantial, 186, 272.\n  Four-gilled Cephalopods, 76.\n  Fowls, white silk, 122.\n  French theatrical audience, 198.\n  Fresh-water fishes, 145.\n  Frogs, Chilian and European, 149.\n  Fuego, Terra del, 192.\n  [Page 292]\n\n              G.\n  Galago, 158.\n  Galaxias, 147.\n  Galeus vulgaris, 172.\n  Galton, Mr. F., 97, 113, 228.\n  Gascoyen, Mr., 182.\n  Gavials, 43.\n  Gegenbaur, Prof., 176-178.\n  Gemmules, 208.\n  Generative system, its sensitiveness, 235.\n  Genesis of morals, 201.\n  Geographical distribution, 144.\n  Geographical distribution explained by Natural Selection, 6.\n  Geometrical increments of time, 139.\n  Geotria, 147.\n  Giraffe, neck of, 24.\n  Gizzard-like stomach, 83.\n  Glacial epoch, 150.\n  Glyptodon, 110.\n  Godron, Dr., 101.\n  Goose, its inflexibility, 119.\n  Goeppert, Mr., 101.\n  Gould, Mr., 88.\n  Grasshopper, Great Shielded, 89.\n  Gray, Dr. Asa, 253, 255, 261.\n  Great Ant-eater, 83.\n  Great Salamander, 172.\n  Great Shielded Grasshopper, 89.\n  Greyhounds in Mexico, 99.\n  Greyhounds, time for evolution of, 138.\n  Guinea-fowl, 120.\n  Guinea-pig, 126.\n  Guenther, Dr., 145, 146, 172.\n\n              H.\n  Hairless Dogs, 174, 175.\n  Hamilton, Sir Wm., 267.\n  Harmony, musical, 54, 279.\n  Heart in birds and reptiles, 158.\n  Hegel, 217.\n  Heliconidae, 29.\n  Hell, 194.\n  Heptanchus, 172.\n  Herbert Spencer, Mr., 20, 28, 67, 72, 163-166, 168, 170-172, 184, 187,\n      202, 203, 205, 218, 228, 245, 246, 248, 251.\n  Hessian flies, 170.\n  Heterobranchus, 146.\n  Hewitt, Mr., 124, 181.\n  Hexanchus, 172.\n  Hipparion, 97, 134.\n  Homogeny, 158.\n  Homology, bilateral or lateral, 156, 164.\n  Homology, meaning of term, 7, 156.\n  Homology, serial, 159.\n  Homology, vertical, 165.\n  Homoplasy, 159.\n  Honey-suckers, 90.\n  Hood of cobra, 50.\n  Hook-billed ducks, 100.\n  Hooker, Dr., 150.\n  Horned flies, 93.\n  Horny plates, 40, 42.\n  Horny stomach, 83.\n  Human larynx, 54, 278.\n  Humphry, Professor, 163.\n  Hutton, Mr. R. Holt, 202, 203.\n  Huxley, Professor, 67-69, 71, 72, 95, 103, 109, 130, 131, 137, 141, 163,\n      172, 173, 231, 247, 273.\n  Hybrids, mortality of, 124.\n  Hydrocyonina, 146.\n  Hyperphysical action, 253.\n  Hyrax, 179.\n\n              I.\n  Ichthyopsida, 109.\n  Ichthyosaurus, 78, 106, 132, 177.\n  Ichthyosis, 183.\n  Iguanodon, 71.\n  Illegitimate symbolic conceptions, 251.\n  Illustration by clock-thinking, 249.\n  Imaginal disks, 46, 170.\n  Implacental mammals, 67, 68.\n  Independent origins, 152.\n  Indian butterfly, 30.\n  Indian region's butterflies, 83.\n  Indians and cholera, 192.\n  Individual, meaning of word, 2.\n  Infirm, care of, 192.\n  Influence, local, 83.\n  Insect, walking-leaf, 35.\n  Insects, walking-stick and bamboo, 33.\n  Insectivora, 68.\n  Insectivorous mammals, 148.\n  Insectivorous teeth, 68.\n  Instinct of bull-dog, 260.\n  Intermediate forms, 128.\n  Intuitions, primary, 251.\n  Irregularities in blood-vessels, 182.\n  Isaria felina, 115.\n  [Page 293]\n\n              J.\n  Japanned Peacock, 100.\n  Jews, 212.\n  Joints of backbone, 157, 162.\n  Jugular fishes, 39, 141.\n  Julia Pastrana, 174.\n\n              K.\n  Kallima inachis, 31.\n  Kallima paralekta, 31.\n  Kangaroo, 42, 67.\n  Kowalewsky, 81.\n  Knee and elbow affections, 183.\n  Koelliker, Professor, 104.\n\n              L.\n  Labyrinthici, 146.\n  Labyrinthodon, 104, 134.\n  Lamarck, 3.\n  Lankester, Mr. Ray, 152, 158.\n  Larynx of kangaroo, 42.\n  Larynx of man, 54, 278.\n  Lateral homology, 164.\n  Laws of correlation, 173.\n  Leaf butterfly, 31.\n  Legitimate symbolic conceptions, 251.\n  Lens, 76.\n  Lepidosteus, 172.\n  Lepra, 183.\n  Lewes, Mr. G. H., 94, 212, 214, 216.\n  Lewis, St., 206.\n  Lewis XV., 206.\n  Lewis XVI., 206.\n  Limb genesis, 176.\n  Limb muscles, 180.\n  Limbs, fixity of position of, 39.\n  Limbs of lobster, 161.\n  Links, supposed connecting, 107.\n  Lions, breeding, 234.\n  Lions, diseased pelvis, 182.\n  Llama, 109.\n  Local influences, 83.\n  Lobster, 160.\n  Long-tailed bird of Paradise, 91.\n  Lubbock, Sir John, 193, 204.\n  Lyell Sir, Charles, on dogs, 99, 106.\n\n              M.\n  Machairodus, 110.\n  Macrauchenia, 109.\n  Macropodidae, 69.\n  Macroscelides, 68.\n  Madagascar, 148, 152.\n  Magnificent Bird of Paradise, 93.\n  Maize, American, 100.\n  Mammals, 67.\n  Mammary gland of kangaroo, 42.\n  Mammary gland, origin of, 47.\n  Man, origin of, 277.\n  Man reveals God, 267.\n  Man, voice of, 54.\n  Manatee, 41, 175.\n  Manchamp breed of sheep, 100.\n  Manis, 175.\n  Man's larynx, 54.\n  Many simultaneous modifications, 57.\n  Marcus Aurelius, 206.\n  Martineau, Mr. James, 200, 245.\n  Mastacembelus, 145.\n  Materially moral acts, 195.\n  Matter, crystalline and colloidal, 266.\n  Meaning of word \"individual,\" 2.\n  Meaning of word \"species,\" 2.\n  Mechanical theory of spine, 164.\n  Mediterranean oyster, 88, 98.\n  Meehan, Mr., 88.\n  Mexico, dogs in, 99.\n  Mill, John Stuart, 15, 189, 193, 194.\n  Mimicry, 8, 29.\n  Miracle, 287.\n  Molars, 111.\n  Mole, 176.\n  Moliere, 230.\n  Mombas, cats at, 98.\n  Monkeys, American, 226.\n  Monster proboscis, 123.\n  Moral acts, 195.\n  Mordacia, 147.\n  Murphy, Mr. J. J., 52, 53, 76, 103, 114, 115, 137, 185, 221, 276, 281.\n  Murray, Mr. Andrew, 83.\n  Mus delicatulus, 82.\n  Muscles of limbs, 180.\n  Mussel, 79.\n  Myrmecophaga, 83.\n\n              N.\n  Nasalis, Semnopithecus, 139.\n  Nathusius, 99.\n  Natural Selection, shortly stated, 5.\n  Naudin, M. C., 101.\n  Nautilus, 76.\n  Nebular evolution, 273.\n  Neck of giraffe, 24.\n  Newman, the Rev. Dr., 260, 268, 270, 286.\n  [Page 294]\n  New Zealand crustacea, 149.\n  New Zealand fishes, 147.\n  Niata cattle, 100.\n  Nile fishes, 146.\n  Normandy pig, 99.\n  North American fish, 147\n  Nycticebus, 179.\n\n              O.\n  Object of book, 5.\n  Objections from astronomy, 136.\n  Octopods, 77.\n  Offensive remarks of Prof. Vogt, 13.\n  Old, care of the, 192.\n  Old Fuegian women, 192.\n  Omygena exigua, 115.\n  Ophiocephalus, 146.\n  Optic lobes of pterodactyls, 71.\n  Orchids, 92.\n  Orchids, Bee, &c., 55.\n  Organ of hearing, 74.\n  Organ of sight, 76.\n  Organic polarities, 185.\n  Origin of man, 277.\n  Orioles, 90.\n  Ornithoptera, 84.\n  Ornithorhynchus, 175.\n  Orthoceratidae, 170.\n  Orycteropus, 174.\n  Ostracods, 79.\n  Ostrich, 70.\n  Otoliths, 74.\n  Outlines of butterflies' wings, 86.\n  Owen, Professor, 74, 102, 123, 217, 238, 274.\n  Oyster of Mediterranean, 88, 98.\n  Oysters, 79.\n\n              P.\n  Paget, Mr. J., 182.\n  Palaeotherium, 109.\n  Pallas, 125.\n  Pangenesis, 19, 208.\n  Pangolin, 175.\n  Papilio Hospiton, 85.\n  Papilio Machaon, 85.\n  Papilio Ulysses, 84.\n  Papilionidae, 83.\n  Papuan morals, 197, 198.\n  Parthenogenesis, 217.\n  Passiflora gracilis, 107.\n  Pastrana, Julia, 174.\n  Pathological polarities, 184.\n  Pavo nigripennis, 100.\n  Peacock, black shouldered, 100.\n  Peacock, inflexibility of, 119.\n  Pedicellariae, 44.\n  Pelvis, diseased, 182.\n  Pendulous appendages of turkey, 100.\n  Perameles, 68.\n  Periophthalmus, 146.\n  Perissodactyle ungulates, 109.\n  Permian, jugular fish, 141.\n  Perodicticus, 105, 179.\n  Phalangers, 67.\n  Phasmidae, 89.\n  Phyllopods, 79.\n  Physical actions, 253.\n  \"Physiological units,\" 168, 218.\n  Pigeons' \"boots,\" 181.\n  Placental mammals, 67.\n  Placental reproduction, 81.\n  Plants, tendrils of, 107.\n  Plates of baleen, 40.\n  Platypus, 175.\n  Pleiades, 193.\n  Plesiosaurus, 106, 133, 178.\n  Pleurodont dentition, 148.\n  Pleuronectidae, 37, 166.\n  Plotosus, 147.\n  Poisoning apparatus, 66.\n  Poisonous serpents, 50.\n  Polarities, organic, 184, 185.\n  Political economy, Fuegian, 192.\n  Polyzoa, 80, 81.\n  Pompadour, Madame de, 206.\n  Poppy, variety of, 101.\n  Porcupine, 175.\n  Porto Santo rabbit, 100, 122.\n  Potto, 105, 179.\n  Pouched beasts, 67.\n  Powell, the Rev. Baden, 259, 261, 285.\n  Premolars, 111.\n  Prepotency, 124.\n  Primary intuitions, 251.\n  Primitive man, 204.\n  Problem of origin of kinds, 1.\n  Proboscis monkey, 139.\n  Proboscis of ungulates, 123.\n  Processes, bird's-head, 80.\n  Psettus, 146.\n  Psoriasis, 183.\n  Pterodactyles, compared with birds, 70.\n  Pterodactyles, wing of, 64.\n  Puccinia, 115.\n  Purpose, 259.\n  [Page 295]\n\n              Q.\n  Quasi-vertebral theory of skull, 172.\n\n              R.\n  Rabbit of Porto Santo, 100, 122.\n  Radial ossicle, 176.\n  Rarefied air, effect on dogs, 99.\n  Rattlesnake, 49, 50.\n  Red bird of Paradise, 92.\n  Relations, analogical, 157.\n  Relations, homological, 156.\n  Reptiles compared with birds, 70.\n  Retina, 76.\n  Retrieving, virtue a kind of, 189, 205.\n  Reversion, cases of, 122.\n  Rhea, 70.\n  Ribs of Cetacea and Sirenia, 41.\n  Ribs of flying-dragon, 64, 158.\n  Richardson's figures of pigs, 99.\n  Roger Bacon, 266.\n  Rudimentary structures, 7, 102.\n\n              S.\n  Sabre-toothed tiger, 110.\n  St. Augustin, 17, 263-265.\n  St. Basil, 17.\n  St. Hilaire, M., 179.\n  St. Thomas Aquinas, 17, 263, 265.\n  Salamander, great, 172.\n  Salter, Mr., 124.\n  Salvia officinalis, 213.\n  Salvia verticillata, 213.\n  Scapula of birds and reptiles, 70.\n  Schreber, 13.\n  Sclerotic, 76.\n  Scorpion, sting of, 66.\n  Seals, 83.\n  Sea squirts, 81.\n  Seeds, dissemination of, 65.\n  Seeley, Mr., on pterodactyles, 71.\n  Segmentation of skull, 172.\n  Segmentation of spine, 171.\n  Segments, similar, 160.\n  Self-existence, 252.\n  Semnopithecus, 139.\n  Sense, organ of, 51, 69, 74, 76.\n  Sensitiveness of generative system, 235.\n  Sepia, 77.\n  Serpents, poisonous, 50.\n  Sexual characters of apes, 49.\n  Sexual selection, 48.\n  Sharks, 83.\n  Shell-fish, beauty of, 54.\n  Shells of oysters, 88, 98.\n  Shielded grasshopper, 89.\n  Silurian strata, 140, 142.\n  Simultaneous modifications, 57.\n  Sirenia, 42\n  Sir John Lubbock, 198, 204.\n  Sir William Thomson, 136.\n  Sitaris, 46.\n  Six-shafted bird of Paradise, 90.\n  Skull bones, 153.\n  Skull segments, 172.\n  Sloth, windpipe of, 82.\n  Smithfield, wife-selling in, 198.\n  Snow, crystals of, 186.\n  Sole, 37.\n  Solenodon, 148.\n  Species, meaning of word, 2.\n  Spelerpes, 165.\n  Spencer, see Herbert Spencer.\n  Spider orchid, 55.\n  Spiders, flight of, 65.\n  Spine of Glyptodon, 110.\n  Spine, segmentation of, 172.\n  Squalidae, 38.\n  Squilla, 160.\n  Sterility of hybrids, 125.\n  Stings, 66.\n  Straining action of baleen, 41.\n  Struthious birds, 70, 151.\n  Sturgeon, 171.\n  Suarez, 18, 263.\n  Substantial forms, 186, 272.\n  Sufferings of beasts, 260.\n  Supernatural action, 252.\n  Supernatural action not to be looked for in nature, 15.\n  Supernumerary digits, 122, 181.\n  Syllis, 169, 211.\n  Symbolic conceptions, 251.\n  Symmetrical diseases, 182.\n  Syphilitic deposits, 183.\n\n              T.\n  Tadpole's beak, 83.\n  Tails of butterflies, 85.\n  Tapir, 123, 134.\n  Tarsal bones, 159, 198.\n  Teeth of Cetacea, 83.\n  Teeth of Insectivora, 68.\n  Teeth of kangaroo and Macroscelides, 69.\n  Teeth of seals, 83.\n  Teeth of sharks, 83.\n  [Page 296]\n  Teleology and evolution compatible, 273.\n  Tendrils of climbing plants, 107.\n  Tenia echinococcus, 170.\n  Teratology, 173.\n  Tetragonopterina, 146.\n  Thomson, Sir William, 136.\n  Thoracic fishes, 39.\n  Thorax of crustaceans, 79.\n  Thylacine, 67.\n  Tierra del Fuego, 192.\n  Tiger, sabre-toothed, 110.\n  Time required for evolution, 128.\n  Tope, 172.\n  Trabeculae cranii, 172.\n  Transitional forms, 128.\n  Transmutationism, 242.\n  Trevelyan, Sir J. Peacock, 100.\n  Trilobites, 135, 141, 171.\n  Tunicaries, 81.\n  Turbot, 37.\n  Turkey, effects of climate on, 100.\n  Turkish dog, 45.\n  Two-gilled cephalopods, 76.\n  Type, conformity to, 241.\n\n              U.\n  Umbilical vesicle, 82.\n  Ungulata, 25, 109.\n  Ungulata eocene, 110.\n  Units, physiological, 168, 218.\n  Unknowable, the, 245.\n  Upper Silurian strata, 140, 142.\n  Urotrichus, 68.\n\n              V.\n  Variability, different degrees of, 119.\n  Vermiform appendix, 83.\n  Vertebrae of skull, 172.\n  Vertebral column, 162, 171.\n  Vertebrate limbs, 38, 163.\n  Vertical homology, 165.\n  Vesicle, umbilical, 82.\n  \"Vestiges of Creation,\" 3.\n  View here advocated, 5.\n  Vitreous humour, 76.\n  Vogt, Professor, 12, 273.\n  Voice of man, 54.\n  Voltaire, 230.\n\n              W.\n  Wagner, J. A., 13.\n  Wagner, Nicholas, 170.\n  Walking leaf, 35.\n  Walking-stick insect, 33.\n  Wallace, Mr. Alfred, 2, 10, 26, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 54, 83, 84, 87, 89,\n      90, 103, 117, 191, 197, 226, 274, 281-283.\n  Weaver fishes, 39.\n  Weitbrecht, 179.\n  Whale, foetal teeth of, 7.\n  Whale, mouth of, 40.\n  Whalebone, 40.\n  Whales, 78.\n  White silk fowls, 122.\n  Wife selling, 198.\n  Wild animals, their variability, 120.\n  Wilder, Professor Burt, 180, 184.\n  Windpipe, 82.\n  Wings of bats, birds, and pterodactyles, 64, 130.\n  Wings of birds, origin of, 106.\n  Wings of butterflies, outline of, 86.\n  Wings of flying-dragon, 64, 158.\n  Wings of humming-bird, 157.\n  Wings of humming-bird hawk moth, 157.\n  Wings of insects, 65.\n  Wombat, 83.\n  Women, old Fuegian, 192.\n  Worms undergoing fission, 169, 211.\n  Wyman, Dr. Jeffries, 185.\n\n              Y.\n  York Minster, a Fuegian, 197.\n\n              Z.\n  Zebras, 134.\n  Zoological Gardens, Superintendent of, 126.\n\nR. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNotes\n\n[1] In the last edition of the \"Origin of Species\" (1869) Mr. Darwin\nhimself admits that \"Natural Selection\" has not been the exclusive means of\nmodification, though he still contends it has been the most important one.\n\n[2] See Mr. Wallace's recent work, entitled \"Contributions to the Theory of\nNatural Selection,\" where, at p. 302, it is very well and shortly stated.\n\n[3] \"Natural Selection\" is happily so termed by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his\n\"Principles of Biology.\"\n\n[4] Biology is the science of life. It contains zoology, or the science of\nanimals, and botany, or that of plants.\n\n[5] For very interesting examples, see Mr. Wallace's \"Malay Archipelago.\"\n\n[6] See Mueller's work, \"Fuer Darwin,\" lately translated into English by Mr.\nDallas. Mr. Wallace also predicts the discovery, in Madagascar, of a\nhawk-moth with an enormously long proboscis, and he does this on account of\nthe discovery there of an orchid with a nectary from ten to fourteen inches\nin length. See _Quarterly Journal of Science_, October 1867, and \"Natural\nSelection,\" p. 275.\n\n[7] \"Lectures on Man,\" translated by the Anthropological Society, 1864, p.\n229.\n\n[8] Ibid. p. 378.\n\n[9] See Fifth Edition, 1869, p. 579.\n\n[10] _The Rambler_, March 1860, vol. xii. p. 372.\n\n[11] \"In prima institutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura\nrerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. ii. sup. Gen. ad lit. c. l.\" (St.\nThomas, Sum. I^ae. lxvii. 4, ad 3.)\n\n[12] \"Hexaem.\" Hom. ix. p. 81.\n\n[13] Suarez, Metaphysica. Edition Vives. Paris, 1868. Vol. I. Disputatio\nxv. Sec. 2.\n\n[14] \"Pangenesis\" is the name of the new theory proposed by Mr. Darwin, in\norder to account for various obscure physiological facts, such, _e.g._, as\nthe occasional reproduction, by individuals, of parts which they have lost;\nthe appearance in offspring of parental, and sometimes of remote ancestral,\ncharacters, &c. It accounts for these phenomena by supposing that every\ncreature possesses countless indefinitely-minute organic atoms, termed\n\"gemmules,\" which atoms are supposed to be generated in every part of every\norgan, to be in constant circulation about the body, and to have the power\nof reproduction. Moreover, atoms from every part are supposed to be stored\nin the generative products.\n\n[15] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 192.\n\n[16] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 414.\n\n[17] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edit., 1869, p. 110.\n\n[18] Ibid. p. 111.\n\n[19] Ibid. p. 227.\n\n[20] The order _Ungulata_ contains the hoofed beasts; that is, all oxen,\ndeer, antelopes, sheep, goats, camels, hogs, the hippopotamus, the\ndifferent kinds of rhinoceros, the tapirs, horses, asses, zebras, quaggas,\n&c.\n\n[21] The elephants of Africa and India, with their extinct allies,\nconstitute the order _Proboscidea_, and do not belong to the Ungulata.\n\n[22] See \"Natural Selection,\" pp. 60-75.\n\n[23] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. i. p. 122.\n\n[24] See \"Natural Selection,\" chap. iii. p. 45.\n\n[25] Loc. cit. p. 80.\n\n[26] Ibid. p. 59.\n\n[27] Loc. cit. p. 64.\n\n[28] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edit. p. 104.\n\n[29] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 351.\n\n[30] Loc. cit. pp. 109, 110.\n\n[31] Heredity is the term used to denote the tendency which there is in\noffspring to reproduce parental features.\n\n[32] Loc. cit. p. 64.\n\n[33] Loc. cit. p. 60.\n\n[34] The term \"Vertebrata\" denotes that large group of animals which are\ncharacterized by the possession of a spinal column, commonly known as the\n\"backbone.\" Such animals are ourselves, together with all beasts, birds,\nreptiles, frogs, toads, and efts, and also fishes.\n\n[35] It is hardly necessary to observe that these \"sea-snakes\" have no\nrelation to the often-talked-of \"sea-serpent.\" They are small, venomous\nreptiles, which abound in the Indian seas.\n\n[36] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edit., 1869, p. 179.\n\n[37] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edit., p. 532.\n\n[38] Mr. A. D. Bartlett, of the Zoological Society, informs me that at\nthese periods female apes admit with perfect readiness the access of any\nmales of different species. To be sure this is in confinement; but the fact\nis, I think, quite conclusive against any such sexual selection in a state\nof nature as would account for the local coloration referred to.\n\n[39] Mr. Darwin, in the last (fifth) edition of \"Natural Selection,\" 1869,\np. 102, admits that all sexual differences are not to be attributed to the\nagency of sexual selection, mentioning the wattle of carrier pigeons, tuft\nof turkey-cock, &c. These characters, however, seem less inexplicable by\nsexual selection than those given in the text.\n\n[40] I am again indebted to the kindness of Mr. A. D. Bartlett, amongst\nothers. That gentleman informs me that, so far from any mental emotion\nbeing produced in rabbits by the presence and movements of snakes, that he\nhas actually seen a male and female rabbit satisfy the sexual instinct in\nthat presence, a rabbit being seized by a snake when _in coitu_.\n\n[41] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 319.\n\n[42] The reader may consult Huxley's \"Lessons in Elementary Physiology,\" p.\n204.\n\n[43] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 350.\n\n[44] Bivalve shell-fish are creatures belonging to the oyster, scallop, and\ncockle group, _i.e._ to the class Lamellibranchiata.\n\n[45] The attempt has been made to explain these facts as owing to \"manner\nand symmetry of growth, and to colour being incidental on the chemical\nnature of the constituents of the shell.\" But surely beauty depends on some\nsuch matters in _all_ cases!\n\n[46] It has been suggested in opposition to what is here said, that there\nis no real resemblance, but that the likeness is \"_fanciful!_\" The denial,\nhowever, of the fact of a resemblance which has struck so many observers,\nreminds one of the French philosopher's estimate of facts hostile to his\ntheory--\"Tant pis pour les faits!\"\n\n[47] Fifth Edition, p. 236.\n\n[48] Mr. Smith, of the Entomological department of the British Museum, has\nkindly informed me that the individuals intermediate in structure are very\nfew in number--not more than five per cent.--compared with the number of\ndistinctly differentiated individuals. Besides, in the Brazilian kinds\nthese intermediate forms are wanting.\n\n[49] By accidental variations Mr. Darwin does not, of course, mean to imply\nvariations really due to \"chance,\" but to utterly indeterminate\nantecedents.\n\n[50] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 235.\n\n[51] _I.e._ warm-blooded animals which suckle their young, such as apes,\nbats, hoofed beasts, lions, dogs, bears, weasels, rats, squirrels,\narmadillos, sloths, whales, porpoises, kangaroos, opossums, &c.\n\n[52] \"Journal of Anatomy and Physiology\" (1868), vol. ii. p. 139.\n\n[53] See \"Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist.\" for August 1870, p. 140.\n\n[54] See \"Proceedings of the Royal Institution,\" vol. v. part iv. p. 278:\nReport of a Lecture delivered February 7, 1868. Also \"Quarterly Journal of\nthe Geological Society,\" February 1870: \"Contributions to the Anatomy and\nTaxonomy of the Dinosauria.\"\n\n[55] \"Proceedings of Geological Society,\" November 1869, p. 38.\n\n[56] The archeopteryx of the oolite has the true carinate shoulder\nstructure.\n\n[57] \"Proceedings of the Royal Institution,\" vol. v. p. 279.\n\n[58] This remark is made without prejudice to possible affinities in the\ndirection of the Ascidians,--an affinity which, if real, would be\nirrelevant to the question here discussed.\n\n[59] \"Lectures on the Comp. Anat. of the Invertebrate Animals,\" 2nd edit.\n1855, p. 619; and Todd's \"Cyclopaedia of Anatomy,\" vol. i. p. 554.\n\n[60] See \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 321.\n\n[61] A view recently propounded by Kowalewsky.\n\n[62] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 167.\n\n[63] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 173.\n\n[64] Ibid. p. 177.\n\n[65] \"Malay Archipelago,\" vol. i. p. 439.\n\n[66] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 177.\n\n[67] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 166.\n\n[68] Vol. ii. p. 280.\n\n[69] See \"Natural Selection,\" p. 64.\n\n[70] The italics are not Mr. Wallace's.\n\n[71] \"Malay Archipelago,\" vol. ii. p. 150; and \"Natural Selection,\" p. 104.\n\n[72] See \"Malay Archipelago,\" vol. ii. chap. xxxviii.\n\n[73] Loc. cit. p. 314.\n\n[74] _Fortnightly Review_, New Series, vol. iii (April 1868), p. 372.\n\n[75] \"Lay Sermons,\" p. 339.\n\n[76] \"Hereditary Genius, an Inquiry into its Laws,\" &c. By Francis Galton,\nF.R.S. (London: Macmillan.)\n\n[77] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 37.\n\n[78] Ibid. p. 47.\n\n[79] Ibid. p. 52.\n\n[80] Carpenter's \"Comparative Physiology,\" p. 987, quoted by Mr. J. J.\nMurphy, \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 171.\n\n[81] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 72.\n\n[82] Ibid. p. 76.\n\n[83] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 71.\n\n[84] Ibid. p. 114.\n\n[85] Quoted, Ibid. p. 274.\n\n[86] Ibid. p. 324.\n\n[87] Ibid. p. 322.\n\n[88] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 414.\n\n[89] Proc. Zool. Soc. of London, April 24, 1860.\n\n[90] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 291.\n\n[91] Extracted by J. J. Murphy, vol. i. p. 197, from the _Quarterly Journal\nof Science_, of October 1867, p. 527.\n\n[92] \"Anatomy of Vertebrates,\" vol. iii. p. 795.\n\n[93] Ibid. p. 807.\n\n[94] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 318.\n\n[95] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 344.\n\n[96] See Dec. 2, 1869, vol. i. p. 132.\n\n[97] \"Ueber die Darwin'sche Schoepfungstheorie:\" ein Vortrag, von Koelliker;\nLeipzig, 1864.\n\n[98] See \"Lay Sermons,\" p. 342.\n\n[99] \"Anatomy of the Lemuroidea.\" By James Murie, M.D., and St. George\nMivart. Trans. Zool. Soc., March 1866, p. 91.\n\n[100] \"Principles of Geology,\" last edition, vol. i. p. 163.\n\n[101] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, April 1866, pp. 257-8.\n\n[102] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 178.\n\n[103] This animal belongs to the order Primates, which includes man, the\napes, and the lemurs. The lemurs are the lower kinds of the order, and\ndiffer much from the apes. They have their head-quarters in the Island of\nMadagascar. The aye-aye is a lemur, but it differs singularly from all its\ncongeners, and still more from all apes. In its dentition it strongly\napproximates to the rodent (rat, squirrel, and guinea-pig) order, as it has\ntwo cutting teeth above, and two below, growing from permanent pulps, and\nin the adult condition has no canines.\n\n[104] _North British Review_, New Series, vol. vii., March 1867, p. 282.\n\n[105] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 75.\n\n[106] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 202.\n\n[107] \"Comparative Physiology,\" p. 214, note.\n\n[108] See _Nature_, June and July 1870, Nos. 35, 36, and 37, pp. 170, 193,\nand 219.\n\n[109] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 293.\n\n[110] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. pp. 289-295.\n\n[111] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 45.\n\n[112] Ibid. p. 13.\n\n[113] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 115.\n\n[114] Ibid. vol. i. p. 114.\n\n[115] Ibid. vol. i. p. 243.\n\n[116] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 361.\n\n[117] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 16.\n\n[118] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 57.\n\n[119] This has been shown by my late friend, Mr. H. N. Turner, jun., in an\nexcellent paper by him in the \"Proceedings of the Zoological Society for\n1849,\" p. 147. The untimely death, through a dissecting wound, of this most\npromising young naturalist, was a very great loss to zoological science.\n\n[120] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 189.\n\n[121] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1839, p. 115.\n\n[122] Ibid. p. 322.\n\n[123] Ibid. p. 314.\n\n[124] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 104.\n\n[125] _North British Review_, New Series, vol. vii., March 1867, p. 317.\n\n[126] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 212.\n\n[127] See also the _Popular Science Review_ for July 1868.\n\n[128] A bird with a keeled breast-bone, such as almost all existing birds\npossess.\n\n[129] \"Anatomy of Vertebrates,\" vol. iii. p. 792.\n\n[130] Ibid. p. 793.\n\n[131] As a tadpole is the _larval form_ of a frog.\n\n[132] As Professor Huxley, with his characteristic candour, fully admitted\nin his lecture on the Dinosauria before referred to.\n\n[133] \"Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow,\" vol. iii.\n\n[134] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 354.\n\n[135] See his address to the Geological Society, on February 19, 1869.\n\n[136] See _Nature_, vol. i. p. 399, February 17, 1870.\n\n[137] Ibid. vol. i. p. 454.\n\n[138] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 344.\n\n[139] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 345.\n\n[140] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 353.\n\n[141] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 381.\n\n[142] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 463.\n\n[143] See his Catalogue of Acanthopterygian Fishes in the British Museum,\nvol. iii. p. 540.\n\n[144] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 102, and Ann. Mag. of Nat. Hist. vol. xx.\np. 110.\n\n[145] See Catalogue, vol. iii. p. 469.\n\n[146] Ibid. vol. v. p. 311.\n\n[147] Ibid. p. 345.\n\n[148] Ibid. p. 13.\n\n[149] Ibid. p. 21.\n\n[150] See Catalogue, vol. v. p. 24.\n\n[151] Ibid. p. 52.\n\n[152] Ibid. p. 109.\n\n[153] Ibid. vol. vi. 208.\n\n[154] Ibid. vol. viii. p. 507.\n\n[155] Ibid. p. 509.\n\n[156] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 482\n\n[157] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 454.\n\n[158] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 459.\n\n[159] See Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., July 1870, p. 37.\n\n[160] Professor Huxley's Lectures on the Elements of Comp. Anat. p. 184.\n\n[161] For an enumeration of the more obvious homological relationships see\nAnn. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. for August 1870, p. 118.\n\n[162] See Ann. and Mag, of Nat. Hist., July 1870.\n\n[163] Treatise on the Human Skeleton, 1858.\n\n[164] Hunterian Lectures for 1864.\n\n[165] Linnaean Transactions, vol. xxv. p. 395, 1866.\n\n[166] Hunterian Lectures for 1870, and Journal of Anat. for May 1870.\n\n[167] See a Paper on the \"Axial Skeleton of the Urodela,\" in Proc. Zool.\nSoc. 1870, p. 266.\n\n[168] Just as Button's superfluous lament over the unfortunate organization\nof the sloth has been shown, by the increase of our knowledge, to have been\nuncalled for and absurd, so other supposed instances of non-adaptation\nwill, no doubt, similarly disappear. Mr. Darwin, in his \"Origin of\nSpecies,\" 5th edition, p. 220, speaks of a woodpecker (_Colaptes\ncampestris_) as having an organization quite at variance with its habits,\nand as never climbing a tree, though possessed of the special arboreal\nstructure of other woodpeckers. It now appears, however, from the\nobservations of Mr. W. H. Hudson, C.M.Z.S., that its habits are in harmony\nwith its structure. See Mr. Hudson's third letter to the Zoological\nSociety, published in the Proceedings of that Society for March 24, 1870,\np. 159.\n\n[169] Dr. Cobbold has informed the Author that he has never observed a\nplanaria divide spontaneously, and he is sceptical as to that process\ntaking place at all. Dr. H. Charlton Bastian has also stated that, in spite\nof much observation, he has never seen the process in _vorticella_.\n\n[170] Professor Huxley's Hunterian Lecture, March 16, 1868.\n\n[171] Ibid. March 18.\n\n[172] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. ii. p. 105.\n\n[173] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. ii. p. 203.\n\n[174] Quoted by H. Stannius in his \"Handbuch der Anatomie der\nWirbelthiere,\" Zweite Auflage, Erstes Buch, Sec. 7, p. 17.\n\n[175] In his last Hunterian Course of Lectures, 1869.\n\n[176] \"The Science of Abnormal Forms.\"\n\n[177] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 322; and\n\"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 178.\n\n[178] A remarkable woman exhibited in London a few years ago.\n\n[179] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 328.\n\n[180] \"Ueber das Gliedmaassenskelet der Enaliosaurier, Jenaischen\nZeitschrift,\" Bd. v. Heft 3, Taf. xiii.\n\n[181] In his work on the Carpus and Tarsus.\n\n[182] An excellent specimen displaying this resemblance is preserved in the\nMuseum of the Royal College of Surgeons.\n\n[183] Phil. Trans. 1867, p. 353.\n\n[184] Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 255.\n\n[185] Ibid. p. 351.\n\n[186] \"Hist. Generale des Anomalies,\" t. i. p. 228. Bruxelles, 1837.\n\n[187] Nov. Comment. Petrop. t. ix. p. 269.\n\n[188] Read on June 2, 1868, before the Massachusetts Medical Society. See\nvol. ii. No. 3.\n\n[189] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 322.\n\n[190] \"Lectures on Surgical Pathology,\" 1853, vol. i. p. 18.\n\n[191] \"Lectures on Surgical Pathology,\" 1853, vol. i. p. 22.\n\n[192] See \"Medico-Chirurgical Transactions,\" vol. xxv. (or vii. of 2nd\nseries), 1842, p. 100, Pl. III.\n\n[193] Med.-Chirurg. Trans, vol. xxv. (or vii. of 2nd series), 1842, p. 122.\n\n[194] See _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_ for April 5, 1866, vol.\nlxxiv. p. 189.\n\n[195] \"Principles of Biology,\" vol. i. p. 180.\n\n[196] See the \"Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History,\" vol.\nxi. June 5, 1867.\n\n[197] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 75.\n\n[198] Ibid. p. 112.\n\n[199] Ibid. p. 170.\n\n[200] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 229.\n\n[201] It is hardly necessary to say that the Author does not mean that\nthere is, in addition to a real objective crystal, another real, objective\nseparate thing beside it, namely the \"force\" directing it. All that is\nmeant is that the action of the crystal in crystallizing must be _ideally_\nseparated from the crystal itself, not that it is _really_ separate.\n\n[202] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, 1869, p. 577.\n\n[203] Vol. ii. p. 122.\n\n[204] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i p. 295.\n\n[205] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 350.\n\n[206] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii.\n\n[207] See 2nd edition, vol. i. p. 214.\n\n[208] Page 103.\n\n[209] I have not the merit of having noticed this inconsistency; it was\npointed out to me by my friend the Rev. W. W. Roberts.\n\n[210] Vol. i. p. 215.\n\n[211] \"Malay Archipelago,\" vol. ii. p. 365.\n\n[212] \"The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man,\" p.\n261. Longmans, 1870.\n\n[213] \"Primitive Man,\" p. 248.\n\n[214] \"Fiji and the Fijians,\" vol. i. p. 183.\n\n[215] \"Essays,\" Second Series, vol. ii. p. 13.\n\n[216] See No. 117, July 1869, p. 272.\n\n[217] _Macmillan's Magazine_, No. 117, July 1869.\n\n[218] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 403.\n\n[219] Ibid. p. 366.\n\n[220] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 402.\n\n[221] See _Fortnightly Review_, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 352.\n\n[222] This appeared in the _Rivista Contemporanea Nazionale Italiana_, and\nwas translated and given to the English public in _Scientific Opinion_ for\nSeptember 29, October 6, and October 13, 1869, pp. 365, 391, and 407.\n\n[223] See _Scientific Opinion_, of October 13, 1869, p. 407.\n\n[224] See _Scientific Opinion_ of September 29, 1869, p. 366.\n\n[225] _Fortnightly Review_, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 508.\n\n[226] _Scientific Opinion_, of October 13, 1869, p. 408.\n\n[227] _Fortnightly Review_, New Series, vol. iii. April 1868, p. 509.\n\n[228] \"Histoire Naturelle, generale et particuliere,\" tome ii. 1749, p.\n327. \"Ces liqueurs seminales sont toutes deux un extrait de toutes les\nparties du corps,\" &c.\n\n[229] See _Nature_, March 3, 1870, p. 454. Mr. Wallace says (referring to\nMr. Croll's paper in the _Phil. Mag._), \"As we are now, and have been for\n60,000 years, in a period of low eccentricity, _the rate of change of\nspecies during that time may be no measure of the rate that has generally\nobtained in past geological epochs_.\"\n\n[230] \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 344.\n\n[231] If anyone were to contend that beside the opium there existed a real\ndistinct objective entity, \"its soporific virtue,\" he would be open to\nridicule indeed. But the constitution of our minds is such that we cannot\nbut distinguish ideally a thing from its even essential attributes and\nqualities. The joke is sufficiently amusing, however, regarded as the\nsolemn enunciation of a mere truism.\n\n[232] Noticed by Professor Owen in his \"Archetype,\" p. 76. Recently it has\nbeen attempted to discredit Darwinism in France by speaking of it as \"_de\nla science mousseuse!_\"\n\n[233] \"Lay Sermons,\" p. 342.\n\n[234] Introductory Lecture of February 14, 1870, pp. 24-30, Figs. 1-4.\n(Churchill and Sons.)\n\n[235] See especially \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii.\nchap. xviii.\n\n[236] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, pp. 323, 324.\n\n[237] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 2.\n\n[238] Ibid. p. 25.\n\n[239] Ibid. p. 151.\n\n[240] Ibid. p. 157.\n\n[241] Ibid. p. 158.\n\n[242] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. i. p. 291.\n\n[243] Though hardly necessary, it may be well to remark that the views here\nadvocated in no way depend upon the truth of the doctrine of Spontaneous\nGeneration.\n\n[244] Vol. iii. p. 808.\n\n[245] This is hardly an exact representation of Mr. Darwin's view. On his\ntheory, if a favourable variation happens to arise (the external\ncircumstances remaining the same), it will yet be preserved.\n\n[246] See 2nd edition, p. 113.\n\n[247] \"Essays, Philosophical and Theological,\" Truebner and Co., First\nSeries, 1866, p. 190. \"Every relative disability may be read two ways. A\ndisqualification in the nature of thought for knowing _x_ is, from the\nother side, a disqualification in the nature of _x_ from being known. To\nsay then that the First Cause is wholly removed from our apprehension is\nnot simply a disclaimer of faculty on our part: it is a charge of inability\nagainst the First Cause too. The dictum about it is this: 'It is a Being\nthat may exist out of knowledge, but that is precluded from entering within\nthe sphere of knowledge.' We are told in one breath that this Being must be\nin every sense 'perfect, complete, total--including in itself all power,\nand transcending all law' (p. 38); and in another that this perfect and\nomnipotent One is totally incapable of revealing any one of an infinite\nstore of attributes. Need we point out the contradictions which this\nposition involves? If you abide by it, you deny the Absolute and Infinite\nin the very act of affirming it, for, in debarring the First Cause from\nself-revelation, you impose a limit on its nature. And in the very act of\ndeclaring the First Cause incognizable, you do not permit it to remain\nunknown. For that only is unknown, of which you can neither affirm nor deny\nany predicate; here you deny the power of self-disclosure to the\n'Absolute,' of which therefore something is known;--viz., that nothing can\nbe known!\"\n\n[248] Loc. cit. p. 108.\n\n[249] Loc. cit. p. 43.\n\n[250] Loc. cit. p. 46.\n\n[251] Mr. J. Martineau, in his \"Essays,\" vol. i. p. 211, observes, \"Mr.\nSpencer's conditions of pious worship are hard to satisfy; there must be\nbetween the Divine and human no communion of thought, relations of\nconscience, or approach of affection.\" ... \"But you cannot constitute a\nreligion out of mystery alone, any more than out of knowledge alone; nor\ncan you measure the relation of doctrines to humility and piety by the mere\namount of conscious darkness which they leave. All worship, being directed\nto what is _above_ us and transcends our comprehension, stands in presence\nof a mystery. But not all that stands before a mystery is worship.\"\n\n[252] \"Lay Sermons,\" p. 20.\n\n[253] Loc. cit. p. 109.\n\n[254] Loc. cit. p. 111.\n\n[255] In this criticism on Mr. Herbert Spencer, the Author finds he has\nbeen anticipated by Mr. James Martineau. (See \"Essays,\" vol. i. p. 208.)\n\n[256] Loc. cit. p. 29.\n\n[257] The Author means by this, that it is _directly_ and _immediately_ the\nact of God, the word \"supernatural\" being used in a sense convenient for\nthe purposes of this work, and not in its ordinary theological sense.\n\n[258] The phrase \"order of nature\" is not here used in its theological\nsense as distinguished from the \"order of grace,\" but as a term, here\nconvenient, to denote actions not due to direct and immediate Divine\nintervention.\n\n[259] \"A Free Examination of Darwin's Treatise,\" p. 29, reprinted from the\n_Atlantic Monthly_ for July, August, and October, 1860.\n\n[260] \"Origin of Species,\" 5th edition, p. 571.\n\n[261] \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" vol. ii. p. 431.\n\n[262] The Rev. Baden Powell says, \"All sciences approach perfection as they\napproach to a unity of first principles,--in all cases recurring to or\ntending towards certain high elementary conceptions which are the\nrepresentatives of the unity of the great archetypal ideas according to\nwhich the whole system is arranged. Inductive conceptions, very partially\nand imperfectly realized and apprehended by human intellect, are the\nexponents in our minds of these great principles in nature.\"\n\n\"All science is but the partial reflexion in the _reason of man_, of the\ngreat all-pervading _reason of the universe_. And thus the _unity_ of\nscience is the reflexion of the _unity_ of nature, and of the _unity_ of\nthat supreme reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over nature,\nand from whence all reason and all science is derived.\" (Unity of Worlds,\nEssay i., Sec. ii.; Unity of Sciences, pp. 79 and 81.) Also he quotes from\nOersted's \"Soul in Nature\" (pp. 12, 16, 18, 87, 92, and 377). \"If the laws\nof reason did not exist in nature, we should vainly attempt to force them\nupon her: if the laws of nature did not exist in our reason, we should not\nbe able to comprehend them.\" ... \"We find an agreement between our reason\nand works which our reason did not produce.\" ... \"All existence is a\ndominion of reason.\" \"The laws of nature are laws of reason, and altogether\nform an endless unity of reason; ... one and the same throughout the\nuniverse.\"\n\n[263] In the same way Mr. Lewes, in criticising the Duke of Argyll's \"Reign\nof Law\" (_Fortnightly Review_, July 1867, p. 100), asks whether we should\nconsider that man wise who spilt a gallon of wine in order to fill a\nwineglass? But, because we should not do so, it by no means follows that we\ncan argue from such an action to the action of God in the visible universe.\nFor the man's object, in the case supposed, is simply to fill the\nwine-glass, and the wine spilt is so much loss. With God it may be entirely\ndifferent in both respects. All these objections are fully met by the\nprinciple thus laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas: \"Quod si aliqua causa\nparticularis deficiat a suo effectu, hoc est propter aliquam causam\nparticularem impediantem quae continetur sub ordine causae universalis. Unde\neffectus ordinem causae universalis nullo modo potest exire.\" ... \"Sicut\nindigestio contingit praeter ordinem virtutis nutritivae ex aliquo\nimpedimento, puta ex grossitie cibi, quam necesse est reducere in aliam\ncausam, et sic usque ad causam primam universalem. Cum igitur Deus sit\nprima causa universalis non unius generi tantum, sed universaliter totius\nentis, impossibile est quod aliquid contingat praeter ordinem divinae\ngubernationis; sed ex hoc ipso quod aliquid ex una parte videtur exire ab\nordine divinae providentiae, quo consideratur secundam aliquam particularem\ncausam, necesse est quod in eundem ordinem relabatur secundum aliam\ncausam.\"--_Sum. Theol_. p. i. q. 19, a. 6, and q. 103, a. 7.\n\n[264] \"Unity of Worlds,\" Essay ii., Sec. ii., p. 260.\n\n[265] See the exceedingly good passage on this subject by the Rev. Dr.\nNewman, in his \"Discourses for Mixed Congregations,\" 1850, p. 345.\n\n[266] See Mr. G. H. Lewes's \"Sea-Side Studies,\" for some excellent remarks,\nbeginning at p. 329, as to the small susceptibility of certain animals to\npain.\n\n[267] \"Philosophy of Creation,\" Essay iii., Sec. iv., p. 480.\n\n[268] It seems almost strange that modern English thought should so long\nhold aloof from familiar communion with Christian writers of other ages and\ncountries. It is rarely indeed that acquaintance is shown with such\nauthors, though a bright example to the contrary was set by Sir William\nHamilton. Sir Charles Lyell (in his \"Principles of Geology,\" 7th edition,\np. 35) speaks with approval of the early Italian geologists. Of Vallisneri\nhe says, \"I return with pleasure to the geologists of Italy who preceded,\nas has been already shown, the naturalists of other countries in their\ninvestigations into the ancient history of the earth, and who still\nmaintained a decided pre-eminence. They refuted and ridiculed the\nphysico-theological systems of Burnet, Whiston, and Woodward; while\nVallisneri, in his comments on the Woodwardian theory, remarked how much\nthe interests of religion, as well as of those of sound philosophy, had\nsuffered by perpetually mixing up the sacred writings with questions of\nphysical science.\" Again, he quotes the Carmelite friar Generelli, who,\nillustrating Moro before the Academy of Cremona in 1749, strongly opposed\nthose who would introduce the supernatural into the domain of nature. \"I\nhold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians! those systems which\nare built with their foundations in the air, and cannot be propped up\nwithout a miracle, and I undertake, with the assistance of Moro, to explain\nto you how these marine monsters were transported into the mountains by\nnatural causes.\"\n\nSir Charles Lyell notices with exemplary impartiality the spirit of\nintolerance on both sides. How in France, Buffon, on the one hand, was\ninfluenced by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne to recant his theory\nof the earth, and how Voltaire, on the other, allowed his prejudices to get\nthe better, if not of his judgment, certainly of his expression of it.\nThinking that fossil remains of shells, &c., were evidence in favour of\northodox views, Voltaire, Sir Charles Lyell (Principles, p. 56) tells us,\n\"endeavoured to inculcate scepticism as to the real nature of such shells,\nand to recall from contempt the exploded dogma of the sixteenth century,\nthat they were sports of nature. He also pretended that vegetable\nimpressions were not those of real plants.\" ... \"He would sometimes, in\ndefiance of all consistency, shift his ground when addressing the vulgar;\nand, admitting the true nature of the shells collected in the Alps and\nother places, pretend that they were Eastern species, which had fallen from\nthe hats of pilgrims coming from Syria. The numerous essays written by him\non geological subjects were all calculated to strengthen prejudices, partly\nbecause he was ignorant of the real state of the science, and partly from\nhis bad faith.\" As to the harmony between many early Church writers of\ngreat authority and modern views as regards certain matters of geology, see\n\"Geology and Revelation,\" by the Rev. Gerald Molloy, D.D., London, 1870.\n\n[269] \"De Genesi ad Litt.,\" lib. v., cap. v., No. 14 in Ben. Edition, voi.\niii. p. 186.\n\n[270] Lib. cit., cap. xxii., No. 44.\n\n[271] Lib. cit., \"De Trinitate,\" lib. iii., cap. viii, No. 14.\n\n[272] Lib. cit., cap. ix., No. 16.\n\n[273] St. Thomas, Summa, i., quest. 67, art. 4, ad 3.\n\n[274] Primae Partis, vol. ii., quest. 74, art. 2.\n\n[275] Lib. cit., quest. 71, art. 1.\n\n[276] Lib. cit., quest. 45, art. 8.\n\n[277] _Vide_ In Genesim Comment, cap. i.\n\n[278] Roger Bacon, Opus tertium, c. ix. p. 27, quoted in the _Rambler_ for\n1859, vol. xii. p. 375.\n\n[279] See _Nature_, June and July, 1870. Those who, like Professors Huxley\nand Tyndall, do not accept his conclusions, none the less agree with him in\nprinciple, though they limit the evolution of the organic world from the\ninorganic to a very remote period of the world's history. (See Professor\nHuxley's address to the British Association at Liverpool, 1870, p. 17.)\n\n[280] \"Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic,\" vol. i. Lecture ii., p. 40.\n\n[281] In the same way that an undue cultivation of any one kind of\nknowledge is prejudicial to philosophy. Mr. James Martineau well observes,\n\"Nothing is more common than to see maxims, which are unexceptionable as\nthe assumptions of particular sciences, coerced into the service of a\nuniversal philosophy, and so turned into instruments of mischief and\ndistortion. That \"we can know nothing but phenomena,\"--that \"causation is\nsimply constant priority,\"--that \"men are governed invariably by their\ninterests,\" are examples of rules allowable as dominant hypotheses in\nphysics or political economy, but exercising a desolating tyranny when\nthrust on to the throne of universal empire. He who seizes upon these and\nsimilar maxims, and carries them in triumph on his banner, may boast of his\nescape from the uncertainties of metaphysics, but is himself all the while\nthe unconscious victim of their very vulgarest deception.\" (\"Essays,\"\nSecond Series, _A Plea for Philosophical Studies_, p. 421.)\n\n[282] Lecky's \"History of Rationalism,\" vol. i. p. 73.\n\n[283] \"Lectures on University Subjects,\" by J. H. Newman, D.D., p. 322.\n\n[284] Loc. cit. p. 324.\n\n[285] Thus Professor Tyndall, in the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of June 15, 1868,\nspeaking of physical science, observes, \"The _logical feebleness_ of\nscience is not sufficiently borne in mind. It keeps down the weed of\nsuperstition, not by logic, but by slowly rendering the mental soil unfit\nfor its cultivation.\"\n\n[286] By this it is not, of course, meant to deny that the existence of God\ncan be demonstrated so as to demand the assent of the intellect taken, so\nto speak, by itself.\n\n[287] See some excellent remarks in the Rev. Dr. Newman's Parochial\nSermons--the new edition (1869), vol. i. p. 211.\n\n[288] _American Journal of Science_, July 1860, p. 143, quoted in Dr. Asa\nGray's pamphlet, p. 47.\n\n[289] See _The Academy_ for October 1869, No. 1, p. 13.\n\n[290] Professor Huxley goes on to say that the mechanist may, in turn,\ndemand of the teleologist how the latter knows it was so intended. To this\nit may be replied he knows it as a necessary truth of reason deduced from\nhis own primary intuitions, which intuitions cannot be questioned without\n_absolute_ scepticism.\n\n[291] The Professor doubtless means the _direct_ and _immediate_ result.\n(See Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. v. p. 90.)\n\n[292] \"Natural Selection,\" p. 280.\n\n[293] Dr. Asa Gray, _e.g._, has thus understood Mr. Darwin. The Doctor says\nin his pamphlet, p. 38, \"Mr. Darwin uses expressions which imply that the\nnatural forms which surround us, because they have a history or natural\nsequence, could have been only generally, but not particularly designed,--a\nview at once superficial and contradictory; whereas his true line should\nbe, that his hypothesis concerns the _order_ and not the _cause_, the _how_\nand not the _why_ of the phenomena, and so leaves the question of design\njust where it was before.\"\n\n[294] \"All science is but the partial reflexion in the _reason of man_, of\nthe great all-pervading _reason of the universe_. And the _unity_ of\nscience is the reflexion of the _unity_ of nature and of the _unity_ of\nthat supreme reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over nature,\nand from whence all reason and all science is derived.\" (Rev. Baden Powell,\n\"Unity of the Sciences,\" Essay i. Sec. ii. p. 81.)\n\n[295] \"The Reign of Law,\" p. 40.\n\n[296] Though Mr. Darwin's epithets denoting design are metaphorical, his\nadmiration of the result is unequivocal, nay, enthusiastic!\n\n[297] See \"Habit and Intelligence,\" vol. i. p. 348.\n\n[298] The term, as before said, not being used in its ordinary theological\nsense, but to denote an immediate Divine action as distinguished from God's\naction through the powers conferred on the physical universe.\n\n[299] See \"Natural Selection,\" pp. 332 to 360.\n\n[300] Loc. cit., p. 349.\n\n[301] See Professor Huxley's \"Lessons in Elementary Physiology,\" p. 218.\n\n[302] It may be objected, perhaps, that excessive delicacy of the ear might\nhave been produced by having to guard against the approach of enemies, some\nsavages being remarkable for their keenness of hearing at great distances.\nBut the perceptions of _intensity_ and _quality_ of sound are very\ndifferent. Some persons who have an extremely acute ear for delicate\nsounds, and who are fond of music, have yet an incapacity for detecting\nwhether an instrument is slightly out of tune.\n\n[303] Loc. cit., pp. 351, 352.\n\n[304] Loc. cit., p. 368.\n\n[305] Loc. cit., p. 350.\n\n[306] Published by John Churchill.\n\n[307] Natural Selection, p. 324.\n\n[308] The italics are not Mr. Wallace's.\n\n[309] \"Unity of Worlds,\" Essay ii. Sec. ii. p. 247.\n\n[310] Ibid. Essay i. Sec. ii. p. 76.\n\n[311] Ibid. Essay iii. Sec. iv. p. 466.\n\n[312] A good exposition of how an inferior action has to yield to one\nhigher is given by Dr. Newman in his \"Lectures on University Subjects,\" p.\n372. \"What is true in one science, is dictated to us indeed according to\nthat science, but not according to another science, or in another\ndepartment.\n\n\"What is certain in the military art, has force in the military art, but\nnot in statesmanship; and if statesmanship be a higher department of action\nthan war, and enjoins the contrary, it has no force on our reception and\nobedience at all. And so what is true in medical science, might in all\ncases be carried out, _were_ man a mere animal or brute without a soul; but\nsince he is a rational, responsible being, a thing may be ever so true in\nmedicine, yet may be unlawful in fact, in consequence of the _higher_ law\nof morals and religion coming to some different conclusion.\"\n\n[313] Quoted from the _Rambler_ of March 1860, p. 364: [Greek: \"Hopou men\noun hapanta sunebe, hosper kain ei heneka tou egineto, tauta men esothe apo\ntou automatou sustanta epitedeios hosa de me houtos apoleto kai apollutai,\nkathapeo Empedokles legei ta bougene kai androprora.]\"--ARIST. _Phys._ ii.\nc. 8.","title":"On the Genesis of Species","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":88725}