By

ns ed

ra
FEE =

ae

ears

*
Ay

4

ar

COLLECTED ESSAYS

By T. H. HUXLEY

VOLUME II

DARWINIANA

ESSAYS

BY

THOMAS H. HUXLEY

London
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1907

All rights reserved

RICHARD CLAY AND Sons, LIMITED,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

First Edition printed 1893.
Rebrinted 1894, 1899, 1902, 1907.

PREFACE

I HAVE entitled this volume “ Darwiniana”
because the pieces republished in it either treat of
the ancient doctrine of Evolution, rehabilitated and
placed upon a sound scientific foundation, since
and in consequence of, the publication of the
“ Origin of Species ;” or they attempt to meet the
more weighty of the unsparing criticisms with
which that great work was visited for several years
after its appearance ; or they record the impression
left by the personality of Mr. Darwin on one who
had the privilege and the happiness of enjoying his
friendship for some thirty years; or they endeavour
to sum up his work and indicate its enduring
influence on the course of scientific thought.

Those who take the trouble to read the first
two essays, published in 1859 and 1860, will, I
think, do me the justice to admit that my zeal to
secure fair play for Mr. Darwin, did not drive me
into the position of a mere advocate ; and that,
while doing justice to the greatness of the argu-

v1 PREFACE

ment I did not fail to indicate its weak points. I
have never seen any reason for departing from the
position which I took up in these two essays ; and
the assertion which I sometimes meet with nowa-
days, that I have “recanted” or changed my
opinions about Mr. Darwin’s views, is quite unin-
telligible to me.

As I have said in the seventh essay, the fact of
evolution is to my mind sufficiently evidenced by —
palzontology ; and I remain of the opinion ex-
pressed in the second, that until selective breeding
is definitely proved to give rise to varieties infertile
with one another, the logical foundation of the
theory of natural selection is incomplete. We still
remain very much inthe dark about the causes of
variation; the apparent inheritance of acquired
characters in some cases; and the struggle for
existence within the organism, which probably
lies at the bottom of both of these phenomena.

Some apology is due to the reader for the repro-
duction of the “Lectures to Working Men” in
their original state. They were taken down in
shorthand by Mr. J. Aldous Mays, who requested
me to aJlow him to print them. I was very much
pressed with work at the time ; and, asI could not
revise the reports, which I imagined, moreover,
would be of little or no interest to any but my
auditors, I stipulated that a notice should be pre-
fixed to that effect, This was done ; but it did not

PREFACE. Vil

prevent a considerable diffusion of the little book
in this country and in the United States, nor its
translation into more than one foreign language.
Moreover Mr. Darwin often urged me to revise and
expand the lectures into a systematic popular
exposition of the topics of which they treat. I
have more than once set about the task: but the
proverb about spoiling a horn and not making a
spoon, is particularly applicable to attempts to
remodel a piece of work which may have served its
immediate purpose well enough.

So I have reprinted the lectures as they stand,
with all their imperfections on their heads. It
would seem that many people must have found
them useful thirty years ago; and, though the
sixties appear now to be reckoned by many of the
rising generation as a part of the dark ages, I am
not without some grounds for suspecting that
there yet remains a fair sprinkling even of
“philosophic thinkers” to whom it may be a
profitable, perhaps even a novel, task to descend
from the heights of speculation and go over the
A BC of the great biological problem as it was
set before a body of shrewd artisans at that remote
epoch,

die: BE:

HopEs.LEA, EAsTBourNgE,
April 7th, 1893.

©

’

c=
a

si Ea

Me

.

aes

ic
a

Bee eee

CONTENTS

I

THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS [1859]

II

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES [1860]

Ill

CRITICISMS ON ‘* THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” [1864]

IV

THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS [1869]

MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS[1871] ..... is

VI

EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY [1878]
VOL, I

eS) Ry eS Gee

PAGE

22

80

107

120

187

x CONTENTS

VII

PAGE

THE COMING OF AGE OF ‘‘THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES”

PROCUl eG «1 a4 6 ae. Ba we a ole: ae ee tae ak
Vill

CHARLES DARWIN [1882]... ......4.066--+0.4-6 244
Ix

THE DARWIN MEMORIAL [1885]. ........... 248
».€

OBITUARY [1888] . . 2. 4. s Shs didn a se 2. ie Ae eee
XI

SIX LECTURES TO WORKING MEN ‘‘ON OUR KNOWLEDGE
OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC
WATURS" TIS08)] Gas WI Gekko. so a eee ee

COLLECTED ESSAYS

VOLUME II

I
THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS
[1859]

THE hypothesis of which the present work of
Mr. Darwin is but the preliminary outline, may
be stated in his own language as follows :—
“ Species originated by means of natural selection,
or through the preservation of the favoured races
in the struggle for life.” To render this thesis
intelligible, it is necessary to interpret its terms.
In the first place, what isa species? The question
is a simple one, but the right answer to it is hard
to find, even if we appeal to those who should
know most about it. It is all those animals or
plants which have descended from a single pair of
parents; it is the smallest distinctly definable
group of living organisms; it is an eternal and
immutable entity ; it is a mere abstraction of the
human intellect having no existence in nature.
Such are a few of the significations attached to

VOL, II B
b=

2 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

this simple word which may be culled from
authoritative sources; and if, leaving terms and
theoretical subtleties aside, we turn to facts and
endeavour to gather a nieaning for ourselves, by
studying the things to which, in practice, the
name of species is applied, it profits us little. For
practice varies as much as theory. Let two
botanists or two zoologists examine and describe
the productions of a country, and one will pretty
certainly disagree with the other as to the number,
limits, and definitions of the species into which he
groups the very same things. In these islands, we
are in the habit of regarding mankind as of one
species, but a fortnight’s steam will land us in a
country where divines and savants, for once in
agreement, vie with one another in loudness of
assertion, if not in cogency of proof, that men are
of different species; and, more particularly, that
the species negro is so distinct from our own that
the Ten Commandments have actually no reference
to him. Even in the calm region of entomology,
where, if anywhere in this sinful world, passion
and prejudice should fail to stir the mind, one
learned coleopterist will fill ten attractive volumes
with descriptions of species of beetles, nine-tenths
of which are immediately declared by his brother
beetle-mongers to be no species at all.

The truth is that the number of distinguishable
living creatures almost surpasses imagination. At
least 100,000 such kinds of insects alone have been

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 3

described and may be identified in collections, and
the number of separable kinds of living things is
under-estimated at half a million. Seeing that
most of these obvious kinds have their accidental
varieties, and that they often shade into others
by imperceptible degrees, it may well be
imagined that the task of distinguishing be-
tween what is permanent and what fleeting,
what is a species and what a mere variety,
is sufficiently formidable.

But is it not possible to apply a test whereby a
true species may be known from a mere variety ?
Is there no criterion of species? Great authori-
ties affirm that there is—that the unions of
members of the same species are always fertile,
while those of distinct species are either sterile,
or their offspring, called hybrids, are so. It is
affirmed not only that this is an experimental
fact, but that it is a provision for the preservation
of the purity of species. Such a criterion as this
would be invaluable ; but, unfortunately, not only
is 1t not obvious how to apply it in the great
majority of cases in which its aid is needed, but
its general validity is stoutly denied. The Hon.
and Rev. Mr. Herbert, a most trustworthy authority,
not only asserts as the result of his own observa-
tions and experiments that many hybrids are
quite as fertile as the parent species, but he goes
so far as to assert that the particular plant Crinwmn
capense is much more fertile when crossed by a

B 2

4 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

distinct species than when fertilised by its proper
pollen! On the other hand, the famous Gaertner,
though he took the greatest pains to cross the
Primrose and the Cowslip, succeeded only once or
twice in several years; and yet it is a well-
established fact that the Primrose and the Cow-
slip are only varieties of the same kind of plant,
Again, such cases as the following are well estab-
lished. The female of species A, if crossed with
the male of species B, is fertile ; but, if the female
of B is crossed with the male of A, she remains
barren. Facts of this kind destroy the value of
the supposed criterion.

If, weary of the endless difficulties involved in
the determination of species, the investigator,
contenting himself with the rough practical
distinction of separable kinds, endeavours to
study them as they occur in nature—to ascertain
their relations to the conditions which surround
them, their mutual harmonies and discordancies of
structure, the bond of union of their present and
their past history, he finds himself, according to
the received notions, in a mighty maze, and with,
at most, the dimmest adumbration of a plan.
If he starts with any one clear conviction, it is
that every part of a living creature is cunningly
adapted to some special use in its life. Has not
his Paley told him that that seemingly useless
organ, the spleen, is beautifully adjusted as so
much packing between the other organs? And

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 5

yet, at the outset of his studies, he finds that no
adaptive reason whatsoever can be given for one-
half of the peculiarities of vegetable structure.
He also discovers rudimentary teeth, which are
never used, in the guins of the young calf and in
those of the foetal whale; insects which never
bite have rudimental jaws, and others which
never fly have rudimental wings; naturally blind
creatures have rudimental eyes; and the halt
have rudimentary limbs. So, again, no animal or
plant puts on its perfect form at once, but all have
to start from the same point, however various the
course which each has to pursue. Not only men
and horses, and cats and dogs, lobsters and
beetles, periwinkles and mussels, but even the
very sponges and animaleules commence their
existence under forms which are essentially
undistinguishable ; and this is true of all the
infinite variety of plants. Nay, more, all living
beings march, side by side, along the high road of
development, and separate the later the more like
they are ; like people leaving church, who all go
down the aisle, but having reached the door, some
turn into the parsonage, others go down the
village, and others part only in the next parish,
A man in his development runs for a little while
parallel with, though never passing through, the
‘form of the meanest worm, then travels for a
space beside the fish, then journeys along with
the bird and the reptile for his fellow travellers ;

6 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS i

and only at last, after a brief companionship with
the highest of the four-footed and four-handed
world, rises into the dignity of pure manhood. No
competent thinker of the present day dreams of
explaining these indubitable facts by the notion
of the existence of unknown and undiscoverable
adaptations to purpose. And we would remind
those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved
by authority, that no one has asserted the incom-
petence of the doctrine of final causes, in its
application to physiology and anatomy, more
strongly than our own eminent anatomist,
Professor Owen, who, speaking of such cases, says
(“On the Nature of Limbs,” pp. 39, 40)—*«I
think it will be obvious that the principle of final
adaptations fails to satisfy all the conditions of
the problem.”

But, if the doctrine of final causes will not
help us to comprehend the anomalies of living
structure, the principle of adaptation must surely
lead us to understand why certain living beings are
found in certain regions of the world and not in
others. The Palm, as we know, will not groW in
our climate, nor the Oak im Greenland. The
white bear cannot live where the tiger thrives,
nor vice versd, and the more the natural habits of
animal and vegetable species are examined, the
more do they seem, on the whole, limited to
particular provinces, But when we look into the
facts established by the study of the geographical

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 4

distribution of animals and plants it seems
utterly hopeless to attempt to understand the
strange and apparently capricious relations which
they exhibit. One would be inclined to suppose
ad priori that every country must be naturally
peopled by those animals that are fittest to live
and thrive in it. And yet how, on this hypothesis,
are we to account for the absence of cattle in the
Pampas of South America, when those parts of
the New World were discovered? It is not that
they were-wafit for cattle, for millions of cattle
now run wild there; and the like holds good of
Australia and New Zealand. It is a curious
circumstance, in fact, that the animals and plants
of the Northern Hemisphere are not only as well
adapted to live in the Southern Hemisphere as
its own autochthones, but are, im many cases,
absolutely better adapted, and so overrun and
extirpate the aborigines. Clearly, therefore, the
species which naturally inhabit a country are not
necessarily the best adapted to its climate and
other conditions. The inhabitants of islands are
often distinct from any other known species of
animal or plants (witness our recent examples
from the work of Sir Emerson Tennent, on
Ceylon), and yet they have almost always a sort
of general family resemblance to the animals and
‘plants of the nearest mainland. On the other
hand, there is hardly a species of fish, shell, or
crab common to the opposite sides of the narrow

8 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

isthmus of Panama.! Wherever we look, then,
living nature offers us riddles of difficult solution,
if we suppose that what we see is all that can
be known of it.

But our knowledge of life is not confined to the
existing world. Whatever their minor differences,
geologists are agreed as to the vast thickness of the
accumulated strata which compose the visible part
of our earth, and the inconceivable immensity of
the time the lapse of which they are the imperfect
but the only accessible witnesses. Now, through-
out the greater part of this long series of stratified
rocks are scattered, sometimes very abundantly,
multitudes of organic remains, the fossilised
exuvie of animals and plants which lived and
died while the mud of which the rocks are formed
was yet soft ooze, and could receive and bury
them. It would be a great error to suppose that
these organic remains were fragmentary relics.
Our museums exhibit fossil shells of immeasurable
antiquity, as perfect as the day they were formed ;
whole skeletons without a limb disturbed ; nay.
the changed flesh, the developing embryos, and
even the very footsteps of primeval organisms.
Thus the naturalist finds in the bowels of the earth
species as well defined as, and in some groups
of animals more numerous than, those which
breathe the upper air, But, singularly enough,
the majority of these entombed species are wholly

1 [See page 60 Note. ]

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 9

distinct from those that now live. Nor is this un-
likeness without its rule and order. As a broad
fact, the further we go back in time the less the
buried species are like existing forms ; and, the fur-
ther apart the sets of extinct creatures are, the less
they are like one another. In other words, there
has been a regular succession of living beings, each
younger set, being in a very broad and general
sense, somewhat more like those which now live.

It was once supposed that this succession had
been the result of vast successive catastrophes,
destructions, and re-creations en masse; but
catastrophes are now almost eliminated from
geological, or at least palaeontological speculation ;
and it is admitted, on all hands, that the seeming
breaks in the chain of being are not absolute, but
only relative to our imperfect knowledge; that
species have replaced species, not in assemblages,
but one by one; and that, if it were possible to
have all the phenomena of the past presented to
us, the convenient epochs and formations of the
geologist, though having a certain distinctness,
would fade into one another with limits as
undefinable as those of the distinct and yet
separable colours of the solar spectrum.

Such is a brief summary of the main truths
which have been established concerning species.
Are these truths ultimate and irresolvable facts,
or are their complexities and perplexities the
mere expressions of a higher law ?

10 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS Y

A large number of persons practically assume
the former position to be correct. They believe
that the writer of the Pentateuch was empowered
and commissioned to teach us scientific as well as
other truth, that the account we find there of the
creation of living things is simply and literally
correct, and that anything which seems to con-
tradict it is, by the nature of the case, false. All
the phenomena which have been detailed are, on
this view, the immediate product of a creative
fiat and, consequently, are out of the domain of
science altogether,

Whether this view prove ultimately to be true
or false, it is, at any rate, not at present sup-
ported by what is commonly regarded as logical
proof, even if it be capable of discussion by
reason ; and hence we consider ourselves at liberty
to pass it by, and to turn to those views which
profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and there-
fore admit of being argued to their consequences.
And we do this with the less hesitation as it so
happens that those persons who are practically
conversant with the facts of the case (plainly a
considerable advantage) have always thought fit
to range themselves under the latter category.

The majority of these competent persons have
up to the present time maintained two positions—
the first, that every species is, within certain de-
fined limits, fixed and incapable of modification ;
the second, that every species was originally pro-

t THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS li

duced by a distinct creative act. The second
position is obviously incapable of proof or disproof,
the direct operations of the Creator not being
subjects of science; and it must therefore be
regarded as a corollary from the first, the truth
or falsehood of which is a matter of evidence.
Most persons imagine that the arguments in
favour of it are overwhelming; but to some few
minds, and these, it must be confessed, intellects
of no small power and grasp of knowledge, they
have not brought conviction. Among these
minds, that of the famous naturalist Lamarck,
who possessed a greater acquaintance with the
lower forms of life than any man of his day,
Cuvier not excepted, and was a good botanist to
_ boot, occupies a prominent place.

Two facts appear to have strongly affected the
course of thought of this remarkable man—the
one, that finer or stronger links of affinity connect
all living beings with one another, and that thus
the highest creature grades by multitudinous
steps into the lowest; the other, that an organ
may be developed in particular directions by
exerting itself in particular ways, and that modi-
fications once induced may be transmitted and
become hereditary. Putting these facts together,
Lamarck endeavoured to account for the first by
the operation of the second. Place an animal in
new circumstances, says he, and its needs will be
altered ; the new needs will create new desires, and

12 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

the attempt to gratify such desires will result in an
appropriate modification of the organs exerted.
Make aman a blacksmith, and his brachial muscles
will develop in accordance with the demands made
upon them, and in like manner, says Lamarck,
“the efforts of some short-necked bird to catch
fish without wetting himself have, with time and
perseverance, given rise to all our herons and
long-necked waders.”

The Lamarckian hypothesis has long since been
justly condemned, and it is the established prac-
tice for every tyro to raise his heel against the
carcase of the dead lion. But it is rarely either
wise or instructive to treat even the errors of a
really great man with mere ridicule, and in the
present case the logical form of the doctrine stands
on a very different footing from its substance.

If species have really arisen by the operation
of natural conditions, we ought to be able to find
those conditions now at work; we ought to be
able to discover in nature some power adequate
to modify any given kind of animal or plant in
such a manner as to give rise to another kind,
which would be admitted by naturalists as a
distinct species. Lamarck imagined that he had
discovered this vera causa in the admitted facts
that some organs may be modified by exercise ;
and that modifications, once produced, are capable
of hereditary transmission. It does not seem to
have occurred to him to inquire whether there is

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 13

any reason to believe that there are any limits to
the amount of modification producible, or to ask
how long an animal is likely to endeavour to
gratify an impossible desire. The bird, in our
example, would surely have renounced fish dinners
long before it had produced the least effect on leg
or neck,

Since Lamarck’s time, almost all competent
naturalists have left speculations on the origin of
species to such dreamers as the author of the
“ Vestiges,” by whose well-intentioned efforts the
Lamarckian theory received its final condemnation
in the minds of all sound thinkers. Notwith-
standing this silence, however, the transmutation
theory, as it has been called, has been a “ skeleton
in the closet” to many an honest zoologist and
botanist who had a soul above the mere naming of
dried plants and skins. Surely, has such an one
thought, nature is a mighty and consistent whole,
and the providential order established in the
world of life must, if we could only see it rightly,
be consistent with that dominant over the multi-
form shapes of brute matter. But what is the
history of astronomy, of all the branches of physics,
of chemistry, of medicine, but a narration of the
steps by which the human mind has been com-
pelled, often sorely against its will, to recognise
the operation of secondary causes in events where
ignorance beheld an immediate intervention of a
higher power? And when we know that living

14 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

things are formed of the same elements as the
inorganic world, that they act and react upon it,
bound by a thousand ties of natural piety, is it
probable, nay is it possible, that they, and they
alone, should have no order in their seeming
disorder, no unity in their seeming multiplicity,
should suffer no explanation by the discovery
of some central and sublime law of mutual
connection ?

Questions of this kind have assuredly often arisen,
but it might have been long before they received
such expression as would have commanded the
respect and attention of the scientific world, had
it not been for the publication of the work which
prompted this article. Its author, Mr. Darwin,
inheritor of a once celebrated name, won his spurs
in science when most of those now distinguished
were young men, and has for the last twenty
years held a place in the front ranks of British
philosophers. After a circumnavigatory voyage,
undertaken solely for the love of his science, Mr.
Darwin published a series of researches which at
once arrested the attention of naturalists and
geologists; his generalisations have since received
ample confirmation and now command universal
assent, nor is it questionable that they have had
the most important influence on the progress of
science. More recently Mr. Darwin, with a
versatility which is among the rarest of gifts,
turned his attention to a most difficult question of

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 15

zoology and minute anatomy; and no living
naturalist and anatomist has published a better
monograph than that which resulted from his
labours. Such a man, at all events, has not
entered the sanctuary with unwashed hands, and
when he lays before us the results of twenty
years’ investigation and reflection we must listen
even though we be disposed to strike. But, in
reading his work, it must be confessed that the
attention which might at first be dutifully, soon
becomes willingly, given, so clear is the author's
thought, so outspoken his conviction, so honest
and fair the candid expression of his doubts.
Those who would judge the book must read it:
we shall endeavour only to make its line of argu-
ment and its philosophical position intelligible to
the general reader in our own way.

The Baker Street Bazaar has just been exhibit-
ing its familiar annual spectacle. Straight-backed,
small-headed, big-barrelled oxen, as dissimilar
from any wild species as can well be imagined,
contended for attention and praise with sheep of
half-a-dozen different breeds and styes of bloated
preposterous pigs, no more like a wild boar or sow
than a city alderman is like an ourang-outang.
The cattle show has been, and perhaps may again
be, succeeded by a poultry show, of whose crowing
and clucking prodigies it can only be certainly
predicated that they will be very unlike the
aboriginal Phasianus gallus. If the seeker after

16 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

animal anomalies is not satisfied, a turn or two in
Seven Dials will convince him that the breeds of
pigeons are quite as extraordinary and unlike one
another and their parent stock, while the Horti-
cultural Society will provide him with any number
of corresponding vegetable aberrations from
nature’s types. He will learn with no little
surprise, too, in the course of his travels, that the
proprietors and producers of these animal and
vegetable anomalies regard them as distinct
species, with a firm belief, the strength of which
is exactly proportioned to their ignorance of
scientific biology, and which is the more remark-
able as they are all proud of their skill in originat-
ing such “species.”

On careful inquiry it is found that all these, and
the many other artificial breeds or races of animals
and plants, have been produced by one method.
The breeder—and a skilful one must be a person
of much sagacity and natural or acquired perceptive
faculty—notes some slight difference, arising he
knows not how, in some individuals of his stock.
If he wish to perpetuate the difference, to form a
breed with the peculiarity in question strongly
marked, he selects such male and female indi-
viduals as exhibit the desired character, and breeds
from them. Their offspring are then carefully
examined, and those which exhibit the peculiarity
the most distinctly are selected for breeding; and
this operation is repeated until the desired amount

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 17

of divergence from the primitive stock is reached,
It is then found that by continuing the process of
selection—always breeding, that is, from well-
marked forms, and allowing no impure crosses to
interfere—a race may be formed, the tendency of
which to reproduce itself is exceedingly strong ;
nor is the limit to the amount of divergence which
may be thus produced known; but one thing is
certain, that, if certain breeds of dogs, or of pigeons,
or of horses, were known only in a fossil state, no
naturalist would hesitate in regarding them as
distinct species.

But in all these cases we have human interfer-
ence. Without the breeder there would be no
selection, and without the selection no _Tace,
Before admitting the possibility of natural species
having originated j in any similar way, it must be
proved that there is in Nature some power which
takes the place of man, and performs a selection
sud sponte, It is the claim of Mr, Darwin that he
professes to have discovered the existence and the
modus operandi of this “natural selection,” as he
terms it; and, if he be right, the process is per-
fectly simple and comprehensible, and irresistibly
deducible from very familiar but well nigh for-
gotten facts.

Who, for instance, has duly reflected upon all
' the consequences of the marvellous struggle for
existence which is daily and hourly going on
among living beings? Not only does every animal

VOL. Il C

f

18 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 1

live at the expense of some other animal or plant,
but the very plants are at war. The ground is
full of seeds that cannot rise into seedlings; the
seedlings rob one another of air, light and water,
the strongest robber winning the day, and ex-
tinguishing his competitors. Year after year, the
wild animals with which man never interferes are,
on the average, neither more nor less numerous
than they were ; and yet we know that the annual
produce of every pair is from one to perhaps a
million young; so that it is mathematically certain
that, on the average, as many are killed by natural
causes as are born every year, and those only escape
which happen to be a little better fitted to resist
destruction than those which die. The individuals
of a species are like the crew of a foundered ship,
and none but good swimmers have a chance of
reaching the land.

Such being unquestionably the necessary con-
ditions under which living creatures exist, Mr.
Darwin discovers in them the instrument of natural
selection, Suppose that in the midst of this in-
cessant competition some individuals of a species
(A) present accidental variations which happen to
fit them a little better than their fellows for the
struggle in which they are engaged, then the
chances are in favour, not only of these individuals
being better nourished than the others, but of
their predominating over their fellows in other
ways, and of having a better chance of leaving

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 19

offspring, which will of course tend to reproduce
the peculiarities of their parents. Their offspring

_ will, by a parity of reasoning, tend to predominate

over their contemporaries, and there being (sup-
pose) no room for more than one species such as
A, the weaker variety will eventually be destroyed
by the new destructive influence which is thrown
into the scale, and the stronger will take its place.
Surrounding conditions remaining unchanged, the
new variety (which we may call B)—supposed, for
argument’s sake, to be the best adapted for these
conditions which can be got out of the original
stock—will remain unchanged, all accidental devia-
tions from the type becoming at once extinguished,
as less fit for their post than B itself. The tend-
ency of B to persist will grow with its persistence
through successive generations, and it will acquire
all the characters of a new species.

But, on the other hand, if the conditions of life
change in any degree, however slight, B may no
longer be that form which is best adapted to with-
stand their destructive, and profit by their sus-
taining, influence ; in which case if it should give
rise to a more competent variety (C), this will take
its place and become a new species ; and thus, by
natural selection, the species B and C will be suc-
cessively derived from A.

That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us
to give a reason for many apparent anomalies in
the distribution of living beings in time and space,

Cc 2

20 THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS I

and that it is not contradicted by the main phen-
omena of life and organisation appear to us to be
unquestionable ; and, so far, it must be admitted to
have an immense advantage over any of its prede-
cessors. But it is quite another matter to affirm
absolutely either the truth or falsehood of Mr.
Darwin’s views at the present stage of the inquiry.
Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that
state of mind which he calls “ Thitige Skepsis ”
—active doubt. It is doubt which so loves truth
that it neither dares rest in doubting, nor extin-
guish itself by unjustified belief ; and we commend
this state of mind to students of species, with
respect to Mr. Darwin’s or any other hypothesis,
as to their origm. The combined investigations
of another twenty years may, perhaps, enable
naturalists to say whether the modifying causes
and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has
satisfactorily shown to exist in Nature, are com-
petent to produce all the effects he ascribes to
them ; or whether, on the other hand, he has been
led to over-estimate the value of the principle of
natural selection, as greatly as Lamarck over-
estimated his vera causa of modification by exercise.

But there is, at all events, one advantage pos-
sessed by the more recent writer over his pre-
decessor. Mr. Darwin abhors mere speculation as
nature abhorsa vacuum. He is as greedy of cases
and precedents as any constitutional lawyer, and
all the principles he lays down are capable of being

I THE DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS 21

brought to the test of observation and experiment.
The path he bids us follow professes to be, not a
mere airy track, fabricated of ideal cobwebs, but a
solid and broad bridge of facts, If it be so, it
will carry us safely over many a chasm in our
knowledge, and lead us to a region free from the
snares of those fascinating but barren virgins, the
Final Causes, against whom a high authority has so
justly warned us, “ My sons, dig in the vineyard,”
were the last words of the old man in the fable:
and, though the sons found no treasure, they made
their fortunes by the grapes.

IT
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES
[1860]

Mr. Darwiy’s long-standing and well-earned
scientific eminence probably renders him indiffer-
ent to that social notoriety which passes by the
name of success; but if the calm spirit of the
philosopher have not yet wholly superseded the
ambition and the vanity of the carnal man within
him, he must be well satisfied with the results of
his venture in publishing the “ Origin of Species.”
Overflowing the narrow bounds of purely scientific
circles, the “species question ” divides with Italy
and the Volunteers the attention of general
society. Everybody has read Mr. Darwin’s book,
or, at least, has given an opinion upon its merits
or demerits ; pietists, whether lay or ecclesiastic,
decry it with the mild railing which sounds so
charitable; bigots denounce it with ignorant
invective; old ladies of both sexes consider it a

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 23

decidedly dangerous book, and even savants, who
have no better mud to throw, quote antiquated
writers to show that its author is no better than
an ape himself ; while every philosophical thinker
hails it as a veritable Whitworth gun in the
armoury of liberalism ; and all competent natural-
ists and physiologists, whatever their opinions as
to the ultimate fate of the doctrines put forth,
acknowledge that the work in which they are
embodied is a solid contribution to knowledge
and inaugurates a new epoch in natural history.
Nor has the discussion of the subject been
restrained within the limits of conversation,
When the public is eager and interested, reviewers
must minister to its wants; and the genuine
littératewr is too much in the habit of acquiring
his knowledge from the book he judges—as the
Abyssinian is said to provide himself with steaks
from the ox which carries him—to be withheld
from criticism of a profound scientific work by
the mere want of the requisite preliminary scien-
tific acquirement ; while, on the other hand, the
men of science who wish well to the new views,
no less than those who dispute their validity, have
naturally sought opportunities of expressing their
opinions. Hence it is not surprising that almost
all the critical journals have noticed Mr. Darwin’s
work at greater or less length; and so many dis-
quisitions, of every degree of excellence, from the
poor product of ignorance, too often stimulated by

24 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES n

prejudice, to the fair and thoughtful essay of the
candid student of Nature, have appeared, that it
seems an almost hopeless task to attempt to say
anything new upon the question.

But it may be doubted if the knowledge and
acumen of prejudged scientific opponents, and the
subtlety of orthodox special pleaders, have yet
exerted their full force in mystifying the real issues
of the great controversy which has been set afoot,
and whose end is hardly likely to be seen by this
generation ; so that, at this eleventh hour, and even
failing anything new, it may be useful to state
afresh that which is true, and to put the funda-
mental positions advocated by Mr. Darwin in such
a form that they may be grasped by those whose
special studies lie in other directions, And the
adoption of this course may be the more advisable,
because, notwithstanding its great deserts, and
indeed partly on account of them, the “ Origin of
Species” is by no means an easy book to read—if
by reading is implied the full comprehension of an
author’s meaning.

We do not speak jestingly in saying that it is
Mr. Darwin’s misfortune to know more about the
question he has taken up than any man living.
Personally and practically exercised in zoology, in
minute anatomy, in geology ; a student of geogra-
phical distribution, not on maps and in museums
only, but by long voyages and laborious collection ;
having largely advanced each of these branches of

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 25

science, and having spent many years in gathering
and sifting materials for his present work, the
store of accurately registered facts upon which the
author of the “ Origin of Species” is able to draw
at will is prodigious.

But this very superabundance of matter must
have been embarrassing to a writer who, for the
present, can only put forward an abstract of his
views; and thence it arises, perhaps, that notwith-
standing the clearness of the style, those who
attempt fairly to digest the book find much of it
a sort of intellectual pemmican—a mass of facts
crushed and pounded into shape, rather than held
together by the ordinary medium of an obvious
logical bond; due attention will, without doubt,
discover this bond, but it is often hard to find.

Again, from sheer want of room, much has to
be taken for granted which might readily enough
be proved ; and hence, while the adept, who can
supply the missing links in the evidence from his
own knowledge, discovers fresh proof of the singu-
lar thoroughness with which all difficulties have
been considered and all unjustifiable suppositions
avoided, at every reperusal of Mr. Darwin’s preg-
nant paragraphs, the novice in biology is apt to
complain of the frequency of what he fancies is
gratuitous assumption,

Thus while it may be doubted if, for some years,
any one is likely to be competent to pronounce
judgment on all the issues raised by Mr. Darwin,

26 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES it

there is assuredly abundant room for him, who,
assuming the humbler, though perhaps as useful,
office of an interpreter between the “Origin of
Species” and the public, contents himself with
endeavouring to point out the nature of the prob-
lems which it discusses; to distinguish between
the ascertained facts and the theoretical views
which it contains ; and finally, to show the extent
to which the explanation it offers satisfies the re-
quirements of scientific logic. At any rate, it is
this office which we purpose to undertake in the
following pages.

It may be safely assumed that our readers have.
a general conception of the nature of the objects
to which the word “species” is applied; but it
has, perhaps, occurred to a few, even to those who
are naturalists ea professo, to reflect, that, as com-
monly employed, the term has a double sense and
denotes two very different orders of relations,
When we call a group of animals, or of plants, a
species, we may imply thereby, either that all
these animals or plants have some common peculi-
arity of form or structure ; or, we may mean that
they possess some common functional character.
That part of biological science which deals with
form and structure is called Morphology—that
which concerns itself with function, Physiology—
so that we may conveniently speak of these two
senses, or aspects, of “ species ”—the one as mor-
phological, the other as physiological, Regarded

it THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES oF

from the former point of view, a species is nothing
more than a kind of animal or plant, which is
distinctly definable from all others, by certain
constant, and not merely sexual, morphological
peculiarities. Thus horses form a species, because
the group of animals to which that name is applied
is distinguished from all others in the world by
the following constantly associated characters.
They have—1, A vertebral column; 2, Mamme ;
3, A placental embryo; 4, Four legs; 5, A single
well-developed toe in each foot provided with a
hoof; 6, A bushy tail; and 7, Callosities on the
inner sides of both the fore and the hind legs.
The asses, again, form a distinct species, because,
with the same characters, as far as the fifth in the
above list, all asses have tufted tails, and have
callosities only on the inner side of the fore-legs.
If animals were discovered having the general
characters of the horse, but sometimes with eal-
losities only on the fore-legs, and more or less
tufted tails; or animals having the general char-
acters of the ass, but with more or less bushy
tails, and sometimes with callosities on both pairs
of legs, besides being intermediate in other re-
spects—the two species would have to be merged
into one. They could no longer be regarded as
morphologically distinct species, for they would
not be distinctly definable one from the other.
However bare and simple this definition of
species may appear to be, we confidently appeal to

28 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 0

all practical naturalists, whether zoologists, botan-
ists, or palzontologists, to say if, in the vast
majority of cases, they know, or mean to affirm,
anything more of the group of animals or plants
they so denominate than what has just been stated,
Even the most decided advocates of the received
doctrines respecting species admit this, :

**T apprehend,” says Professor Owen,! ‘‘ that few naturalists
nowadays, in describing and proposing a name for what they
call ‘a new species,’ use that term to signify what was meant by
it twenty or thirty years ago; that is, an originally distinct
creation, maintaining its primitive distinction by obstructive
generative peculiarities. The proposer of the new species now
intends to state no more than he actually knows; as, for
example, that the differences on which he founds the specific
character are constant in individuals of both sexes, so far as
observation has reached ; and that they are not due to domes-
tication or to artificially superinduced external circumstances, or
to any outward influence within his cognizance ; that the species
is wild, or is such as it appears by Nature,”

If we consider, in fact, that by far the largest
proportion of recorded existing species are known
only by the study of their skins, or bones, or other
lifeless exuvize ; that we are acquainted with none,
or next to none, of their physiological peculiarities,
beyond those which can be deduced from their
structure, or are open to cursory observation; and
that we cannot hope to learn more of any of those
extinct forms of life which now constitute no
inconsiderable proportion of the known Flora and

99-4

1 “*On the Osteology of the Chimpanzees and Orangs ” 5
Transactions of the Zoological Society, 1858. .

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 29

Fauna of the world: it is obvious that the defini-
tions of these species can be only of a purely
structural, or morphological, character. It is
probable that naturalists would have avoided
much confusion of ideas if they had more fre-
quently borne the necessary limitations of our
knowledge in mind, But while it may safely be
admitted that we are acquainted with only the
morphological characters of the vast majority of
species—the functional or physiological, peculiari-
ties of a few have been carefully investigated, and
the result of that study forms a large and most
interesting portion of the physiology of reproduc-
tion,

The student of Nature wonders the more and is
astonished the less, the more conversant he becomes
with her operations; but of all the perennial
miracles she offers to his inspection, perhaps the
most worthy of admiration is the development of
a plant or of an animal from its embryo. Examine
the recently laid egg of some common animal,
such as a salamander or newt. It is a minute
spheroid in which the best microscope will reveal
nothing but a structureless sac, enclosing a glairy
fluid, holding granules in suspension.! But strange
possibilities lie dormant in that semi-fluid globule.
Let a moderate supply of warmth reach its watery
cradle, and the plastic matter undergoes changes

1 [When this sentence was written, it was generally believed
that the original nucleus of the egg (the germinal vesicle)
disappeared. 1893.]

30 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

so rapid, yet so steady and purposelike in their
succession, that one can only compare them to
those operated by a skilled modeller upon a form-
less lump of clay. As with an invisible trowel,
the mass is divided and subdivided into smaller
and smaller portions, until it is reduced to an
aggregation of granules not too large to build withal
the finest fabrics of the nascent organism, And,
then, it is asif a delicate finger traced out the line
to be occupied by the spinal column, and moulded
the contour of the body; pinching up the head
at one end, the tail at the other, and fashioning
flank and limb into due salamandrine proportions,
in so artistic a way, that, after watching the process
hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily possessed
by the notion, that some more subtle aid to vision
than an achromatic, would show the hidden artist,
with his plan before him, striving with skilful
manipulation to perfect his work.

As life advances, and the young amphibian
ranges the waters, the terror of his insect con-
temporaries, not only are the nutritious particles
supplied by its prey, by the addition of which to
its frame, growth takes place, laid down, each in
its proper spot, and in such due proportion to the
rest, as to reproduce the form, the colour, and the
size, characteristic of the parental stock ; but even
the wonderful powers of reproducing lost parts
possessed by these animals are controlled by the
same governing tendency. Cut off the legs, the

I THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 31

tail, the jaws, separately or all together, and, as
Spallanzani showed long ago, these parts not only
grow again, but the redintegrated limb is formed
on the same type as those which were lost. The
new jaw, or leg, is a newt’s, and never by any
accident more like that of a frog. What is true
of the newt is true of every animal and of every
plant; the acorn tends to build itself up again
into a woodland giant such as that from whose
twig it fell; the spore of the humblest lichen
reproduces the green or brown incrustation which
gave it birth ; and at the other end of the scale of
life, the child that resembled neither the paternal
nor the maternal side of the house would be
regarded as a kind of monster.

So that the one end to which, in all living
beings, the formative impulse is tending—the one
scheme which the Archzeus of the old speculators
strives to carry out, seems to be to mould the
offspring into the likeness of the parent. It is
the first great law of reproduction, that the
offspring tends to resemble its parent or parents,
more closely than anything else.

Science will some day show us how this law is a
necessary consequence of the more general laws
which govern matter; but, for the present, more
ean hardly be said than that it appears to be in
harmony with them. We know that the phe-
nomena of vitality are not something apart from
other physical phenomena, but one with them ;

32 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

and matter and force are the two names of the
one artist who fashions the living as well as the
lifeless. Hence living bodies should obey the’
same great laws as other matter—nor, throughout
Nature, is there a law of wider application than
this, that a body impelled by two forces takes the
direction of their resultant. But living bodies
may be regarded as nothing but extremely complex
bundles of forces held in a mass of matter, as the
complex forces of a magnet are held in the steel
by its coercive force; and, since the differences
of sex are comparatively slight, or, in other words,
the sum of the forces in each has a very similar
tendency, their resultant, the offspring, may reason-
ably be expected to deviate but little from a course
parallel to either, or to both,

Represent the reason of the law to ourselves by
what physical metaphor or analogy we will, how-
ever, the great matter is to apprehend its existence
and the importance of the consequences deducible
from it. For things which are like to the same
are like to one another; and if, ina great series of
generations, every offspring is like its parent, it
follows that all the offspring and all the parents
must be like one another; and that, given an
original parental stock, with the opportunity of
undisturbed multiplication, the law in question
necessitates the production, in course of time, of
an indefinitely large group, the whole of the mem-
bers of which are at once very similar and are blood

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES oo

relations, having descended from the same parent,
or pair of parents. The proof that all the members
of any given group of animals, or plants, had thus
descended, would be ordinarily considered sufficient
to entitle them to the rank of physiological species,
for most physiologists consider species to be de-
finable as “the offspring of a single primitive
stock.”

But though it is quite true that all those
groups we call species may, according to the
known laws of reproduction, have descended from
a single stock, and though it is very likely they
really have done so, yet this conclusion rests on
deduction and can hardly hope to establish itself
upon a basis of observation, And the primitive-
ness of the supposed single stock, which, after all,
is the essential part of the matter, is not only a
hypothesis, but one which has not a shadow of
foundation, if by “ primitive” be meant “indepen-
dent of any other living being.” A scientific
definition, of which an unwarrantable hypothesis
forms an essential part, carries its condemnation
within itself; but, even supposing such a
definition were, in form, tenable, the physiologist
who should attempt to apply it in Nature would
soon find himself involved in great, if not in-
extricable, difficulties. As we have said, it is
indubitable that offspring tend to resemble the
parental organism, but it is equally true that the
similarity attained never amounts to identity

VOL, II D

84 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

either in form or in structure. There is always a
certain amount of deviation, not only from the
precise characters of a single parent, but when, as
in most animals and many plants, the sexes are
lodged in distinct individuals, from an exact mean
between the two parents. And indeed, on
general principles, this slight deviation seems as
intelligible as the general similarity, if we reflect
how complex the co-operating “ bundles of forces ”
are, and how improbable it is that, in any case,
their true resultant shall coincide with any mean
between the more obvious characters of the two
parents. Whatever be its cause, however, the
co-existence of this tendency to minor variation
with the tendency to general similarity, is of vast
importance in its bearing on the question of the
origin of species.

As a general rule, the extent to which an
offspring differs from its parent is slight enough ;
but, occasionally, the amount of difference is much
more strongly marked, and then the divergent
offspring receives the name of a Variety. Maulti-
tudes, of what there is every reason to believe are
such varieties, are known, but the origin of very
few has been accurately recorded, and of these we
will select two as more especially illustrative of
the main features of variation, The first of them
is that of the “Ancon” or “Otter” sheep, of
which a careful account is given by Colonel
David Humphreys, F.R.S., in a letter to Sir

i: THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 35

Joseph Banks, published in the “ Philosophical
Transacticns” for 1813. It appears that one Seth
Wright, the proprietor of a farm on the banks
of the Charles River, in Massachusetts, possessed
a flock of fifteen ewes and a ram of the ordinary
kind. In the year 1791, one of the ewes
presented her owner with a male lamb, differing,
for*no assignable reason, from its parents by a
proportionally long body and short bandy legs,
whence it was unable to emulate its relatives in
those sportive leaps over the neighbours’ fences,
in which they were in the habit of imdulging,
much to the good farmer’s vexation.

The second case is that detailed by a no less
unexceptionable authority than Réaumur, in his
“Art de faire éclore les Poulets.” A Maltese
couple, named Kelleia, whose hands and feet were
constructed upon the ordinary human model, had
born to them a son, Gratio, who possessed six per-
fectly movable fingers on each hand, and six toes,
not quite so well formed, on each foot. No cause
could be assigned for the appearance of this unusual
variety of the human species.

Two circumstances are well worthy of remark in
both these cases. In each, the variety appears to
have arisen in full force, and, as it were, per saltuim ;
a wide and definite difference appearing, at once,
between the Ancon ram and the ordinary sneep ;
between the six-fingered and six-toed Gratio Kelleia
and ordinary men. In neither case is it possible

D 2

36 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES I!

to point out any obvious reason for the appearance
of the variety. Doubtless there were determining
causes for these as for all other phenomena; but
they do not appear, and we can be tolerably certain
that what are ordinarily understood as changes in
physical conditions, as in climate, in food, or the
like, did not take place and had nothing to do with
the matter. It was no case of what is commonly
called adaptation to circumstances; but, to use a
conveniently erroneous phrase, the variations arose
spontaneously, The fruitless search after final
causes leads their pursuers a long way; but even
those hardy teleologists, who are ready to break
through all the laws of physics in chase of their
favourite will-o’-the-wisp, may be puzzled to dis-
cover what purpose could be attained by the stunted
legs of Seth Wright’s ram or the hexadactyle
members of Gratio Kelleia,

Varieties then arise we know not why ; and it is
more than probable that the majority of varieties
have arisen in this “spontaneous ” manner, though
we are, of course, far from denying that they may
be traced, in some cases, to distinct external in-
fluences ; which are assuredly competent to alter
the character of the tegumentary covering, to
change colour, to increase or diminish the size of
muscles, to modify constitution, and, among plants,
to give rise to the metamorphosis of stamens into
petals, and so forth. But however they may have
arisen, what especially interests us at present is, to

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 37

remark that, once in existence, many varieties obey
the fundamental law of reproduction that like tends
to produce like; and their offspring exemplify it by
tending to exhibit the same deviation from the
parental stock as themselves, Indeed, there seems
to be, in many instances, a prepotent influence
about a newly-arisen variety which gives it what
one may call an unfair advantage over the normal
descendants from the same stock. This is strik-
ingly exemplified by the case of Gratio Kelleia,
who married a woman with the ordinary penta-
dactyle extremities, and had by her four children,
Salvator, George, André, and Marie. Of these
children Salvator, the eldest boy, had six fingers
and six toes, like his father ; the second and third,
also boys, had five fingers and five toes, like their
mother, though the hands and feet of George
were slightly deformed. The last, a girl, had five
fingers and five toes, but the thumbs were slightly
deformed, The variety thus reproduced itself
purely in the eldest, while the normal type
reproduced itself purely in the third, and almost
purely in the second and last: so that it would
seem, at first, as if the normal type were more
powerful than the variety. But all these children
grew up and intermarried with normal wives and
husband, and then, note what took place : Salvator
had four children, three of whom exhibited the
hexadactyle members of their grandfather and
father, while the youngest had the pentacactvle

38 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

limbs of the mother and grandmother; so that
here, notwithstanding a double pentadactyle
dilution of the blood, the hexadactyle variety had
the best of it. The same pre-potency of the
variety was still more markedly exemplified in the
progeny of two of the other children, Marie and
George. Marie (whose thumbs only were de-
formed) gave birth to a boy with six toes, and
three other normally formed children ; but George,
who was not quite so pure a pentadactyle, begot,
first, two girls, each of whom had six fingers and
toes ; then a girl with six fingers on each hand and
six toes on the right foot, but only five toes on
the left; and lastly, a boy with only five fingers
and toes. In these instances, therefore, the
variety, as it were, leaped over one generation to
reproduce itself in full force in the next. Finally,
the purely pentadactyle André was the father of
many children, not one of whom departed from
the normal parental type. :

If a variation which approaches the nature of a
monstrosity can strive thus forcibly to reproduce
itself, it is not wonderful that less aberrant
modifications should tend to be preserved even
more strongly ; and the history of the Ancon sheep
is, in this respect, particularly instructive. With
the “’cuteness ” characteristic of their nation, the
neighbours of the Massachusetts farmer imagined
it would be an excellent thing if all his sheep
were imbued with the stay-at-home tendencies

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 39

enforced by Nature upon the newly-arrived ram ;
and they advised Wright to kill the old patriarch
of his fold, and install the Ancon ram in his place.
The result justified their sagacious anticipations,
and coincided very nearly with what occurred to
the progeny of Gratio Kelleia. The young lambs
were almost always either pure Ancons, or pure
ordinary sheep.’ But when sufficient Ancon
sheep were obtained to interbreed with one
another, it was found that the offspring was
always pure Ancon. Colonel Humphreys, in fact,
states that he was acquainted with only “one
questionable case of a contrary nature.” Here,
then, is a remarkable and_ well-established
instance, not only of a very distinct race being
established per saltwm, but of that race breeding
“true” at once, and showing no mixed forms,
even when crossed with another breed.

By taking care to select Ancons of both sexes,
for breeding from, it thus became easy to establish
an extremely well-marked race; so peculiar that,

1 Colonel Humphreys’ statements are exceedingly explicit on
this point :—‘* When an Ancon ewe is impregnated by a com-
mon ram, the increase resembles wholly either the ewe or the
ram. The increase of the common ewe impregnated by an
Ancon ram follows entirely the one or the other, without
blending any of the distinguishing and essential peculiarities
of both. Frequent instances have happened where common
ewes have had twins by Ancon rams, when one exhibited the
complete marks and features of the ewe, the other of the ram.
The contrast has been rendered singularly striking, when one
short-legged and one long-legged lamb, produced at a birth,
have been seen sucking the dam at the same time.’’—Philoso-
phicat Transactions, 1813, Pt. I. pp. 89, 90. ;

40 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

even when herded with other sheep, it was noted
that the Ancons kept together. And there is
every reason to believe that the existence of this
breed might have been indefinitely protracted ;
but the introduction of the Merino sheep, which
were not only very superior to the Ancons in wool
and meat, but quite as quiet and orderly, led to
the complete neglect of the new breed, so that, in
1813, Colonel Humphreys found it difficult to
obtain the specimen, the skeleton of which was
presented to Sir Joseph Banks. We believe that,
for many years, no remnant of it has existed in
the United States.

Gratio Kelleia was not the progenitor of a race
of six-fingered men, as Seth Wright's ram became
a nation of Ancon sheep, though the tendency of
the variety to perpetuate itself appears to have
been fully as strong in the one case as in the
other. And the reason of the difference is not
far toseek. Seth Wright took care not to weaken
the Ancon blood by matching his Ancon ewes
with any but males of the same variety, while
Gratio Kelleia’s sons were too far removed from
the patriarchal times to intermarry with their
sisters ; and his grand-children seem not to have
been attracted by their six-fingered cousins. In
other words, in the one example a race was pro-
duced, because, for several generations, care was
taken to select both parents of the breeding stock
from animals exhibiting a tendency to vary in the

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 41

same direction ; while, in the other, no race was
evolved, because no such selection was exercised.
A race is a propagated variety ; and as, by the laws
of reproduction, offspring tend to assume the
parental forms, they will be more likely to pro-
pagate a variation exhibited by both parents than
that possessed by only one.

_ There is no organ of the body of an animal
which may not, and does not, occasionally, vary
more or less from the normal type ; and there is no
variation which may not be transmitted and which,
if selectively transmitted, may not become the
foundation of a race. This great truth, sometimes
forgotten by philosophers, has long been familiar
to practical agriculturists and breeders ; and upon
it rest all the methods of improving the breeds of
domestic animals, which, for the last century, have
been followed with so much success in England.
Colour, form, size, texture of hair or wool, pro-
portions of various parts, strength or weakness of
constitution, tendency to fatten or to remain lean,
to give much or little milk, speed, strength, tem-
per, intelligence, special instincts; there is not one
of these characters the transmission of which is not
an every-day occurrence within the experience of
cattle-breeders, stock-farmers, horse-dealers, and
dog and poultry fanciers. Nay, it is only the other
day that an eminent physiologist, Dr. Brown-
Sequard, communicated to the Royal Society his
discovery that epilepsy, artificially produced in

42 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IT

guinea-pigs, by a means which he has discovered,
is transmitted to their offspring.?

But a race, once produced, is no more a fixed
and immutable entity than the stock whence it
sprang ; variations arise among its members, and
as these variations are transmitted like any others,
new races may be developed out of the pre-exist-
ing one ad infinitum, or, at least, within any limit
at present determined. Given sufficient time and
sufficiently careful selection, and the multitude of
races which may arise from a common stock is as
astonishing as are the extreme structural differ-
ences which they may present. A remarkable
example of this is to be found in the rock-pigeon,
which Mr. Darwin has, in our opinion, satisfactorily
demonstrated to be the progenitor of all our
domestic pigeons, of which there are certainly
more than a hundred well-marked races. The
most noteworthy of these races are, the four great
stocks known to the “ fancy ” as tumblers, pouters,
carriers, and fantails; birds which not only differ
most singularly in size, colour, and habits, but in the
form of the beak and of the skull: in the pro-
portions of the beak to the skull; in the number
of tail-feathers ; in the absolute and relative size of
the feet ; in the presence or absence of the uropygial
gland ; in the number of vertebrz in the back ;
in short, in precisely those characters in which

1 [Compare Weismann’s Essays Upon Heredity, p. 310, et seq.
1893. ]

Ir THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 43

the genera and species of birds differ from one

another.
And it is most remarkable and instructive to

observe, that none of these races can be shown to
have been originated by the action of changes in
what are commonly called external circumstances,
upon the wild rock-pigeon. On the contrary,
from time immemorial pigeon-fanciers have had
essentially similar methods of treating their pets,
which have been housed, fed, protected and cared
for in much the same way in all pigeonries. In
fact, there is no case better adapted than that of
the pigeons to refute the doctrine which one sees
put forth on high authority, that “no other
characters than those founded on the development
of bone for the attachment of muscles” are
capable of variation. In precise contradiction of
this hasty assertion, Mr. Darwin’s researches
prove that the skeleton of the wings in domestic
pigeons has hardly varied at all from that of the
wild type ; while, on the other hand, it is in exactly
those respects, such as the relative length of the
beak and skull, the number of the vertebrae, and
the number of the tail-feathers, in which muscular
exertion can have no important influence, that
the utmost amount of variation has taken place.

We have said that the following out of the
properties exhibited by physiological species would
lead us into difficulties, and at this point they begin

A THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

to be obvious; for if, as the result of spontaneous
variation and of selective breeding, the progeny of
a common stock may become separated into groups
distinguished from one another by constant, not
sexual, morphological characters, it is clear that
the physiological definition of species is likely to
clash with the morphological definition. No one
would hesitate to describe the pouter and the
tumbler as distinct species, if they were found fossil,
or if their skins and skeletons were imported, as
those of exotic wild birds commonly are—and with-
out doubt, if considered alone, they are good and
distinct morphological species, On the other hand,
they are not physiological species, for they are
descended from a common stock, the rock-pigeon.

Under these circumstances, as it is admitted con
all sides that races occur in Nature, how are we to
know whether any apparently distinct animals are
really of different physiological species, or not,
seeing that the amount of morphological difference
is no safe guide? Is there any test of a physio-
logical species? The usual answer of physiologists
is in the affirmative. It is said that such a test is
to be found in the phenomena of hybridisation—
in the results of crossing races, as compared with
the results of crossing species,

So far as the evidence goes at present, in-
dividuals, of what are certainly known to be mere
races produced by selection, however distinct they
may appear to be, not only breed freely together,

Ii THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 45

but the offspring of such crossed races are perfectly
fertile with one another, Thus, the spaniel and
the greyhound, the dray-horse and the Arab, the
pouter and the tumbler, breed together with perfect
freedom, and their mongrels, if matched with other
mongrels of the same kind, are equally fertile.

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that
the individuals of many natural species are either
absolutely infertile if crossed with individuals of
other species, or, if they give rise to hybrid
offspring, the hybrids so produced are infertile
when paired together. The horse and the ass,
for instance, if so crossed, give rise to the mule,
and there is no certain evidence of offspring ever
having been produced by a male and female
mule. The unions of the rock-pigeon and the
ring-pigeon appear to be equally barren of result.
Here, then, says the physiologist, we have a means
of distinguishing any two true species from any
two varieties. If a male and a female, selected
from each group, produce ‘offspring, and that off-
spring is fertile with others produced in the same
way, the groups are races and not species. If, on
the other hand, no result ensues, or if the offspring
are infertile with others produced in the same
way, they are true physiological species. The
test would be an admirable one, if, in the first
place, it were always practicable to apply it, and
if, in the second, it always yielded results suscep-
tible of a definite interpretation. Unfortunately,

46 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

in the great majority of cases, this touchstone for
species is wholly inapplicable.

The constitution of many wild animals is so
altered by confinement that they will not breed
even with their own females, so that the negative
results obtained from crosses are of no value; and
the antipathy of wild animals of different species
for one another, or even of wild and tame members
of the same species, is ordinarily so great, that it
is hopeless to look for such unions in Nature,
The hermaphrodism of most plants, the difficulty
in the way of insuring the absence of their own
or the proper working of other pollen, are obsta-
cles of no less magnitude in applying the test to
them, And, in both animals and plants, is super-
added the further difficulty, that experiments
must be continued over a long time for the purpose
of ascertaining the fertility of the mongrel or
hybrid progeny, as well as of the first crosses from
which they spring.

Not only do these great practical difficulties lie
in the way of applying the hybridisation test, but
even when this oracle can be questioned, its replies
are sometimes as doubtful as those of Delphi.
For example, cases are cited by Mr. Darwin, of
plants which are more fertile with the pollen of |
another species than with their own; and there
are others, such as certain Fuci, the male element
of which will fertilise the ovule of a plant of
distinct species, while the males of the latter

Ir THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 47

species are ineffective with the females of the
first. So that, in the last-named instance, a
physiologist, who should cross the two species in
one way, would decide that they were true species;
while another, who should cross them in the
reverse way, would, with equal justice, according
to the rule, pronounce them to be mere races.
Several plants, which there is great reason to
believe are mere varieties, are almost sterile when
crossed; while both animals and plants, which
have always been regarded by naturalists as of
distinct species, turn out, when the test is applied,
to be perfectly fertile. Again, the sterility or
fertility of crosses seems to bear no relation to the
structural resemblances or differences of the
members of any two groups.

Mr. Darwin has discussed this question with
singular ability and circumspection, and his con-
clusions are summed up as follows, at page 276 of
his work :—

** First crosses between forms sufficiently distinct to be ranked
as species, and their hybrids, are very generally, but not
universally, sterile. The sterility is of all degrees, and is often
so slight that the two most eareful experimentalists who have
ever lived have come to diametrically opposite conclusions in
ranking forms by this test. The sterility is innately variable
in individuals of the same species, and is eminently susceptible
of favourable and unfavourable conditions. The degree of
sterility does not strictly follow systematic affinity, but is
governed by several curious and complex laws. It is generally
different and sometimes widely different, in reciprocal crosses

4S THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IT

between the same two species. It is not always equal in degree
in a first cross, and in the hybrid produced from this cross.

*‘In the same manner as in grafting trees, the capacity of
one species or variety to take on another is incidental on
generally unknown differences in their vegetative systems ; so
in crossing, the greater or less facility of one species to unite
with another is incidental on unknown differences in their
reproductive systems, There is no more reason to think that
species have been specially endowed with various degrees of
sterility to prevent them crossing and breeding in Nature, than
to think that trees have been specially endowed with various
and somewhat analogous degrees of difficulty in being grafted
together, in order to prevent them becoming inarched in our
forests.

‘**The sterility of first crosses between pure species, which
have their reproductive systems perfect, seems to depend on
several circumstances ; in some cases largely on the early death of
the embryo. The sterility of hybrids which have their repro-
ductive systems imperfect, and which have had this system
and their whole organisation disturbed by being compounded
of two distinct species, seems closely allied to that sterility
which so frequently affects pure species when their natural con-
ditions of life have been disturbed. This view is supported by
a parallelism of another kind: namely, that the crossing of
forms, only slightly different, is favourable to the vigour and
fertility of the offspring ; and that slight changes in the con-
ditions of life are apparently favourable to the vigour and
fertility of all organic beings. It is not surprising that the
degree of difficulty in uniting two species, and the degree of
sterility of their hybrid offspring, should generally correspond,
though due to distinct causes ; for both depend on the amount
of difference of some kind between the species which are crossed.
Nor is it surprising that the facility of effecting a first cross,
the fertility of hybrids produced from it, and the capacity of
being grafted together—though this latter capacity evidently
depends on widely different cireumstances—should all run to a
certain extent parallel with the systematic affinity of the forms
which are subjected to experiment; for systematic affinity

I THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 49

attempts to express all kinds of resemblance between all
species.

‘‘Tirst crosses between forms known to be varieties, or
sufficiently alike to be considered as varieties, and their mon-
grel offspring, are very generally, but not quite universally,
fertile. Nor is this nearly general and perfect fertility sur-
prising, when we remember how liable we are to argue in a
circle with respect to varieties in a state of Nature; and when
we remember that the greater number of varieties have been
produced under domestication by the selection of mere external
differences, and not of differences in the reproductive system.
In all other respects, excluding fertility, there is a close general
resemblance between hybrids and mongrels.” —Pp. 276—8.

We fully agree with the general tenor of this
weighty passage ; but forcible as are these argu-
ments, and little as the value of fertility or
infertility as a test of species maybe, it must not
be forgotten that the really important fact, so far
as the inquiry into the origin of species goes, is,
that there are such things in Nature as groups of
animals and of plants, the members of which are in-
capable of fertile union with those of other groups ;
and that there are such things as hybrids, which

_are absolutely. sterile when crossed with other
hybrids. For, if such phenomena as these were
exhibited by only two of those assemblages of
living objects, to which the name of species
(whether it be used in its physiological or in its
morphological sense) is given, it would have to be

-accounted for by any theory of the origin of

' species, and every theory which could not account
for it would be, so far, imperfect.

VOL. II E

50 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES Ir

Up to this point, we have been dealing with
matters of fact, and the statements which we
have laid before the reader would, to the best of
our knowledge, be admitted to contain a fair
exposition of what is at present known respecting
the essential properties of species, by all who
have studied the question. And whatever may
be his theoretical views, no naturalist will prob-
ably be disposed to demur to the following
summary of that exposition :—

Living beings, whether animals or plants, are
divisible into multitudes of distinctly definable
kinds, which are morphological species. They are
also divisible into groups of individuals, which
breed freely together, tending to reproduce their
like, and are physiological species. Normally
resembling their parents, the offspring of members
of these species are still liable to vary; and the
variation may be perpetuated by selection, as a
race, which race, in many cases, presents all the
characteristics of a morphological species. But
it is not as yet proved that a race ever exhibits,
when crossed with another race of the same
species, those phenomena of hybridisation which
are exhibited by many species when crossed with
other species. On the other hand, not only is it
not proved that all species give rise to hybrids
infertile inter se, but there is much reason to
believe that, im crossing, species exhibit every
gradation from perfect sterility to perfect fertility.

it THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 51

Such are the most essential characteristics of
species. Even were man not one of them—a
member of the same system and subject to the
same laws—the question of their origin, their
causal connexion, that is, with the other phzno-
mena of the universe, must have attracted his
attention, as soon as_ his intelligence had raised
itself above the level of his daily wants.

Indeed history relates that such was the case,
and has embalmed for us the speculations upon
the origin of living beings, which were among the
earliest products of the dawning intellectual activity
of man. In those early days positive knowledge
was not to be had, but the craving after it needed,
at all hazards, to be satisfied, and according to the
country, or the turn of thought, of the speculator,
the suggestion that all living things arose from the
mud of the Nile, from a primeval egg, or from some
more anthropomorphic agency, afforded a sufficient
resting-place for his curiosity. The myths of
Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus, and the
man who should revive them, in opposition to the
knowledge of our time, would be justly laughed to
scorn ; but the coeval imaginations current among
the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by
writers whose very name and age are admitted by
every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately
not yet shared their fate, but, even at this day, are
regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as
the authoritative standard of fact and the criterion

E 2

52 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

of the justice of scientific conclusions, in all that
relates to the origin of things, and, among them,
of species. In this nineteenth century, as at the
dawn of modern physical science, the cosmogony
of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of
the philosopher and the opprobrium of the ortho-
dox. Who shall number the patient and earnest
seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until
now, whose lives have been embittered and their
good name blasted by the mistaken zeal of Biblio-
laters? Who shall count the host of weaker men
whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the effort
to harmonise impossibilities—whose life has been
wasted in the attempt to force the generous new
wine of Science into the old bottles of Judaism,com-
pelled by the outcry of the same strong party ?

It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their
cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished
theologians lie about the cradle of every science as
the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules ; and
history records that whenever science and ortho-
doxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been
forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed
if not annihilated ; scotched, if not slain. But
orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought.
It learns not, neither can it forget; and though,
at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as
willing as ever to insist that the first chapter of
Genesis contains the beginning and the end of
sound science; and to visit, with such petty

iat THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 53

thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl,
those who refuse to degrade Nature to the level of
primitive Judaism.

Philosophers, on the other hand, have no such
aggressive tendencies. With eyes fixed on the
noble goal to which “per aspera et ardua” they
tend, they may, now and then, be stirred to
momentary wrath by the unnecessary obstacles
with which the ignorant, or the malicious, encum-
ber, if they cannot bar, the difficult path ; but why
should their souls be deeply vexed? The majesty
of Fact is on their side, and the elemental forces
of Nature are working for them. Not astar comes
to the meridian at its calculated time but testifies
to the justice of their methods—their beliefs are
“one with the falling rain and with the growing
corn.” By doubt they are established, and open
inquiry is their bosom friend. Such men have no
fear of traditions however venerable, and no respect
for them when they become mischievous and
obstructive ; but they have better than mere anti-
quarian business in hand, and if dogmas, which
ought to befossil but are not, are not forced upon
their notice, they are too happy to treat them as
non-existent.

The hypotheses respecting the origin of species
which profess to stand upon a scientific basis, and,
as such, alone demand serious attention, are of two
kinds. The one, the “ special creation ” hypothesis,

54 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

presumes every species to have originated from one
or more stocks, these not being the result of the
modification of any other form of living matter—or
arising by natural agencies—but being produced,
as such, by a supernatural creative act.

The other, the so-called “ transmutation ”
hypothesis, considers that all existing species are
the result of the modification of pre-existing
species, and those of their predecessors, by agencies
similar to those which at the present day produce
varieties and races, and therefore in an altogether
natural way; and it is a probable, though not a
necessary consequence of this hypothesis, that all
living beings have arisen from a single stock.
With respect to the origin of this primitive stock,
or stocks, the doctrine of the origin of species is
obviously not necessarily concerned. The trans-
mutation hypothesis, for example, is perfectly
consistent either with the conception of a special
creation of the primitive germ, or with the
supposition of its having arisen, as a modification
of inorganic matter, by natural causes.

The doctrine of special creation owes its exist-
ence very largely to the supposed necessity of
making science accord with the Hebrew cos-
mogony ; but it is curious to observe that, as the
doctrine is at present maintained by men of
science, it is as hopelessly inconsistent with the
Hebrew view as any other hypothesis.

If there be any result which has come more

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 55

clearly out of geological investigation than another,
it is, that the vast series of extinct animals and
plants is not divisible, as it was once supposed to
be, into distinct groups, separated by sharply-
marked boundaries. There are no great gulfs
between epochs and formations—no_ successive
periods marked by the appearance of plants, of
water animals, and of land animals, en masse.
Every year adds to the list of links between
what the older geologists supposed to be widely
separated epochs: witness the crags linking the
drift with older tertiaries; the Maestricht beds
linking the tertiaries with the chalk; the St.
Cassian beds exhibiting an abundant fauna of
mixed mesozoic and palzeozoic types, in rocks of an
epoch once supposed to be eminently poor in life ;
witness, lastly, the incessant disputes as to whether
a given stratum shall be reckoned devonian or
carboniferous, silurian or devonian, cambrian or
silurian,

This truth is further illustrated in a most
interesting manner by the impartial and highly
competent testimony of M. Pictet, from whose
calculations of what percentage of the genera of
animals, existing in any formation, lived during
the preceding formation, it results that in no case
is the proportion less than one-third, or 33 per
cent. It is the triassic formation, or the com-
mencement of the mesozoic epoch, which has
received the smallest inheritance from preceding

56 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

ages. The other formations not uncommonly
exhibit 60, 80, or even 94 per cent. of genera in
common with those whose remains are imbedded
in their predecessor. Not only is this true, but
the subdivisions of each formation exhibit new
species characteristic of, and found only in, them ;
and, in many cases, as in the lias for example, the
separate beds of these subdivisions are distin-
guished by well-marked and peculiar forms of life.
A section, a hundred feet thick, will exhibit, at
different heights, a dozen species of ammonite,
none of which passes beyond its particular zone
of limestone, or clay, into the zone below it or into
that above it; so that those who adopt the doc-
trine of special creation must be prepared to admit,
that at intervals of time, corresponding with the
thickness of these beds, the Creator thought fit
to interfere with the natural course of events for
the purpose of making a new ammonite. It is
not easy to transplant oneself into the frame of
mind of those who can accept such a conclusion
as this, on any evidence short of absolute demon-
stration; and it is difficult to see what is to be
gained by so doing, since, as we have said, it is
obvious that such a view of the origin of living
beings is utterly opposed to the Hebrew cos-
mogony. Deserving no aid from the powerful
arm of Bibliolatry, then, does the received form of
the hypothesis of special creation derive any
support from science or sound logic? Assuredly

+

a THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 57

not much. The arguments brought forward in its
favour all take one form: If species were not
supernaturally created, we cannot understand the
facts xv, or y, or 2; we cannot understand the
structure of animals or plants, unless we suppose
they were contrived for special ends; we cannot
understand the structure of the eye, except by
supposing it to have been made to see with; we
cannot understand instincts, unless we suppose
animals to have been miraculously endowed with
them.

As a question of dialectics, it must be admitted
that this sort of reasoning is not very formidable
to those who are not to be frightened by conse-
quences. It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam—
take this explanation or be ignorant. But suppose
we prefer to admit our ignorance rather than
adopt a hypothesis at variance with all the teach-
ings of Nature? Or, suppose for a moment we
admit the explanation, and then seriously ask
ourselves how much the wiser are we; what does
the explanation explain? Is it any more than a
grandiloquent way of announcing the fact, that we
really know nothing about the matter? <A
phenomenon is explained when it is shown to be
a case of some general law of Nature; but the
supernatural interposition of the Creator can, by
the nature of the case, exemplify no law, and if
species have really arisen in this way, it is absurd
to attempt to discuss their origin.

58 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

Or, lastly, let us ask ourselves whether any
amount of evidence which the nature of our
faculties permits us to attain, can justify us in
asserting that any phenomenon is out of the reach
of natural causation. ‘To this end it is obviously
necessary that we should know all the con-
sequences to which all possible combinations,
continued through unlimited time, can give rise.
If we knew these, and found none competent to
originate species, we should have good ground for
denying their origin by natural causation, Till
we know them, any hypothesis is better than one
which involves us in such miserable presumption.

But the hypothesis of special creation is not
only a mere specious mask for our ignorance ; its
existence in Biology marks the youth and imper-
fection of the science. For what is the history of
every science but the history of the elimination
of the notion of creative, or other interferences,
with the natural order of the phenomena which
are the subject-matter of that science? When
Astronomy was young “the morning stars sang
together for joy,” and the planets were guided
in their courses by celestial hands. Now, the
harmony of the stars has resolved itself into
gravitation according to the inverse squares of the
distances, and the orbits of the planets are dedu-
cible from the laws of the forces which allow a
schoolboy’s stone to break a window. The light-
ning was the angel of the Lord ; but it has pleased

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 59

Providence, in these modern times, that science
should make it the humble messenger of man, and
we know that every flash that shimmers about
the horizon on a summer’s evening is determined
by ascertainable conditions, and that its direction
and brightness might, if our knowledge of these
were great enough, have been calculated.

The solvency of great mercantile companies
rests on the validity of the laws which have been
ascertained to govern the seeming irregularity of
that human life which the moralist bewails as the
most uncertain of things; plague, pestilence, and
famine are admitted, by all but fools, to be the
natural result of causes for the most part fully
within human control, and not the unavoidable
tortures inflicted by wrathful Omnipotence upon
His helpless handiwork.

Harmonious order governing eternally continu-
ous progress—the web and woof of matter and
force interweaving by slow degrees, without a
broken thread, that veil which lies between us
and the Infinite—that universe which alone we
know or can know; such is the picture which
science draws of the world, and in proportion as
any part of that picture is in unison with the rest,
so may we feel sure that. it is rightly painted.
Shall Biology alone remain out of harmony with
her sister sciences ?

Such arguments against the hypothesis of the
direct creation of species as these are plainly

60 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES rat

enough deducible from general considerations ; but
there are, in addition, phenomena exhibited by
species themselves, and yet not so much a part of
their very essence as to have required earlier
mention, which are in the highest degree per-
plexing, if we adopt the popularly accepted
hypothesis. Such are the facts of distribution in
space and in time; the singular phenomena
brought to light by the study of development ;
the structural relations of species upon which our
systems of classification are founded; the great
doctrines of philosophical anatomy, such as
that of homology, or of the community of
structural plan exhibited by large groups of
species differing very widely in their habits and
functions.

The species of animals which inhabit the sea on
opposite sides of the isthmus of Panama are
wholly distinct ;1 the animals and plants which
inhabit islands are commonly distinct from those
of the neighbouring mainlands, and yet have a
similarity of aspect. The mammals of the latest
tertiary epoch in the Old and New Worlds belong
to the same genera, or family groups, as those
which now inhabit the same great geographical
area. Thecrocodilian reptiles which existed in the
earliest secondary epoch were similar in general
structure to those now living, but exhibit slight

1 Recent investigations tend to show that this statement is
not strictly accurate. —1870.

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 61

differences in their vertebra, nasal passages, and
one or two other points. The guinea-pig has
teeth which are shed before it is born, and hence
can never subserve the masticatory purpose for
which they seem contrived, and, in like manner,
the female dugong has tusks which never cut the
gum. All the members of the same great group
run through similar conditions in their develop-
ment, and all their parts, in the adult state, are
arranged according to the same plan. Man is
more like a gorilla than a gorilla is like a lemur.
Such are a few, taken at random, among the
multitudes of similar facts which modern research
has established ; but when the student seeks for
an explanation of them from the supporters of
the received hypothesis of the origin of species,
the reply he receives is, in substance, of Oriental
simplicity and brevity—‘ Mashallah ! it so pleases
God!” There are different species on opposite
sides of the isthmus of Panama, because they were
created different on the two sides. The pliocene
mammals are like the existing ones, because such
was the plan of creation ; and we find rudimental
organs and similarity of plan, because it has
pleased the Creator to set before Himself a
“divine exemplar or archetype,” and to copy it in
His works ; and somewhat ill, those who hold this
view imply, in some of them. That such verbal
hocus-pocus should be received as science will one
day be regarded as evidence of the low state of

62 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES tr

intelligence in the nineteenth century, just as
we amuse ourselves with the phraseology about
Nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum, wherewith
Torricellis compatriots were satisfied to explain
the rise of water in a pump. And be it recol-.
lected that this sort of satisfaction works not only
negative but positive ill, by discouraging inquiry,
and so depriving man of the usufruct of one of the
most fertile fields of his great patrimony, Nature.
The objections to the doctrine of the origin of
species by special creation which have been
detailed, must have occurred, with more or less
force, to the mind of every one who has seriously
and independently considered the subject. It is
therefore no wonder that, from time to time, this _
hypothesis should have been met by counter
hypotheses, all as well, and some better founded
than itself; and it is curious to remark that the
inventors of the opposing views seem to have been
led into them as much by their knowledge of
geology, as by their acquaintance with biology.
In fact, when the mind has once admitted the
conception of the gradual production of the present
physical state of our globe, by natural causes
operating through long ages of time, it will be
little disposed to allow that living beings have
made their appearance in another way, and the
speculations of De Maillet and his successors are
the natural complement of Scilla’s demonstration
of the true nature of fossils.

Ir THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 63

A contemporary of Newton and of Leibnitz,
sharing therefore in the intellectual activity of the
remarkable age which witnessed the birth of
modern physical science, Benoit de Maillet spent
a long life as a consular agent of the French Goy-
ernment in various Mediterranean ports. For
sixteen years, in fact, he held the office of Consul-
General in Egypt, and the wonderful phenomena
offered by the valley of the Nile appear to have
strongly impressed his mind, to have directed his
attention to all facts of a similar order which came
within his observation, and to have led him to
speculate on the origin of the present condition of
our globe and of its inhabitants. But, with all
his ardour for science, De Maillet seems to have
hesitated to publish views which, notwithstanding
the ingenious attempts to reconcile them with the
Hebrew hypothesis contained in the preface to
“Telliamed,’ were hardly likely to be received
with favour by his contemporaries,

But a short time had elapsed since more than
one of the great anatomists and physicists of the
Italian school had paid dearly for their endeavours
to dissipate some of the prevalent errors; and
their illustrious pupil, Harvey, the founder of
modern physiology, had not fared so well, in a
country less oppressed by the benumbing in-
fluences of theology, as to tempt any man to follow
his example. Probably not uninfluenced by these
considerations, his Catholic majesty’s Consul-

64 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

General for Egypt kept his theories to himself
throughout a long life, for “Telliamed,” the only
scientific work which is known to have proceeded
from his pen, was not printed till 1735, when its
author had reached the ripe age of seventy-nine ;
and though De Maillet lived three years longer,
his book was not given to the world before 1748.
Even then it was anonymous to those who were
not in the secret of the anagrammatic character
of its title; and the preface and dedication are so
worded as, in case of necessity, to give the printer
a fair chance of falling back on the excuse that
the work was intended for a mere jew d’esprit.
The speculations of the suppositious Indian
sage, though quite as sound as those of many a
“ Mosaic Geology,” which sells exceedingly well,
have no great value if we consider them by the
light of modern science. The waters are supposed
to have originally covered the whole globe; to
have deposited the rocky masses which compose
its mountains by processes comparable to those
which are now forming mud, sand, and shingle ;
and then to have gradually lowered their level,
leaving the spoils of their animal and vegetable
inhabitants embedded in the strata. As the dry
land appeared, certain of the aquatic animals are
supposed to have taken to it, and to have become
gradually adapted to terrestrial and aérial modes
of existence. But if we regard the general tenor
and style of the reasoning in relation to the state

I THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 65

of knowledge of the day, two circumstances
appear very well worthy of remark. The first,
that De Maillet had a notion of the modifiability
of living forms (though without any precise
information on the subject), and how such modi-
fiability might account for the origin of species ;
the second, that he very clearly apprehended the
great modern geological doctrine, so strongly
insisted upon by Hutton, and so ably and
comprehensively expounded by Lyell, that we
must look to existing causes for the explanation
of past geological events. Indeed, the following
passage of the preface, in which De Maillet is
supposed to speak of the Indian philosopher
Telliamed, his alter ego, might have been written
by the most philosophical uniformitarian of the
present day :—

**Ce quil y a d’étonnant, est que pour arriver & ces connois-
sances il semble avoir perverti l’ordre naturel, puisqu’au lieu de
sattacher d’abord a rechercher l’origine de notre globe il a
commencé par travailler 4 s’instruire de la nature. Mais a
l’entendre, ce renversement de l’ordre a été pour lui effet d’un
génie favorable qui l’a conduit pas & pas et comme par la main
aux découvertes les plus sublimes. C’est en décomposant la
substance de ce globe par une anatomie exacte de toutes ses
parties qu'il a premiérement appris de quelles matiéres il était
composé et quels arrangemens ces mémes matiéres observaient
entre elles. Ces lumiéres jointes 4 l’esprit de comparaison
toujours nécessaire & quiconque entreprend de percer les voiles
dont la nature aime & se cacher, ont servi de guide & notre
philosophe pour parvenir 4 des connoissances plus intéressantes.
Par la matitre et l’arrangement de ces compositions il prétend

youl. I F

66 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES I

avoir reconnu quelle est la véritable origine de ce globe que nous
habitons, comment et par qui il a été formé.”—Pp. xix, xx.

But De Maillet was before his age, and as could
hardly fail to happen to one who speculated on a
zoological and botanical question before Linnzus,
and on a physiological problem before Haller, he
fell into great errors here and there; and hence,
perhaps, the general neglect of his work. Robinet’s
speculations are rather behind, than in advance
of, those of De Maillet; and though Linnzus
may have played with the hypothesis of trans-
mutation, it obtained no serious support until
Lamarck adopted it, and advocated it with great
ability in his “ Philosophie Zoologique.”

Impelled towards the hypothesis of the
transmutation of species, partly by his general
cosmological and geological views; partly by the
conception of a graduated, though irregularly
branching, scale of being, which had arisen out of
his profound study of plants and of the lower
forms of animal life, Lamarck, whose general line
of thought often closely resembles that of De
Maillet, made a great advance upon the crude
and merely speculative manner in which that writer
deals with the question of the origin of living
beings, by endeavouring to find physical causes
competent to effect that change of one species
into another, which De Maillet had only supposed
to occur. And Lamarck conceived that he had
found in Nature such causes, amply sufficient for

.U THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 67

‘the purpose in view. It is a physiological fact,
\. -he says, that organs are increased in size by
4 action, atrophied by inaction; it is another
physiological fact that modifications produced are

transmissible to offspring. Change the actions of
an animal, therefore, and you will change its

'~ structure, by increasing the development of the

parts newly brought into use and by the diminu-
tion of those less used; but by altering the
circumstances which surround it you will alter its
actions, and hence, in the long run, change of
circumstance must produce change of organisation.
All the species of animals, therefore, are, in
Lamarck’s view, the result of the indirect action
of changes of circumstance, upon those primitive
germs which he considered to have originally
arisen, by spontaneous generation, within the
waters of the globe. It is curious, however, that
Lamarck should insist so strongly! as he has done,
that circumstances never in any degree directly
modify the form or the organisation of animals,
but only operate by changing’ their wants and
consequently their actions; for he thereby brings
upon himself the obvious question, How, then, do
plants, which cannot be said to have wants or
actions, become modified? To this he replies,

that they are modified by the changes in their

nutritive processes, which are effected by changing
circumstances; and it does not seem to have

1 See Phil. Zoologique, vol. i, p. 222, et seq.
F 2

68 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES II

occurred to him that such changes might be as
well supposed to take place among animals,
When we have said that Lamarck felt that
mere speculation was not the way to arrive at the
origin of species, but that it was necessary, in
order to the establishment of any sound theory
on the subject, to discover by observation or
otherwise, some vera causa, competent to give rise
to them; that he affirmed the true order of
classification to coincide with the order of their
development one from another; that he insisted
on the necessity of allowing sufficient time, very
strongly ; and that all the varieties of instinct and
reason were traced back by him to the same
cause as that which has given rise to species, we
have enumerated his chief contributions to the
advance of the question. On the other hand,
from his ignorance of any power in Nature
competent to modify the structure of animals,
except the development of parts, or atrophy of
them, in consequence of a change of needs,
Lamarck was led to attach infinitely greater
weight than it deserves to this agency, and the
absurdities into which he was led have met with
deserved condemnation. Of the struggle for
existence, on which, as we shall see, Mr. Darwin
lays such great stress, he had no conception ;
indeed, he doubts whether there really are such
things as extinct species, unless they be such large
animals as may have met their death at the

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 69

hands of man; and so little does he dream of
there being any other destructive causes at work,
that, in discussing the possible existence of fossil
shells, he asks, “ Pourquoi d’ailleurs seroient-ils
perdues des que lhomme n’a pu opérer leur
destruction ?” (“ Phil. Zool.” vol. i. p. 77.) Of
the influence of selection Lamarck has as little
notion, and he makes no use of the wonderful
phenomena which are exhibited by domesticated
animals, and illustrate its powers. The vast
influence of Cuvier was employed against the
Lamarckian views, and, as the untenability of
some of his conclusions was easily shown, his
doctrines sank under the opprobrium of scientific,
as well as of theological, heterodoxy. Nor have
the efforts made of late years to revive them
tended to re-establish their credit in the minds of
sound thinkers acquainted with the facts of the
case ; indeed it may be doubted whether Lamarck
has not suffered more from his friends than from
his foes,

Two years ago, in fact, though we venture to
question if even the strongest supporters of the
special creation hypothesis had not, now and then,
an uneasy consciousness that all was not right,
their position seemed more impregnable than ever,
if not by its own inherent strength, at any rate by
the obvious failure of all the attempts which had
been made to carry it. On the other hand, how-
ever much the few, who thought deeply on the

70 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES if

question of species, might be repelled by the
generally received dovmas, they saw no way of
escaping from them save by the adoption of
suppositions so little justified by experiment
ot by observation as to be at least equally dis-
tasteful.

The choice lay between two absurdities and a
middle ¢ondition of uneasy scepticism; which
last, however unpleasant and unsatisfactory, was
obviously the only justifiable state of mind
under the circumstances,

Such being the general ferment in the minds of
naturalists, it is no wonder that they mustered
strong in the rooms of the Linnean Society, on
the Ist of July of the year 1858, to hear two
papers by authors living on opposite sides of the
globe, working out their results independently,
and yet professing to have discovered one and the
same solution of all the problems connected with
species. The one of these authors was an able
naturalist, Mr. Wallace, who had been employed
for some years in studying the productions of the
islands of the Indian Archipelago, and who had
forwarded a memoir embodying his views to Mr.
Darwin, for communication to the Linnzean Society.
On perusing the essay, Mr. Darwin was not a little
surprised to find that it embodied some of the
leading ideas of a great work which he had been
preparing for twenty years, and parts of which,
containing a development of the very same views,

tr THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 71

had been perused by his private friends fifteen or
sixteen years before. Perplexed in what manner
to do full justice both to his friend and to himself,
Mr, Darwin placed the matter in the hands of
Dr, Hooker and Sir Charles Lyell, by whose advice
he communicated a brief abstract of his own views
to the Linnewan Society, at the same time that
Mr. Wallace’s paper was read. Of that abstract,
the work on the “ Origin of Species ”’ is an enlarge-
ment; but a complete statement of Mr. Darwin’s
doctrine is looked for in the large and _ well-
illustrated work which he is said to be preparing
for publication,

The Darwinian hypothesis has the merit of
being eminently simple and comprehensible in
principle, and its essential positions may be stated
in a very few words: all species have been pro-
duced by the development of varieties from
common stocks ; by the conversion of these, first
into permanent races and then into new species,
by the process of natwral selection, which process
is essentially identical with that artificial selection
by which man has originated the races of domestic
animals—the struggle for existence taking the
place of man, and exerting, in the case of natural
selection, that selective action which he performs
in artificial selection.

The evidence brought forward by Mr. Darwin in
support of his hypothesis is of three kinds. First,

12 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES Ul

he endeavours to prove that species may be
originated by selection ; secondly, he attempts to
show that natural causes are competent to exert
selection ; and thirdly, he tries to prove that the
most remarkable and apparently anomalous
phenomena exhibited by the distribution,
development, and mutual relations of species,
can be shown to be deducible from the general
doctrine of their origin, which he propounds,
combined with the known facts of geological
change ; and that, even if all these phenomena
are not at present explicable by it, none are
necessarily inconsistent with it.

There cannot be a doubt that the method of
inquiry which Mr, Darwin has adopted is not only
rigorously in accordance with the canons of
scientific logic, but that it is the only adequate
method, Critics exclusively trained in classics or
in mathematics, who have never determined a
scientific fact in their lives by induction from
experiment or observation, prate learnedly about
Mr. Darwin’s method, which is not inductive
enough, not Baconian enough, forsooth, for them.
But even if practical acquaintance with the process
of scientific investigation is denied them, they may
learn, by the perusal of Mr. Mill’s admirable
chapter “On the Deductive Method,” that there
are multitudes of scientific inquiries in which the
method of pure induction helps the investigator
but a very little way.

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 73

‘The mode of investigation,” says Mr. Mill, ‘‘ which, from
the proved inapplicability of direct methods of observation and
experiment, remains to us as the main source of the knowledge
We possess, or can acquire, respecting the conditions and laws of
recurrence of the more complex phenomena, is called, in its
most general expression, the deductive method, and consists of
three operations: the first, one of direct induction ; the second,
of ratiocination ; and the third, of verification.”

Now, the conditions which have determined the
existence of species are not only exceedingly com-
plex, but, so far as the great majority of them are
concerned, are necessarily beyond our cognisance.
But what Mr. Darwin has attempted to do is in
exact accordance with the rule laid down by Mr.
Mill; he has endeavoured to determine certain
great facts inductively, by observation and experi-
ment; he has then reasoned from the data thus
furnished ; and lastly, he has tested the validity of
his ratiocination by comparing his deductions with
the observed facts of Nature, Inductively, Mr.
Darwin endeavours to prove that species arise in
a given way. Deductively, he desires to show
that, if they arise in that way, the facts of distri-
bution, development, classification, &c., may be
accounted for, 7.e. may be deduced from their mode
of origin, combined with admitted changes in
physical geography and climate, during an inde-
finite period, And this explanation, or coinci-
dence of observed with deduced facts, is, so far as
it extends, a verification of the Darwinian view.

There is no fault to be found with Mr Darwin’s

"4 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES it

method, then ; but it is another question whether
he has fulfilled all the conditions imposed by that
method. Is it satisfactorily proved, in fact, that
species may be originated by selection ¢ that there
is such a thing as natural selection? that none
of the phenomena exhibited by species are incon-
sistent with the origin of species in this way? If
these questions can be answered in the affirmative,
Mr. Darwin’s view steps out of the rank of hypo-
theses into those of proved theories; but, so long
as the evidence at present adduced falls short of
enforcing that affirmation, so long, to our minds,
must the new doctrine be content to remain among
the former—an extremely valuable, and in the
highest degree probable, doctrine, indeed the only
extant hypothesis which is worth anything in a
scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis, and
not yet the theory of species.

After much consideration, and with assuredly
no bias against Mr. Darwin’s views, it is our clear
conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not
absolutely proven that a group of animals, having
all the characters exhibited by species in Nature,
has ever been originated by selection, whether
artificial or natural. Groups having the morpho-
logical character of species—distinct and permanent
races in fact—have been so produced overand over
again ; but there is no positive evidence, at present,
that any group of animals has, by variation and
selective breeding, given rise to another group

if THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 75

which was, even in the least degree, infertile with
the first. Mr. Darwin is perfectly aware of this
weak point; and brings forward & multitude of
ingenious and important arguments to diminish
the force of the objection. We admit the value of
these arguments to their fullest extent; nay, we
will go so far as to express our belief that experi-
ments, conducted by askilful physiologist, would very
probably obtain the desired production of mutually
more or less infertile breeds from a common stock,
in a comparatively few years ; but still, as the case
stands at present, this “ little rift within the lute”
is not to be disguised nor overlooked.

In the remainder of Mr. Darwin’s argument our
own private ingenuity has not hitherto enabled us
to pick holes of any great importance ; and judging
by what we hear and read, other adventurers in
the same field do not seem to have been much
more fortunate. It has been urged, for instance,
that in his chapters on the struggle for existence
and on natural selection, Mr. Darwin does not so
much prove that natural selection does occur, as
that it must occur; but, in fact, no other sort of
demonstration is attainable. A race does not
attract our attention in Nature until it has, in all
probability, existed for a considerable time, and
then it is too late to inquire into the conditions of
its origin. Again, it is said that there is no real
analogy between the selection which takes place
under domestication, by human influence, and any

76 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES i

operation which can be effected by Nature, for man
interferes intelligently. Reduced to its elements,
this argument implies that an effect produced with
trouble by an intelligent agent must, @ fortiori, be
more troublesome, if not impossible, to an unin-
telligent agent. Even putting aside the question
whether Nature, acting as she does according to
definite and invariable laws, can be rightly called
an unintelligent agent, such a position as this is
wholly untenable. Mix salt and sand, and it shall
puzzle the wisest of men, with his mere natural
appliances, to separate all the grains of sand from
all the grains of salt; but a shower of rain will
effect the same object in ten minutes. And so,
while man may find it tax all his intelligence to
separate any variety which arises, and to breed
selectively from it, the destructive agencies inces-
santly at work in Nature, if they find one variety
to be more soluble in circumstances than the other,
will inevitably, in the long run, eliminate it.

A frequent anda just objection to the Lamarckian
hypothesis of the transmutation of species is based
upon the absence of transitional forms between
many species, But against the Darwinian hypo-
thesis this argument has no force. Indeed, one of
the most valuable and suggestive parts of Mr.
Darwin’s work is that in which he proves, that
the frequent absence of transitions is a necessary
consequence of his doctrine, and that the stock
whence two or more species have sprung, need in

U THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 77

no respect be intermediate between these species,
If any two species have arisen from a common
stock in the same way as the carrier and the
pouter, say, have arisen from the rock-pigeon,
then the common stock of these two species need
be no more intermediate between the two than
the rock-pigeon is between the carrier and
pouter. Clearly appreciate the force of this
analogy, and all the arguments against the origin
of species by selection, based on the absence of
transitional forms, fall to the ground. And Mr.
Darwin’s position might, we think, have been
even stronger than it is if he had not embarrassed
himself with the aphorism, “ Natwra non facit
saltum,” which turns up so often in his pages,
We believe, as we have said above, that Nature
does make jumps now and then, and a recognition
of the fact is of no small importance in disposing
of many minor objections to the doctrine of trans-
mutation.

But we must pause. The discussion of Mr.
Darwin’s arguments in detail would lead us far
beyond the limits within which we proposed, at
starting, to confine this article. Our object has
been attained if we have given an intelligible,
however brief, account of the established facts
connected with species, and of the relation of the
explanation of those facts offered by Mr. Darwin to
the theoretical views held by his predecessors and
his contemporaries, and, aboye all, to the require-

78 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES I

ments of scientific logic. We have ventured to
point out that it does not, as yet, satisfy all those
requirements ; but we do not hesitate to assert
that it is as superior to any preceding or con-
temporary hypothesis, in the extent of observa-
tional and experimental basis on which it rests, in
its rigorously scientific method, and in its power of
explaining biological phznomena, as was the
hypothesis of Copernicus to the speculations of
Ptolemy. But the planetary orbits turned out to
be not quite circular after all, and, grand as was
the service Copernicus rendered to science, Kepler
and Newton had to come after him. What if the
orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular ?
What if species should offer residual phzenomena,
here and there, not explicable by natural selection ?
Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a
position to say whether this is, or is not, the case ;
but in either event they will owe the author of
“The Origin of Species” an immense debt of
gratitude. We should leave a very wrong im-
pression on the reader’s mind if we permitted him
to suppose that the value of that work depends
wholly on the ultimate justification of the
theoretical views which it contains. On the con-
trary, if they were disproved to-morrow, the book
would still be the best of its kind—the most
compendious statement of well-sifted facts bearing
on the doctrine of species that has ever appeared.
The chapters on Variation, on the Struggle for

II THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 79

Existence, on Instinct, on Hybridism, on the Imper-
fection of the Geological Record, on Geographical
Distribution, have not only no equals, but, so far
as our knowledge goes, no competitors, within the
range of biological literature. And viewed as a
whole, we do not believe that, since the publica-
tion of Von Baer’s “ Researches on Development,”
thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated
to exert so large an influence, not only on the
future of Biology, but in extending the domination
of Science over regions of thought into which she
has, as yet, hardly penetrated.

III

CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES”

[1864]

1. Usper pDIE DARWIN’sCHE SCHOPFUNGSTHEORIE; EIN
VorTRAG, VoN A. KOLLIKER. Leipzig, 1864.

2. EXAMINATION DU LIVRE DE M. DARWIN suUR L’ORIGINE
pES Espkces. Par P. FLourEns. Paris, 1864.

In the course of the present year several foreign
commentaries upon Mr. Darwin’s great work have
made their appearance. Those who have perused
that remarkable chapter of the “Antiquity of
Man,” in which Sir Charles Lyell draws a parallel
between the development of species and that of
languages, will be glad to hear that one of the
most eminent philologers of Germany, Professor
Schleicher, has, independently, published a most
instructive and philosophical pamphlet (an ex-
cellent notice of which is to be found in the

ur CRITICISMS ON “'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 81

Reader, for February 27th of this year) supporting
similar views with all the weight of his special
knowledge and established authority as a linguist.
Professor Haeckel, to whom Schleicher addresses
himself, previously took occasion, in his splendid
monograph on the Radiolaria,! to express his high
appreciation of, and general concordance with, Mr.
Darwin's views.

But the most elaborate criticisms of the “ Origin
of Species” which have appeared are two works of
very widely different merit, the ope by Professor
Kolliker, the well-known anatomist and histolo-
gist of Wiirzburg; the other by M. Flourens,
Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of
Sciences.

Professor Kolliker’s critical essay “ Upon the
Darwinian Theory” is, like all that proceeds from
the pen of that thoughtful and accomplished
writer, worthy of the most careful consideration,
It comprises a brief but clear sketch of Darwin’s
views, followed by an enumeration of the leading
difficulties in the way of their acceptance ; diffi-
culties which would appear to be insurmountable
to Professor Kolliker, inasmuch as he proposes to
replace Mr. Darwin's Theory by one which he
terms the “Theory of Heterogeneous Generation.”
We shall proceed to consider first the destructive,
‘and secondly, the constructive portion of the
essay.

1 Die Radiolarien: cine Monographie, p. 231.

VOL, I G

82 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 7

We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent
very widely from many of Professor Kodlliker’s
remarks; and from none more thoroughly than
from those in which he seeks to define what
we may term the philosophical position of Dar-
winism,

‘** Darwin,” says Professor Kolliker, ‘‘is, in the fullest sense of
the word, a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition,
pp. 199, 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal

has been created for its benefit, and he regards the whole series
of animal forms only from this point of view,”

And again :

**7, The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin
is a mistaken one.

‘* Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or
of utility, according to general laws of Nature, and may be
either useful, or hurtful, or indifferent.

‘<The assumption that an organism exists only on account of
some definite end in view, and represents something more than
the incorporation of a general idea, or law, implies a one-sided
conception of the universe, Assuredly, every organ has, and
every organism fulfils, its end, but its purpose is not the condition
of its existence. Every organism is also sufficiently perfect for
the purpose it serves, and in that, at least, it is useless to seek
for a cause of its improvement.”

It is singular how differently one and the same
book will impress different minds. That which
struck the present writer most forcibly on his first
perusal of the “ Origin of Species” was the con-
viction that Teleology, as commonly understood,
had received its deathblow at Mr. Darwin’s hands,
For the teleological argument runs thus : an organ

ut CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 83

or organism (A) is precisely fitted to perform a
function or purpose (B) ; therefore it was specially
constructed to perform that function. In Paley’s
famous illustration, the adaptation of all the parts
of the watch to the function, or purpose, of showing
the time, is held to be evidence that the watch
was specially contrived to that end; on the ground,
that the only cause we know of, competent to
produce such an effect as a watch which shall keep
time, is a contriving intelligence adapting the
means directly to that end.

Suppose, however, that any one had been able
to show that the watch had not been made directly
by any person, but that it was the result of the
modification of another watch which kept time but
poorly ; and that this again had proceeded from a
structure which could hardly be called a watch
at all—seeing that it had no figures on the dial
and the hands were rudimentary ; and that going
back and back in time we came at last to a re-
volving barrel as the earliest traceable rudiment
of the whole fabric. And imagine that it had
been possible to show that all these changes
had resulted, first, from a tendency of the structure
to vary indefinitely ; and secondly, from something
in the surrounding world which helped all variations
in the direction of an accurate time-keeper, and
checked all those in other directions; then it is
obvious that the force of Paley’s argument would
be gone. For it would be demonstrated that an

G 2

84 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” 41

apparatus thoroughly well adapted to a particular
purpose might be the result of a method of trial
and error worked by unintelligent agents, as well
as of the direct application of the means appro-
priate to that end, by an intelligent agent.

Now it appears to us that what we have here,
for illustration’s sake, supposed to be done with
the watch, is exactly what the establishment of
Darwin’s Theory will do for the organic world.
For the notion that every organism has been
created as it is and launched straight at a purpose,
Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of some-
thing which may fairly be termed a method of
trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of
these variations the few meet with surrounding
conditions which suit them and thrive ; the many
are unsuited and become extinguished.

According to Teleology, each organism is like a
rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to
Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of which one
hits something and the rest fall wide.

For the teleologist an organism exists because
it was made for the conditions in which it is found ;
for the Darwinian an organism exists because, out
of many of its kind, it is the only one which has
been able to persist in the conditions in which it
is found,

Teleology implies that the organs of every
organism are perfect and cannot be improved ; the
Darwinian theory simply affirms that they work

m1 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 85

well enough to enable the organism to hold its
own against such competitors as it has met with,
but admits the possibility of indefinite improve-
ment, But an example may bring into clearer
light the profound opposition between the ordinary
teleological, and the Darwinian, conception.

Cats catch mice, small birds and the like, very
well. Teleology tells us that they do so because
they were expressly constructed for so doing—that
they are perfect mousing apparatuses, so perfect
aud so delicately adjusted that no one of their or-
gans could be altered, without the change involving
the alteration of all the rest. Darwinism affirms
on the contrary, that there was no express con-
struction concerned in the matter; but that among
the multitudinous variations of the Feline stock,
many of which died out from want of power to
resist opposing influences, some, the cats, were
better fitted to catch mice than others, whence
they throve and persisted, in proportion to the
advantage over their fellows thus offered to them.

Far from imagining that cats exist in order to
catch mice well, Darwinism supposes that cats exist
because they catch mice well—mousing being not
the end, but the condition, of their existence. And
if the cat type has long persisted as we know it,
the interpretation of the fact upon Darwinian
principles would be, not that the cats have re-
mained invariable, but that such varieties as have
incessantly occurred have been, on the whole, less

86 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qr

fitted to get on in the world than the existing
stock,

If we apprehend the spirit of the “Origin of
Species” rightly, then, nothing can be more en-
tirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it is
commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory,
So far from being a “ Teleologist in the fullest sense
of the word,’ we should deny that he is a
Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we
should say that, apart from his merits as a na-
turalist, he has rendered a most remarkable service
to philosophical thought by enabling the student
of Nature to recognise, to their fullest extent, those
adaptations to purpose which are so striking in the
organic world, and which Teleology has done good
service in keeping before our minds, without being
false to the fundamental principles of a scientific
conception of the universe. The apparently diverg-
ing teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morpho-
logist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.

But leaving our own impressions of the “ Origin
of Species,” and turning to those passages especially
cited by Professor Kolliker, we cannot admit that
they bear the interpretation he puts upon them.
Darwin, if we read him rightly, does not affirm that
every detail in the structure of an animal has been
created for its benefit. His words are (p. 199) :—

‘*The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the
protest lately made by some naturalists against the utilitarian
doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the

itt CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 87

good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures
have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere
variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my
theory—yet I fully admit that many structures are of no direct
use to their possessor.”

And after sundry illustrations and qualifications,

he concludes (p. 200) :—

*‘Hence every detail of structure in every living creature
(making some little allowance for the direct action of physical
conditions) may be viewed either as having been of special use
to some ancestral form, or as being now of special use to the
descendants of this form—either directly, or indirectly, through
the complex laws of growth.”

But it is one thing to say, Darwinically, that
every detail observed in an animal’s structure is
of use to it, or has been of use to its ancestors ;
and quite another to affirm, teleologically, that
every detail of an animal’s structure has been
created for its benefit. On the former hypothesis,
for example, the teeth of the foetal Balana have a
meaning ; on the latter, none. So far as we are
aware, there is not a phrase in the “Origin of
Species” inconsistent with Professor Kdlliker’s
position, that “ varieties arise irrespectively of the
notion of purpose, or of utility, according to general
laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurt-
ful, or indifferent.”

On the contrary, Mr. Darwin writes (Summary
of Chap. V.) :—

‘Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in

one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason
why this or that part varies more or less from the same part in

88 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” q1

the parents. . . The external conditions of life, as climate and
food, &c., seem to have induced some slight modifications.
Habit, in producing constitutional differences, and use, in
strengthening, and disuse, in weakening and diminishing organs,
seem to have been more potent in their effects.”

And finally, as if to prevent all possible miseon-
ception, Mr. Darwin concludes his Chapter on
Variation with these pregnant words :—

‘* Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference in the
offspring from their parents—and a cause for each must exist—
it is the steady accumulation, through natural selection of such
differences, when beneficial to the individual, that gives rise to
all the more important modifications of structure, by which the

innumerable beings on the face of the earth are enabled to
struggle with each other, and the best adapted to survive.”

We have dwelt at length upon this subject, be-
cause of its great general importance, and because
we believe that Professor Kolliker’s criticisms on
this head are based upon a misapprehension of Mr.
Darwin’s views—substantially they appear to us
to coincide with his own. The other objections
which Professor Kolliker enumerates and discusses
are the following : '—

**1. No transitional forms between existing species are

known ; and known varieties, whether selected or spontaneous,
never go so far as to establish new species.”

To this Professor Kolliker appears to attach
some weight. He makes the suggestion that the
1 Space will not allow us to give Professor Kélliker’s argu-

ments in detail ; our readers will find a full and accurate version
of them inthe /eader for August 13th and 20th, 1864.

mr CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 89

short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological
product.

‘**2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the
organic remains of earlier epochs.”

Upon this, Professor Kélliker remarks that the
absence of transitional forms in the fossil world,
though not necessarily fatal to Darwin’s views,
weakens his case.

**3. The struggle for existence does not take place.”

To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kolliker,
very justly, attaches no weight.

‘*4, A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties,
and a natural selection, do not exist.

‘‘The varieties which are found arise in consequence of
manifold external influences, and it is not obvious why they all,
or partially, should be particularly useful. Each animal suffices
for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further
development. Should, however, a variety be useful and even
maintain itself, there is no obvious reason why it should change
any further. The whole conception of the imperfection of
organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected is
plainly the weakest side of Darwin’s Theory, and a pis aller
(Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle
by which to explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe,
have occurred.”

Here again we must venture to dissent com-
pletely from Professor Kélliker’s conception of Mr.
Darwin’s hypothesis. It appears to us to be one
of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that
it involves no belief in a necessary and continual
progress of organisms.

Again, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright,

90 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” q1

assumes no special tendency of organisms to give
rise to useful varieties, and knows nothing of needs
of development, or necessity of perfection. What
he says is, in substance: All organisms vary. It
is in the highest degree improbable that any given
variety should have exactly the same relations to
surrounding conditions as the parent stock. In
that case it is either better fitted (when the varia-
tion may be called useful), or worse fitted, to cope
with them. If better, it will tend to supplant the
parent stock ; if worse, it will tend to be extin-
guished by the parent stock.

If (as is hardly conceivable) the new variety is
so perfectly adapted to the conditions that no
improvement upon it is possible,—it will persist,
because, though it does not cease to vary, the
varieties will be inferior to itself.

If, as is more probable, the new variety is by no
means perfectly adapted to its conditions, but only
fairly well adapted to them, it will persist, so long
as none of the varieties which it throws off are
better adapted than itself.

On the other hand, as soon as it varies in a
useful way, 7c. when the variation is such as to
adapt it more perfectly to its conditions, the fresh
variety will tend to supplant the former.

So far from a gradual progress towards perfection
forming any necessary part of the Darwinian
creed, it appears to us that it is perfectly consistent
with indefinite persistence in one state, or with

ur CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 91

a gradual retrogression. Suppose, for example, a
return of the glacial epoch and a spread of polar
climatal conditions over the whole globe. The
operation of natural selection under these circum-
stances would tend, on the whole, to the weeding
out of the higher organisms and the cherishing of
the lower forms of life. Cryptogamic vegetation
would have the advantage over Phanerogamic ;
Hydrozoa over Corals; Crustacea over Insecta, and
Amphipoda and Isopoda over the higher Crustacea ;
Cetaceans and Seals over the Primates; the
civilisation of the Esquimaux over that of the
European.

‘**5. Pelzeln has also objected that if the later organisms have
proceeded from the earlier, the whole developmental series, from
the simplest to the highest, could not now exist ; in such a case
the simpler organisms must have disappeared.”

To this Professor Kolliker replies, with perfect
justice, that the conclusion drawn by Pelzeln does
not really follow from Darwin’s premises, and that,
if we take the facts of Paleontology as they
stand, they rather support than oppose Darwin’s
theory.

“*6. Great weight must be attached to the objection brought
forward by Huxley, otherwise a warm supporter of Darwin’s
hypothesis, that we know of no varieties which are sterile with
one another, as is the rule among sharply distinguished animal
forms.

‘If Darwin is right, it must be demonstrated that forms may
be produced by selection, which, like the present sharply dis-
tinguished animal forms, are infertile, when coupled with one
‘another, and this has not been done.”

92 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qr

The weight of this objection is obvious ; but our
ignorance of the conditions of fertility and sterility,
the want of carefully conducted experiments
extending over long series of years, and the
strange anomalies presented by the results of the
cross-fertilisation of many plants, should all, as
Mr. Darwin has urged, be taken into account in
considering it.

The seventh objection is that we have already
discussed (supra p. 82).

The eighth and last stands as follows :—

‘**8. The developmental theory of Darwin is not needed to
enable us to understand the regular harmonious progress of the
complete series of organic forms from the simpler to the more
perfect.

**The existence of general laws of Nature explains this
harmony, even if we assume that all beings have arisen separately
and independent of one another. Darwin forgets that inorganic
nature, in which there can be no thought of genetic connexion
of forms, exhibits the same regular plan, the same harmony, as
the organic world ; and that, to cite only one example, there is
as much a natural system of minerals as of plants and
animals.”

We do not feel quite sure that we seize
Professor Kolliker’s meaning here, but he appears
to suggest that the observation of the general order
and harmony which pervade inorganic nature,
would lead us to anticipate a similar order and
harmony in the organic world, And this is no
doubt true, but it by no means follows that the
particular order and harmony observed among
them should be that which we see. Surely the

ur CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 93

stripes of dun horses, and the teeth of the fcetal
Balena, are not explained by the “existence of
general laws of Nature.” Mr, Darwin endeavours
to explain the exact order of organic nature
which exists; not the mere fact that there is
some order,

And with regard to the existence of a natural
system of minerals; the obvious reply is that
there may be a natural classification of any
objects—of stones on a sea-beach, or of works of
art; a natural classification being simply an
assemblage of objects in groups, so as to express
their most important and fundamental resem-
blances and differences. No doubt Mr. Darwin
believes that those resemblances and differences
upon which our natural systems or classifications
of animals and plants are based, are resemblances
and differences which have been produced gene-
tically, but we can discover no reason for suppos-
ing that he denies the existence of natural classi-
fications of other kinds.

And, after all, is it quite so certain that a
genetic relation may not underlie the classification
of minerals? The inorganic world has not always
been what we see it. It has certainly had its
metamorphoses, and, very probably, a _ long
“Entwickelungsgeschichte” out of a nebular
blastema, Who knows how far that amount of
likeness among sets of minerals, in virtue of which
they are now grouped into families and orders,

94 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qr

may not be the expression of the common condi-
tions to which that particular patch of nebulous
fog, which may have been constituted by their
atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest
sense, the descendants, was subjected ?

It will be obvious from what has preceded, that
we do not agree with Professor Kolliker in think-
ing the objections which he brings forward so
weighty as to be fatal to Darwin’s view. But even
if the case were otherwise, we should be unable to
accept the “Theory of Heterogeneous Generation”
which is offered as a substitute. That theory is
thus stated :—

‘The fundamental conception of this hypothesis is, that,
under the influence of a general law of development, the germs
of organisms produce others different from themselves.
This might happen (1) by the fecundated ova passing, in the
course of their development, under particular circumstances, into
higher forms ; (2) by the primitive and later organisms produc-
ing other organisms without fecundation, out of germs or eggs
(Parthenogenesis).”

In favour of this hypothesis, Professor Kolliker
adduces the well-known facts of Agamogenesis, or
“alternate generation” ; the extreme dissimilarity
of the males and females of many animals; and of
the males, females, and neuters of those insects
which live in colonies: and he defines its relations
to the Darwinian theory as follows :—

**Tt is obvious that my hypothesis is apparently very similar
to Darwin’s, inasmuch as I also consider that the various forms
of animals have proceeded directly from one another. My
hypothesis of the creation of organisms by heterogeneous genera-

ut CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 95

tion, however, is distinguished very essentially from Darwin’s
by the entire absence of the principle of useful variations and
their natural selection : and my fundamental conception is this,
that a great plan of development lies at the foundation of the
origin of the whole organic world, impelling the simpler forms
to more and more complex developments, How this law
operates, what influences determine the development of the
eggs and germs, and impel them to assume constantly new
forms, I naturally cannot pretend to say ; but I can at least
adduce the great analogy of the alternation of generations. If
a Bipinnaria, a Brachiolaria, a Pluteus, is competent to produce
the Echinoderm, which is so widely different from it; if a
hydroid polype can produce the higher Medusa ; if the vermiform
Trematode ‘nurse’ can develop within itself the very unlike
Cercaria, it will not appear impossible that the egg, or ciliated
embryo, of a sponge, for once, under special conditions, might
become a hydroid polype, or the embryo of a Medusa, an
Echinoderm.”

It is obvious, from these extracts, that Pro-
fessor Kolliker’s hypothesis is based upon the
supposed existence of a close analogy between the
phenomena of Agamogenesis and the production
of new species from pre-existing ones. But is the
analogy areal one? We think that it is not, and
by the hypothesis cannot be.

For what are the phenomena of Agamogenesis,
stated generally? An impregnated egg develops
into a sexless form, A ; this gives rise, non-sexually,
to a second form or forms, B, more or less different
from A. Bmay multiply non-sexually again ; in
the simpler cases, however, it does not, but, acquir-
ing sexual characters, produces impregnated eggs
from whence A, once more, arises.

96 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” ut

No case of Agamogenesis is known in which
when A differs widely from B, it is itself capable of
sexual propagation. No case whatever is known
in which the progeny of B, by sexual generation,
is other than a reproduction of A.

But if this be a true statement of the nature of
the process of Agamogenesis, how can it enable us
to comprehend the production of new species from
already existing ones? Let us suppose Hyznas
to have preceded Dogs, and to have produced the
latter in this way. Then the Hyzena will represent
A, and the Dog, B. The first difficulty that pre-
sents itself is that the Hyzena must be non-sexual,
or the process will be wholly without analogy in
the world of Agamogenesis. But passing over this
difficulty, and supposing a male and female Dog to
be produced at the same time from the Hyena
stock, the progeny of the pair, if the analogy of
the simpler kinds of Agamogenesis! is to be fol-
lowed, should be a litter, not of puppies, but of
young Hyznas. For the Agamogenetic series is

1 If, on the contrary, we follow the analogy of the more com-
plex forms of Agamogenesis, such as that exhibited by some
Trematoda and by the Aphides, the Hyena must produce, non-
sexually, a brood of sexless Dogs, from which other sexless
Dogs must proceed. At the end ofa certain number of terms
of the series, the Dogs would acquire sexes and generate young ;
but these young would be, not Dogs, but Hynas In fact, we
have demonstrated, in Agamogenetic phenomena, that inevitable
recurrence to the original type, which is asserted to be true of
variations in general, by Mr. Darwin’s opponents; and which,
if the assertion could be changed into a demonstration, would,
in fact, be fatal to his hypothesis.

wr CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 97

always, as we have seen, A: B: A: B, &.; whereas,
for the production of a new species, the series must
be A: B:B:B, &. The production of new species,
or genera, is the extreme permanent divergence
from the primitive stock. All known Agamo-
genetic processes, on the other hand, end in a com-
plete return to the primitive stock. How then is
the production of new species to be rendered
intelligible by the analogy of Agamogenesis ?

The other alternative put by Professor Kolliker
—the passage of fecundated ova in the course of
their development into higher forms—would, if it
occurred, be merely an extreme case of variation in
the Darwinian sense, greater in degree than, but
perfectly similar in kind to, that which occurred
when the well-known Ancon Ram was developed
from an ordinary Ewe’s ovum. Indeed we have
always thought that Mr. Darwin has unnecessarily
hampered himself by adhering so strictly to his
favourite “ Natura non facit saltum.” We greatly
suspect that she does make considerable jumps in
the way of variation now and then, and that these
saltations give rise to some of the gaps which ap-
pear to exist in the series of known forms,

Strongly and freely as we have ventured to
disagree with Professor Kélliker, we have always
done so with regret, and we trust without violating
that respect which is due, not only to his scientific
eminence and to the careful study which he has

VOL, II H

98 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qr

devoted to the subject, but to the perfect fairness
of his argumentation, and the generous appreciation
of the worth of Mr. Darwin’s labours which he
always displays. It would be satisfactory to be
able to say as much for M. Flourens.

But the Perpetual Secretary of the French
Academy of Sciences deals with Mr. Darwin as the
first Napoleon would have treated an “idéologue ;”
and while displaying a painful weakness of logic
and shallowness of information, assumes a tone of
authority, which always touches upon the ludicrous,
and sometimes passes the limits of good breeding.

For example (p. 56) :—

‘*M. Darwin continue: ‘ Aucune distinction absolue n’a été
et ne peut étre établie entre les espéces et les variétés.’ Je vous
ai déji dit que vous vous trompiez; une distinction absolue
sépare les variétés d’avec les espéces,”’

“ Je vous ai déjd dit ; moi, M, le Secrétaire per-
pétuel de Académie des Sciences: et vous

‘* * Qui n’étes rien,
Pas méme Académicien ;’

what do you mean by asserting the contrary ?”
Being devoid of the blessings of an Academy in
England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest
men treated in this fashion, even by a “ Perpetual
Secretary.”

Or again, considering that if there is any one
quality of Mr. Darwin’s work to which friends and
foes have alike borne witness, it is his candour and

ur CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 99

fairness in admitting and discussing objections,
what is to be thought of M. Flourens’ assertion,
that

‘“M. Darwin ne cite que les auteurs qui partagent ses
opinions.” (P. 40.)

Once more (p. 65) :—

‘¢Enfin l’ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut qu étre
frappé du talent de l’auteur. Mais que d’idées obscures, que
@idées fausses! Quel jargon métaphysique jeté mal 4 propos
dans l’histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le galimatias dés qu'elle
sort des idées claires, desidées justes! Quel langage prétentieux
et vide! Quelles personnifications puériles et surannées! O
lucidité ! O solidité de l’esprit Francais, que devenez-vous ?”

> ¢ > 6

“ Obscure ideas,” “metaphysical jargon,” “ pre-
tcentious and empty language,” ‘‘puerile and
superannuated personifications.” Mr, Darwin has
many and hot opponents on this side of the
Channel and in Germany, but we do not recollect
to have found precisely these sins in the long
catalogue of those hitherto laid to his charge. It
is worth while, therefore, to examine into these
discoveries effected solely by the aid of the
“lucidity and solidity” of the mind of M.
_Flourens,

According to M. Flourens, Mr. Darwin’s great
error is that he has personified Nature (p. 10),
and further that he has
‘*imagined a natural selection: he imagines afterwards that

this power of selecting (pouvoir @ élire) which he gives to Nature
is similar to the power of man. ‘These two suppositions ad-

H 2

100 CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qr

mitted, nothing stops him: he plays with Nature as he likes,
and makes her do all he pleases.” (P. 6.)

And this is the way M. Flourens extinguishes
natural selection : |

‘**Voyons done encore une fois, ce qu'il peut y avoir de fondé
dans ce qu’on nomme élection naturelle.

** Délection naturelle n’est sous un autre nom que la nature,
Pour un étre organisé, la nature n’est que l’organisation, ni plus
ni moins.

‘*Tl faudra donc aussi personnifier /’organisation, et dire que
Porganisation choisit Vorganisation. L’élection natwrelle est
cette furme substanticlle dont on jouait autrefois avec tant de
facilité. Aristote disait que ‘Si l’art de batir était dans le bois,
cet art agirait comme la nature.’ A la place de V’art de bdtir
M. Darwin met V’élection naturelle, et c’est tout un: l'un n’est
pas plus chimérique que l’autre.” (P. 31.)

And this is really all that M. Flourens can make
of Natural Selection. We have given the original,
in fear lest a translation should be regarded as a
travesty ; but with the original before the reader,
we may try to analyse the passage. “For an
organised being, Nature is only organisation,
neither more nor less.”

Organised beings then have absolutely no
relation to inorganic nature: a plant does not,
depend on soil or sunshine, climate, depth in the
ocean, height above it; the quantity of saline
matters in water have no influence upon animal
life ; the substitution of carbonic acid for oxygen
in our atmosphere would hurt nobody! That
these are absurdities no one should know better

ut CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 101

than M. Flourens; but they are logical deductions
from the assertion just quoted, and from the
further statement that natural selection means
only that “organisation chooses and _ selects
organisation.”

For if it be once admitted (what no sane man
denies) that the chances of life of any given
organism are increased by certain conditions (A)
and diminished by their opposites (B), then it is
mathematically certain that any change of con-
ditions in the direction of (A) will exercise a
selective influence in favour of that organism,
tending to its increase and multiplication, while
any change in the direction of (B) will exercise a
selective influence against that organism, tending
to its decrease and extinction.

Or, on the other hand, conditions remaining the
same, let a given organism vary (and no one
doubts that they do vary) in two directions : into
one form (a) better fitted to cope with these con-
ditions than the original stock, and a second ())
less well adapted to them. Then it is no less certain
that the conditions in question must exercise a
selective influence in favour of (a) and against (0),
so that (a) will tend to predominance, and ()) to
extirpation.

That M. Flourens should be unable to perceive
the logical necessity of these simple arguments,
which he at the foundation of all Mr. Darwin’s
reasoning ; that he should confound an irrefragable

102 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” nr

deduction from the observed relations of organisms
to the conditions which lie around them, with a
metaphysical “ forme substantielle,” or a chimerical
personification of the powers of Nature, would be
incredible, were it not that other passages of his
work leave no room for doubt upon the subject.

‘*On imagine une élection naturelle que, pour plus de ménage-
ment, on me dit étre inconsciente, sans s’apercevoir que le contre-
sens littéral est précisément 1a: élection inconsciente.” (P. 52.)

** J’ai déja dit ce qu'il faut penser de 7’élection naturelle. Ou
Vélection naturelle n’est rien, ou c’est la nature: mais la nature
douée d’élection, mais la nature personnifiée : derniére erreur du
dernier sitcle : Le xix® ne fait plus de personnifications,” (P.
53.)

M. Flourens cannot imagine an unconscious
selection—it is for him a contradiction in terms.
Did M. Flourens ever visit one of the prettiest
watering-places of “la belle France,” the Baie
d’Arcachon? If so, he will probably have passed
through the district of the Landes, and will have
had an opportunity of observing the formation of
“dunes” on a grand scale. What are these
“dunes”? The winds and waves of the Bay of
Biscay have not much consciousness, and yet they
have with great care “selected,” from among an
infinity of masses of silex of all shapes and sizes,
which have been submitted to their action, all the
grains of sand below a certain size, and have
heaped them by themselves over a great area,
This sand has been “ unconsciously selected ” from

ur CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 103

amidst the gravel in which it first lay with as
much precision as if man had “consciously
selected” it by the aid of a sieve. Physical
Geology is full of such selections—of the picking
out of the soft from the hard, of the soluble from
the insoluble, of the fusible from the infusible, by
natural agencies to which we are certainly not in
the habit of ascribing consciousness.

But that which wind and sea are to a sandy
beach, the sum of influences, which we term the
“conditions of existence,” is to living organisms,
The weak are sifted out from the strong. A frosty
night “selects” the hardy plants in a plantation
from among the tender ones as effectually as if it
were the wind, and they, the sand and pebbles, of
our illustration; or, on the other hand, as if the
intelligence of a gardener had been operative in
cutting the weaker organisms down. ‘The thistle,
which has spread over the Pampas, to the de-
struction of native plants, has been more effectually
“selected” by the unconscious operation of natural
conditions than if a thousand agriculturists had
spent their time in sowing it.

It is one of Mr. Darwin’s many great services
to Biological science that he has demonstrated the
significance of these facts. He has shown that—
given variation and given change of conditions—
the imevitable result is the exercise of such an
influence upon organisms that one is helped and
another is impeded; one tends to predominate,

104 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” or

another to disappear; and thus the living world
bears within itself, and is surrounded by, impulses
towards incessant change,

But the truths just stated are as certain as any
other physical laws, quite independently of the
truth, or falsehood, of the hypothesis which Mr.
Darwin has based upon them; and that M.
Flourens, missing the substance and grasping at a
shadow, should be blind to the admirable exposi-
tion of them, which Mr. Darwin has given, and see
nothing there but a “derniére erreur du dernier
siccle””»—a personification of Nature—leads us
indeed to ery with him: “O lucidité! O solidité
de l’esprit Francais, que devenez-vous ? ”

M. Flourens has, in fact, utterly failed to com-
prehend the first principles of the doctrine which
he assails so rudely. His objections to details are
of the old sort, so battered and hackneyed on this
side of the Channel, that not even a Quarterly
Reviewer could be induced to pick them up for
the purpose of pelting Mr. Darwin over again.
We have Cuvier and the mummies; M. Roulin
and the domesticated animals of America; the
difficulties presented by hybridism and by Palzon-
tology; Darwinism a rifacciamento of De Maillet
and Lamarck; Darwinism a system without a
commencement, and its author bound to believe in
M. Pouchet, &. &. How one knows it all by
heart, and with what relief one reads at p. 65—

“¢ Je laisse M. Darwin!”

ut CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 105

But we cannot leave M. Flourens without calling
our readers’ attention to his wonderful tenth
chapter, “De la Préexistence des Germes et de
PEpigénése,” which opens thus :—

‘**Spontanéous generation is only a chimera. This point
established, two hypotheses remain: that of pre-existence and
that of epigenesis. The one of these hypotheses has as little
foundation as the other.” (FP. 163.) '

‘* The doctrine of evigencsis is derived from Harvey : follow-
ing by ocular inspection the development of the new being in
the Windsor does, he saw each part appear successively, and
taking the moment of appearance for the moment of formation
he imagined epigenesis.” (P. 165.)

On the contrary, says M. Flourens (p. 167),

‘**The new being is formed at a stroke (tout d'un cowp), asa
whole, instantaneously ; it is not formed part by part, and at
different times. It is formed at once at the single individuat
moment at which the conjunction of the male and female
elements takes place.”

It will be observed that M. Flourens uses
language which cannot be mistaken. For him,
the labours of Von Baer, of Rathke, of Coste, and
their contemporaries and successors in Germany,
France, and England, are non-existent: and, as
Darwin “imagina” natural selection, so Harvey
“qmagina” that doctrine which gives him an even
greater claim to the veneration of posterity than
his better known discovery of the circulation of
the blood.

Language such as that we have quoted is, in
fact, so preposterous, so utterly incompatible with

106 CRITICISMS ON “'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” qt

anything but absolute ignorance of some of the
best established facts, that we should have passed
it over in silence had it not appeared to afford
some clue to M. Flourens’ unhesitating, & priori,
repudiation of all forms of the doctrine of pro-
gressive modification of living beings. He whose
mind remains uninfluenced by an acquaintance
with the phenomena of development, must indeed
lack one of the chief motives towards the
endeavour to trace a genetic relation between
the different existing forms of life. Those who
are ignorant of Geology, find no difficulty in
believing that the world was made as it is; and
the shepherd, untutored in history, sees no reason
to regard the green mounds which indicate the
site of a Roman camp, as aught but part and
parcel of the primeval hill-side. So M. Flourens,
who believes that embryos are formed “ tout d’un
coup,” naturally finds no difficulty in conceiving
that species came into existence in the same
way.

IV
THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS!

[1869]

CONSIDERING that Germany now takes the lead of
the world in scientific investigation, and particu-
larly in biology, Mr. Darwin must be well pleased
at the rapid spread of his views among some of
the ablest and most laborious of German
naturalists,

Among these, Professor Haeckel, of Jena, is the
Coryphzus. I know of no more solid and import-
ant contributions to biology in the past seven
years than Haeckel’s work on the “ Radiolaria,”
and the researches of his distinguished colleague
Gegenbaur, in vertebrate anatomy; while in
Haeckel’s “ Generelle Morphologie” there is all
the force, suggestiveness, and, what I may term

1 The Natural History of Creation. By Dr. Ernst Haeckel.
[Natiirliche Schipfungs-Geschichte.—Von Dr. Ernst Haeckel,
Professor an der Universitat Jena.] Berlin, 1868.

108 THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS Iv

the systematising power, of Oken, without his ex-
travagance. The “Generelle Morphologie” is, in
fact, an attempt to put the Doctrine of Evolution,
so far as it applies to the living world, into a logical
form ; and to work out its practical applications to
their final results. The work before us, again, may
be said to be an exposition of the “Generelle
Morphologie” for an educated public, consisting,
as it does, of the substance of a series of lectures
delivered before a mixed audience at Jena, in the
session 1867-8.

“The Natural History of Creation,’—or, as
Professor Haeckel admits it would have been
better to call his work, “The History of the
Development or Evolution of Nature,’—deals, in
the first six lectures, with the general and _his-
torical aspects of the question and contains a very
interesting and lucid account of the views of Lin-
neus, Cuvier, Agassiz, Goethe, Oken, Kant,
Lamarck, Lyell, and Darwin, and of the historical
filiation of these philosophers.

The next six lectures are occupied by a well-
digested statement of Mr. Darwin’s views. The
thirteenth lecture discusses two topics which are
not touched by Mr. Darwin, namely, the origin of
the present form of the solar system, and that of
living matter. Full justice is done to Kant, as the
originator of that “cosmic gas theory,” as the
Germans somewhat quaintly call it, which is
commonly ascribed to Laplace. With respect to

ke ae a

Iv THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS 109

spontaneous generation, while admitting that there
is no experimental evidence in its favour, Professor
Haeckel denies the possibility of disproving it, and
points out that the assumption that it has occurred
is a necessary part of the doctrine of Evolution.
The fourteenth lecture, on “ Schopfungs-Perioden
und Schépfungs-Urkunden,” answers pretty much
to the famous disquisition on the “Imperfection
of the Geological Record” in the “ Origin of
Species.”

The following five lectures contain the most
original matter of any, being devoted to “ Phylo-
geny,” or the working out of the details of the
process of Evolution in the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, so as to prove the line of descent of
each group of living beings, and to furnish it
with its proper genealogical tree, or “ phylum.”

The last lecture considers objections and sums
up the evidence in favour of biological Evolution.

I shall best testify to my sense of the value of
the work thus briefly analysed if I now proceed to
note down some of the more important criticisms
which have been suggested to me by its perusal.

I. In more than one place, Professor Haeckel
enlarges upon the service which the “Origin of
Species” has done, in favouring what he terms
the “causal or mechanical” view of living nature
as opposed to the “teleological or vitalistic” view.
And no doubt it is quite true that the doctrine of
Evolution is the most formidable opponent of all

110 THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS IV

the commoner and coarser forms of Teleology.
But perhaps the most remarkable service to the
philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is
the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology,
and the explanation of the facts of both which his
views offer.

The Teleology which supposes that the eye,
such as we see it in man or one of the higher Verte-
brata, was made with the precise structure which
it exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal
which possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received
its death-blow. Nevertheless it is necessary to
remember that there is a wider Teleology, which
is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is
actually based upon the fundamental proposition
of Evolution, That proposition is, that the whole
world, living and not living, in the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of
the forces possessed by the molecules of which the
primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed.
If this be true, it is no less certain that the existing
world lay, potentially, in the cosmic vapour ; and
that a sufficient intelligence could, from a know-
ledge of the properties of the molecules of that
vapour, have predicted, say the state of the Fauna
of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one
can say what will happen to the vapour of the
breath in a cold winter’s day.

Consider a kitchen clock, which ticks loudly,

shows the hours, minutes, and seconds, strikes,

i init tat hid) aerial Carat ih: mW ae iy NS

yee

Se ee ee oe ee ee a rT

IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS ili

cries “cuckoo!” and perhaps shows the phases of
the moon. When the clock is wound up, all the
phenomena which it exhibits are potentially con-
tained in its mechanism, and a clever clockmaker
could predict all it will do after an examination of
its structure.

If the evolution theory is correct, the mole-
cular structure of the cosmic gas stands in
the same relation to the phenomena of the
world as the structure of the clock to its pheno-
mena.

Now let us suppose a death-watch, living in the
clock-case, to be a learned and intelligent student
of its works. He might say, “I find here nothing
but matter and force and pure mechanism from
beginning to end,” and he would be quite right.
But if he drew the conclusion that the clock was
not contrived for a purpose, he would be quite
wrong. On the other hand, imagine another
death-watch of a different turn of mind. He,
listening to the monotonous “tick! tick!” so
exactly like his own, might arrive at the conclusion
that the clock was itself a monstrous sort of
death-watch, and that its final cause and purpose
was to tick, How easy to point to the clear
relation of the whole mechanism to the pendulum,
to the fact that the one thing the clock did always
_ and without intermission was to tick, and that all
the rest of its phenomena were intermittent and
subordinate te ticking! For all this, it is certain

bb he THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS IV

that kitchen clocks are not contrived for the
purpose of making a ticking noise.

Thus the teleological theorist would be as wrong
as the mechanical theorist, among our death-
watches ; and, probably, the only death-watch who
would be right would be the one who should
maintain that the sole thing death-watches could
be sure about was the nature of the clock-works
and the way they move; and that the purpose of
the clock lay wholly beyond the purview of beetle
faculties.

Substitute “cosmic vapour” for “clock,” and
“molecules” for “works,” and the application
of the argument is obvious. The teleological
and the mechanical views of nature are not,
necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary,
the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the
more firmly does he assume a primordial mo-
lecular arrangement, of which all the phenomena
of the universe are the consequences; and
the more completely is he thereby at the
mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy
him to disprove that this primordial molecular
arrangement was not intended to _ evolve
the phenomena of the universe. On the other
hand, if the teleologist assert that this, that, or
the other result of the working of any part of the
mechanism of the universe is its purpose and final
cause, the mechanist can always inquire how he
knows that it is more than an unessential incident

ae

Iv THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS 113

—the mere ticking of the clock, which he mistakes
for its function. And there seems to be no reply
to this inquiry, any more than to the further, not
irrational, question, why trouble one’s self about
matters which are out of reach, when the working
of the mechanism itself, which is of infinite
practical importance, affords scope for all our
energies ?

Professor Haeckel has invented a new and con-
venient name “ Dysteleology,” for the study of
the “ purposelessnesses” which are observable in
living organisms—such as the multitudinous cases
of rudimentary and apparently useless structures.
T confess, however, that it has often appeared to
me that the facts of Dysteleology cut two ways.
If we are to assume, as evolutionists in general do,
that useless organs atrophy, such cases as the
existence of lateral rudiments of toes, in the foot
of a horse, place us in a dilemma. For, either
these rudiments are of no use to the animal, in
which case, considering that the horse has existed
in its present form since the Phocene epoch, they
surely ought to have disappeared; or they are of
some use to the animal, in which case they are of
no use as arguments against Teleology. A similar,
but still stronger, argument may be based upon
the existence of teats, and even functional mam-
‘mary glands, in male mammals. Numerous cases
of “ Gynaecomasty,’ or functionally active breasts
in men, are on record, though there is no mam-

VOL, Il I

114 THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS Iv

malian species whatever in which the male nor-
mally suckles the young. ‘Thus, there can be
little doubt that the mammary gland was as
apparently useless in the remotest male mam-
malian ancestor of man as in living men, and yet
it has not disappeared. Is it then still profitable
to the male organism to retain it? Possibly ; but
in that case its dysteleological value is gone.}

II. Professor Haeckel looks upon the causes
which have led to the present diversity of living
nature as twofold. Living matter, he tells us, is
urged by two impulses: a centripetal, which tends
to preserve and transmit the specific form, and
which he identifies with heredity; and a centri-
fugal, which results from the tendency of external
conditions to modify the organism and effect its
adaptation to themselves. ‘The internal impulse
is conservative, and tends to the preservation of
specific, or individual, form ; the external impulse
is metamorphic, and tends to the modification of
specific, or individual, form.

In developing his views upon this subject,
Professor Haeckel introduces qualifications which
disarm some of the criticisms I should have been
disposed to offer; but I think that his method of
stating the case has the inconvenience of tending
to leave out of sight the important fact—which is
a cardinal point in the Darwinian hypothesis—

1 [The recent discovery of the important part played by the
Thyroid gland should be a warning to all speculators about
useless organs. 1893.]

Seay ate

Iv THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS 115

that the tendency to vary, in a given organism, may
have nothing to do with the external conditions to
which that individual organism is exposed, but
may depend wholly upon internal conditions. No
one, I imagine, would dream of seeking for the
cause of the development of the sixth finger and
toe in the famous Maltese, in the direct influence
of the external conditions of his life,

I conceive that both hereditary transmission
and adaptation need to be analysed into their
constituent conditions by the further application
of the doctrine of the Struggle for Existence. It
is a probable hypothesis, that what the world is to
organisms in general, each organism is to the
inolecules of which it is con piled: Muititudes of
these, having diverse tendencies, are competing
with one another for opportunity to exist and
multiply ; and the organism, as a whole, is as
much the product of the molecules which are
victorious as the Fauna, or Flora, of a country is
the product of the victorious organic beings in it.

On this hypothesis, hereditary transmission is
the result of the victory of particular molecules
contained in the impregnated germ. Adaptation
to conditions is the result of the favouring of the
multiplication of those molecules whose organising
_tendencies are most in harmony with such
conditions. In this view of the matter, conditions
are not actively productive, but are passively
permissive ; they do not cause variation in any

12

116 THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS IV

given direction, but they permit and favour a
tendency in that direction which already exists,

It is true that,in the long run, the origin of
the organic molecules themselves, and of their
tendencies, is to be sought in the external world ;
but if we carry our inquiries as far back as this,
the distinction between internal and external
impulses vanishes. On the other hand, if we
confine ourselves to the consideration of a single
organism, I think it must be admitted that the
existence of an internal metamorphic tendency
must be as distinctly recognised as that of an
internal conservative tendency; and that the
influence of conditions is mainly, if not wholly,
the result of the extent to which they favour the
one, or the other, of these tendencies.

III. There is only one point upon which I
fundamentally and entirely disagree with Professor
Haeckel, but that is the very important one of
his conception of geological time, and of the
meaning of the stratified rocks as records and
indications of that time. Conceiving that the
stratified rocks of an epoch indicate a period of
depression, and that the intervals between the
epochs correspond with periods of elevation of
which we have no record, he intercalates between
the different epochs, or periods, intervals which he
terms “Ante-periods.” Thus, instead of con-
sidering the Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and
Kocene periods, as continuously successive, he

a -

:
;
3
’
*
¥

IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS 117

interposes a period before each, as an “ Antetrias
zeit,” “ Antejura-zeit,” “Antecreta-zeit,’ “ Anteo-
cenzeit,” &c. And he conceives that the abrupt
changes between the Faune of the different forma-
tions are due to the lapse of time, of which we have
no organic record, during their “ Ante-periods.”

The frequent occurrence of strata containing
assemblages of organic forms which are inter-
mediate between those of adjacent formations, is,
to my mind, fatal to this view. In the well-
known St. Cassian beds, for example, Paleozoic
and Mesozoic forms are commingled, and, between
the Cretaceous and the Eocene formations, there
are similar transitional beds. On the other hand,
in the middle of the Silurian series, extensive
unconformity of the strata indicates the lapse of
vast intervals of time between the deposit of
successive beds, without any corresponding change
in the Fauna.

Professor Haeckel will, I fear, think me unreason-
able, if I say that he seems to be still overshadowed
by geological superstitions ; and that he will have
to believe in the completeness of the geological
record far less than he does at present. He assumes,
for example, that there was no dry land, nor any
terrestrial life, before the end of the Silurian epoch,
simply because, up to the present time, no indica-
' tions of fresh water, or terrestrial organisms, have
been found in rocks of older date. And, in
speculating upon the origin of a given group, he

118 THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS Iv

rarely goes further back than the “ Ante-period,”
which precedes that in which the remains of
animals belonging to that group are found. Thus,
as fossil remains of the majority of the groups of
Reptilia are first found in the Trias, they are
assumed to have originated in the “Antetriassic”
period, or between the Permian and _ Triassic
epochs.

I confess this is wholly incredible to me. The
Permian and the Triassic deposits pass completely
into one another ; there is no sort of discontinuity
answering to an unrecorded “ Antetrias”; and,
what is more, we have evidence of immensely
extensive dry land during the formation of these
deposits. We know that the dry land of the Trias
absolutely teemed with reptiles of all groups
except Pterodactyles, Snakes, and perhaps Tor-
toises ; there is every probability that true Birds
existed, and Mammalia certainly did. Of the in-
habitants of the Permian dry land, on the contrary,
all that have left a record are a few lizards. Is it
conceivable that these last should really represent
the whole terrestrial population of that time, and
that the development of Mammals, of Birds, and
of the highest forms of Reptiles, should have been
crowded into the time during which the Permian
conditions quietly passed away, and the Triassic
conditions began? Does not any such supposition
become in the highest degree improbable, when,
in the terrestrial or fresh-water Labyrinthodonts,

a my

IV THE GENEALOGY OF ANIMALS 119

which lived on the land of the Carboniferous epoch,
as well as on that of the Trias, we have evidence
that one form of terrestrial life persisted, through-
out all these ages, with no important modification ?
For my part, having regard to the small amount
of modification (except in the way of extinction)
which the Crocodilian, Lacertilian, and Chelonian
Reptilia have undergone, from the older Mesozoic
times to the present day, I cannot but put the
existence of the common stock from which they
sprang far back in the Palaeozoic epoch; and I
should apply a similar argumentation to all other
groups of animals.

[The remainder of this essay contains a discussion of questions
of taxonomy and phylogeny, which is now antiquated. I have
reprinted the considerations about the reconciliation of Teleology
with Morphology, about ‘‘ Dysteleology,” and about the struggle
for existence within the organism, because it has happened to
me to be charged with overlooking them.

In discussing Teleology, I ought to have pointed out, as I
have done elsewhere (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. ii.
p. 202), that Paley ‘‘ proleptically accepted the modern doctrine
of Evolution,” (Natural Theology, chap. xxiii.). 1893.]

i
MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS?
[1871]

THE gradual lapse of time has now separated us by
more than a decade from the date of the publi-
cation of the ‘ Origin of Species ”— and whatever
may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin’s doc-
trines, or the manner in which he has propounded
them, this much is certain, that, in a dozen years,
the “Origin of Species” has worked as complete a
revolution in biological science as the “ Principia ”
did in astronomy—and it has done so, because, in
the words of Helmholtz, it contains “ an essentially
new creative thought.” 2

And as time has slipped by, a happy change

1 1. Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. By
A. R. Wallace. 1870.—2. The Genesis of Species. By St. George

Mivart, F.R.S. Second Edition. 1871.—3. Darwin’s Descent

of Man. Quarterly Review, July 1871.

2 Helmholtz: Ueber das Ziel und die Fortschritie der Natur-
wissenschaft. Kroffnungsrede fiir die Naturforscherversamm-
lung zu Innsbruck. 1869. ~

—— ee ee ee

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 121

has come over Mr. Darwin’s critics. The mixture
of ignorance and insolence which, at first, character-
ised a large proportion of the attacks with which
he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of
anti-Darwinian criticism. Instead of abusive non-
sense, which merely discredited its writers, we read
essays, which are, at worst, more or less intelligent
and appreciative; while, sometimes, like that
which appeared in the “ North British Review ” for
1867, they have a real and permanent value.

The several publications of Mr. Wallace and Mr.
Mivart contain discussions of some of Mr. Darwin’s
views, which are worthy of particular attention, not
only on account of the acknowledged scientific
competence of these writers, but because they ex-
hibit an attention to those philosophical questions
which underlie all physical science, which is as rare
as it is needful. And the same may be said of an
article in the “ Quarterly Review” for July 1871,
the comparison of which with an article in the
same Review for July 1860, is perhaps the best
evidence which can be brought forward of the
change which has taken place in public opinion
on “ Darwinism.”

The Quarterly Reviewer admits “the certainty
of the action of natural selection” (p. 49); and
further allows that there is an d@ priori probability
in favour of the evolution of man from some lower
animal form, if these lower animal forms them-
selves have arisen by evolution.

122 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart go much further
than this, They are as stout believers in evolution
as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace denies
that man can have been evolved from a lower
animal by that process of natural selection which
he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to have been sufficient
for the evolution of all animals below man; while
Mr. Mivart, admitting that natural selection has
been one of the conditions of the evolution of the
animals below man, maintains that natural se-
lection must, even in their case, have been supple-
mented by “some other cause””—of the nature of
which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea.
Thus Mr. Mivart is less of a Darwinian than Mr.
Wallace, for he has less faith in the power of
natural selection. But he is more of an evolutionist
than Mr. Wallace, because Mr. Wallace thinks it
necessary to call in an intelligent agent—a sort of
supernatural Sir John Sebright—to produce even
the animal frame of man; while Mr. Mivart re-
quires no Divine assistance till he comes to man’s
soul.

Thus there is a considerable divergence between
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart. On the other hand,
there are some curious similarities between Mr.
Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer, and these
are sometimes so close, that, if Mr. Mivart thought
it worth while, I think he might make out a
good case of plagiarism against the Reviewer, who
studiously abstains from quoting him.

ee hme ee

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 123

Both the Reviewer and Mr. Mivart reproach Mr.
Darwin with being, “like so many other physic-
ists,’ entangled in a radically false metaphysical
system, and with setting at nought the first
principles of both philosophy and religion. Both
enlarge upon the necessity of a sound philo-
sophical basis, and both, I venture to add, make a
conspicuous exhibition of its absence. The
Quarterly Reviewer believes that man “ differs
more from an elephant or a gorilla than do these
from the dust of the earth on which they tread,”
and Mr. Mivart has expressed the opinion that
there is more difference between man and an ape
than there is between an ape and a_ piece of
granite.

And even when Mr. Mivart (p. 86) trips ina
matter of anatomy, and creates a difficulty for Mr.
Darwin out of a supposed close similarity between
the eyes of fishes and cephalopods, which (as
Gegenbaur and others have clearly shown) does
not exist, the Quarterly Reviewer adopts the
argument without hesitation (p. 66).

There is another important point, however, in
which it is hard to say whether Mr, Mivart
diverges from the Quarterly Reviewer or not.

The Reviewer declares that Mr. Darwin has,
“with needless opposition, set at nought the first
‘principles of both philosophy and religion” (p.
90).

1 See the Tablet for March 11, 1871.

124 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

It looks, at first, as if this meant, that Mr.
Darwin’s views being false, the opposition to
“religion” which flows from them must be need-
less. But I suspect this is not the right view of
the meaning of the passage, as Mr. Mivart, from
whom the Quarterly Reviewer plainly draws so
much inspiration, tells us that “the consequences
which have been drawn from evolution, whether
exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice of
religion, by no means follow. from it, and are in
fact illegitimate ” (p. 5).

I may assume, then, that the Quarterly
Reviewer and Mr. Mivart admit that there is no
necessary opposition between “ evolution whether
exclusively Darwinian or not,” and religion. But
then, what do they mean by this last much-
abused term? On this point the Quarterly
Reviewer is silent. Mr. Mivart, on the contrary,
is perfectly explicit, and the whole tenor of his
remarks leaves no doubt that by “religion” he
means theology ; and by theology, that particular
variety of the great Proteus, which is expounded
by the doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, and
held by the members of that religious community
to be the sole form of absolute truth and of saving
faith.

_ According to Mr. Mivart, the greatest and most
orthodox authorities upon matters of Catholic
doctrine agree in distinctly asserting “ derivative
creation” or evolution ; “and thus their teachings

vy MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 125

harmonise with all that modern science can
possibly require ” (p. 305).

I confess that this bold assertion interested me
more than anything else in Mr. Mivart’s book.
What little knowledge I possessed of Catholic
doctrine, and of the influence exerted by Catholic
authority in former times, had not led me to
expect that modern science was likely to find
a warm welcome within the pale of the greatest
and most consistent of theological organisations.

And my astonishment reached its climax when
I found Mr, Mivart citing Father Suarez as his
chief witness in favour of the scientific freedom
enjoyed by Catholics—the popular repute of that
learned theologian and subtle casuist not being such
as to make his works a likely place of refuge for
liberality of thought. But in these days, when
Judas Iscariot and Robespierre, Henry VIII.
and Catiline, have all been shown to be men of
admirable virtue, far in advance of their age, and
consequently the victims of vulgar prejudice, it
was obviously possible that Jesuit Suarez might
be in like case. And, spurred by Mr. Mivart’s
unhesitating declaration, I hastened to acquaint
myself with such of the works of the great Catholic
divine as bore upon the question, hoping, not
merely to acquaint myself with the true teachings
-of the infallible Church, and free myself of an
unjust prejudice ; but, haply, to enable myself, at
a pinch, to put some Protestant bibliolater to

126 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS y

shame, by the bright example of Catholic freedom
from the trammels of verbal inspiration,

I regret to say that my anticipations have been
cruelly disappointed. But the extent to which
my hopes have been crushed can only be fully
appreciated by citing, in the first place, those
passages of Mr. Mivart’s work by which they were
excited. In his introductory chapter I find the
following passages :—

“The prevalence of this theory [of evolution]
need alarm no one, for it is, without any doubt,
perfectly consistent with the strictest and most
orthodox Christian! theology ” (p. 5).

“Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be
excused if they have not devoted much time to
the study of Christian philosophy ; but they have
no right to assume or accept without careful ex-
amination, as an unquestioned fact, that in that
philosophy there is a necessary antagonism
between the two ideas ‘ creation ’ and ‘ evolution,’
as applied to organic forms.

“Tt is notorious and patent to all who choose to
seek, that many distinguished Christian thinkers
have accepted, and do accept, both ideas, 7.e. both
‘creation’ and ‘ evolution.’

“As much as ten years ago an eminently
Christian writer observed : ‘ The creationist theory
does not necessitate the perpetual search after

1 It should be observed that Mr. Mivart employs the term
Christian” as if it were the equivalent of ‘‘ Catholic.”

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 127

manifestations of miraculous power and perpetual
“catastrophes.” Creation is not a miraculous
interference with the laws of Nature, but the very
institution of those laws. Law and regularity,
not arbitrary intervention, was the patristic ideal
of creation. With this notion they admitted,
without difficulty, the most surprising origin of
living creatures, provided it took place by law.
They held that when God said, “ Let the waters
produce,” “ Let the earth produce,’ He conferred
forces on the elements of earth and water which
enabled them naturally to produce the various
species of organic beings. This power, they
thought, remains attached to the elements
throughout all time.’ The same writer quotes
St. Augustin and St. Thomas Aquinas, to the
effect that, ‘in the institution of Nature, we do not
look for miracles, but for the laws of Nature.’
And, again, St. Basil speaks of the continued
operation of natural laws in the production of all
organisms,

“So much for the writers of early and medizval
times. As to the present day, the author can
confidently affirm that there are many as well
versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own
department of natural knowledge, who would not
be disturbed by the thorough demonstration of his
theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least
painfully affected at witnessing the generation of
animals of complex organisation by the skilful

128 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

artificial arrangement of natural forces, and the
production, in the future, of a fish by means
analogous to those by which we now produce
urea. |

“And this because they know that the possi-
bility of such phenomena, though by no means
actually foreseen, has yet been fully provided for
in the old philosophy centuries before Darwin, or
even centuries before Bacon, and that their place in
the system can be at once assigned them without
even disturbing its order or marring its harmony.

“ Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has
never been abandoned, however much it may have
been ignored or neglected by some modern writers.
In proof of this, it may be observed that perhaps
no post-medizval theologian has a wider reception
amongst Christians throughout the world than
Suarez, who has a separate section ! in opposition
to those who maintain the distinct creation of the
various kinds—or substantial forms—of organic
life” (pp. 19--21).

Still more distinctly does Mr. Mivart express
himself in the same sense, in his last chapter,
entitled “ Theology and Evolution” (pp. 302-5).

“Tt appears, then, that Christian thinkers are
perfectly free to accept the general evolution
theory. But are there any theological authorities
to justify this view of the matter ?

1 Suarez, Metaphysica. Edition Vivés. Paris, 1868, vol. i.
Disput. xv. § 2.

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 129

“Now, considering how extremely recent are
these biological speculations, it might hardly be
expected @ priori that writers of earlier ages
should have given expression to doctrines
harmonising in any degree with such very
modern views; nevertheless, this is certainly
the case, and it would be easy to give numerous
examples. It will be better, however, to cite one
or two authorities of weight. Perhaps no writer
of the earlier Christian ages could be quoted whose
authority is more generally recognised than that
of St. Augustin. The same may be said of the
medieval period for St. Thomas Aquinas: and
since the movement of Luther, Suarez may
be taken as an authority, widely venerated,
and one whose orthodoxy has never been ques-
tioned.

“Tt must be borne in mind that for a consider-
able time even after the last of these writers no
one had disputed the generally received belief as
to the small age of the world, or at least of the
kinds of animals and plants inhabiting it. It
becomes, therefore, much more striking if views
formed under such a condition of opinion are
found to harmonise with modern ideas con-
cerning ‘Creation’ and organic Life.

“ Now St. Augustin insists ina very remarkable
-manner on the merely derivative sense in which
God’s creation of organic forms is to be under-
stood ; that is, that God created them by conferring

VOL, I K

130 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

on the material world the power to evolve them
under suitable conditions.”

Mr. Mivart then cites certain passages from St.
Augustin, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Cornelius &
Lapide, and finally adds :—

‘** As to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv. sec. 2,
No. 9, p. 508, t. i. edition Vivés, Paris ; also Nos. 13—15.
Many other references to the same effect could easily be given,
but these may suffice.

‘*Tt is then evident that ancient and most venerable theo-
logical authorities distinctly assert derivative creation, and
thus their teachings harmonise with all that modern science
can possibly require.”

It will be observed that Mr. Mivart refers solely
to Suarez’s fifteenth Disputation, though he adds,
“Many other references to the same effect could
easily be given.” I shall look anxiously for these
references in the third edition of the “ Genesis of
Species.” For the present, all I can say is, that
I have sought in vain, either in the fifteenth
Disputation, or elsewhere, for any passage in
Suarez’s writings which, in the slightest degree,
bears out Mr. Mivart’s views as to his opinions.!

The title of this fifteenth Disputation is “De
causa formali substantiali,” and the second section
of that Disputation (to which Mr. Mivart refers)
is headed, “Quomodo possit forma substantialis
fieri in materia et ex materia?”

1 The edition of Suarez’s Disputationes from which the follow-

ing citations are given, is Birekmann’s, in two volumes folio,
and is dated 1630.

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 131

The problem which Suarez discusses in this
place may be popularly stated thus: According to
the scholastic philosophy every natural body has
two components—the one its “ matter” (materia
prima), the other its “substantial form ” (forma
substantialis). Of these the matter is everywhere
the same, the matter of one body being indis-
tinguishable from the matter of any other body.
That which differentiates any one natural body
from all others is its substantial form, which
inheres in the matter of that body, as the human
soul inheres in the matter of the frame of man,
and is the source of all the activities and other
properties of the body.

Thus, says Suarez, if water is heated, and the
source of heat is then removed, it cools again.
The reason of this is that there is a certain “ inti-
mius principium” in the water, which brings it
back to the cool condition when the external
impediment to the existence of that condition is
removed. This intimius principiwm is the “ sub-
stantial form ” of the water. And the substantial
form of the water is not only the cause (radix) of
the coolness of the water, but also of its moisture,
of its density, and of all its other properties.

It will thus be seen that “substantial forms ”
play nearly the same part in the scholastic
philosophy as “ forces” do in modern science ; the
general tendency of modern thought being to
conceive all bodies as resolvable into material

K 2

132 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

particles and forces, in virtue of which last these
particles assume those dispositions and exercise
those powers which are characteristic of each
particular kind of matter.

But the Schoolmen distinguished two kinds of
substantial forms, the one spiritual and the other
material. ‘The former division is represented by
the human soul, the anima rationalis; and they
affirm as a matter, not merely of reason, but of
faith, that every human soul is created out of
nothing, and by this act of creation is endowed
with the power of existing for all eternity, apart
from the materia prima of which the corporeal
frame of man is composed, And the anima
rationalis, once united with the materia prima of
the body, becomes its substantial form, and is the
source of all the powers and faculties of man—of
all the vital and sensitive phenomena which he
exhibits—just as the substantial form of water is
the source of all its qualities.

The “material substantial forms” are those
which inform all other natural bodies except that
of man; and the object of Suarez in the present
Disputation, is to show that the axiom “ ex nihilo
nihil fit,” though not true of the substantial form
of man, is true of the substantial forms of all
other bodies, the endless mutations of which
constitute the ordinary course of nature. The
origin of the difficulty which he discusses is easily
comprehensible. Suppose a piece of bright iron

Vy MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 1338

to be exposed to the air. The existence of the
iron depends on the presence within it of a sub-
stantial form, which is the cause of its properties,
e.g. brightness, hardness, weight. But, by degrees,
the iron becomes converted into a mass of rust,
which is dull, and soft, and light, and, in all other
respects, is quite different from the iron. As, in
the scholastic view, this difference is due to the
rust being informed by a new substantial form,
the grave problem arises, how did this new sub-
stantial form come into being? Has it been
created ? or has it arisen by the power of natural
causation? If the former hypothesis is correct,
then the axiom, “ex nihilo nihil fit,” is false, even
in relation to the ordinary course of nature, seeing
that such mutations of matter as imply the
continual origin of new substantial forms are
occurring every moment. But the harmonisation
of Aristotle with theology was as dear to the
Schoolmen, as the smoothing down the differences
between Moses and science is to our Broad Church-
men, and they were proportionably unwilling to
contradict one of Aristotle’s fundamental proposi-
tions. Nor was their objection to flying in the face
of the Stagirite likely to be lessened by the fact
that such flight landed them in flat Pantheism.

So Father Suarez fights stoutly for the second
hypothesis ; and I quote the principal part of his
argumentation as an exquisite specimen of that
speech which is a “darkening of counsel.”

184 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

“13. Secundo de omnibus aliis formis substantialibus [se.
materialibus] dicendum est non fieri proprie ex nihilo, sed ex
potentia prejacentis materie educi : ideoque in effectione harum
formarum nil fieri contra illud axioma, Hx nihilo nihil fit, si
recte intelligatur. Hc assertio sumitur ex Aristotelel, Phy-
sicorum per totum et libro 7, Metaphyss. et ex aliis auctoribus,
quos statim referam. Et declaratur breviter, nam fieri ex
nihilo duo dicit, unum est fieri absolute et simpliciter, aliud est
quod talis effectio fit ex nihilo. Primum proprié dicitur de re
subsistente, quia ejus est fieri, cujus est esse: id autem proprie
quod subsistit et habet esse ; nam quod alteri adjacet, potius est
quo aliud est. Ex hac ergo parte, forme substantiales mate-
riales non fiunt ex nihilo, quia proprie non fiunt. Atque hanc
rationem reddit Divus Thomas 1 parte, questione 45, articulo
8, et questione 90, articulo 2, et ex dicendis magis explicabitur,
Sumendo ergo ipsum fier? in hac proprietate et rigore, sic fieri
ex nihilo est fieri secundum se totum, id est nulla sui parte
presupposita, ex quo fiat. Et hac ratione res naturales dum de
novo fiunt, non fiunt ex nihilo, quia fiunt ex presupposita
materia, ex qua componuntur, et ita non fiunt, secundum se
tote, sed secundum aliquid sui. Forme autem harum rerum,
quamvis revera totam suam entitatem de novo accipiant, quam
antea non habebant, quia vero ipse non fiunt, ut dictum est,
ideo neque ex nihilo fiunt. Attamen, quia latiori modo sumendo
verbum illud fiert negari non potest: quin forma facta sit, eo
modo quo nune est, et antea non erat, ut etiam probat ratio
dubitandi posita in principio sectionis, ideo addendum est,
sumpto jieri in hac amplitudine, fieri ex nihilo non tamen
negare habitudinem materialis cause intrinsecé componentis id
quod fit, sed etiam habitudinem cause materialis per se causantis
et sustentantis formam que fit, seu confit. Diximus enim in
superioribus materiam et esse causam compositi et forme
dependentis ab illa: ut res ergo dicatur ex nihilo fieri uterque
modus causalitatis negari debet ; et eodem sensu accipiendum
est illud axioma, ut sit verum: Ez nihilo nihil fit, scilicet
virtute agentis naturalis et finiti nihil fieri, nisi ex presupposito
subjecto per se concurrente, et ad compositum et ad formam, si
utrumque suo modo ab eodem agente fiat. Ex his ergo recté

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 135

concluditur, formas substantiales materiales non fieri ex nihilo,
quia fiunt ex materia, que in suo genere per se concurrit, et
influit ad esse, et fieri talium formarum ; quia, sicut esse non
possunt nisi affixe materiz, a qua sustententur in esse : ita nec
fieri possunt, nisi earum effectio et penetratio in eadem materia
sustentetur. Et hec est propria et per se differentia inter
effectionem ex nihilo, et ex aliquo, propter quam, ut infra
ostendemus, prior modus efficiendi superat vim finitam natu-
raliam agentium, non vero posterior.

**14. Ex his etiam constat, proprie de his formis dici non
ereari, sed educi de potentia materiz.” !

If I may venture to interpret these hard say-
ings, Suarez conceives that the evolution of
substantial forms in the ordinary course of nature,
is conditioned not only by the existence of the
materia prima, but also by a certain “ concurrence
and influence” which that materia exerts; and
every new substantial form being thus conditioned,
and in part, at any rate, caused, by a pre-existing
something, cannot be said to be created out of
nothing.

But as the whole tenor of the context shows,
Suarez applies this argumentation merely to the
evolution of material substantial forms in the
ordinary course of nature. How the substantial
forms of animals and plants primarily originated,
is a question to which, so far as I am able to
discover, he does not so much as allude in his
“ Metaphysical Disputations.” Nor was there any
necessity that he should do so, inasmuch as he

1 Suarez, loc. cit. Disput. xv. § ii.

136 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS v

has devoted a separate treatise of considerable
bulk to the discussion of all the problems which
arise out of the account of the Creation which is
given in the Book of Genesis. And it is a
matter of wonderment to me that Mr. Mivart,
who somewhat sharply reproves “ Mr. Darwin and
others” for not acquainting themselves with the
true teachings of his Church, should allow
himself to be indebted to a heretic like myself
for a knowledge of the existence of that “ Trac-
tatus de opere sex Dierum,”? in which the learned
Father, of whom he justly speaks, as “an
authority widely venerated, and whose orthodoxy
has never been questioned,” directly opposes all
those opinions for which Mr, Mivart claims the
shelter of his authority.

In the tenth and eleventh chapters of the first
book of this treatise, Suarez inquires in what sense
the word “day,” as employed in the first chapter
of Genesis, is to be taken. He discusses the
views of Philo and of Augustin on this question,
and rejects them. He suggests that the approval
of their allegorising interpretations by St. Thomas
Aquinas, merely arose out of St. Thomas’s
modesty, and his desire not to seem openly to
controvert St. Augustin—“ voluisse Divus Thomas

1 Tractatus de opere sex Dierwm, scw de Universi Creatione,
quatenus scx diebus perfecta esse, in libro Genesis cap. i. refertur,
ct presertim de productione hominis in statu innocentia. Ed,
Birckmann, 1622,

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 137

pro sua modestia subterfugere vim argumenti
potius quam aperte Augustinum inconstantie
arguere.”

Finally, Suarez decides that the writer of
Genesis meant that the term “day” should be
taken in its natural sense ; and he winds up the
discussion with the very just and natural remark
that “it is not probable that God, in inspiring
Moses to write a history of the Creation which
was to be believed by ordinary people, would
have made him use language, the true meaning of
which it is hard to discover, and still harder to
believe.” ! p

And in chapter xii. 3, Suarez further ob-
serves :—

‘‘Ratio enim retinendi veram significationem diei naturalis
est illa communis, quod verba Scripture non sunt ad metaphoras
transferenda, nisi vel necessitas cogit, vel ex ipsa scriptura
constet, et maximé in historica narratione et ad instructionem
fidei pertinente : sed hee ratio non minus cogit ad intelligendum
proprié dierum numerum, quam diei qualitatem, QUIA NON
MINUS UNO MODO QUAM ALIO DESTRUITUR SINCERITAS, IMO ET
VERITAS HISTORIA. Secundo hoc valde confirmant alia Scripture
loca, in quibus hi sex dies tanquam veri, et inter se distincti
commemorantur, ut Exod. 20 dicitur, Sex diebus operabis et
facies omnia opera tua, septimo autem die Sabbatum Domini Det

1 «*Propter hee ergo sententia illa Augustini et propter nimiam
obscuritatem et subtilitatem ejus difficilis creditu est: quia
verisimile non est Deum inspirasse Moysi, ut historiam de
creatione mundi ad fidem totius populi adeo necessariam per
nomina dierum explicaret, quorum significatio vix inveniri et
difficillime ab aliquo credi posset.” (Loe. cit. Lib. I. cap, xi.
42.)

188 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

tut est. Et infra: Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus celum et
terram et mare et omnia que in eis sunt, et idem repetitur in
cap. 31. In quibus locis sermonis proprietas colligi potest tum
ex equiparatione, nam cum dicitur: scx diebus operabis, pro-
priissimé intelligitur: tum quia non est verisimile, potuisse
populum intelligere verba illa in alio sensu, et é contrario in-
credibile est, Deum in suis preceptis tradendis illis verbis ad
populum fuisse loquutum, quibus deciperetur, falsum sensum
concipiendo, si Deus non per sex veros dies opera sua fecisset.”

These passages leave no doubt that this great
doctor of the Catholic Church, of unchallenged
authority and unspotted orthodoxy, not only
declares it to be Catholic doctrine that the work
of creation took place in the space of six natural
days ; but that he warmly repudiates, as inconsist-
ent with our knowledge of the Divine attributes,
the supposition that the language which Catholic
faith requires the believer to hold that God
inspired, was used in any other sense than that
which He knew it would convey to the minds of
those to whom it was addressed.

And I think that in this repudiation Father
Suarez will have the sympathy of every man of
common uprightness, to whom it is certainly
“incredible” that the Almighty should have acted
in a manner which He would esteem dishonest
and base in a man.

But the belief that the universe was created in
six natural days is hopelessly inconsistent with
the doctrine of evolution, in so far as it applies to
the stars and planetary bodies; and it can be

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 189

made to agree with a belief in the evolution of
living beings only by the supposition that the
plants and animals, which are said to have been
created on the third, fifth, and sixth days, were
merely the primordial forms, or rudiments, out of
which existing plants and animals have been
evolved; so that, on these days, plants and
animals were not created actually, but only
potentially.

The latter view is that held by Mr. Mivart, who
follows St. Augustin, and implies that he has the
sanction of Suarez. But, in point of fact, the
latter great light of orthodoxy takes no small
pains to give the most explicit and direct contra-
diction to all such imaginations, as the following
passages prove. In the first ‘place, as regards
plants, Suarez discusses the problem :—

**Quomodo herba virens et cetera vegetabilia hoc [tertio| die
Suerint producta,*

‘* Preecipua enim difficultas hic est, quam attingit Div. Thomas
1, par. qu. 69, art. 2, an hee productio plantarum hoc die facta
intelligenda sit de productione ipsarum in proprio esse actuali et
formali (ut sic rem explicerem) vel de productione tantum in
semine et in potentia. Nam Divus Augustinus libro quinto Genes,
ad liter. cap. 4 et 5 et libro 8, cap. 3, posteriorem partem tradit,
dicens, terram in hoc die accepisse virtutem germinandi omnia
vegetabilia quasi concepto omnium illorum semine, non tamen
statim vegetabilia omnia produxisse. Quod primo suadet verbis
illis capitis secundi. Jn die quo fecit Deus celum et terram et

_

1 Loe, cit. Lib. II. cap. vii. et viii. 1, 32, 35.

140 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS y

omne virgultum agri priusquam germinaret. Quomodo enim
potuerunt virgulta fieri antequam terra germinaret nisi quia
causaliter prius et quasi in radice, seu in semine facta sunt, et
postea in actu producta? Secundo confirmari potest, quia
verbum illud germinet terra optimé exponitur potestativé ut sic
dicam, id est accipiat terra vim germinandi. Sicut in eodem
capite dicitur crescite et multiplicamini. Tertio potest confirmari,
quia actualis productio vegetabilium non tam ad opus creationis,
quam ad opus propagationis pertinet, quod postea factum est.
Et hance sententiam sequitur Eucherius lib. 1, in Gen. cap. 11, et
illi faveat Glossa, interlii Hugo. et Lyran. dum verbum
germinet dicto modo exponunt. NIHILOMINUS CONTRARIA
SENTENTIA TENENDA EST: SCILICET, PRODUXISSE DEUM HOC
DIE HERBAM, ARBORES, ET ALIA VEGETABILIA ACTU IN PROPRIA
SPECIE ET NATURA. Hee est communis sententia Patrum.—
Basil. homil. 5; Exemer. Ambros, lib. 3 ; Exemer. cap. 8,
11, et 16 ; Chrysost. homil. 5 in Gen. Damascene. lib. 2 de Fid.
cap. 10 ; Theodor. Cyrilli. Bede, Gloss ordinarie et aliorum in
Gen. Et idem sentit Divus Thomas, supra, solvens argumenta
Augustini, quamvis propter reverentiam ejus quasi problematicé
semper procedat. Denique idem sentiunt omnes qui in his
operibus veram successionem et temporalem distinctionem
agnoscant.”

Secondly, with respect to animals, Suarez is no
less decided :—

** De animalium ratione carentium productione quinto et sexto
die facta.+
**32. Primo ergo nobis certum sit hee animantia non in
virtute tantum aut in semine, sed actu, et in seipsis, facta fuisse
his diebus in quibus facta narrantur. Quanquam Augustinus
lib. 3, Gen. ad liter. cap. 5 in sua persistens sententia contrarium
sentire videatur.”

But Suarez proceeds to refute Augustin’s

1 Loe. cit. Lib. II. cap. vii. et viii. 1, 32, 35.

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 141

opinions at great length, and his final judgment
may be gathered from the following passage :—

‘¢35. Tertio dicendum est, hec animalia omnia his diebus
producta esse, IN PERFECTO STATU, IN SINGULIS INDIVIDUIS, SEU
SPECIEBUS SUIS, JUXTA UNIUSCUJUSQUE NATURAM....
ITAQUE FUERUNT OMNIA CREATA INTEGRA ET OMNIBUS SUIS
MEMBRIS PERFECTA.”

As regards the creation of animals and plants,
therefore, it is clear that Suarez, so far from
“distinctly asserting derivative creating,” denies
it as distinctly and positively as he can; that
he is at much pains to refute St. Augustin’s
opinions; that he does not hesitate to regard
the faint acquiescence of St. Thomas Aquinas in
the views of his brother saint as a kindly subter-
fuge on the part of Divus Thomas; and that he
affirms his own view to be that which is supported
by the authority of the Fathers of the Church.
So that, when Mr. Mivart tells us that Catholic
theology is in harmony with all that modern
science can possibly require ; that “to the general
theory of evolution, and to the special Darwinian
form of it, no exception ... need be taken on
the ground of orthodoxy;” and that “law and
regularity, not arbitrary intervention, was the
Patristic ideal of creation,’ we have to choose
between his dictum, as a theologian, and that
of a great light of his Church, whom he him-
self declares to be “widely venerated as an

142 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

authority, and whose orthodoxy has never been
questioned.”

But Mr. Mivart does not hesitate to push his
attempt to harmonise science with Catholic
orthodoxy to its utmost limit; and, while
assuming that the soul of man “arises from
immediate and direct creation,” he supposes that
his body was “formed at first (as now in each
separate individual) by derivative, or secondary
creation, through natural laws ” (p. 331).

This means, I presume, that an animal, having
the corporeal form and bodily powers of man, may
have been developed out of some lower form of
life by a process of evolution; and that, after this
anthropoid animal had existed for a longer or
shorter time, God made a soul by direct creation,
and put it into the manlike body, which, hereto-
fore, had been devoid of that anima rationalis,
which is supposed to be man’s distinctive
character.

This hypothesis is incapable of either proof or
disproof, and therefore may be true; but if
Suarez is any authority, it is not Catholic
doctrine. “ Nulla est in homine forma educta de
potentia materiz,” ? is a dictum which is absolutely
inconsistent with the doctrine of the natural
evolution of any vital manifestation of the human
body.

Moreover, if man existed as an animal before

! Disput. xv. § x. No. 27.

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 1438

he was provided with a rational soul, he must, in
accordance with the elementary requirements of
the philosophy in which Mr. Mivart delights, have
possessed a distinct sensitive and vegetative soul,
or souls. Hence, when the “ breath of life” was
breathed into the manlike animal’s nostrils, he
must have already been a living and feeling
creature. But Suarez particularly discusses this
point, and not only rejects Mr. Mivart’s view, but
adopts language of very theological strength
regarding it.

‘*Possent preeterea his adjungi argumenta theologica, ut est
illud quod sumitur ex illis verbis Genes. 2. Formuavit Deus
hominem ex limo terre et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum
vite et factus est homo in animam viventem : ille enim spiritus,
quam Deus spiravit, anima rationalis fuit, et PER EADEM FACTUS
EST HOMO VIVENS, ET CONSQUENTER, ETIAM SENTIENS.

‘¢ Aliud est ex VIII. Synodo Generali que est Constantinopol-
itana IV. can. 11, qui sic habet. Apparet quosdam in tantum
impictatis venisse ut homines duas animas habere dogmatizent :
talis igitur impietatis inventores et similes sapientes, cum Vetus
et Novum Testamentum omnesque Ecclesia patres unam animam
rationalem hominem habere asseverent, Sancta et universalis
Synodus anathematizat.” }

Moreover, if the animal nature of man was the
result of evolution, so must that of woman have
been.” But the Catholic doctrine, according to
Suarez, is that woman was, in the strictest and
most literal sense of the words, made out of the
rib of man.

1 Disput. xv. ‘‘ De causa formali substantiali,” § x. No. 24.

144 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

‘* Nihilominus sententia Catholica est, verba illa Scripture
esse ad literam intelligenda. Ac PROINDE VERE, AC REALITER,
TULISSE DEUM CosTAM ADAM, ET, EX ILLA, CORPUS Ev”
FORMASSE,”’ }

Nor is there any escape in the supposition that
some woman existed before Eve, after the fashion
of the Lilith of the rabbis; since Suarez qualifies
that notion, along with some other Judaic
imaginations, as simply “ damnabilis.” ?

After the perusal of the “'Tractatus de Opere”
it is, in fact, impossible to admit that Suarez held
any opinion respecting the origin of species, except
such as is consistent with the strictest and most
literal interpretation of the words of Genesis.
For Suarez, it is Catholic doctrine, that the world
was made in six natural days. On the first of
these days the materia prima was made out of
nothing, to receive afterwards those “substantial
forms” which moulded it into the universe of
things; on the third day, the ancestors of all
living plants suddenly came into being, full-grown,
perfect, and possessed of all the properties which
now distinguish them; while, on the fifth and
sixth days, the ancestors of all existing animals
were similarly caused to exist in their complete
and perfect state, by the infusion of their appro-
priate material substantial forms into the matter

1 Tractatus de Opere, Lib. III. ‘‘ De hominis creatione,” cap.
ii. No. 3.
2 Ibid. Lib. III. cap. iv. Nos. 8 and 9

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 145

which had already been created. Finally, on the
sixth day, the anima rationalis—that rational and
immortal substantial form which is peculiar to
man—was created out of nothing, and “ breathed
into” a mass of matter which, till then, was mere
dust of the earth, and so man arose. But the
species man was represented by a solitary male
individual, until the Creator took out one of his
ribs and fashioned it into a female,

This is the view of the “Genesis of Species”
held by Suarez to be the only one consistent with
Catholic faith: it is because he holds this view to
be Catholic that he does not hesitate to declare
St. Augustin unsound, and St. Thomas Aquinas
guilty of weakness, when the one swerved from
this view and the other tolerated the deviation.
And, until responsible Catholic authority—say,
for example, the Archbishop of Westminster—
formally declares that Suarez was wrong, and
that Catholic priests are free to teach their flocks
that the world was not made in six natural days,
and that plants and animals were nof created in
their perfect and complete state, but have been
evolved by natural processes through long ages
from certain germs in which they were potentially
contained, I, for one, shall feel bound to believe
that the doctrines of Suarez are the only ones
which are sanctioned by Infallible Authority, as
represented by the Holy Father and the Catholic
Church.

VOL. I I,

146 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS v

I need hardly add that they are as absolutely
denied and repudiated by Scientific Authority, as
represented by Reason and Fact. The question
whether the earth and the immediate progenitors
of its present living population were made in six
natural days or not is no longer one upon which
two opinions can be held.

The fact that it did not so come into being
stands upon as sound a basis as any fact of
history whatever. It is not true that existing
plants and animals came into being within three
days of the creation of the earth out of nothing, for
itis certain that innumerable generations of other
plants and animals lived upon the earth before
its present population. And when, Sunday after
Sunday, men who profess to be our instructors in
righteousness read out the statement, “In six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is,” in innumerable churches,
they are either propagating what they may easily
know, and, therefore, are bound to know, to be
falsities ; or, if they use the words in some non-
natural sense, they fall below the moral standard of
the much-abused Jesuit.

Thus far the contradiction between Catholic
verity and Scientific verity is complete and
absolute, quite independently of the truth or false-
hood of the doctrine of evolution. But, for those
who hold the doctrine of evolution, all the Catholic
verities about the creation of living beings must

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 147

be no less false. For them, the assertion that the
progenitors of all existing plants were made on the
third day, of animals on the fifth and sixth days,
in the forms they now present, is simply false.
Nor can they admit that man was made suddenly
out of the dust of the earth ; while it would be an
insult to ask an evolutionist whether he credits the
preposterous fable respecting the fabrication of
woman to which Suarez pins his faith. If Suarez
has rightly stated Catholic doctrine, then is
evolution utter heresy. And such I believe it to
be. In addition to the truth of the doctrine of
evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in
my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of
complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that
vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intel-
lectual, moral, and social life of mankind—the
Catholic Church. No doubt, Mr. Mivart, like
other putters of new wine into old bottles, is
actuated by motives which are worthy of respect,
and even of sympathy; but his attempt has met
with the fate which the Scripture prophesies for
all such.

Catholic theology, like all theologies which are
based upon the assumption of the truth of the
account of the origin of things given in the Book
of Genesis, being utterly irreconcilable with the
doctrine of evolution, the student of science, who is
satisfied that the evidence upon which the doctrine
of evolution rests, is incomparably stronger and

L 2

148 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

better than that upon which the supposed author-
ity of the Book of Genesis rests, will not trouble
himself further with these theologies, but will
confine his attention to such arguments against
the view he holds as are based upon purely
scientific data—and by scientific data I do not
merely mean the truths of physical, mathematical,
or logical science, but those of moral and meta-
physical science. For by science I understand
all knowledge which rests upon evidence and
reasoning of a like character to that which claims
our assent to ordinary scientific propositions, And
if any one is able to make good the assertion that
his theology rests upon valid evidence and sound
reasoning, then it appears to me that such theology
will take its place as a part of science.

The present antagonism between theology and
science does not arise from any assumption by the
men of science that all theology must necessarily
be excluded from science, but simply because
they are unable to allow that reason and morality
have two weights and two measures ; and that the
belief in a proposition, because authority tells you
it is true, or because you wish to believe it, which
is a high crime and misdemeanour when the sub-
ject matter of reasoning is of one kind, becomes
under the alias of “faith” the greatest of all
virtues when the subject matter of reasoning is of
another kind.

The Bishop of Brechin said well the other

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 149

day :—“ Liberality in religion—I do not mean
tender and generous allowances for the mis-
takes of others—is only unfaithfulness to truth.” *
And, with the same qualification, I venture
to paraphrase the Bishop’s dictum: “ Kecle-
siasticism in science is only unfaithfulness to
truth.”

Elijah’s great question, “ Will you serve God or
Baal? Choose ye,” is uttered audibly enough in
the ears of every one of us as we come to man-
hood. Let every man who tries to answer it
seriously ask himself whether he can be satisfied
with the Baal of authority, and with all the good
things his worshippers are promised in this world
and the next. If he can, let him, if he be so
inclined, amuse himself with such scientific imple-
ments as authority tells him are safe and will not
cut his fingers; but let him not imagine he is, or
can be, both a true son of the Church and a loyal
soldier of science.

And, on the other hand, if the blind acceptance
of authority appears to him in its true colours, as
mere private judgment in excelsis, and if he have
the courage to stand alone, face to face with the
abyss of the eternal and unknowable, let him be
content, once for all, not only to renounce the good
things promised by “Infallibility,” but even to
bear the bad things which it prophesies ; content

1 Charge at the Diocesan Synod of Brechin. Scotsman, Sept.
14, 1871.

150 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS v

to follow reason and fact in singleness and honesty
of purpose, wherever they may lead, in the sure
faith that a hell of honest men will, to him, be
more endurable than a paradise full of angelic
shams.

Mr. Mivart asserts that “ without a belief in a
personal God there is no religion worthy of the
name.” This is a matter of opinion. But it may
be asserted, with less reason to fear contradiction,
that the worship of a personal God, who, on Mr.
Mivart’s hypothesis, must have used language
studiously calculated to deceive His creatures and
worshippers, is “no religion worthy of the name.”
“Tneredible est, Deum illis verbis ad populum
fuisse locutum quibus deciperetur,” is a verdict in
which, for once, Jesuit casuistry concurs with the
healthy moral sense of all mankind.

Having happily got quit of the theological
aspect of evolution, the supporter of that great
truth who turns to the scientific objections which
are brought against it by recent criticism, finds, to
his relief, that the work before him is greatly
lightened by the spontaneous retreat of the enemy
from nine-tenths of the territory which he occu-
pied ten years ago. Even the Quarterly Reviewer
not only abstains from venturing to deny that
evolution has taken place, but he openly admits
that Mr. Darwin has forced on men’s minds “a
recognition of the probability, if not more, of

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 151

evolution, and of the certainty of the action of
natural selection” (p. 49).

I do not quite see, myself, how, if the action of
natural selection is certain, the occurrence of evolu-
tion is only probable; masmuch as the development
of a new species by natural selection is, so far as
it goes, evolution. However, it is not worth while
to quarrel with the precise terms of a sentence
which shows that the high water mark of intelli-
gence among those most respectable of Britons, the
readers of the Quarterly Review, has now reached
such a level that the next tide may lift them
easily and pleasantly on the once-dreaded shore of
evolution. Nor, having got there, do they seem
likely to stop, until they have reached the inmost
heart of that great region, and accepted the ape
ancestry of, at any rate, the body of man. For
the Reviewer admits that Mr. Darwin can be said
to have established :

“‘That if the various kinds of lower animals have been
evolved one from the other by a process of natural generation
or evolution, then it becomes highly probable, @ priori, that
man’s body has been similarly evolved; but this, in such a
case, becomes equally probable from the admitted fact that he is
an animal at all” (p. 65).

From the principles laid down in the last sen-
tence it would follow that if man were constructed
upon a plan as different from that of any other
animal as that of a sea-urchin is from that of a
whale, it would be “equally probable” that he

152 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

had been developed from some other animal as it
is now, when we know that for every bone, muscle,
tooth, and even pattern of tooth, in man, there isa
corresponding bone, muscle, tooth, and pattern of
tooth, in an ape. And this shows one of two things
—either that the Quarterly Reviewer’s notions of
probability are peculiar to himself, or that he has
such an overpowering faith in the truth of evolution
that no extent of structural break between one
animal and another is sufficient to destroy his con-
viction that evolution has taken place.

But this by the way. The importance of the
admission that there is nothing in man’s physical
structure to interfere with his having been evolved
from an ape is not lessened because it is grudg-
ingly made and inconsistently qualified. And in-
stead of jubilating over the extent of the enemy’s
retreat, it will be more worth while to lay siege to
his last stronghold—the position that there is a
distinction in kind between the mental faculties
of man and those of brutes, and that in consequence
of this distinction in kind no gradual progress
from the mental faculties of the one to those of the
other can have taken place.

The Quarterly Reviewer entrenches himself
within formidable-looking psychological outworks,
and there is no getting at him without attacking
them one by one.

He begins by laying down the following pro-
position. “‘ Sensation’ is not ‘thought,’ and no

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 153

amount of the former would constitute the most
rudimentary condition of the latter, though sen-
sations supply the conditions for the existence of
‘thought’ or ‘ knowledge’ ” (p. 67).

This proposition is true, or not, according to the
sense in which the word “thought” is employed.
Thought is not uncommonly used in a sense co-
extensive with consciousness, and, especially, with
those states of consciousness we callmemory. If I
recall the impression made by a colour or an odour,
and distinctly remember blueness or muskiness, I
may say with perfect propriety that I “think of”
blue or musk; and, so long as the thought lasts,
it is simply a faint reproduction of the state of
consciousness to which I gave the name in question,
when it first became known to me as a sensation.

Now, if that faint reproduction of a sensation,
which we call the memory of it, is properly termed
a thought, it seems to me to be a somewhat forced
proceeding to draw a hard and fast line of demar-
cation between thoughts and sensations. If sen-
sations are not rudimentary thoughts, it may be
said that some thoughts are rudimentary sensations.
No amount of sound constitutes an echo, but for
all that no one would pretend that an echo is some-
thing of totally different nature from a sound.
Again, nothing can be looser, or more inaccurate,
than the assertion that “sensations supply the
conditions for the existence of thought or know-
ledge.” If this implies that sensations supply the

154 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

conditions for the existence of our memory of sen-
sations or of our thoughts about sensations, it is a
truism which it is hardly worth while to state so
solemnly. If it implies that sensations supply any-
thing else, it is obviously erroneous. And if it
means, as the context would seem to show it does,
that sensations are the subject-matter of all thought
or knowledge, then it is no less contrary to fact,
inasmuch as our emotions, which constitute a large
part of the subject-matter of thought or of know-
ledge, are not sensations.

More eccentric still is the Quarterly Reviewer's
next piece of psychology.

** Altogether, we may clearly distinguish at least six kinds of
action to which the nervous system ministers :—

‘J. That in which impressions received result in appropriate
movements without the intervention of sensation or thought, as
in the cases of injury above given.—This is the reflex action of
the nervous system.

‘TI. That in which stimuli from without result in sensations
through the agency of which their due effects are wrought out.
—Sensation.

**TIJ. That in which impressions received result in sensations
which give rise to the observation of sensible objects.—Sensible
perception.

‘‘TV. That in which sensations and perceptions continue to
coalesce, agglutinate, and combine in more or less complex
aggregations, according to the laws of the association of sensible
perceptions. —A ssociation.

‘The above four groups contain only indeliberate operations,
consisting, as they do at the best, but of mere presentative
sensible ideas in no way implying any reflective or representative
faculty. Such actions minister to and form Jnstinct. Besides these,
we may distinguish two other kinds of mental action, namely :—

v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 155

‘*V,. That in which sensations and sensible perceptions are
reflected on by thought, and recognised as our own, and we
ourselves recognised by ourselves as affected and perceiving.—
Self-consciousness.

‘*VI, That in which we reflect upon our sensations or
perceptions, and ask what they are, and why they are. —Reason.

**These two latter kinds of action are deliberate operations,
performed, as they are, by means of representative ideas imply-
ing the use of a reflective representative faculty. Such actions
distinguish the intellect or rational faculty. Now, we assert
that possession in perfection of all the first four ( presentative)
kinds of action by no means implies the possession of the last
two (representative) kinds. All persons, we think, must admit
the truth of the following proposition :—

**Two faculties are distinct, not in degree but in kind, if we
may possess the one in perfection without that fact implying
that we possess the other also. Still more will this be the case
if the two faculties tend to increase in an inverse ratio. Yet
this is the distinction between the instinctive and the intellectual
parts of man’s nature.

‘* As to animals, we fully admit that they may possess all the
first four groups of actions—that they may have, so to speak,
mental images of sensible objects combined in all degrees of
complexity, as governed by the laws of association. We deny
to them, on the other hand, the possession of the last two kinds
of mental action. We deny them, that is, the power of reflecting
on their own existences, or of inquiring into the nature of objects
and their causes. We deny that they know that they know or
know themselves in knowing. In other words, we deny them
reason. The possession of the presentative faculty, as above
explained, in no way implies that of the reflective faculty ; nor
does any amount of direct operation imply the power of asking
the reflective question before mentioned, as to ‘what’ and
‘why.’” (Loe, cit. pp. 67, 68.)

Sundry points are worthy of notice in this
remarkable account of the intellectual powers. In
the first place the Reviewer ignores emotion and

156 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS y

volition, though they are no inconsiderable “ kinds
of action to which the nervous system ministers,”
and memory has a place in his classification only
by implication. Secondly, we are told that the
second “kind of action to which the nervous
system ministers ” is “that in which stimuli from
without result in sensations through the agency
of which their due effects are wrought out.—
Sensation.” Does this really mean that, in the
writer's opinion, “sensation” is the “agent” by
which the “due effect” of the stimulus, which
gives rise to sensation, is “wrought out”?
Suppose somebody runs a pin into me. The
“due effect” of that particular stimulus will
probably be threefold; namely, a sensation of
pain, a start, and an interjectional expletive.
Does the Quarterly Reviewer really think that
the “sensation” is the “agent” by which the
other two phenomena are wrought out ?

But these matters are of little moment to
anyone but the Reviewer and those persons who
may incautiously take their physiology, or psycho-
logy, from him. The really interesting point is
this, that when he fully admits that animals
“may possess all the first four groups of actions,”
he grants all that is necessary for the purposes of
the evolutionist. For he hereby admits that in
animals “ impressions received result in sensations
which give rise to the observation of sensible
objects,’ and that they have what he calls

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 157

“sensible perception.’ Nor was it possible to
help the admission ; for we have as much reason
to ascribe to animals, as we have to attribute to
our fellow-men, the power, not only of perceiving
external objects as external, and thus practically
recognizing the difference between the self and the
not-self; but that of distinguishing between like
and unlike, and between simultaneous and suc-
cessive things. When a gamekeeper goes out
coursing with a greyhound in leash, and a hare
crosses the field of vision, he becomes the subject
of those states of consciousness we call visual
sensation, and that is all he receives from without.
Sensation, as such, tells him nothing whatever
about the cause of these states of consciousness;
but the thinking faculty instantly goes to work
upon the raw material of sensation furnished to it
through the eye, and gives rise to a train of
thoughts. First comes the thought that there is
an object at a certain distance; then arises
another thought—the perception of the likeness
between the states of consciousness awakened by
this object to those presented by memory, as, on
some former occasion, called up by a hare; this is
succeeded by another thought of the nature of an
emotion—namely, the desire to possess the hare;
then follows a longer or shorter train of other
thoughts, which end in a volition and an act—the
loosing of the greyhound from the leash. These
several thoughts are the concomitants of a process

158 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

which goes on in the nervous system of the man.
Unless the nerve-elements of the retina, of the
optic nerve, of the brain, of the spinal cord, and
of the nerves of the arms, went through certain
physical changes in due order and correlation, the
various states of consciousness which have been
enumerated would not make their appearance. So
that in this, as in all other intellectual operations,
we have to distinguish two sets of successive
changes—one in the physical basis of conscious-
ness, and the other in consciousness itself ; one set
which may, and doubtless will, in course of time,
be followed through all their complexities by the
anatomist and the physicist, and one of which only
the man himself can have immediate knowledge.
As it is very necessary to keep up a clear
distinction between these two processes, let the one
be called newrosis, and the other psychosis, When
the gamekeeper was first trained to his work
every step in the process of neurosis was accom-
panied by a corresponding step in that of psychosis,
or nearly so. He was conscious of seeing some-
thing, conscious of making sure it was a hare,
conscious of desiring to catch it, and therefore to
loose the greyhound at the right time, conscious of
the acts by which he let the dog out of the leash.
But with practice, though the various steps of the
neurosis remain—for otherwise the impression on
the retina would not result in the loosing of the
dog—the great majority of the steps of the

v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 159

psychosis vanish, and the loosing of the dog follows
unconsciously, or as we say, without thinking about
it, upon the sight of the hare. No one will deny
that the series of acts which originally intervened
between the sensation and the letting go of the
dog were, in the strictest sense, intellectual and
rational operations. Do they cease to be so when
the man ceases to be conscious of them? That
depends upon what is the essence and what the
accident of those operations, which, taken to-
gether, constitute ratiocination.

Now ratiocination is resolvable into predication,
and predication consists in marking, in some way,
the existence, the co-existence, the succession, the
likeness and unlikeness, of things or their ideas.
Whatever does this, reasons ; and if a machine pro-
duces the effects of reason, I see no more ground
for denying to it the reasoning power, because it
is unconscious, than I see for refusing to Mr.
Babbage’s engine the title of a calculating machine
on the same grounds.

Thus it seems to me that a gamekeeper reasons,
whether he is conscious or unconscious, whether
his reasoning is carried on by neurosis alone, or
whether it involves more or less psychosis. And
if this is true of the gamekeeper, it is also true of
the greyhound, The essential resemblances in all
points of structure and function, so far as they can
be studied, between the nervous system of the man
and that of the dog, leave no reasonable doubt

160 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

that the processes which go on in the one are just
like those which take place in the other. In the
dog, there can be no doubt that the nervous
matter which lies between the retina and the
muscles undergoes a series of changes, precisely
analogous to those which, in the man, give rise to
sensation, a train of thought, and volition.
Whether this neurosis is accompanied by such
psychosis as ours it is impossible to say; but
those who deny that the nervous changes, which,
in the dog, correspond with those which underlie
thought in a man, are accompanied by conscious-
ness, are equally bound to maintain that those
nervous changes in the dog, which correspond with
those which underlie sensation in a man, are also-
unaccompanied by consciousness. In other words,
if there is no ground for believing that a dog thinks,
neither is there any for believing that he feels,
As is well known, Descartes boldly faced this
dilemma, and maintained that all animals were
mere machines and entirely devoid of consciousness.
But he did not deny, nor can anyone deny, that in
this case they are reasoning machines, capable of
performing all those operations which are _per-
formed by the nervous system of man when he
reasons. For even supposing that in man, and in
man only, psychosis is superadded to neurosis—the
neurosis which is common to both man and animal
gives their reasoning processes a fundamental
unity. But Descartes’ position is open to very

v MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 161

serious objections if the evidence that animals feel
is insufficient to prove that they really do so. What
is the value of the evidence which leads one to
believe that one’s fellow-man feels? The only
evidence in this argument of analogy is the
similarity of his structure and of his actions to
one’s own. And if that is good enough to prove
that one’s fellow-man feels, surely it is good
enough to prove that an ape feels. For the differ-
ences of structure and function between men and
apes are utterly insufficient to warrant the
assumption that while men have those states of
consciousness we call sensations apes have nothing
of the kind. Moreover, we have as good evidence
that apes are capable of emotion and volition as
we have that men other than ourselves are. But
if apes possess three out of the four kinds of states
of consciousness which we discover in ourselves,
what possible reason is there for denying them the
fourth? If they are capable of sensation, emotion,
and volition, why are they, to be denied thought
(in the sense of predication) ?

No answer has ever been given to these
questions. And as the law of continuity is as
much opposed, as is the common sense of man-
kind, to the notion that all animals are unconscious
machines, it may safely be assumed that no
- sufficient answer ever will be given to them.

There is every reason to believe that con-
sciousness is a function of nervous matter, when

VOL. II M

162 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS v

that nervous matter has attained a certain degree
of organisation, just as we know the other
“actions to which the nervous system ministers,”
such as reflex action and the like, to be. As I
have ventured to state my view of the matter
elsewhere, “our thoughts are the expression of
molecular changes in that matter of life which is
the source of our other vital phenomena.”

Mr. Wallace objects to this statement in the
following terms :—

** Not having been able to find any clue in Professor Huxley’s
writings to the steps by which he passes from those vital pheno-
mena, which consist only, in their last analysis, of movements
by particles of matter, to those other phenomena which we term
thought, sensation, or consciousness ; but, knowing that so
positive an expression of opinion from him will have great weight
with many persons, I shall endeavour to show, with as much
brevity as is compatible with clearness, that this theory is not
only incapable of proof, but is also, as it appears to me,
inconsistent with accurate conceptions of molecular physics.”

With all respect for Mr. Wallace, it appears to
me that his remarks are entirely beside the ques-
tion. I really know nothing whatever, and never
hope to know anything, of the steps by which the
passage from molecular movement to states of
consciousness is effected; and I entirely agree
with the sense of the passage which he quotes
from Professor Tyndall, apparently imagining that
it is in opposition to the view I hold.

All that I have to say is, that,in my belief,
consciousness and molecular action are capable of

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 168

being expressed by one another, just as heat and
mechanical action are capable of being expressed
in terms of one another. Whether we shall ever
be able to express consciousness in foot-pounds, or
not, is more than I will venture to say; but that
there is evidence of the existence of some corre-
lation between mechanical motion and conscious-
ness, is as plain as anything can be. Suppose the
poles of an electric battery to be connected by
a platinum wire. <A certain intensity of the
current gives rise in the mind of a bystander to
that state of consciousness we call a “dull red
light ”—a little greater intensity to another which
we call a “bright red hght;” increase the inten-
sity, and the light becomes white ; and, finally, it
dazzles, and a new state of consciousness arises,
which we term pain. Given the same wire and
the same nervous apparatus, and the amount of
electric force required to give rise to these several
states of conciousness will be the same, however
often the experiment is repeated. And as the
electric force, the light waves, and the nerve-
vibrations caused by the impact of the light-waves
on the retina, are all expressions of the molecular
changes which are taking place in the elements of
the battery; so consciousness is, in the same
sense, an expression of the molecular changes
which take place in that nervous matter, which is
the organ of consciousness.

And, since this, and any number of similar

M 2

164 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS v

examples that may be required, prove that one
form of consciousness, at any rate, is, in the
strictest sense, the expression of molecular change,
it really is not worth while to pursue the inquiry,
whetherafactso easily established is consistent with
any particular system of molecular physics or not.

Mr. Wallace, in fact, appears to me to have
mixed up two very distinct propositions: the one,
the indisputable truth that consciousness is corre-
lated with molecular changes in the organ of
consciousness ; the other, that the nature of that
correlation is known, or can be conceived, which
is quite another matter. Mr. Wallace, presumably,
believes in that correlation of phenomena which
we call cause and effect as firmly as I do. But if
he has ever been able to form the faintest notion
how a cause gives rise to its effect, all I can say is
that I envy him. Take the simplest case imagin-
able—suppose a ball in motion to impinge upon
another ball at rest. I know very well, as a matter
of fact, that the ball in motion will communicate
some of its motion to the ball at rest, and that
the motion of the two balls, after collision, is
precisely correlated with the masses of both balls
and the amount of motion of the first. But how
does this come about? In what manner can we
conceive that the vis viva of the first ball passes
into the second? I confess I can no more form
any conception of what happens in this case, than
I can of what takes place when the motion of

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 165

particles of my nervous matter, caused by the
impact of a similar ball gives rise to the state of
consciousness I call pain. In ultimate analysis
everything is incomprehensible, and the whole
object of science is simply to reduce the funda-
mental incomprehensibilities to the smallest possi-
ble number.

But to return to the Quarterly Reviewer. He
admits that animals have “mental images of
sensible objects, combined in all degrees of com-
plexity, as governed by the laws of association.”
Presumably, by this confused and imperfect state-
ment the Reviewer means to admit more than the
words imply. For mental images of sensible
objects, even though “combined in all degrees of
complexity,” are, and can be, nothing more than
mental images of sensible objects. But judg-
ments, emotions, and volitions cannot by any
possibility be included under the head of “ mental
images of sensible objects.” If the greyhound
had no better mental endowment than the
Reviewer allows him, he might have the “mental
image” of the “sensible object ”—the hare—and
that might be combined with the mental images
of other sensible objects, to any degree of com-
plexity, but he would have no power of judging
it to be at a certain distance from him ; no power
of perceiving its similarity to his memory of a
hare; and no desire to get at it. Consequently
he would stand stock still, and the noble art of

166 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

coursing would have no existence. On the other
hand, as that art is largely practised, it follows
that greyhounds alone possess a number of mental
powers, the existence of which, in any animal, is
absolutely denied by the Quarterly Reviewer.

Finally, what are the mental powers which he
reserves as the especial prerogative of man ?
They are two. First, the recognition of “our-
selves by ourselves as affected and perceiving.—
Self-consciousness.”

Secondly. “The reflection upon our sensations
and perceptions, and asking what they are and
why they are.—Reason.”

To the faculty defined in the last sentence, the
Reviewer, without assigning the least ground for
thus departing from both common usage and
technical propriety, applies the name of reason.
But if man is not to be considered a reasoning
being, unless he asks what his sensations and per-
ceptions are, and why they are, what is a Hot-
tentot, or an Australian “ black-fellow ” ; or what
the “swinked hedger” of an ordinary agricultural
district? Nay, what becomes of an average
country squire or parson? How many of these
worthy persons who, as their wont is, read the
Quarterly Review, would do other than stand
agape, if you asked them whether they had ever
reflected what their sensations and perceptions
are and why they are ?

So that if the Reviewer’s new definition of rea-

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 167

son be correct, the majority of men, even among the
most civilised nations, are devoid of that supreme
characteristic of manhood. And if it be as absurd
as I believe it to be, then, as reason is certainly not
self-consciousness, and since it, as certainly, is one of
the “actions to which the nervous system minis-
ters,’ we must, if the Reviewer’s classification is
to be adopted, seek it among those four faculties
which he allows animals to possess. And thus, for
the second time, he really surrenders, while seem-
ing to defend, his position.

The Quarterly Reviewer, as we have seen,
lectures the evolutionists upon their want of know-
ledge of philosophy altogether. Mr. Mivart is not
less pained at Mr. Darwin’s ignorance of moral
science. It is grievous to him that Mr. Darwin
(and nous autres) should not have grasped the
elementary distinction between material and formal
morality ; and he lays down as an axiom, of which
no tyro ought to be ignorant, the position that
“acts, unaccompanied by mental acts of conscious
will directed towards the fulfilment of duty,” are
“absolutely destitute of the most incipient degree
of real or formal goodness.”

Now this may be Mr. Mivart’s opinion, but it is
a proposition which really does not stand on the
footing of an undisputed axiom. Mr. Mill denies
it in his work on Utilitarianism. The most in-
fluential writer of a totally opposed school, Mr.
Carlyle, is never weary of denying it, and upholding

168 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS v

the merit of that virtue which is unconscious;
nay, it is, to my understanding, extremely hard to
reconcile Mr. Mivart’s dictum with that noble sum-
mary of the whole duty of man—* Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy strength ; and thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself.” According to Mr.
Mivart’s definition, the man who loves God and his
neighbour, and, out of sheer love and affection for
both, does all he can to please them, is, neverthe-
less, destitute of a particle of real goodness.

And it further happens that Mr. Darwin, who is
charged by Mr. Mivart with being ignorant of the
distinction between material and formal goodness,
discusses the very question at issue in a passage
which is well worth reading (vol. i. p. 87), and also
comes to a conclusion opposed to Mr. Mivart’s
axiom, A proposition which has been so much
disputed and repudiated, should, under no circum-
stances, have been thus confidently assumed to be
true. For myself, I utterly reject it, inasmuch as
the logical consequence of the adoption of any such
principle is the denial of all moral value to
sympathy and affection. According to Mr. Mivart’s
axiom, the man who, seeing another struggling in
the water, leaps in at the risk of his own life to
save him, does that which is “ destitute of the most
incipient degree of real goodness,’ unless, as he
strips off his coat, he says to himself, “ Now, mind,
I am going to do this because it is my duty and

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 169

for no other reason;” and the most beautiful
character to which humanity can attain, that of the
man who does good without thinking about it, be-
cause he loves justice and mercy and is repelled
by evil, has no claim on our moral approbation.
The denial that a man acts morally because he does
not think whether he does so or not, may be put
upon the same footing as the denial of the title of
an arithmetician to the calculating boy, because he
did not know how he worked his sums. If man-
kind ever generally accept and act upon Mr.
Mivart’s axiom, they will simply become a set of
most unendurable prigs ; but they never have ac-
cepted it, and I venture to hope that evolution has
nothing so terrible in store for the human race.
But if an action, the motive of which is nothing
but affection or sympathy, may be deserving of
moral approbation and really good, who that has
ever had a dog of his own will deny that animals
are capable of such actions? Mr. Mivart indeed
says :—“It may be safely affirmed, however, that
there is no trace in brutes of any actions simulat-
ing morality which are not explicable by the fear
of punishment, by the hope of pleasure, or by per-
sonal affection” (p. 221). But it may be affirmed,
with equal truth, that there is no trace in men of
any actions which are not traceable to the same
motives. If a man does anything, he does it
either because he fears to be punished if he does
not do it, or because he hopes to obtain pleasure

170 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

by doing it, or because he gratifies his affections!
by doing it.

Assuming the position of the absolute moralists,
let it be granted that there isa perception of right
and wrong innate in every man. This means,
simply, that when certain ideas are presented to
his mind, the feeling of approbation arises ; and
when certain others, the feeling of disapprobation.
To do your duty is to earn the approbation of your
conscience, or moral sense ; to fail in your duty is
to feel its disapprobation, as we all say. Now, is
approbation a pleasure or a pain? Surely a
pleasure. And is disapprobation a pleasure or a
pain? Surely a pain. Consequently, all that is
really meant by the absolute moralists is that there
is, in the very nature of man, something which
enables him to be conscious of these particular
pleasuresand pains, And when they talk of immut-
able and eternal principles of morality,the only in-
telligible sense which I can put upon the words, is
that the nature of man being what it is, he always
has been, and always will be, capable of feeling these
particular pleasures and pains. A priori, I have
nothing to say against this proposition. Admitting
its truth, I do not see how the moral faculty is on
a different footing from any of the other faculties
of man. If I choose to say that it isan immutable

1 In separating pleasure and the gratification of affection, I
simply follow Mr. Mivart without admitting the justice of the
separation.

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 171

and eternal law of human nature that “ ginger 1s
hot in the mouth,” the assertion has as much
foundation of truth as the other, though I think
it would be expressed in needlessly pompous
language. I must confess that I have never been
able to understand why there should be such a
bitter quarrel between the intuitionists and the
utilitarians. The intuitionist is, after all, only a
utilitarian who believes that a particular class of
pleasures and pains has an especial importance, by
reason of its foundation in the nature of man, and
its inseparable connection with his very existence
as a thinking being. And as regards the motive
of personal affection: Love, as Spinoza profoundly
says, is the association of pleasure with that which
is loved. Or, to put it to the common sense of
mankind, is the gratification of affection a pleasure
ora pain? Surely a pleasure. So that whether
the motive which leads us to perform an action
is the love of our neighbour, or the love of God, it
is undeniable that pleasure enters into that motive.

Thus much in reply to Mr. Mivart’s arguments.
I cannot but think that it is to be regretted that
he ekes them out by ascribing to the doctrines of
the philosophers with whom he does not agree,
logical consequences which have been over and
over again proved not to flow from them: and when
' reason fails him, tries the effect of an injurious

___' “Nempe, Amor nihil aliud est, quam Letitia, concomitante
idea cause externe.”—Ethices, III. xiii.

172 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

nickname, According to the views of Mr. Spencer,
Mr. Mill, and Mr. Darwin, Mr. Mivart tells
us, “virtue ts a mere kind of retrieving:” and,
that we may not miss the point of the joke, he
puts it in italics. But what ifitis? Does that
make it less virtue? Suppose I say that sculp-
ture is a “mere way” of stone-cutting, and
painting a “mere way” of daubing canvas, and
music a “mere way” of making a noise, the
statements are quite true; but they only show
that I see no other method of depreciating some
of the noblest aspects of humanity than that of
using language in an inadequate and misleading
sense about them. And the peculiar inappro-
priateness of this particular nickname to the views
in question, arises from the circumstance which
Mr. Mivart would doubtless have recollected, if his
wish to ridicule had not for the moment obscured
his judgment—that whether the law of evolution
applies to man or not, that of hereditary transmis-
sion certainly does. Mr. Mivart will hardly deny
that a man owes a large share of the moral
tendencies which he exhibits to his ancestors ; and
the man who inherits a desire to steal from a
kleptomaniac, or a tendency to benevolence from a
Howard, is, so far as he illustrates hereditary
transmission, comparable to the dog who inherits
the desire to fetch a duck out of the water from
his retrieving sire. So that, evolution, or no
evolution, moral qualities are comparable to a

v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS lis

“kind of retrieving;” though the comparison, if
meant for the purposes of casting obloquy on
evolution, does not say much for the fairness of
those who make it.

The Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart base
their objections to the evolution of the mental facul-
ties of man from those of some lower animal form
upon what they maintain to be a difference in kind
between the mental and moral faculties of men and
brutes ; and [have endeavoured to show, by exposing
the utter unsoundness of their philosophical basis,
that these objections are devoid of importance.

The objections which Mr. Wallace brings for-
ward to the doctrine of the evolution of the mental
faculties of man from those of brutes by natural
causes, are of a different order, and require
separate consideration.

If I understand him rightly, he by no means
doubts that both the bodily and the mental facul-
ties of man have been evolved from those of
some lower animal; but he is of opinion that
some agency beyond that which has been con-
cerned in the evolution of ordinary animals has
been operative in the case of man. “A superior
intelligence has guided the development of man
in a definite direction and for a special purpose,
just as man guides the development of many
animal and vegetable forms.” 1 I understand this

1 “The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man ” (Joc.
cit. p. 359).

174 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS v

to mean that, just as the rock-pigeon has been
produced by natural causes, while the evolution of
the tumbler from the blue rock has required the
special intervention of the intelligence of man, so
some anthropoid form may have been evolved by
variation and natural selection ; but it could never
have given rise to man, unless some superior intel-
ligence had played the part of the pigeon-fancier,

According to Mr. Wallace, “whether we com-
pare the savage with the higher developments of
man, or with the brutes around him, we are alike
driven to the conclusion, that, in his large and
well-developed brain, he possesses an organ quite
disproportioned to his requirements” (p. 343);
and he asks, “What is there in the life of the
savage but the satisfying of the cravings of ap-
petite in the simplest and easiest way? What
thoughts, idea, or actions are there that raise him
many grades above the elephant or the ape?”
(p. 342.) I answer Mr. Wallace by citing a re-
markable passage which occurs in his instructive
paper on “ Instinct in Man and Animals,”

*‘Savages make long journeys in many directions, and, their
whole faculties being directed to the subject, they gain a wide
and accurate knowledge of the topography, not only of their
own district, but of all the regions round about. Every one
who has travelled in a new direction communicates his know-
ledge to those who have travelled less, and descriptions of routes
and localities, and minute incidents of travel, form one of the
main staples of conversation around the evening fire. Every
wanderer or captive from another tribe adds to the store of

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 175

information, and, as the very existence of individuals and of
whole families and tribes depends upon the completeness of this
knowledge, all the acute perceptive faculties of the adult savage
are directed to acquiring and perfecting it. The good hunter or
warrior thus comes to know the bearing of every hill and moun-
tain range, the directions and junctions of all the streams, the
situation of each tract characterised by peculiar vegetation, not
only within the area he has himself traversed, but perhaps for
a hundred miles around it. His acute observation enables him
to detect the slightest undulations of the surface, the various
changes of subsoil and alterations in the character of the vegeta-
tion that would be quite imperceptible to a stranger. His eye is
always open to the direction in which he is going; the mossy
side of trees, the presence of certain plants under the shade of
rocks, the morning and evening flight of birds, are to him
indications of direction almost as sure as the sun in the heavens”
(pp. 207, 208).

IT have seen enough of savages to be able to
declare that nothing can be more admirable than
this description of what a savage has to learn,
But it is incomplete. Add to all this the know-
ledge which a savage is obliged to gain of the
properties of plants, of the characters and habits
of animals, and of the minute indications by which
their course is discoverable : consider that even an
Australian can make excellent baskets and nets,
and neatly fitted and beautifully balanced spears ;
that he learns to use these so as to be able to
transfix a quartern loaf at sixty yards; and that
very often, as in the case of the American Indians,
the language of a savage exhibits complexities
which a well-trained European finds it difficult to
master: consider that every time a savage tracks

176 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

his game he employs a minuteness of observation,
and an accuracy of inductive and deductive reason-
ing which, applied to other matters, would assure
some reputation to a man of science, and I think
we need ask no further why he possesses such a
fair supply of brains. In complexity and difficulty,
I should say that the intellectual labour of a “ good
hunter or warrior” considerably exceeds that of
an ordinary Englishman. The Civil Service Ex-
aminers are held in great terror by young English-
men ; but even their ferocity never tempted them
to require a candidate to possess such a knowledge
of a parish as Mr. Wallace justly points out
savages may possess of an area a hundred miles
or more in diameter.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that a
savage has more brains than seems proportioned
to his wants, all that can be said is that the objec-
tion to natural selection, if it be one, applies quite
as strongly to the lower animals. The brain of a
porpoise is quite wonderful for its mass, and for the
development of the cerebral convolutions. And
yet since we have ceased to credit the story of
Arion, it is hard to believe that porpoises are much
troubled with intellect : and still more difficult is
it to imagine that their big brains are only a pre-
paration for the advent of some accomplished
cetacean of the future. Surely, again, a wolf must
have too much brains, or else how is it that a dog
with only the same quantity and form of brain is

od

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 177

able to develop such singular intelligence? The
wolf stands to the dog in the same relation as the
savage to the man; and, therefore, if Mr. Wallace’s
doctrine holds good, a higher power must have
superintended the breeding up of wolves from
some inferior stock, in order to prepare them to
become dogs.

Mr. Wallace further maintains that the origin
of some of man’s mental faculties by the preserva-
tion of useful variations is not possible. Such,
for example, are “the capacity to form ideal con-
ceptions of space and time, of eternity and infin-
ity; the capacity for intense artistic feelings of
pleasure in form, colour, and composition ; and for
those abstract notions of form and number which
render geometry and arithmetic possible.” “How,”
he asks, “were all or any of these faculties first
developed, when they could have been of no pos-
sible use to man in his early stages of barbarism ?”

Surely the answer is not far to seek. The
lowest savages are as devoid of any such concep-
tions as the brutes themselves. What sort of
conceptions of space and time, of form and num-
ber, can be possessed by a savage who has not got
so far as to be able to count beyond five or six, who
does not know how to draw a triangle or a circle,
and has not the remotest notion of separating the
particular quality we call form, from the other
qualities of bodies? None of these capacities are
exhibited by men, unless they form part of a

VOL, II N

178 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS Vv

tolerably advanced society. And, in such a society,
there are abundant conditions by which a selective
influence is exerted in favour of those persons who
exhibit an approximation towards the possession
of these capacities.

The savage who can amuse his fellows by telling
a good story over the nightly fire, is held by them
in esteem and rewarded, in one way or another,
for so doing—in other words, it is an advantage to
him to possess this power. He who can carve a
paddle, or the figure-head of a canoe _ better,
similarly profits beyond his duller neighbour. He
who counts a little better than others, gets most
yams when barter is going on, and forms the
shrewdest estimate of the numbers of an opposing
tribe. The experience of daily life shows that the
conditions of our present social existence exercise
the most extraordinarily powerful selective influence
in favour of novelists, artists, and strong intellects
of all kinds ; and it seems unquestionable that all
forms of social existence must have had the same
tendency, if we consider the indisputable facts that
even animals possess the power of distinguishing
form and number, and that they are capable of
deriving pleasure from particular forms and
sounds. If we admit, as Mr. Wallace does, that
the lowest savages are not raised “many grades
above the elephant and the ape;” and if we
further admit, as I contend must be admitted, that
the conditions of social life tend, powerfully, to

v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 179

give an advantage to those individuals who
vary in the direction of intellectual or zxsthetic
excellence, what is there to interfere with the
belief that these higher faculties, like the rest, owe
their development to natural selection ?

Finally, with respect to the development of the
moral sense out of the simple feelings of pleasure
and pain, liking and disliking, with which the
lower animals are provided, I can find nothing in
Mr. Wallace’s reasonings which has not already
been met by Mr. Mill, Mr. Spencer, or Mr,

Darwin.

I do not propose to follow the Quarterly
Reviewer and Mr. Mivart through the long string
of objections in matters of detail which they
bring against Mr. Darwin’s views. Every one who
has considered the matter carefully will be able to
ferret out as many more “ difficulties”; but he
will also, I believe, fail as completely as they
appear to me to have done, in bringing forward
any fact which is really contradictory of Mr.
Darwin’s views. Occasionally, too, their objections
and criticisms are based upon errors of their own.
As, for example, when Mr. Mivart and the
Quarterly Reviewer insist upon the resemblances
between the eyes of Cephalopoda and Vertebrata,
- quite forgetting that there are striking and alto-
gether fundamental differences between them ; or
when the Quarterly Reviewer corrects Mr. Darwin

N 2

180 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

for saying that the gibbons, “ without having been
taught, can walk or run upright with tolerable
quickness, though they move awkwardly, and much
less securely than man.” The Quarterly Reviewer
says, “ This is a little misleading, inasmuch as it is
not stated that this upright progression is effected
by placing the enormously long arms behind the
head, or holding them out backwards as a balance
in progression.”

Now, before carping at a small statement lke
this, the Quarterly Reviewer should have made
sure that he was quite right. But he happens to
be quite wrong. I suspect he got his notion of
the manner in which a gibbon walks from a citation
in “ Man’s Place in Nature.” But at that time I
had not seen a gibbon walk. Since then I have,
and I can testify that nothing can be more precise
than Mr. Darwin’s statement. The gibbon I saw
walked without either putting his arms behind
his head or holding them out backwards. All he
did was to touch the ground with the outstretched
fingers of his long arms now and then, just as one
sees a man who carries a stick, but does not need
one, touch the ground with it as he walks along.

Again, a large number of the objections brought
forward by Mr. Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer
apply to evolution in general, quite as much as to
the particular form of that doctrine advocated by
Mr. Darwin ; or, to their notions of Mr. Darwin’s
views and not to what they really are. -An excel-

Vv MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 181

lent example of this class of difficulties is to be
found in Mr. Mivart’s chapter on “ Independent
Similarities of Structure.” Mr. Mivart says that
these cannot be explained by an “absolute and
pure Darwinian,” but “that an innate power and
evolutionary law, aided by the corrective action
of natural selection, should have furnished like
needs with like aids, is not at all improbable”
(p. 82).

I do not exactly know what Mr. Mivart means
by an “absolute and pure Darwinian ;” indeed
Mr. Mivart makes that creature hold so many
singular opinions that I doubt if I can ever have
seen one alive. But I find nothing in his
statement of the view which he imagines to be
originated by himself, which is really inconsistent
with what I understand to be Mr. Darwin’s views.

I apprehend that the foundation of the theory
of natural selection is the fact that living bodies
tend incessantly to vary. This variation is neither
indefinite, nor fortuitous, nor does it take place in
all directions, in the strict sense of these words.

Accurately speaking, it is not indefinite, nor
does it take place in all directions, because it is
limited by the general characters of the type to
which the organism exhibiting the variation
belongs. A whale does not tend to vary in the
direction of producing feathers, nor a bird in the
direction of developing whalebone. In popular
language there is no harm in saying that the

182 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

waves which break upon the sea-shore are inde-
finite, fortuitous, and break in all directions. In
scientific language, on the contrary, such a state-
ment would be a gross error, inasmuch as every
particle of foam is the result of perfectly definite
forces, operating according to no less definite laws.
In like manner, every variation of a living form,
however minute, however apparently accidental, is
inconceivable except as the expression of the
operation of molecular forces or “ powers” resident
within the organism. And,as these forces certainly
operate according to definite laws, their general
result is, doubtless,in accordance with some general
law which subsumes them all. And there appears
to be no objection to call this an “evolutionary
law.” But nobody is the wiser for doing so, or has
thereby contributed, in the least degree, to the
advance of the doctrine of evolution, the great
need of which is a theory of variation.

When Mr. Mivart tells us that his “aim has
been to support the doctrine that these species
have been evolved by ordinary natural laws (for
the most part unknown), aided by the subordinate
action of ‘ natural selection’ ” (pp. 332-3), he seems
to be of opinion that his enterprise has the merit
of novelty. All I can say is that I have never had
the slightest notion that Mr. Darwin’s aim is in
any way different from this. If I affirm that
“species have been evolved by variation * (a natural

? Including under this head hereditary transmission.

v MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 183

process, the laws of which are for the most part
unknown), aided by the subordinate action of
natural selection,” it seems to me that I enunciate
a proposition which constitutes the very pith and
matrow of the first edition of the “Origin of
Species.” And what the evolutionist stands in
need of just now, is not an iteration of the funda-
mental principle of Darwinism, but some light
upon the questions, What are the limits of varia-
tion ? and, Ifa variety has arisen, can that variety
be perpetuated, or even intensified, when selective
conditions are indifferent, or perhaps unfavourable
to its existence? I cannot find that Mr. Darwin
has ever been very dogmatic in answering these
questions. Formerly, he seems to have inclined
to reply to them in the negative, while now his
inclination is the other way. Leaving aside those
broad questions of theology, philosophy, and
ethics, by the discussion of which neither the
Quarterly Reviewer nor Mr. Mivart can be said to
have damaged Darwinism—whatever else they
have injured—this is what their criticisms come
to. They confound a struggle for some rifle-pits
with an assault on the fortress.

In some respects, finally, I can only characterise
the Quarterly Reviewer's treatment of Mr. Darwin
as alike unjust and unbecoming. Language of
this strength requires justification, and on that
ground I add the remarks which follow.

The Quarterly Reviewer opens his essay by a

184 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

careful enumeration of all those points upon which,
during the course of thirteen years of incessant
labour, Mr. Darwin has modified his opinions. It
has often and justly been remarked, that what
strikes a candid student of Mr. Darwin’s works is
not so much his industry, his knowledge, or even
the surprising fertility of his inventive genius ;
but that unswerving truthfulness and honesty
which never permit him to hide a weak place, or
gloss over a difficulty, but lead him, on all occa-
sions, to point out the weak places in his own
armour, and even sometimes, it appears to me, to
make admissions against himself which are quite
unnecessary. A critic who desires to attack Mr.
Darwin has only to read his works with a desire to
observe, not their merits, but their defects, and he
will find, ready to hand, more adverse suggestions
than are likely ever to have suggested themselves
to his own sharpness, without Mr. Darwin’s self-
denying aid.

Now this quality of scientific candour is not so
common that it needs to be discouraged; and it
appears to me to deserve other treatment than
that adopted by the Quarterly Reviewer, who deals
with Mr. Darwin as an Old Bailey barrister deals
with a man against whom he wishes to obtain a
conviction, per fas aut nefas, and opens his case
by endeavouring to create a prejudice against the
prisoner in the minds of the jury. In his eager-
ness to carry out this laudable design, the Quarterly

Vv MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS 185

Reviewer cannot even state the history of the
doctrine of natural selection without an oblique
and entirely unjustifiable attempt to depreciate
Mr. Darwin. “To Mr. Darwin,” says he, “and
(through Mr. Wallace’s reticence) to Mr. Darwin
alone, is due the credit of having first brought it
prominently forward and demonstrated its truth.”
No one can less desire than I do, to throw a doubt
upon Mr. Wallace’s originality, or to question his
claim to the honour of being one of the originators
of the doctrine of natural selection ; but the state-
ment that Mr. Darwin has the sole credit of
originating the doctrine because of Mr. Wallace’s
reticence is simply ridiculous. The proof of this
is, in the first place, afforded by Mr. Wallace him-
self, whose noble freedom from petty jealousy in
this matter smaller folk would do well to imitate,
and who writes thus :—“I have felt all my life,
and I still feel, the most sincere satisfaction
that Mr. Darwin had been at work long before
me and that it was not left for me to attempt to
write the ‘Origin of Species.’ I have long since
measured my own strength, and know well that it
would be quite unequal to that task.” So that if
there was any reticence at all in the matter, it was
Mr. Darwin’s reticence during the long twenty
years of study which intervened between the con-
ception and the publication of his theory, which
gave Mr. Wallace the chance of being an indepen-
dent discoverer of the importance of natural

186 MR. DARWIN'S CRITICS Vv

selection. And, finally, if it be recollected that
Mr. Darwin’s and Mr. Wallace’s essays were
published simultaneously in the “ Journal of the
Linnean Society” for 1858, it follows that the
Reviewer, while obliquely depreciating Mr. Dar-
win’s deserts, has in reality awarded to him a
priority which, in legal strictness, does not exist.

Mr. Mivart, whose opinions so often concur with
those of the Quarterly Reviewer, puts the case in
& way, which I much regret to be obliged to say,
is, in my judgment, quite as incorrect ; though
the injustice may be less glaring. He says that
the theory of natural selection is, in general, ex-
clusively associated with the name of Mr. Darwin,
“on account of the noble self-abnegation of Mr.
Wallace.” As I have said, no one can honour Mr.
Wallace more than I do, both for what he has
done and for what he has not done, in his relation
to Mr. Darwin. And perhaps nothing is more
creditable to him than his frank declaration that
he could not have written such a work as the
“ Origin of Species.” But, by this declaration, the
person most directly interested in the matter re-
pudiates, by anticipation, Mr. Mivart’s suggestion
that Mr. Darwin’s eminence is more or less due to

Mr. Wallace’s modesty.

VI
EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY
[1878]

In the former half of the eighteenth century, the
term “evolution” was introduced into biological
writings, in order to denote the mode in which
some of the most eminent physiologists of that time
conceived that the generations of living things took
place ; in opposition to the hypothesis advocated,
in the preceding century, by Harvey in that re-
markable work ! which would give him a claim to
rank among the founders of biological science, even
had he not been the discoverer of the circulation
of the blood.

One of Harvey's prime objects is to defend and
establish, on the basis of direct observation, the
opinion already held by Aristotle ; that, in the
higher animals at any rate, the formation of the

1 The Evxercitationes de Generatione Animalium, which Dr

_ George Ent extracted from him and published in 1651.

188 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

new organism by the process of generation takes
place, not suddenly, by simultaneous accretion of
rudiments of all, or of the most important, of the
organs of the adult ; nor by sudden metamorphosis
of a formative substance into a miniature of the
whole, which subsequently grows ; but by epigenesis,
or successive differentiation of a relatively homo-
geneous rudiment into the parts and structures
which are characteristic of the adult.

‘‘Et primd, quidem, quoniam per epigenesin sive partium
superexorientium additamentum pullum fabricari certum est:
quznam pars ante alias omnes exstruatur, et quid de illa ejusque
generandi modo observandum veniat, dispiciemus. Ratum sane
est et in ovo manifest apparet quod Aristoteles de perfectorum
animalium generatione enuntiat: nimirum, non omnes partes
simul fieri, sed ordine aliam post aliam ; primtumque existere
particulam genitalem, cujus virtute postea (tanquam ex principio
quodam) relique omnes partes prosiliant. Qualem in plantarum
seminibus (fabis, puta, aut glandibus) gemmam sive apicem pro-
tuberantem cernimus, totius future arboris principium. LZstqwe
hec particula velut filius emanecipatus seorsumque collocatus, et
principium per se vivens ; unde postea membrorum ordo describ-
itur ; et quecunque ad absolvendum animal pertinent, dispon-
wntur. Quoniam enim nulla pars se ipsam generat ; sed post-
quam generata est, se ipsam jam auget ; ideo cam primam oriri
necesse est, que principiwm augendi contineat (sive enim planta,
sive animal est, aque omnibus inest quod vim habeat vegetandi,
sive nutriendi),? simulque reliquas omnes partes suo quamque
ordine distinguat et formet; proindeque in eadem primogenita
particula anima primario inest, sensus, motusque, et tatius vite
auctor et principium.” (Exercitatio 51.)

1 De Generatione Animalium, lib. ii. cap. x.
2 De Generatione, lib. ii. cap. iv.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 189

Harvey proceeds to contrast this view with that
of the “ Medici,” or followers of Hippocrates and
Galen, who, “ badly philosophising,” imagined that
the brain, the heart, and the liver were simul-
taneously first generated in the form of vesicles ;
and, at the same time, while expressing his
agreement with Aristotle in the principle of epi-
genesis, he maintains that it is the blood which is
the primal generative part, and not, as Aristotle
thought, the heart.

In the latter part of the seventeenth century,
the doctrine of epigenesis, thus advocated by
Harvey, was controverted, on the ground of direct
observation, by Malpighi, who affirmed that the
body of the chick is to be seen in the egg, before
the punctum sanguineum makes it appearance.
But, from this perfectly correct observation a con-
clusion which is by no means warranted was drawn ;
namely, that the chick, as a whole, really exists in
the egg antecedently to incubation ; and that what
happens in the course of the latter process is no
addition of new parts, “alias post alias natas,” as
Harvey puts it, but a simple expansion, or unfold-
ing, of the organs which already exist, though they
are too small and inconspicuous to be discovered.
The weight of Malpighi’s observations therefore
fell into the scale of that doctrine which Harvey
terms metamorphosis, in contradistinction to epi-
genesis. |

The views of Malphigi were warmly welcomed,

190 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY vi

on philosophical grounds, by Leibnitz,) who found
in them a support to his hypothesis of monads,
and by Malebranche ;? while, in the middle of the
eighteenth century, not only speculative consider-
ations, but a great number of new and interesting
observations on the phenomena of generation, led
the ingenious Bonnet, and Haller,’ the first physi-
ologist of the age, to adopt, advocate, and extend

them.

1 “Cependant, pour revenir aux formes ordinaires ou aux
ames matérielles, cette durée qu’il leur faut attribuer 4 la place
de celle qu’on avoit attribuée aux atomes pourroit faire douter
si elles ne vont pas de corps en corps; ce qui seroit la mé-
tempsychose, & peu prés comme quelques philosophes ont cru la
transmission du mouvement et celle des espéces. Mais cette
imagination est bien éloignée de la nature des choses. Il n’y a
point de tel passage; et c’est ici ot les transformations de
Messieurs Swammerdam, Malpighi, et Leewenhoek, qui sont
des plus excellens observateurs de notre tems, sont venues & mon
secours, et m’ont fait admettre plus aisément, que l’animal, et
toute autre substance organisée ne commence point lorsque nous
le croyons, et que sa generation apparente n’est qu'une dé-
veloppement et une espéce d’augmentation. Aussi ai je remarqué
que Paateitr de la Recherche de la Verité, M. Regis, M. Hart-
soeker, et d’autres habiles hommes n’ont pas été fort éloignés
de ce sentiment.” Leibnitz, Systeme Nouveau de la Nature,
1695. The doctrine of‘‘Emboitement” is contained in the
Considérations sur le Principe de Vie, 1705; the preface to the
Theodicée, 1710 ; and the Principes de la Nature et de la Grace
(§ 6), 1718.

2 “*T] est vrai que la pensée la plus raisonnable et la plus
conforme & l’experience sur cette question: trés difficile de la
formation du foetus; c’est que les enfans sont déja presque tout
formés avant méme l’action par laquelle ils sont congus ; et que
leurs méres ne font que leur donner l’accroissement ordinaire
dans le temps de la grossesse.” De la Recherche de la Verité,
livre ii. chap. vii. p. 334, 7th ed., 1721.

3 The writer is indebted to Dr. Allen Thomson for reference
to the evidence contained in a note to Haller’s edition of Boer-
haave’s Prelectiones Academice, vol. v. yt. ii. p. 497, published
in 1744, that Haller originally advocated epigenesis,

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 191

Bonnet affirms that, before fecundation, the hen’s
egg contains an excessively minute but complete
chick ; and that fecundation and incubation simply
cause this germ to absorb nutritious matters, which
are deposited in the interstices of the elementary
structures of which the miniature chick, or germ,
is made up. The consequence of this intussuscep-
tive growth is the “ development ” or “evolution ”
of the germ into the visible bird. Thus an organ-
ised individual (towt organisé) “is acomposite body
consisting of the original, or elementary, parts and
of the matters which have been associated with
them by the aid of nutrition;” so that, if these
matters could be extracted from the individual
(towt), it would, so to speak, become concentrated
in a point, and would thus be restored to its
primitive condition of a germ ; “just as by extract-
ing from a bone the calcareous substance which is
the source of its hardness, it is reduced to its
primitive state of gristle or membrane.”’ !

“Evolution” and “development” are, for
Bonnet, synonymous terms ; and since by “ evolu-
tion” he means simply the expansion of that
which was invisible into visibility, he was natur-
ally led to the conclusion, at which Leibnitz had
arrived by a different line of reasoning, that no
such thing as generation, in the proper sense of
the word, exists in Nature. The growth of an

1 Considérations sur les Corps organisés, chap. x.

192 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

organic being is simply a process of enlargement
as a particle of dry gelatine may be swelled
up by the intussusception of water; its death
is a shrinkage, such as the swelled jelly might
undergo on desiccation. Nothing really new is
produced in the living world, but the germs which
develop have existed since the beginning of things ;
and nothing really dies, but, when what we call
death takes place, the living thing shrinks back
into its germ state.

The two parts of Bonnet’s hypothesis, namely,
the doctrine that all living things proceed from
pre-existing germs, and that these contain, one

1 Bonnet had the courage of his opinions, and in the
Palingénésie Philosophique, part vi. chap. iv., he develops a
hypothesis which he terms ‘‘évolution naturelle ;”” and which,
making allowance for his peculiar views of the nature of
generation, bears no small resemblance to what is understood
by ‘‘evolution” at the present day :— -

‘*Si la volonté divine a créé par un seul Acte ]'Universalité
des étres, d’ol venoient ces plantes et ces animaux dont Moyse
nous decrit la Production au troisieme et au cinquieme jour du
renouvellement de notre monde ?

‘* Abuserois-je de la liberté de conjectures si je disois, que les
Plantes et les Animaux qui existent aujourd’hui sont parvenus
par une sorte d’evolution naturelle des Etres organisés qui
peuplaient ce premier Monde, sorti immédiatement des MAINS
du CREATEUR?...

‘* Ne supposons que trois révolutions. La Terre vient de sortir
des MAINS du CREATEUR. Des causes preparées par sa SAGESSE
font développer de toutes parts les Germes. Les Etres organisés
commencent 4 jouir de l’existence. Ils étoient probablement
alors bien différens de ce qu’ils sont aujourd’hui. Ils l’etoient
autant que ce premier Monde différoit de celui que nous habitons.
Nous manquons de moyens pour juger de ces dissemblances,
et peut-étre que le plus habile Naturaliste qui auroit été placé
dans ce premier Monde y auroit entitrement méconnu nos Plantes
et nos Animaux.”’

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 193

inclosed within the other, the germs of all future
living things, which is the hypothesis of “ embotte-
ment ;” and the doctrine that every germ contains
in miniature all the organs of the adult, which is
the hypothesis of evolution or development, in the
primary senses of these words, must be carefully
distinguished. In fact, while holding firmly by
the former, Bonnet more or less modified the
latter in his later writings, and, at length, he
admits that a “germ” need not be an actual
miniature of the organism; but that it may be
merely an “original preformation” capable of
producing the latter.’

But, thus defined, the germ is neither more nor
less than the “particula genitalis” of Aristotle,
or the “primordium vegetale” or “ovum” of
Harvey ; and the “evolution” of such a germ
would not be distinguishable from “ epigenesis.”

Supported by the great authority of Haller, the
doctrine of evolution, or development, prevailed
throughout the whole of the eighteenth century,
and Cuvier appears to have substantially adopted
Bonnet’s later views, though probably he would
not have gone all lengths in the direction of
“emboitement.” In a_ well-known note to
Laurillard’s “loge,” prefixed to the last edition

1 “Ce mot (germe) ne désignera pas seulement un corps
- organisé réduit en petit ; il désignera eneore toute espéce de pré-
formation originelle dont wn Tout organique peut résulter comme
de son principe immédiat.”—Palingénésie Philosophique, part x.
chap. il.

VOL. Il O

194 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

of the “ Ossemens fossiles,” the “ radical de l’étre ”
is much the same thing as Aristotle’s “ particula
genitalis ” and Harvey’s “ovum.” !

Bonnet’s eminent contemporary, Buffon, held
nearly the same views with respect to the nature
of the germ, and expresses them even more con-
fidently.

**Ceux qui ont cru que le cceur étoit le premier formé, se sont
trompés ; ceux qui disent que c’est le sang se trompent aussi :
tout est formé enméme temps. Si l’on ne consulte que l’obser-
vation, le poulet se voit dans l’ceuf avant qu’il ait été couvé.” ?

**J’ai ouvert une grande quantité d’ceufs a differens temps
avant et aprés l’incubation, et je me suis convaincu par mes
yeux que le poulet existe en entier dans le milieu de la cicatricule
au moment qu'il sort du corps de la poule.’’ 3

The “ moule intérieur” of Buffon is the aggre-
gate of elementary parts which constitute the
individual, and is thus the equivalent of Bonnet’s
germ,‘ as defined in the passage cited above.
But Buffon fyrther imagined that innumerable
“molecules organiques ” are dispersed throughout
the world, and that alimentation consists in the

1M. Cuvier considérant que tous les étres organisés sont
dérivés de parens, et ne voyant dans la nature aucune force
capable de produire l’organisation, croyait & la pré-existence
des germes ; non pas & la pré-existence d’un étre tout formé,
puisqu’il est bien évident que ce n’est que par des développemens
successifs que l’étre acquiert sa forme; mais, si ]’on ut
s’exprimer ainsi, & la pré-existence du radical de l’étre, radical
qui existe avant que la série des évolutions ne commence, et qui
remonte certainement, suivant la belle observation de Bonnet, &
plusieurs generations.” —Laurillard, Eloge de Cuvier, note 12.

2 Histoire Naturelle, tom. ii. ed. ii. 1750, p. 350.

8 Ibid., p. 351. 4 See particularly Buffon, Jc. p. 41.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 195

appropriation by the parts of an organism of those
molecules which are analogous to them. Growth,
therefore, was, on this hypothesis, a process
partly of simple evolution, and partly of what has
been termed “syngenesis.’ Buffon’s opinion is,
in fact, a sort of combination of views, essentially
similar to those of Bonnet, with others, somewhat
similar to those of the “ Medici” whom Harvey
condemns. The “molecules organiques” are
physical equivalents of Leibnitz’s “monads.”

It is a striking example of the difficulty of
getting people to use their own powers of investiga-
tion accurately, that this form of the doctrine of
evolution should have held its ground so long;
for it was thoroughly and completely exploded,
not long after its enunciation, by Casper Friederich
Wolff, who in his “ Theoria Generationis,” pub-
lished in 1759, placed the opposite theory of
epigenesis upon the secure foundation of fact,
from which it has never been displaced. But
Wolff had no immediate successors. The school
of Cuvier was lamentably deficient in embryo-
logists ; and it was only in the course of the first
thirty years of the present century, that Prévost
and Dumas in France, and, later on, Dollinger,
Pander, Von Biir, Rathke, and Remak in Germany,
founded modern embryology; while, at the same
time, they proved the utter incompatibility of the
hypothesis of evolution, as formulated by Bonnet
and Haller, with easily demonstrable facts.

0 2

196 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

Nevertheless, though the conceptions originally
denoted by “evolution” and “development” were
shown to be untenable, the words retained their
application to the process by which the embryos of
living beings gradually make their appearance ;
and the terms “ Development,” “ Entwickelung,”
aud “ Evolutio,” are now indiscriminately used for
the series of genetic changes exhibited by living
beings, by writers who would emphatically deny
that “Development” or “Entwickelung” or
“ Evolutio,’ in the sense in which these words
were usually employed by Bonnet or by Haller,
ever occurs,

Evolution, or development, is, in fact, at present
employed in biology as a general name for the
history of the steps by which any living being has
acquired the morphological and the physiological
characters which distinguish it. As civil history
may be divided into biography, which is the history
of individuals, and universal history, which is the
history of the human race, so evolution falls
naturally into two categories—the evolution of the
individual, and the evolution of the sum of living
beings. It will be convenient to deal with the
modern doctrine of evolution under these two heads.

I, The Evolution of the Individual.
No exception is at this time, known to the
general law, established upon an immense multi-
tude of direct observations, that every living thing

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 197

is evolved from a particle of matter in which no
trace of the distinctive characters of the adult
form of that living thing is discernible. This
particle is termed a germ. Harvey! says—

‘*Omnibus viventibus primordium insit, ex quo et a quo pro-
veniant. Liceat hoc nobis primordium vegetale nominare ; nempe
substantiam quandam corpoream vitam habentem potentia; vel
quoddam per se existens, quod aptum sit, in vegetativam
formam, ab interno principio operante, mutari. Quale nempe
primordium, ovum est et plantarum semen ; tale etiam vivi-
parorum conceptus, et insectorum vermis ab Aristotele dictus :
diversa scilicet diversorum viventium primordia.”

The definition of a germ as “matter potentially
alive, and having within itself the tendency to
assume a definite living form,” appears to meet
all the requirements of modern science. For,
notwithstanding it might be justly questioned
whether a germ is not merely potentially, but
rather actually, alive, though its vital manifesta-
tions are reduced to a minimum, the term
“potential” may fairly be used in a sense broad
enough to escape the objection. And the quali-
fication of “potential” has the advantage of
reminding us that the great characteristic of
the germ is not so much what it is, but what it
may, under suitable conditions, become. Harvey
shared the belief of Aristotle—whose writings he
so often quotes and of whom he speaks as his

1 Exercitationes de Generatione. Ex. 62, ‘Ovum esse
primordium commune omnibus animalibus.”

198 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

precursor and model, with the generous respect with
which one genuine worker should regard another
—that such germs may arise by a process of
“ equivocal generation ” out of not-living matter ;
and the aphorism so commonly ascribed to him,
“omne vivum ex ovo,” and which is-indeed a fair
summary of his reiterated assertions, though
incessantly employed against the modern advyo-
cates of spontaneous generation, can be honestly
so used only by those who have never read a
score of pages of the “ Exercitationes.” Harvey,
in fact, believed as implicitly as Aristotle did in the
equivocal generation of the lower animals, But,
while the course of modern investigation has only
brought out into greater prominence the accuracy
of Harvey’s conception of the nature and mode of
development of germs, it has as distinctly tended
to disprove the occurrence of equivocal generation,
or abiogenesis, in the present course of nature,
In the immense majority of both plants and
animals, it is certain that the germ is not merely
a body in which life is dormant or potential, but
that it is itself simply a detached portion of
the substance of a pre-existing living body; and
the evidence has yet to be adduced which will
satisfy any cautious reasoner that “omne vivum
ex vivo” is not as well-established a law of
the existing course of nature as “omne vivum
ex Ovo.”

In all instances which have yet been investi-

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 199

gated, the substance of this germ has a peculiar
chemical composition, consisting of at fewest four
elementary bodies, viz., carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen, united into the ill-defined compound
known as protein, and associated with much
water, and very generally, if not always, with
sulphur and phosphorus in minute proportions.
Moreover, up to the present time, protein is known
only as a product and constituent of living
matter. Again, a true germ is either devoid of
any structure discernible by optical means, or, at
most, it is a simple nucleated cell. )
In all cases the process of evolution consists in
a succession of changes of the form, structure,
and functions of the germ, by which it passes,
step by step, from an extreme simplicity, or rela-
tive homogeneity, of visible structure, to a greater
or less degree of complexity or heterogeneity ;
and the course of progressive differentiation is
usually accompanied by growth, which is effected
by intussusception. This intussusception, how-
ever, is a very different process from that imagined
either by Buffon or by Bonnet. The substance
by the addition of which the germ is enlarged is
in no case simply absorbed, ready-made, from the
not-living world and packed between the elemen-
tary constituents of the germ, as Bonnet imagined;

* In some cases of sexless multiplication the germ is a cell-
ageregate—if we call germ only that which is already detached
from the parent organism.

200 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

still less does it consist of the “molecules or-
ganiques ” of Buffon. The new material is, in great
measure, not only absorbed but assimilated, so
that it becomes part and parcel of the molecular
structure of the living body into which it enters.
And, so far from the fully developed organism
being simply the germ plus the nutriment which
it has absorbed, it is probable that the adult con-
tains neither in form, nor in substance, more than
an inappreciable fraction of the constituents of
the germ, and that it is almost, if not wholly,
made up of assimilated and metamorphosed
nutriment. In the great majority of cases, at
any rate, the full-grown organism becomes what
it is by the absorption of not-living matter, and
its conversion into living matter of a specific type.
As Harvey says (Ex. 45), all parts of the body
are nourished “ab eodem succo ailibili, aliter
aliterque cambiato,” “ut plantze omnes ex eodem
communi nutrimento (sive rore seu terre
humore).”

Tn all animals and plants above the lowest the
germ is a nucleated cell, using that term in its
broadest sense ; and the first step in the process
of the evolution of the individual is the division
of this cell into two or more portions. The pro-
cess of division is repeated, until the organism,
from being unicellular, becomes multicellular.
The single cell becomes a cell-aggregate ; and it
is to the growth and metamorphosis of the cells

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 201

of the cell-aggregate thus produced, that all the
organs and tissues of the adult owe their origin,

In certain animals belonging to every one of
the chief groups into which the J/etazoa are
divisible, the cells of the cell-aggregate which
results from the process of yelk-division, and
which is termed a morula, diverge from one
another in such a manner as to give rise to a
central space, around which they dispose them-
selves as a coat or envelope; and thus the morula
becomes a vesicle filled with fluid, the planula.
The wall of the planula is next pushed in on one
side, or invaginated, whereby it is converted into
a double-walled sac with an opening, the bdblasto- |
pore, which leads into the cavity lined by the
inner wall, This cavity is the primitive alimen-
tary cavity or archenteron; the inner or inva-
ginated layer is the hypoblast; the outer the
epiblast ; and the embryo, in this stage, is termed
a gastrula, In all the higher animals a layer of
cells makes its appearance between the hypoblast
and the epiblast, and is termed the mesoblast. In
the further course of development the epiblast
becomes the ectoderm or epidermic layer of the
body; the hypoblast becomes the epithelium of
the middle portion of the alimentary canal; and
the mesoblast gives rise to all the other tissues,
except the central nervous system, which origin-
ates from an ingrowth of the epiblast.

With more or less modification in detail, the

202 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

embryo has been observed to pass through these
successive evolutional stages in sundry Sponges,
Coelenterates, Worms, Echinoderms, Tunicates,
Arthropods, Mollusks, and Vertebrates; and there
are valid reasons for the belief that all animals of
higher organisation than the Protozoa agree in the
general character of the early stages of their indi-
vidual evolution. Each, starting from the condition
of a simple nucleated cell, becomes a cell-aggregate ;
and this passes through a condition which re-
presents the gastrula stage, before taking on the
features distinctive of the group to which it belongs.
Stated in this form, the “gastrea theory” of
Haeckel appears to the present writer to be one of
most important and best founded of recent general-
isations. So far as individual plants and animals
are concerned, therefore, evolution is not a specu-
lation but a fact; and it takes place by epigenesis.

** Animal. . . per epigenesin procreatur, materiam simul attra-
hit, parat, concoquit, et eaddem utitur ; formatur simul et augetur
... primum futuri corporis concrementum .. . prout augetur,
dividitur sensim et distinguitur in partes, non simul omnes, sed
alias post alias natas, et ordine quasque suo emergentes,”’?

In these words, by the divination of genius,
Harvey, in the seventeenth century, summed up
the outcome of the work of all those who, with
appliances he could not dream of, are continuing
his labours in the nineteenth century.

1 Harvey, Exercitationes de Generatione. Ex. 45, ‘‘ Quenam
sit pulli materia et quomodo fiat in Ovo.”

vi EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 203

Nevertheless, though the doctrine of epigenesis,
as understood by Harvey, has definitively triumphed
over the doctrine of evolution, as understood
by his opponents of the eighteenth century,
it is not impossible that, when the analysis of the
process of development is carried still further, and
the origin of the molecular components of the
physically gross, though sensibly minute, bodies
which we term germs is traced, the theory of de-
velopment will approach more nearly to meta-
morphosis than to epigenesis. Harvey thought
that impregnation influenced the female organism
as a contagion ; and that the blood, which he con-
ceived to be the first rudiment of the germ, arose
in the clear fluid of the “ colliquamentum ” of the
ovum by a process of concrescence, as a sort of
living precipitate. We now know, on the contrary,
that the female germ or ovum, in all the higher
animals and plants, is a body which possesses the
structure of a nucleated cell; that impregnation
consists in the fusion of the substance? of another
more or less modified nucleated cell, the male germ,
with the ovum; and that the structural com-
ponents of the body of the embryo are all derived,
by a process of division, from the coalesced male
and female germs. Hence it is conceivable, and
indeed probable, that every part of the adult con-
tains molecules, derived both from the male and

1 [At any rate of the nuclei of the two germ-cells. 1893].

204 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY v1

from the female parent ; and that, regarded as a
mass of molecules, the entire organism may be com-
pared to a web of which the warp is derived from the
female and the woof from the male. And each of
these may constitute one individuality, in the same
sense as the whole organism is one individual, al-
though the matter of the organism has been con-
stantly changing. The primitive male and female
molecules may play the part of Buffon’s “moules
organiques,” and mould the assimilated nutriment,
each according to its own type, into innumerable
new molecules. From this point of view the process,
which, in its superficial aspect, is epigenesis, appears
in essence, to be evolution, in the modified sense
adopted in Bonnet’s later writings; and develop-
ment is merely the expansion of a potential organ-
ism or “ original preformation ” according to fixed
laws.

II. The Evolution of the Sum of Living Beings.

The notion that all the kinds of animals and
plants may have come into existence by the growth
and modification of primordial germs is as old as
speculative thought; but the modern scientific
form of the doctrine can be traced historically to
the influence of several converging lines of philo-
sophical speculation and of physical observation,
none of which go farther back than the seven-
teenth century. These are :—

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 205

1. The enunciation by Descartes of the concep-
tion that the physical universe, whether living or
not living, is a mechanism, and that, as such, it is
explicable on physical principles.

2. The observation of the gradations of struc-
ture, from extreme simplicity to very great com-
plexity, presented by living things, and of the
relation of these graduated forms to one another.

3. The observation of the existence of an anal-
ogy between the series of gradations presented by
the species which compose any great group of
animals or plants, and the series of embryonic
conditions of the highest members of that group.

4. The observation that large groups of species
of widely different habits present the same funda-
mental plan of structure; and that parts of the
same animal or plant, the functions of which are
very different, likewise exhibit modifications of a
common plan.

5. The observation of the existence of structures,
in a rudimentary and apparently useless condition,
in one species of a group, which are fully devel-
oped and have definite functions in other species
of the same group.

6. The observation of the effects of varying
conditions in modifying living organisms,

7. The observation of the facts of geographical
distribution.

8. The observation of the facts of the geological
succession of the forms of life.

206 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

1. Notwithstanding the elaborate disguise which
fear of the powers that were led Descartes to
throw over his real opinions, it is impossible to
read the “ Principes de la Philosophie ” without
acquiring the conviction that this great philosopher
held that the physical world and all things in it,
whether living or not living, have originated by a
process of evolution, due to the continuous opera-
tion of purely physical causes, out of a primitive
relatively formless matter.’

The following passage 1s especially instructive :—

‘*Et tant s’en faut que je veuille que l’on croie toutes les
choses que j’écrirai, que méme je pretends en proposer ici quelques
unes que je crois absolument étre fausses ; & savoir, je ne doute
point que le monde n’ait été créé au commencement avec autant
de perfection qu'il en a; en sorte que le soleil, la terre, la lune,
et les étoiles ont €té dés lors ; et que la terre n’a pas eu seulement
en soi les semences des plantes, mais que les plantes méme en
ont couvert une partie ; et qu’ Adam et Eve n’ont pas été créés
enfans mais en Age d’hommes parfaits. La religion chrétienne
veut que nous le croyons ainsi, et la raison naturelle nous persuade
entitrement cette vérité ; car si nous considérons la toute puis-
sance de Dieu, nous devons juger que tout ce qu'il a fait aeu dés
le commencement toute la perfection qu’il devoit avoir. Mais
néanmoins, comme on connditroit beaucoup mieux quelle a été la
nature d’Adam et celle des arbres de Paradis si on avoit examiné
comment Jes enfants se forment peu a peu dans le ventre de leurs
méres et comment les plantes sortent de leurs semences, que si
on avoit seulement considéré quels ils ont été quand Dieu les a
créés: tout de méme, nous ferons mieux entendre quelle est

1 As Buffon has well said :—‘‘ L’idée de ramener l’explication
de tous les phénoménes & des principes mecaniques est assure-
ment grande et belle, ce pas est le plus hardi qu’on peut faire en
philosophie, et c’est Descartes qui l’a fait.” —J.c. p. 50.

vI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 207

généralement la nature de toutes les choses qui sont au monde si
nous pouvons imaginer quelques principes qui soient fort intelli-
gibles et fort simples, desquels nous puissions voir clairement que
les astres et la terre et enfin tout ce monde visible auroit pu étre
produit ainsi que de quelques semences (bien que nous sachions
qu'il n’a pas été produit en cette fagon) que si nous la decrivions
seulement comme il est, ou bien comme nous croyons qu'il a été
eréé. Et parceque je pense avoir trouvé des principes qui sont
tels, je tacherai ici de les expliquer.” +

If we read between the lines of this singular
exhibition of force of one kind and weakness of
another, it is clear that Descartes believed that he
had divined the mode in which the physical uni-
verse had been evolved; and the “Traité de
Homme,’ and the essay “ Sur les Passions ” afford
abundant additional evidence that he sought for,
and thought he had found, an explanation of the
phenomena of physical life by deduction from
purely physical laws.

Spinoza abounds in the same sense, and is as
usual perfectly candid—

** Nature leges et regule, secundum quas omnia fiunt et ex
unis formis in alias mutantur, sunt ubique et semper eadem.” ?

Leibnitz’s doctrine of continuity necessarily led
him in the same direction; and, of the infinite
multitude of monads with which he peopled the
world, each is supposed to be the focus of an end-
less process of evolution and involution. In the

1 Principes de la Philosophic, Troisitme partie, § 45.
2 Ethices, Pars tertia, Prefatio.

208 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

“ Protogea,’ xxvi., Leibnitz distinctly suggests the
mutability of species—

‘* Alii mirantur in saxis passim species videri quas vel in orbe
cognito, vel saltem in vicinis locis frustra queras. ‘Ita Cornua
Ammonis,’ que ex nautilorum numero habeantur, passim et
forma et magnitudine (nam et pedali diametro aliquando reperiun-
tur) ab omnibus illis naturis discrepare dicunt, quas prebet mare,
Sed quis absconditos ejus recessus aut subterraneas abyssos per-
vestigavit ? quam multa nobis animalia antea ignota offert novus
orbis? Et credibile est per magnas illas conversiones etiam
animalium species plurimum immutatas.”

Thus, in the end of the seventeenth century,
the seed was sown which has, at intervals, brought
forth recurrent crops of evolutional hypotheses,
based, more or less completely, on general
reasonings.

Among the earliest of these speculations is
that put forward by Benoit de Maillet in his
“Telliamed,”’ which, though printed in 1735, was
not published until twenty-three years later.
Considering that this book was written before the
time of Haller, or Bonnet, or Linnzus, or Hutton,
it surely deserves more respectful consideration
than it usually receives. For De Maillet not only
has a definite conception of the plasticity of living
things, and of the production of existing species
by the modification of their predecessors ; but he
clearly apprehends the cardinal maxim of modern
geological science, that the explanation of the
structure of the globe is to be sought in the

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 209

deductive application to geological phenomena of
the principles established inductively by the study
of the present course of nature. Somewhat later,
Maupertuis! suggested a curious hypothesis as to
the causes of variation, which he thinks may be
sufficient to account for the origin of all animals
from a single pair. Robinet ? followed out much
the same line of thought as De Maillet, but less
soberly ; and Bonnet’s speculations in the “ Paling-
énésie,’ which appeared in 1769, have already
been mentioned. Buffon (1753-1778), at first a
partisan of the absolute immutability of species,
subsequently appears to have believed that larger
or smaller groups of species have been produced
by the modification of a primitive stock ; but he
contributed nothing to the general doctrine of
evolution,

Erasmus Darwin (“ Zoonomia,” 1794), though a
zealous evolutionist, can hardly be said to have
made any real advance on his predecessors ; and,
notwithstanding that Goethe (1791-4) had the
advantage of a wide knowledge of morphological
facts, and a true insight into their signification,
while he threw all the power of a great poet into
the expression of his conceptions, it may be ques-
tioned whether he supplied the doctrine of evolu-

1 Systeme dela Nature, ‘‘ Essai sur la Formation des Corps
Organisés,” 1751, xiv.

* Considérations Philosophiques sur la gradation naturelle des

JSormes de Vétre ; ow les essais de la nature qui apprend a faire
Phomme, 1768.

VOL. I P

210 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

tion with a firmer scientific basis than it already
possessed. Moreover, whatever the value of
Goethe’s labours in that field, they were not
published before 1820, long after evolutionism had
taken a new departure from the works of Trevir-
anus and Lamarck—the first of its advocates who
were equipped for their task with the needful
large and accurate knowledge of the phenomena of
life, asa whole. It is remarkable that each of
these writers seems to have been led, independ-
ently and contemporaneously, to invent the same
name of “ Biology” for the science of the pheno-
mena of life; and thus, following Buffon, to have
recognised the essential unity of these phenomena,
and their contradistinction from those of inanimate
nature. And it is hard to say whether Lamarck
or Treviranus has the priority in propounding the
main thesis of the doctrine of evolution; for
though the first volume of Treviranus’s “ Biologie ”
appeared only in 1802, he says, in the preface to
his later work, the “ Erscheinungen und Gesetze
des organischen Lebens,” dated 1831, that he
wrote the first volume of the “ Biologie” “nearly
five-and-thirty years ago,” or about 1796.

Now, in 1794, there is evidence that Lamarck
held doctrines which present a striking contrast to
those which are to be found in the “ Philosophie
Zoologique,” as the following passages show :—

‘685, Quoique mon unique objet dans cet article n’ait été que
de traiter de la cause physique de l’entretien de la vie des étres

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 211

organiques, malgré cela j’ai osé avancer en débutant, que l’exist-
ence de ces étres étonnants n’appartiennent nullement a la
nature ; que tout ce qu’on peut entendre par le mot nature, ne
pouvoit donner la vie, c’est-a-dire, que toutes les qualités de la
matiére, jointes a toutes les circonstances possibles, et méme &
activité répandue dans l’univers, ne pouvaient point produire
un étre muni du mouvement organique, capable de reproduire
son semblable, et sujet & la mort.

‘*686. Tous les individus de cette nature, qui existent, pro-
viennent d’individus semblables qui tous ensemble constituent
lespéce entiére, Or, je crois qu’il est aussi impossible & l'homme
de connditre la cause physique du premier individu de chaque
espéce, que d’assigner aussi physiquement la cause de l’existence
de la matiére ou de l’univers entier, C’est au moins ce que le
résultat de mes connaissances et de mes réflexions me portent a
penser. S’il existe beaucoup de variétés produites par l’effet des
circonstances, ces variétés ne dénaturent point les espéces ; mais
on se trompe, sans doute souvent, en indiquant comme espéce, ce
qui n’est que variété ; et alors je sens que cette erreur peut tirer
& conséquence dans les raisonnements que l’on fait sur cette
matiére,” +

The first three volumes of Treviranus’s “ Bio-
logie,” which contain his general views of
evolution, appeared between 1802 and 1805. The
“Recherches sur I’ organisation des corps vivants,”
in which the outlines of Lamarck’s doctrines are
given, was published in 1802; but the full develop-

1 Recherches swr les causes des principaux faits physiques,
ar J. B. Lamarck. Paris. Seconde année de la République.
n the preface, Lamarck says that the work was written in 1776,

and presented to the Academy in 1780 ; butit was not published
before 1794, and, at that time, it presumably expressed Lamarck’s
mature views. It would be interesting to know what brought
‘about the change of opinion manifested in the Recherches sur
Vorganisation des corps vivants, published only seven years
later.

Pp 2

212 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

ment of his views, in the “Philosophie
Zoologique,” did not take place until 1809.

The “Biologie” and the “Philosophie Zoolo-
gique ” are both very remarkable productions, and
are still worthy of attentive study, but they fell
upon evil times. The vast authority of Cuvier
was employed in support of the traditionally
respectable hypotheses of special creation and of
catastrophism ; and the wild speculations of the
“Discours sur les Révolutions de la Surface du
Globe” were held to be models of sound scientific
thinking, while the really much more sober and
philosophical hypotheses of the “ Hydrogeologie”
were scouted. For many years it was the fashion
to speak of Lamarck with ridicule, while Trevir-
anus was altogether ignored. |

Nevertheless, the work had been done. The
conception of evolution was henceforward irrepres-
sible, and it incessantly reappears, in one shape or
another,! up to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin
and Mr. Wallace published their “Theory of
Natural Selection.” The “Origin of Species”
appeared in 1859; and it is within the knowledge
of all whose memories go back to that time, that,
henceforward, the doctrine of evolution has
assumed a position and acquired an importance
which it never before possessed. In the “ Origin
of Species,’ and in his other numerous and

1 See the ‘‘ Historical Sketch” prefixed to the last edition of
the Origin of Species.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 213

important contributions to the solution of the
problem of biological evolution, Mr. Darwin con-
fines himself to the discussion of the causes which
have brought about the present condition of living
matter, assuming such matter to have once come
into existence. On the other hand, Mr. Spencer *
and Professor Haeckel ? have dealt with the whole
problem of evolution. The profound and vigorous
writings of Mr. Spencer embody the spirit of
Descartes in the knowledge of our own day, and
may be regarded as the ‘“Principes de la
Philosophie” of the nineteenth century; while,
whatever hesitation may not unfrequently be felt
by less daring minds, in following Haeckel in many
of his speculations, his attempt to systematise the
doctrine of evolution and to exhibit its influence
as the central thought of modern biology, cannot
fail to have a far-reaching influence on the progress
of science.

If we seek for the reason of the difference
between the scientific position of the doctrine of
evolution a century ago, and that which it occupies
now, we shall find it in the great accumulation
of facts, the several classes of which have been
enumerated above, under the second to the eighth
heads. For those which are grouped under the
second to the seventh of these classes, respectively,
have a clear significance on the hypothesis of

1 First Principles, and Principles of Biology, 1860-1864.
2 Generelle Morphologie, 1866.

214 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY vI

evolution, while they are unintelligible if that
hypothesis be denied. And those of the eighth
group are not only unintelligible without the
assumption of evolution, but can be proved never
to be discordant with that hypothesis, while, in
some cases, they are exactly such as the hypothesis
requires. The demonstration of these assertions
would require a volume, but the general nature of
the evidence on which they rest may be briefly
indicated.

2. The accurate investigation of the lowest
forms of animal life, commenced by Leeuwenhoek
and Swammerdam, and continued by the remark-
able labours of Reaumur, Trembley, Bonnet, and a
host of other observers, in the latter part of the
seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth
centuries, drew the attention of biologists to the
gradation in the complexity of organisation which
is presented by living beings, and culminated in
the doctrine of the “ échelle des étres,” so power-
fully and clearly stated by Bonnet; and, before
him, adumbrated by Locke and by Leibnitz. In
the then state of knowledge, it appeared that all
the species of animals and plants could be
arranged in one series ; in such a manner that, by
insensible gradations, the mineral passed into the
plant, the plant into the polype, the polype into
the worm, and so, through gradually higher forms
of life, to man, at the summit of the animated
world.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 215

But, as knowledge advanced, this conception
ceased to be tenable in the crude form in which
it was first put forward. Taking into account
existing animals and plants alone, it became
obvious that they fell into groups which were
more or less sharply separated from one another ;
and, moreover, that even the species of a genus
can hardly ever be arranged in linear series.
Their natural resemblances and differences are
only to be expressed by disposing them as if they
were branches springing from a common hypo-
thetical centre.

Lamarck, while affirming the verbal proposition
that animals form a single series, was forced by his
vast acquaintance with the details of zoology to
limit the assertion to such a series as may be
formed out of the abstractions constituted by the
common characters of each group."

Cuvier on anatomical, and Von Baer on embryo-
logical grounds, made the further step of proving
that, even in this limited sense, animals cannot be
arranged in a single series, but that there are
several distinct plans of organisation to be observed
among them, no one of which, in its highest and
most complicated modification, leads to any of the
others,

_ 1 *T] s’agit done de prouver que la série qui constitue
léchelle animale réside essentiellement dans la distribution des
masses principales quila composent et non dans celle des espéces

ne méme toujours dans celle des genres.” —Philosophie Zoologique,
chap. v.

216 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

The conclusions enunciated by Cuvier and Von
Baer have been confirmed, in principle, by all
subsequent research into the structure of animals
and plants. But the effect of the adoption of
these conclusions has been rather to substitute a
new metaphor for that of Bonnet than to abolish
the conception expressed by it. Instead of regard-
ing living things as capable of arrangement in one
series like the steps of a ladder, the results of
modern investigation compel us to dispose them
as if they were the twigs and branches of a tree.
The ends of the twigs represent individuals, the
smallest groups of twigs species, larger groups
genera, and so on, until we arrive at the source of
all these ramifications of the main branch, which
is represented by a common plan of structure. At
the present moment, it is impossible to draw up
any definition, based on broad anatomical or
developmental characters, by which any one of
Cuvier’s great groups shall be separated from all
the rest. On the contrary, the lower members of
each tend to converge towards the lower members
of all the others. The same may be said of the
vegetable world. The apparently clear distinction
between flowering and flowerless plants has been
broken down by the series of gradations between
the two exhibited by the Lycopodiacew, Rhizo-
carpee,and Gymnospermee. The groups of Fungi,
Lichenes, and Alge have completely run into one
another, and, when the lowest forms of each are

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 217

alone considered, even the animal and vegetable
kingdoms cease to have a definite frontier.

If it is permissible to speak of the relations of
living forms to one another metaphorically, the
similitude chosen must undoubtedly be that of a
common root, whence two main trunks, one repre-
senting the vegetable and one the animal world,
spring; and, each dividing into a few main
branches, these subdivide into multitudes of
branchlets and these into smaller groups of
twigs.

As Lamarck has well said—

‘*T] n’y a que ceux qui se sont longtemps et fortement occupés
de la détermination des espéces, et qui ont consulté de riches
collections, qui peuvent savoir jusqu’a quel point les espéces,
parmi les corps vivants se fondent les unes dans les autres, et qui
ont pu se convaincre que, dans les parties o4 nous voyons des
espéeces isolés, cela n’est ainsi que parcequ’il nous en manque
d’autres qui en sont plus voisines et que nous n’avons pas encore
recueillies,

**Je ne veux pas dire pour cela que les animaux qui existent
forment une série trés-simple et partout également nuancée ;
mais je dis quils forment une série ramense, irréguli¢érement
graduée et qui n’a point de discontinuité dans ses parties, ou qui,
du moins, n’en a toujours pas eu, s'il est vrai que, par suite de
quelques espéces perdues, il s’en trouve quelque part. Il en
resulte que les espéces qui terminent chaque rameau de la série
générale tiennent, au moins d’un cété, 4 d’autres espéces voisines
qui se nuancent avec elles. Voila ce que ]’état bien connu des
choses me met maintenant & portée de demontrer. Je n’ai
besoin d’aucune hypothése ni d’aucune supposition pour cela :
jen atteste tous les naturalistes observateurs. ”

1 Philosophie Zoologique, premitre partie, chap. iii.

218 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

3. In a remarkable essay ? Meckel remarks—

‘There is no good physiologist who has not been struck by
the observation that the original form of all organisms is one and
the same, and that out of this one form, all, the lowest as well as
the highest, are developed in such a manner that the latter pass
through the permanent forms of the former as transitory stages,
Aristotle, Haller, Harvey, Kielmeyer, Autenrieth, and many
others, have either made this observation incidentally, or,
especially the latter, have drawn particular attention to it,
and deduced therefrom results of permanent importance for

physiology.”

Meckel proceeds to exemplify the thesis, that
the lower forms of animals represent stages in
the course of the development of the higher, with
a large series of illustrations.

After comparing the Salamanders and _ the
perennibranchiate Urodela with the Tadpoles and
the Frogs, and enunciating the law that the more
highly any animal is organised the more quickly
does it pass through the lower stages, Meckel goes
on to say—

** From these lowest Vertebrata to the highest, and to the
highest forms among these, the comparison between the embry-
onic conditions of the higher animals and the adult states of the
lower can be more completely and thoroughly instituted than if
the survey is extended to the Invertebrata, inasmuch as the latter
are in many respects constructed upon an altogether too dissimilar

type ; indeed they often differ from one another far more than
the lowest vertebrate does from the highest mammal; yet the

1 «© Rntwurf einer Darstellung der zwischen dem ithibeyonis-
tiinde der héheren Thiere und dem permanenten der niederen
stattfindenden Parallele,” Beytridge zur Vergleichenden Anatomie,
Bd. ii. 1811.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 219

following pages will show that the comparison may also be
extended to them with interest. In fact, there is a period when,
as Aristotle long ago said, the embryo of the highest animal
has the form of a mere worm; and, devoid of internal and
external organisation, is merely an almost structureless lump of
polype substance. Nothwithstanding the origin of organs, it
still for a certain time, by reason of its want of an internal bony
skeleton, remains worm and mollusk, and only later enters into
the series of the Vertebrata, although traces of the vertebral
column even in the earliest periods testify its claim to a place
in that series.” —Op. cit. pp. 4, 5.

If Meckel’s proposition is so far qualified, that
the comparison of adult with embryonic forms is
restricted within the limits of one type of organi-
sation; and, if it is further recollected that the
resemblance between the permanent lower form
and the embryonic stage of a higher form is not
special but general, it is in entire accordance with
modern embryology ; although there is no branch
of biology which has grown so largely, and im-
proved its methods so much, since Meckel’s time,
as this. In its original form, the doctrine of
“arrest of development,” as advocated by Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire and Serres, was no doubt an over-
statement of the case. It is not true, for example,
that a fish is a reptile arrested in its development,
or that a reptile was ever a fish: but it is true
that the reptile embryo, at one stage of its
development, is an organism which, if it had an
independent existence, must be classified among
fishes; and all the organs of the reptile pass, in
the course of their development, through conditions

220 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

which are closely analogous to those which are
permanent in some fishes.

4, That branch of biology which is termed Mor-
phology is a commentary upon, and expansion of,
the proposition that widely different animals or
plants, and widely different parts of animals or
plants, are constructed upon the same _ plan,
From the rough comparison of the skeleton of a
bird with that of a man by Belon, in the sixteenth
century (to go no farther back), down to the
theory of the limbs and the theory of the skull at
the present day ; or, from the first demonstration of
the homologies of the parts of a flower by C. F.
Wolff, to the present elaborate analysis of the
floral organs, morphology exhibits a continual
advance towards the demonstration of a funda-
mental unity among the seeming diversities of
living structures. And this demonstration has
been completed by the final establishment of the
cell theory, which involves the admission of a
primitive conformity, not only of all the elemen-
tary structures in animals and plants respectively,
but of those in the one of these great divisions
of living things with those in the other, No @
priori difficulty can be said to stand in the way of
evolution, when it can be shown that all animals
and all plants proceed by modes of development,
which are similar in principle, from a fundamental
protoplasmic material.

5. The innumerable cases of structures, which are

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 221

rudimentary and apparently useless, in species,
the close allies of which possess well-developed
and functionally important homologous structures,
are readily intelligible on the theory of evolution,
while it is hard to conceive their raison d’étre on
any other hypothesis. However, a cautious rea-
soner will probably rather explain such cases
deductively from the doctrine of evolution than
endeavour to support the doctrine of evolution by
them. For it is almost impossible to prove that
any structure, however rudimentary, is useless—
that is to say, that it plays no part whatever in
the economy; and, if it is in the slightest degree
useful, there is no reason why, on the hypothesis
of direct creation, it should not have been created.
Nevertheless, double-edged as is the argument
from rudimentary organs, there is probably none
which has produced a greater effect in promoting
the general acceptance of the theory of evo-
lution.

6. The older advocates of evolution sought for the
causes of the process exclusively in the influence of
varying conditions, such as climate and station, or
hybridisation, upon living forms. Even Treviranus
has got no farther than this point. Lamarck in-
troduced the conception of the action of an animal
on itself as a factor in producing modification.
Starting from the well-known fact that the
habitual use of a limb tends to develop the muscles
of the limb, and to produce a greater and greater

222 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

facility in using it, he made the general assumption
that the effort of an animal to exert an organ in a
given direction tends to develop the organ in that
direction. But a little consideration showed that,
though Lamarck had seized what, as far it goes, is
a true cause of modification, it is a cause the actual
effects of which are wholly inadequate to account
for any considerable modification in animals, and
which can have no influence at all in the vegetable
world; and probably nothing contributed so much
to discredit evolution, in the early part of this
century, as the floods of easy ridicule which were
- poured upon this part of Lamarck’s speculation.
The theory of natural selection, or survival of the
fittest, was suggested by Wells in 1813, and
further elaborated by Matthew in 1831. But the
pregnant suggestions of these writers remained
practically unnoticed and forgotten, until the theory
was independently devised and promulgated by
Darwin and Wallace in 1858, and the effect of its
publication was immediate and profound,

Those who were unwilling to accept evolution,
without better grounds than such as are offered by
Lamarck, or the author of that particularly un-
satisfactory book, the ‘ Vestiges of the Natural
History of the Creation,’ and who therefore
preferred to suspend their judgment on the
question, found, in the principle of selective
breeding, pursued in all its applications with
marvellous knowledge and skill by Mr. Darwin, a

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 223

valid explanation of the occurrence of varieties and
races; and they saw clearly that, if the explanation
would apply to species, it would not only solve the
problem of their evolution, but that it would ac-
count for the facts of teleology, as well as for those
of morphology ; and for the persistence of some
forms of life unchanged through long epochs of
time, while others undergo comparatively rapid
metamorphosis.

How far “natural selection” suffices for the pro-
duction of species remains to be seen. Few can
doubt that, if not the whole cause, it is a very im-
portant factor in that operation ; and that it must
play a great part in the sorting out of varieties
into those which are trans#ory and those which
are permanent,

But the causes and conditions of variation have
yet to be thoroughly explored ; and the importance
of natural selection will not be impaired, even if
further inquiries should prove that variability
is definite, and is determined in certain directions
rather than in others, by conditions inherent in
that which varies. It is quite conceivable that
every species tends to produce varieties of a
limited number and kind, and that the effect of
natural selection is to favour the development of
some of these, while it opposes the development
of others along their predetermined lines of modi-
fication.

7. No truths brought to light by biological

224 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

investigation were better calculated to inspire
distrust of the dogmas intruded upon science in
the name of theology, than those which relate to
the distribution of animals and plants on the
surface of the earth. Very skilful accommodation
was needful, if the limitation of sloths to South
America, and of the ornithorhynchus to Australia,
was to be reconciled with the literal interpretation
of the history of the deluge; and with the estab-
lishment of the existence of distinct provinces of
distribution, any serious belief in the peopling of
the world by migration from Mount Ararat came
to an end,

Under these circumstances, only one alternative
was left for those who denied the occurrence of
evolution—namely, the supposition that the
characteristic animals and plants of each great
province were created as such, within the limits in
which we find them. And as the hypothesis of
“ specific centres,’ thus formulated, was heterodox
from the theological point of view, and unintelli-
gible under its scientific aspect, it may be passed
over without further notice, as a phase of transi-
tion from the creational to the evolutional hypo-
thesis.

8. In fact, the strongest and most conclusive
arguments in favour of evolution are those which
are based upon the facts of geographical, taken
in conjunction with those of geological, distri-
bution.

VI EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY 225

Both Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace lay great
stress on the close relation which obtains between
the existing fauna of any region and that of the
immediately antecedent geological epoch in the
same region; and rightly, for it is in truth in-
conceivable that there should be no genetic
connection between the two. It is possible to put
into words the proposition that all the animals and
plants of each geological epoch were annihilated
and that a new set of very similar forms was
created for the next epoch ; but it may be doubted
if any one who ever tried to form a distinct mental
image of this process of spontaneous generation on
the grandest scale, ever really succeeded in real-
ising it.

Within the last twenty years, the attention of
the best palzeontologists has been withdrawn from
the hodman’s work of making “new species” of
fossils, to the scientific task of completing our
knowledge of individual species, and tracing out
the succession of the forms presented by any
given type in time.

Those who desire to inform themselves of the
nature and extent of the evidence bearing on these
questions may consult the works of Riitimeyer,
Gaudry, Kowalewsky, Marsh, and the writer of the
present article. It must suffice, in this place, to
-say that the successive forms of the Equine type
have been fully worked out ; while those of nearly
all the other existing types of Ungulate mammals

VOL, If Q

226 EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY VI

and of the Carnivora have been almost as closely
followed through the Tertiary deposits; the gra-
dations between birds and reptiles have been
traced ; and the modifications undergone by the
Crocodilia, from the Triassic epoch to the present
day, have been demonstrated. On the evidence of
palzontology, the evolution of many existing forms
of animal life from their predecessors is no longer
an hypothesis, but an historical fact ; it is only the
nature of the physiological factors to which
that evolution is due: which is still open to dis-
cussion.

[At page 209, the reference to Erasmus Darwin does not do
justice to that ingenious writer, who, in the 39th section of the
Zoonomia, clearly and repeatedly enunciates the theory of the
inheritance of acquired modifications. For example: ‘‘ From
their first rudiment, or primordium, to the termination of their
lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations ; which are
in part produced by their own exertions in consequence of their
desires and aversions, of their pleasures and their pains, or of
irritation, or of associations ; and many of these acquired forms
or propensities are transmitted to their posterity.” Zoonomia I.,
p. 506. 1893.]

Vil

THE COMING OF AGE OF “THE ORIGIN
OF SPECIES ”

[1880]

Many of you will be familiar with the aspect ot
this small green-covered book. It is a copy of the
first edition of the “ Origin of Species,” and bears
the date of its production—the Ist of October
1859. Only a few months, therefore, are needed
to complete the full tale of twenty-one years since
its birthday.

Those whose memories carry them back to this
time will remember that the infant was remarkably
lively, and that a great number of excellent per-
sons mistook its manifestations of a vigorous
individuality for mere naughtiness; in fact there
was a very pretty turmoil about its cradle, My
recollections of the period are particularly vivid ;
. for, having conceived a tender affection for a child
of what appeared to me to be such remarkable
promise, I acted for some time in the capacity of a

Q 2

228 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

sort of under-nurse, and thus came in for my share
of the storms which threatened the very life of
the young creature. For some years it was
undoubtedly warm work; but considering how
exceedingly unpleasant the apparition of the new-
comer must have been to those who did not fall in
love with him at first sight, 1 think it is to the
credit of our age that the war was not fiercer, and
that the more bitter and unscrupulous forms of
opposition died away as soon as they did.

I speak of this period as of something past and
gone, possessing merely an historical, I had almost
said an antiquarian interest. For, during the
second decade of the existence of the “ Origin of
Species,’ opposition, though by no means dead,
assumed a different aspect. On the part of all
those who had any reason to respect themselves,
it assumed a thoroughly respectful character. By
this time, the dullest began to perceive that the
child was not likely to perish of any congenital
weakness or infantile disorder, but was growing
into a stalwart personage, upon whom mere goody
scoldings and threatenings with the birch-rod
were quite thrown away. |

In fact, those who have watched the progress of
science within the last ten years will bear me out
to the full, when I assert that there is no field of
biological inquiry in which the influence of the
“ Origin of Species ” is not traceable ; the foremost
men of science in every country are either avowed

VII “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” 229

champions of its leading doctrines, or at any rate
abstain from opposing them ; a host of young and
ardent investigators seek for and find inspiration
and guidance in Mr. Darwin’s great work ; and the
general doctrine of evolution, to one side of which
it gives expression, obtains, in the phenomena of
biology, a firm base of operations whence it may
conduct its conquest of the whole realm of Nature.

History warns us, however, that it is the cus-
tomary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and
to end as superstitions ; and, as matters now stand,
it is hardly rash to anticipate that, in another
twenty years, the new generation, educated under
the influences of the present day, will be in danger
of accepting the main doctrines of the “ Origin of
Species,” with as little reflection, and it may be
with as little justification, as so many of our con-
temporaries, twenty years ago, rejected them.

Against any such a consummation let us all
devoutly pray; for the scientific spirit is of more
value than its products, and irrationally held
truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
Now the essence of the scientific spirit is criticism.
It tells us that whenever a doctrine claims our
assent we should reply, Take it if you can compel
it. The struggle for existence holds as much in
the intellectual as in the physical world, A theory
- is a species of thinking, and its right to exist is
coextensive with its power of resisting extinction
by its rivals,

230 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

From this point of view, it appears to me that
it would be but a poor way of celebrating the
Coming of Age of the “ Origin of Species,” were I
merely to dwell upon the facts, undoubted and re-
markable as they are, of its far-reaching influence
and of the great following of ardent disciples who
are occupied in spreading and developing its
doctrines. Mere insanities and inanities have
before now swollen to portentous size in the course
of twenty years. Letus rather ask this prodigious
change in opinion to justify itself: let us inquire
whether anything has happened since 1859, which
will explain, on rational grounds, why so many
are worshipping that which they burned, and burn-
ing that which they worshipped. It is only in
this way that we shall acquire the means of
judging whether the movement we have witnessed —
is a mere eddy of fashion, or truly one with the
irreversible current of intellectual progress, and,
like it, safe from retrogressive reaction.

Every belief is the product of two factors: the
first is the state of the mind to which the evidence
in favour of that belief is presented; and the
second is the logical cogency of the evidence itself.
In both these respects, the history of biological
science during the last twenty years appears to me
to afford an ample explanation of the change
which has taken place ; and a brief consideration
of the salient events of that history will enable us
to understand why, if the “ Origin of Species ” ap-

vi “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 231

peared now, it would meet with a very different
reception from that which greeted it in 1859.

One-and-twenty years ago, in spite of the work
commenced by Hutton and continued with rare
skill and patience by Lyell, the dominant view of
the past history of the earth was catastrophic,
Great and sudden physical revolutions, wholesale
creations and extinctions of living beings, were the
ordinary machinery of the geological epic brought
into fashion by the misapplied genius of Cuvier.
It was gravely maintained and taught that the
end of every geological epoch was signalised by a
cataclysm, by which every living being on the
globe was swept away, to be replaced by a brand-
new creation when the world returned to quies-
cence. A scheme of nature which appeared to be
modelled on the likeness of a succession of rubbers
of whist, at the end of each of which the players
upset the table and called for a new pack, did not
seem to shock anybody.

I may be wrong, but I doubt if, at the present
time, there is a single responsible representative
of these opinions left. The progress of scientific
geology has elevated the fundamental principle of
uniformitarianism, that the explanation of the past
is to be sought in the study of the present, into
the position of an axiom ; and the wild specula-
tions of the catastrophists, to which we all listened
with respect a quarter of a century ago, would
hardly find a single patient hearer at the present

232 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

day. No physical geologist now dreams of seeking,
outside the range of known natural causes, for the
explanation of anything that happened millions of
years ago, any more than he would be guilty
of the like absurdity in regard to current events.

The effect of this change of opinion upon biolo-
gical speculation is obvious. For, if there have
been no periodical general physical catastrophes,
what brought about the assumed general ex-
tinctions and re-creations of life which are the
corresponding biological catastrophes? And, if no
such interruptions of the ordinary course of nature
have taken place in the organic, any more than in
the inorganic, world, what alternative is there to
the admission of evolution ?

The doctrine of evolution in biology is the
necessary result of the logical application of the
principles of uniformitarianism to the phenomena
of life. Darwin is the natural successor of Hutton
and Lyell, and the “ Origin of Species” the logical
sequence of the “ Principles of Geology.”

The fundamental doctrine of the “Origin of
Species,” as of all forms of the theory of evolution
applied to biology, is “that the innumerable
species, genera, and families of organic beings with
which the world is peopled have all descended,
each within its own class or group, from common
parents, and have all been modified in the course of
descent.” ?

1 Origin of Species, ed. 1, p. 457,

VII “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” 233

And, in view of the facts of geology, it follows
that all living animals and plants “are the lineal
descendants of those which lived long before the
Silurian epoch.” 4
_ It is an obvious consequence of this theory of
descent with modification, as it is sometimes called,
that all plants and animals, however different they
may now be, must, at one time or other, have been
connected by direct or indirect intermediate grada-
tions, and that the appearance of isolation presented
by various groups of organic beings must be unreal.

No part of Mr, Darwin’s work ran more directly
counter to the prepossessions of naturalists twenty
years ago than this. And such prepossessions were
very excusable, for there was undoubtedly a great
deal to be said, at that time, in favour of the fixity
of species and of the existence of great breaks,
which there was no obvious or probable means of
filling up, between various groups of organic beings.

For various reasons, scientific and unscientific,
much had been made of the hiatus between man
and the rest of the higher mammalia, and it is no
wonder that issue was first joimed on this part of
the controversy. I have no wish to revive past
and happily forgotten controversies ; but I must
state the simple fact that the distinctions in the
cerebral and other characters, which were so hotly
affirmed to separate man from all other animals in
1860, have all been demonstrated to be non-

Origin of Species, p. 458,

234 THE COMING OF AGE OF vit

existent, and that the contrary doctrine is now
universally accepted and taught.

But there were other cases in which the wide
structural gaps asserted to exist between one group
of animals and another were by no means fictitious ;
and, when such structural breaks were real, Mr.
Darwin could account for them only by supposing
that the intermediate forms which once existed
had become extinct. In a remarkable passage he
says—

“We may thus account even for the distinctness
of whole classes from each other—for instance, of
birds from all other vertebrate animals—by the
belief that many animal forms of life have been
utterly lost, through which the early progenitors
of birds were formerly connected with the early
progenitors of the other vertebrate classes.” }

Adverse criticism made merry over such sugges-
tions as these. Of course it was easy to get out of
the difficulty by supposing extinction; but where
was the slightest evidence that such intermediate
forms between birds and reptiles as the hypothesis
required ever existed ? And then probably followed
a tirade upon this terrible forsaking of the paths
of “ Baconian induction.”

But the progress of knowledge has justified Mr.
Darwin to an extent which could hardly have
been anticipated. In 1862, the specimen of
Archeopteryx, which, until the last two or three

1 Origin of Species, p. 431.

vu “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” 235

years, has remained unique, was discovered ; and
it is an animal which, in its feathers and the
greater part of its organisation, is a veritable
bird, while, in other parts, it is as distinctly
reptilian.

In 1868, I had the honour of bringing under
your notice, in this theatre, the results of investi-
gations made, up to that time, into the anatomical
characters of certain ancient reptiles, which
showed the nature of the modifications in virtue
of which the type of the quadrupedal reptile
passed into that of a bipedal bird ; and abundant
confirmatory evidence of the justice of the con-
clusions which I then laid before you has since
come to light.

In 1875, the discovery of the toothed birds of
the cretaceous formation in North America by
Professor Marsh completed the series of transitional
forms between birds and reptiles, and removed
Mr. Darwin’s proposition that “many animal
forms of life have been utterly lost, through
which the early progenitors of birds were
formerly connected with the early progenitors of
the other vertebrate classes,’ from the region
of hypothesis to that of demonstrable fact.

In 1859, there appeared to be a very sharp
and clear hiatus between vertebrated and inverte-
brated animals, not only in their structure, but,
what was more important, in their development.
I do not think that we even yet know the precise

236 THE COMING OF AGE OF : VII

links of connection between the two; but the
investigations of Kowalewsky and others upon
the development of Amphiowus and of the T'unicata
prove, beyond a doubt, that the differences which
were supposed to constitute a barrier between
the two are non-existent. There is no longer any
difficulty in understanding how the vertebrate
type may have arisen from the invertebrate,
though the full proof of the manner in which
the transition was actually effected may still be
lacking.

Again, in 1859, there appeared to be a no less
sharp separation between the two great groups of
flowering and flowerless plants. It is only subse-
quently that the series of remarkable investiga-
tions inaugurated by Hofmeister has brought to
light the extraordinary and altogether unexpected
modifications of the reproductive apparatus in the
Lycopodiacee, the Rhizocarpee, and the Gymno-
spermece, by which the ferns and the mosses are
gradually connected with the Phanerogamic
division of the vegetable world.

So, again, it is only since 1859 that we have
acquired that wealth of knowledge of the lowest
forms of life which demonstrates the futility of
any attempt to separate the lowest plants from
the lowest animals, and shows that the two king-
doms of living nature have a common borderland
which belongs to both, or to neither.

Thus it will be observed that the whole ten-

VII “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 937

dency of biological investigation, since 1859, has
been in the direction of removing the difficulties
which the apparent breaks in the series created
at that time; and the recognition of gradation
is the first step towards the acceptance of evolu-
tion.

As another great factor in bringing about the
change of opinion which has taken place among
naturalists, I count the astonishing progress which
has been made in the study of embryology.
Twenty years ago, not only were we devoid of any
accurate knowledge of the mode of development
of many groups of animals and plants, but the
methods of investigation were rude and imperfect.
At the present time, there is no important group
of organic beings the development of which has
not been carefully studied; and the modern
methods of hardening and section-making enable
the embryologist to determine the nature of the
process, in each case, with a degree of minuteness
and accuracy which is truly astonishing to those
whose memories carry them back to the
beginnings of modern histology. And the results
of these embryological investigations are in com-
plete harmony with the requirements of the
doctrine of evolution. The first beginnings of all
the higher forms of animal life are similar, and
however diverse their adult conditions, they start
from a common foundation. Moreover, the pro-
cess of development of the animal or the plant

238 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

from its primary egg, or germ, is a true process of
evolution—a progress from almost formless to
more or less highly organised matter, in virtue of
the properties inherent in that matter.

To those who are familiar with the process of
development, all @ priori objections to the doctrine
of biological evolution appear childish. Any one
who has watched the gradual formation of a com-
plicated animal from the protoplasmic mass, which
constitutes the essential element of a frog’s or a
hen’s egg, has had under his eyes sufficient
evidence that a similar evolution of the whole
animal world from the like foundation is, at any
rate, possible,

Yet another product of investigation has
largely contributed to the removal of the objec-
tions to the doctrine of evolution current in 1859.
It is the proof afforded by successive discoveries
that Mr. Darwin did not over-estimate the
imperfection of the geological record. No more
striking illustration of this is needed than a com-
parison of our knowledge of the mammalian fauna
of the Tertiary epoch in 1859 with its present
condition. M. Gaudry’s researches on the fossils
of Pikermi were published in 1868, those of
Messrs. Leidy, Marsh, and Cope, on the fossils of
the Western Territories of America, have appeared
almost wholly since 1870, those of M, Filhol on
the phosphorites of Quercy in 1878. The general
effect of these investigations has been to intro-

VII “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 239

duce to us a multitude of extinct animals, the
existence of which was previously hardly sus-
pected; just as if zoologists were to become
acquainted with a country, hitherto unknown, as
rich in novel forms of life as Brazil or South
Africa once were to Europeans. Indeed, the fossil
fauna of the Western Territories of America bid
fair to exceed in interest and importance all other
known Tertiary deposits put together; and yet,
with the exception of the case of the American
tertiaries, these investigations have extended over
very limited areas; and, at Pikermi, were con-
fined to an extremely small space.

Such appear to me to be the chief events in the
history of the progress of knowledge during the
last twenty years, which account for the changed
feeling with which the doctrine of evolution is at
present regarded by those who have followed the
advance of biological science, in respect of those
problems which bear indirectly upon that doc-
trine.

But all this remains mere secondary evidence.
It may remove dissent, but it does not compel
assent. Primary and direct evidence in favour of
evolution can be furnished only by paleontology.
The geological record, so soon as it approaches
completeness, must, when properly questioned,
yield either an affirmative or a negative answer:
if evolution has taken place, there will its mark

240 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

be left; if it has not taken place, there will lie
its refutation.

What was the state of matters in 1859? Let
us hear Mr. Darwin, who may be trusted always
to state the case against himself as strongly as
possible.

“On this doctrine of the extermination of an
infinitude of connecting links between the living
and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each
successive period between the extinct and still
older species, why is not every geological forma-
tion charged with such links? Why does not
every collection of fossil remains afford plain
evidence of the gradation and mutation of the
forms of life? We meet with no such evidence,
and this is the most obvious and plausible of the
many objections which may be urged against my
theory.” }

Nothing could have been more useful to the
opposition than this characteristically candid
avowal, twisted as it immediately was into an
admission that the writer's views were contra-
dicted by the facts of paleontology. But, in fact,
Mr. Darwin made no such admission. What he
says in effect is, not that paleontological evidence
is against him, but that it is not distinctly in his
favour ; and, without attempting to attenuate the
fact, he accounts for it by the scantiness and the
imperfection of that evidence,

1 Origin of Species, ed. 1, p. 463.

Vit “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 241

What is the state of the case now, when, as we
have seen, the amount of our knowledge respect-
ing the mammalia of the Tertiary epoch is
increased fifty-fold, and in some directions even
approaches completeness ?

Simply this, that, if the doctrine of evolution
had not existed, palzontologists must have in-
vented it, so irresistibly is it forced upon the
mind by the study of the remains of the Tertiary
mammalia which have been brought to light since
1859,

Among the fossils of Pikermi, Gaudry found
the successive stages by which the ancient civets
passed into the more modern hyznas; through
the Tertiary deposits of Western America, Marsh
tracked the successive forms by which the ancient
stock of the horse has passed into its present
form ; and innumerable less complete indications of
the mode of evolution of other groups of the
higher mammalia have been obtained. In the
remarkable memoir on the phosphorites of
Quercy, to which I have referred, M. Filhol de-
scribes no fewer than seventeen varieties of the
genus Cynodictis, which fill up all the interval
between the viverine animals and the bear-like
dog Amphicyon ; nor do I know any solid ground
of objection to the supposition that, in this
~ Cynodictis-Amphicyon group, we have the stock
whence all the Viveride, Felide, Hyznide,
Canidz, and perhaps the Procyonid and Urside,

VOL. II R

242 THE COMING OF AGE OF VII

of the present fauna have been evolved. On
the contrary, there is a great deal to be said in
favour,

In the course of summing up his results, M.
Filhol observes :—

“During the epoch of the phosphorites, great
changes took place in animal forms, and almost
the same types as those which now exist became
defined from one another.

“Under the influence of natural conditions of
which we have no exact knowledge, though traces
of them are discoverable, species have been modi-
fied in a thousand ways: races have arisen which,
becoming fixed, have thus produced a corresponding
number of secondary species.”

In 1859, language of which this is an uninten-
tional paraphrase, occurring in the “ Origin of
Species,” was scouted as wild speculation ; at pres-
ent, it is a sober statement of the conclusions to
which an acute and critically-minded investigator
is led by large and patient study of the facts of
paleontology. I venture to repeat what I have
said before, that so far as the animal world is
concerned, evolution is no longer a speculation, but
a statement of historical fact. It takes its place
alongside of those accepted truths which must be
reckoned with by philosophers of all schools.

Thus when, on the first day of October next,
“The Origin of Species” comes of age, the pro-
niise of its youth will be amply fulfilled ; and we

VII “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 243

shall be prepared to congratulate the venerated
author of the book, not only that the greatness of
his achievement and its enduring influence upon
the progress of knowledge have won him a place
beside our Harvey; but, still more, that, like
Harvey, he has lived long enough to outlast
detraction and opposition, and to see the stone
that the builders rejected become the head-stone
of the corner.

VIII
CHARLES DARWIN
[ Nature, April 27th, 1882]

VrERY few, even among those who have taken the
keenest interest in the progress of the revolution
in natural knowledge set afoot by the publication
of “ The Origin of Species,” and who have watched,
not without astonishment, the rapid and complete
change which has been effected both inside and
outside the boundaries of the scientific world in
the attitude of men’s minds towards the doctrines
which are expounded in that great work, can have
been prepared for the extraordinary manifestation
of affectionate regard for the man, and of profound
reverence for the philosopher, which followed the
announcement, on Thursday last, of the death of
Mr. Darwin.

Not only in these islands, where so many have
felt the fascination of personal contact with an

VII CHARLES DARWIN Q45

intellect which had no superior, and with a charac-
ter which was even nobler than the intellect; but,
in all parts of the civilised world, it would seem
that those whose business it is to feel the pulse of
nations and to know what interests the masses of
mankind, were well aware that thousands of their
readers would think the world the poorer for
Darwin’s death, and would dwell with eager
interest upon every incident of his history. In
France, in Germany, in Austro-Hungary, in Italy,
in the United States, writers of all shades of
opinion, for once unanimous, have paid a willing
tribute to the worth of our great countryman,
ignored in life by the official representatives of the
kingdom, but laid in death among his peers in
Westminster Abbey by the will of the intelligence
of the nation.

It is not for us to allude to the sacred sorrows
of the bereaved home at Down; but it is no secret
that, outside that domestic group, there are many
to whom Mr. Darwin’s death is a wholly irreparable
loss. And this not merely because of his wonder-
fully genial, simple, and generous nature; his
cheerful and animated conversation, and the in-
finite variety and accuracy of his information ; but
because the more one knew of him, the more he
seemed the incorporated ideal of a man of science.
Acute as were his reasoning powers, vast as was
his knowledge, marvellous as was his tenacious
industry, under physical difficulties which would

246 CHARLES DARWIN VIII

have converted nine men out of ten into aimless
invalids; it was not these qualities, great as they
were, which impressed those who were admitted
to his intimacy with involuntary veneration, but a
certain intense and almost passionate honesty by
which all his thoughts and actions were irradiated,
as by a central fire.

It was this rarest and greatest of endowments
which kept his vivid imagination and great specu-
lative powers within due bounds ; which compelled
him to undertake the prodigious Jabours of original
investigation and of reading, upon which his
published works are based; which made him
accept criticisms and suggestions from anybody
and everybody, not only without impatience, but
with expressions of gratitude sometimes almost
comically in excess of their value ; which led him
to allow neither himself nor others to be deceived
by phrases, and to spare neither time nor pains
in order to obtain clear and distinct ideas upon
every topic with which he occupied himself.

One could not converse with Darwin without
being reminded of Socrates. There was the same
desire to find some one wiser than himself; the
same belief in the sovereignty of reason ; the same
ready humour ; the same sympathetic interest in
all the ways and works of men. But instead of
turning away from the problems of Nature as
hopelessly insoluble, our modern philosopher
devoted his whole life to attacking them in the

VIll CHARLES DARWIN 247

spirit of Heraclitus and of Democritus, with results
which are the substance of which their specula-
tions were anticipatory shadows.

The due appreciation, or even enumeration, of
these results is neither practicable nor desirable at
this moment. There is a time for all things—a
time for glorying in our ever-extending conquests
over the realm of Nature, and a time for mourning
over the heroes who have led us to victory.

None have fought better, and none have been
more fortunate, than Charles Darwin. He found
a great truth trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots,
and ridiculed by all the world; he lived long
enough to see it, chiefly by his own efforts,
irrefragably established in science, inseparably
incorporated with the common thoughts of men,
and only hated and feared by those who would
revile, but dare not. What shall a man desire
more than this? Once more the image of Socrates
rises unbidden, and the noble peroration of the
“ Apology” rings in our ears as if it were Charles
Darwin’s farewell :—

“The hour of departure has arrived, and we go
our ways—I to die and you to live. Which isthe
better, God only knows.”

1D.¢

THE DARWIN MEMORIAL

[June Ith, 1885]

Address by the President of the Royal Society, in the
name of the Memorial Committee, on handing over
the statue of Darwin to H.R.H. the Prince of
Wales, as representative of the Trustees of the
British Museum.

Your Royat HIGHNEss,—It is now three years
since the announcement of the death of our famous
countryman, Charles Darwin, gave rise to a
manifestation of public feeling, not only in these
realms, but throughout the civilised world, which,
if I mistake not, is without precedent in the
modest annals of scientific biography.

The causes of this deep and wide outburst of
emotion are not far to seek. We had lost one of
these rare ministers and interpreters of Nature
whose names mark epochs in the advance of

Ix THE DARWIN MEMORIAL 249

natural knowledge. For, whatever be the ultimate
verdict of posterity upon this or that opinion
which Mr. Darwin has propounded; whatever
adumbrations or anticipations of his doctrines may
be found in the writings of his predecessors ; the
broad fact remains that, since the publication and
by reason of the publication, of “The Origin of
Species” the fundamental conceptions and the
aims of the students of living Nature have been
completely changed. From that work has sprung
a great renewal, a true “ instauratio magna ” of the
zoological and botanical sciences.

But the impulse thus given to scientific thought
rapidly spread beyond the ordinarily recognised
limits of biology. Psychology, Ethics, Cosmology
were stirred to their foundations, and the “ Origin
of Species” proved itself to be the fixed point
which the general doctrine of evolution needed in
order to move the world. ‘“ Darwinism,” in one
form or another, sometimes strangely distorted
and mutilated, became an everyday topic of men’s
speech, the object of an abundance both of
vituperation and of praise, more often than of
serious study,

It is curious now to remember how largely, at
first, the objectors predominated ; but considering
the usual fate of new views, it is still more
curious to consider for how short a time the phase
of vehement opposition lasted. Before twenty
years had passed, not only had the importance of

250 THE DARWIN MEMORIAL Ix

Mr. Darwin’s work been fully recognised, but the
world had discerned the simple, earnest, generous
character of the man, that shone through every
page of his writings.

IT imagine that reflections such as these swept
through the minds alike of loving friends and of
honourable antagonists when Mr. Darwin died ;
and that they were at one in the desire to honour
the memory of the man who, without fear and
without reproach, had successfully fought the
hardest intellectual battle of these days,

It was in satisfaction of these just and generous
impulses that our great naturalist’s remains were
deposited in Westminster Abbey; and that, im-
mediately afterwards, a public meeting, presided
over by my lamented predecessor, Mr. Spottiswoode,
was held in the rooms of the Royal Society,
for the purpose of considering what further step
should be taken towards the same end.

It was resolved to invite subscriptions, with the
view of erecting a statue of Mr. Darwin in some
suitable locality ; and to devote any surplus to the
advancement of the biological sciences.

Contributions at once flowed in from Austria,
Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany,
Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and the
British Colonies, no less than from all parts of the
three kingdoms ; and they came from all classes of
the community. To mention one interesting case,

1x THE DARWIN MEMORIAL 251

Sweden sent in 2296 subscriptions “from all sorts
of people,” as the distinguished man of science
who transmitted them wrote, “from the bishop to
the seamstress, and in sums from five pounds to
two pence.”

The Executive Committee has thus been enabled
to carry out the objects proposed. A “ Darwin
Fund” has been created, which is to be held in
trust by the Royal Society, and is to be employed
in the promotion of biological research.

The execution of the statue was entrusted to
Mr. Boehm ; and I think that those who had the
good fortune to know Mr. Darwin personally will
admire the power of artistic divination which has
enabled the sculptor to place before us so very
characteristic a likeness of one whom he had not
seen,

It appeared to the Committee that, whether they
regarded Mr. Darwin’s career or the requirements
of a work of art, no site could be so appropriate as
this great hall, and they applied to the Trustees of
the British Museum for permission to erect it in
its present position.

That permission was most cordially granted, and
I am desired to tender the best thanks of the
Committee to the Trustees for their willingness to
accede to our wishes,

I also beg leave to offer the expression of our
gratitude to your Royal Highness for kindly con-
senting to represent the Trustees to-day.

252 THE DARWIN MEMORIAL Ix

It only remains for me, your Royal Highness,
my Lords and Gentlemen, Trustees of the British
Museum, in the name of the Darwin Memorial
Committee, to request you to accept this statue of
Charles Darwin.

We do not make this request for the mere sake
of perpetuating a memory; for so long as men
occupy themselves with the pursuit of truth, the
name of Darwin runs no more risk of oblivion
than does that of Copernicus, or that of Harvey.

Nor, most assuredly, do we ask you to preserve
the statue in its cynosural position in this
entrance-hall of our National Museum of Natural
History as evidence that Mr. Darwin’s views have
received your official sanction ; for science does not
recognise such sanctions, and commits suicide
when it adopts a creed.

No; we beg you to cherish this Memorial as a
symbol by which, as generation after generation of
students of Nature enter yonder door, they shall
be reminded of the ideal according to which they
must shape their lives, if they would turn to the
best account the opportunities offered by the
great institution under your charge.

X

OBITUARY}!

[1888]

CHARLES Robert DARWIN was the fifth child
and second son of Robert Waring Darwin and
Susannah Wedgwood, and was born on the 12th
February, 1809, at Shrewsbury, where his father
was a physician in large practice.

Mrs. Robert Darwin died when her son Charles
was only eight years old, and he hardly remem-
bered her. A daughter of the famous Josiah
Wedgwood, who created a new branch of the
potter's art, and established the great works of
Etruria, could hardly fail to transmit important
mental and moral qualities to her children; and
there is a solitary record of her direct influence
in the story told by a schoolfellow, who remembers
Charles Darwin “bringing a flower to school, and

1 From the Obituary Notices of the Proceedings of the Royal
Society, vol. 44.

954 OBITUARY x

saying that his mother had taught him how, by
looking at the inside of the blossom, the name of
the plant could be discovered.” (I., p. 28.)

The theory that men of genius derive their
qualities from their mothers, however, can hardly
derive support from Charles Darwin’s case, in the
face of the patent influence of his paternal fore-
fathers. Dr. Darwin, indeed, though a man of
marked individuality of character, a quick and
acute observer, with much practical sagacity, is
said not to have had a scientific mind. But when
his son adds that his father “formed a theory for
almost everything that occurred” (I., p. 20), he
indicates a highly probable source for that in-
ability to refrain from forming an hypothesis on
every subject which he confesses to be one of the
leading characteristics of his own mind, some
pages further on (L., p. 103). Dr. R. W. Darwin,
again, was the third son of Erasmus Darwin, also
a physician of great repute, who shared the
intimacy of Watt and Priestley, and was
widely known as the author of “ Zoonomia,” and
other voluminous poetical and prose works which
had a great vogue in the latter half of the
eighteenth century. The celebrity which they
enjoyed was in part due to the attractive style (at
least according to the taste of that day) in which
the author’s extensive, though not very profound,

! The references throughout this notice are to the Life and
Letters, unless the contrary is expressly stated.

eee

x OBITUARY 255

acquaintance with natural phenomena was set
forth; but in a still greater degree, probably, to
the boldness of the speculative views, always
ingenious and sometimes fantastic, in which he
indulged. The conception of evolution set afoot
by De Maillet and others, in the early part of the
century, not only found a vigorous champion in
Erasmus Darwin, but he propounded an hypo-
thesis as to the manner in which the species of
animals and plants have acquired their characters,
which is identical in principle with that subse-
quently rendered famous by Lamarck.

That Charles Darwin’s chief intellectual in-
heritance came to him from the paternal side,
then, is hardly doubtful. But there is nothing to
show that he was, to any sensible extent, directly
influenced by his grandfather’s biological work.
He tells us that a perusal of the “ Zoonomia” in
early life produced no effect upon him, although
he greatly admired it ; and that, on reading it again,
ten or fifteen years afterwards, he was much disap-
pointed, “the proportion of speculation being so
large to the facts given.” But with his usual
anxious candour he adds, “ Nevertheless, it is proba-
ble that the hearing, rather early in life, such views
maintained and praised, may have favoured my
upholding them, in a different form, in my ‘ Origin
of Species.’” (I., p.38.) Erasmus Darwin was in
fact an anticipator of Lamarck, and not of Charles
Darwin; there is no tracein his works of the

256 OBITUARY x

conceptions by the addition of which his grandson
metamorphosed the theory of evolution as applied
to living things and gave it a new foundation.
Charles Darwin’s childhood and youth afforded
no intimation that he would be, or do, anything
out of the common run, In fact, the prognosti-
cations of the educational authorities into whose
hands he first fell were most distinctly unfavour-
able; and they counted the only boy of original
genius who is known to have come under their
hands as no better than a dunce. The history of
the educational experiments to which Darwin was
subjected is curious, and not without a moral for
the present generation. There were four of them,
and three were failures. Yet it cannot be said
that the materials on which the pedagogic powers
operated were other than good. In his boyhood
Darwin was strong, well-grown, and active, taking
the keen delight in field sports and in every
description of hard physical exercise which is
natural to an English country-bred lad; and, in
respect of things of the mind, he was neither
apathetic, nor idle, nor one-sided. The “ Auto-
biography” tells us that he “had much
zeal for whatever interested” him, and he was
interested in many and very diverse topics.
He could work hard, and liked a complex
subject better than an easy one. The “clear
geometrical proofs” of Euclid delighted him.
His interest in practical chemistry, carried out in

x OBITUARY 257

an extemporised laboratory, in which he was per-
mitted to assist by his elder brother, kept him
late at work, and earned him the nickname of
“gas” among his schoolfellows. And there could
have been no insensibility to literature in one
who, as a boy, could sit for hours reading Shake-
speare, Milton, Scott, and Byron; who greatly
admired some of the Odes of Horace; and who,
in later years, on board the “ Beagle,” when only
one book could be carried on an expedition,
chose a volume of Milton for his companion.
Industry, intellectual interests, the capacity for
taking pleasure in deductive reasoning, in obser-
vation, in experiment, no less than in the highest
works of imagination: where these qualities are
present any rational system of education should
surely be able to make something of them. Un-
fortunately for Darwin, the Shrewsbury Grammar
School, though good of its kind, was an institution
of a type universally prevalent in this country half
a century ago, and by no means extinct at the
present day. The education given was “strictly
classical,” “especial attention” being “paid to
verse-making,” while all other subjects, except a
little ancient geography and history, were ignored.
Whether, as in some famous English schools at that
date and much later, elementary arithmetic was
also left out of sight does not appear; but the
instruction in Euclid which gave Charles Darwin
so much satisfaction was certainly supplied by a
VOL, Il S

258 OBITUARY -

private tutor. That a boy, even in his leisure
hours, should permit himself to be interested in
any but book-learning seems to have been regarded
as little better than an outrage by the head master,
who thought it his duty to administer a public
rebuke to young Darwin for wasting his time
on such a contemptible subject as chemistry.
English composition and literature, modern lan-
guages, modern history, modern geography, appear
to have been considered to be as despicable as
chemistry.

For seven long years Darwin got through his
appointed tasks ; construed without cribs, learned
by rote whatever was demanded, and concocted
his verses in approved schoolboy fashion. And
the result, as it appeared to his mature judgment,
was simply negative. “The school as a means of
education to me was simply a blank.” (I. p. 32.)
On the other hand, the extraneous chemical
exercises, which the head master treated so
contumeliously, are gratefully spoken of as the
“best part” of his education while at school.
Such is the judgment of the scholar on the school ;
as might be expected, it has its counterpart in the
judgment of the school on the scholar. The
collective intelligence of the staff of Shrewsbury
School could find nothing but dull mediocrity in
Charles Darwin. The mind that found satisfac-
tion in knowledge, but very little in mere learning ;
that could appreciate literature, but had no par-

x OBITUARY 259

ticularaptitude for grammatical exercises ; appeared
to the “ strictly classical” pedagogue to be no mind
at all. As a matter of fact, Darwin’s school
education left him ignorant of almost all the
things which it would have been well for him to
know, and untrained in all the things it would
have been useful for him to be able to do, in
after life. Drawing, practice in English compo-
sition, and instruction in the elements of the
physical sciences, would not only have been infi-
nitely valuable to him in reference to his future
career, but would have furnished the discipline
suited to his faculties, whatever that career might
be. And a knowledge of French and German,
especially the latter, would have removed from his
path obstacles which he never fully overcame.
Thus, starved and stunted on the intellectual
side, it is not surprising that Charles Darwin’s
energies were directed towards athletic amuse-
ments and sport, to such an extent, that even his
kind and sagacious father could be exasperated
into telling him that “he cared for nothing but
shooting, dogs, and rat-catching.” (I. p. 32.) It
would be unfair to expect even the wisest of fathers
to have foreseen that the shooting and the rat-
catching, as training in the ways of quick observa-
tion and in physical endurance, would prove more
valuable than the construing and verse-making to
his son, whose attempt, at a later period of his life,
to persuade himself “that shooting was almost an
S 2

260 OBITUARY x

intellectual employment : it required so much skill
to judge where to find most game, and to hunt the
dogs well” (I. p. 43), was by no means so sophis-
tical as he seems to have been ready to admit.

In 1825; Dr. Darwin came to the very just con-
clusion that his son Charles would do no good by
remaining at Shrewsbury School, and sent him to
join his elder brother Erasmus, who was studying
medicine at Edinburgh, with the intention that
the younger son should also become a medical
practitioner. Both sons, however, were well aware
_that their inheritance would relieve them from the
urgency of the struggle for existence which most
professional men have to face ; and they seemed to
have allowed their tastes, rather than the medical
curriculum, to have guided their studies. Erasmus
Darwin was debarred by constant ill-health from
seeking the public distinction which his high in-
telligence and extensive knowledge would, under
ordinary circumstances, have insured. He took
no great interest in biological subjects, but his
companionship must have had its influence on
his brother. Still more was exerted by friends
like Coldstream and Grant, both subsequently
well-known zoologists (and the latter an enthu-
siastic Lamarckian), by whom Darwin was induced
to interest himself in marine zoology. A notice
of the ciliated germs of Flustra, communicated to
the Plinian Society in 1826, was the first fruits of
Darwin’s half century of scientific work. Occa-

x OBITUARY 261

sional attendance at the Wernerian Society brought
him into relation with that excellent ornithologist
the elder Macgillivray, and enabled him to see and
hear Audubon. Moreover, he got lessons in bird-
stuffing from a negro, who had accompanied the
eccentric traveller Waterton in his wanderings,
before settling in Edinburgh.

No doubt Darwin picked up a great deal of
valuable knowledge during his two years’ residence
in Scotland ; but it is equally clear that next to
none of it came through the regular channels of
academic education. Indeed, the influence of the
Edinburgh professoriate appears to have been
mainly negative, and in some cases deterrent ;
creating in his mind, not only a very low estimate
of the value of lectures, but an antipathy to the
subjects which had been the occasion of the
boredom inflicted upon him by their instrument-
ality. With the exception of Hope, the Professor
of Chemistry, Darwin found them all “intolerably
dull.” Forty years afterwards he writes of the
lectures of the Professor of Materia Medica that
they were “fearful to remember.” The Professor
of Anatomy made his lectures “as dull as he was
himself,” and he must have been very dull to have
wrung from his victim the sharpest personal remark
recorded as his. But the climax seems to have
been attained by the Professor of Geology and
Zoology, whose prelections were so “ incredibly
dull” that they produced in their hearer the some-

262 OBITUARY x

what rash determination never “ to read a book on
geology or in any way to study the science” so
long as he lived. (I. p. 41.)

There is much reason to believe that the
lectures in question were eminently qualified to
produce the impression which they made; and
there can be little doubt, that Darwin’s conclusion
that his time was better employed in reading
than in listening to such lectures was a sound
one. But it was particularly unfortunate that
the personal and professorial dulness of the
Professor of Anatomy, combined with Darwin’s
sensitiveness to the disagreeable concomitants of
anatomical work, drove him away from the
dissecting room. In after life, he justly recognised
that this was an “irremediable evil” in reference
to the pursuits he eventually adopted ; indeed, it
is marvellous that he succeeded in making up for
his lack of anatomical discipline, so far as his
work on the Cirripedes shows he did. And the
neglect of anatomy had the further unfortunate
result that it excluded him from the best
opportunity of bringing himself into direct contact
with the facts of nature which the University had
to offer. In those days, almost the only practical
scientific work accessible to students was anatomi-
cal, and the only laboratory at their disposal the
dissecting room,

We may now console ourselves with the
reflection that the partial evil was the general

x OBITUARY 263

good. Darwin had already shown an aptitude for
practical medicine (I. p. 37); and his subsequent
career proved that he had the making of an
excellent anatomist. Thus, though his horror of
operations would probably have shut him off from
surgery, there was nothing to prevent him (any
more than the same peculiarity prevented his
father) from passing successfully through the
medical curriculum and becoming, like his father
and grandfather, a successful physician, in which
case “ The Origin of Species ” would not have been
written. Darwin has jestingly alluded to the
fact that the shape of his nose (to which Captain
Fitzroy objected), nearly prevented his embarka-
tion in the “Beagle”; it may be that the
sensitiveness of that organ secured him for
science,

At the end of two years’ residence in Edin-
burgh it hardly needed Dr. Darwin’s sagacity to
conclude that a young man, who found nothing
but dulness in professorial lucubrations, could not
bring himself to endure a dissecting room, fled
from operations, and did not need a profession as
a means of livelihood, was hardly likely to
distinguish himself as a student of medicine. He
therefore made a new suggestion, proposing that
his son should enter an English University and
qualify for the ministry of the Church. Charles
Darwin found the proposal agreeable, none the
less, probably, that a good deal of natural history

264 OBITUARY Xx

and a little shooting were by no means held,
at that time, to be incompatible with the
conscientious performance of the duties of a
country clergyman. But it is characteristic of the
man, that he asked time for consideration, in
order that he might satisfy himself that he could
sign the Thirty-nine Articles with a clear con-
science. However, the study of “ Pearson on the
Creeds” and a few other books of divinity soon
assured him that his religious opinions left
nothing to be desired on the score of orthodoxy,
and he acceded to his father’s proposition.

The English University selected was Cambridge;
but an unexpected obstacle arose from the fact
that, within the two years which had elapsed,
since the young man who had enjoyed seven
years of the benefit of a strictly classical education
had left school, he had forgotten almost every-
thing he had learned there, “even to some few of
the Greek letters.” (I. p. 46.) Three months
with a tutor, however, brought him back to the
point of translating Homer and the Greek Testa-
ment “with moderate facility,’ and Charles
Darwin commenced the third educational experi-
ment of which he was the subject, and was en-
tered on the books of Christ’s College in October
1827. So far as the direct results of the academic
training thus received are concerned, the English
University was not more successful than the
Scottish. ‘“ During the three years which I spent

x OBITUARY 265

at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the
academical studies were concerned, as completely
as at Edinburgh and as at school.” (I. p. 46.)
And yet, as before, there is ample evidence that
this negative result cannot be put down to any
native defect on the part of the scholar. Idle and
dull young men, or even young men who being
neither idle nor dull, are incapable of caring for
anything but some hobby, do not devote them-
selves to the thorough study of Paley’s “ Moral
Philosophy,” and “ Evidences of Christianity ” ;
nor are their reminiscences of this particular
portion of their studies expressed in terms such
as the following: “The logic of this book [the
‘Kvidences’] and, as I may add, of his ‘ Natural
Theology’ gave me as much delight as did
Euclid.” (I. p. 47.)

The collector’s instinct, strong in Darwin from
his childhood, as is usually the case in great
naturalists, turned itself in the direction of Insects
during his residence at Cambridge. In childhood
it had been damped by the moral scruples of a
sister, as to the propriety of catching and killing
insects for the mere sake of possessing them, but
now it broke out afresh, and Darwin became an
enthusiastic beetle collector. Oddly enough he
took no scientific interest in beetles, not even
troubling himself to make out their names ; his
delight lay in the capture of a species which
turned out to be rare or new, and still more in

266 OBITUARY x

finding his name, as captor, recorded in print.
Evidently, this beetle-hunting hobby had little to
do with science, but was mainly a new phase of
the old and undiminished love of sport. In the
intervals of beetle-catching, when shooting and
hunting were not to be had, riding across country
answered the purpose. These tastes naturally
threw the young undergraduate among a set of
men who preferred hard riding‘ to hard reading,
and wasted the midnight oil upon other pursuits
than that of academic distinction. A superficial
observer might have had some grounds to fear
that Dr. Darwin’s wrathful prognosis might yet be
verified. But if the eminently social tendencies
of a vigorous and genial nature sought an outlet
among a set of jovial sporting friends, there were
other and no less strong proclivities which
brought him into relation with associates of a very
different stamp.

Though almost without ear and with a very
defective memory for music, Darwin was so
strongly and pleasurably affected by it that he
became a member of a musical society; and an
equal lack of natural capacity for drawing did not
prevent him from studying good works of art with
much care.

An acquaintance with even the rudiments of
physical science was no part of the requirements
for the ordinary Cambridge degree. But there
were professors both of Geology and of Botany

x OBITUARY 267

whose lectures were accessible to those who chose
to attend them. The occupants of these chairs, in
Darwin’s time, were eminent men and also admir-
able lecturers in their widely different styles. The
horror of geological lectures which Darwin had
acquired at Edinburgh, unfortunately prevented
him from going within reach of the fervid elo-
quence of Sedgwick ; but he attended the botanical
course, and though he paid no serious attention to
the subject, he took great delight in the country
excursions, which Henslow so well knew how to
make both pleasant and instructive. The
Botanical Professor was, in fact, a man of rare
character and singularly extensive acquirements
in all branches of natural history. It was his
greatest pleasure to place his stores of knowledge
at the disposal of the young men who gathered
about him, and who found in him, not merely an
encyclopedic teacher but a wise counsellor, and,
in case of worthiness, a warm friend. Darwin’s
acquaintance with him soon ripened into a friend-
ship which was terminated only by Henslow’s
death in 1861, when his quondam pupil gave
touching expression to his sense of what he owed
to one whom he calls (in one of his letters) his
“dear old master in Natural History.” (II. p. 217.)
It was by Henslow’s advice that Darwin was led
to break the vow he had registered against making
an acquaintance with geology ; and it was through
Henslow’s good offices with Sedgwick that he

268 OBITUARY x

obtained the opportunity of accompanying the
Geological Professor on one of his excursions in
Wales. He then received a certain amount of
practical instruction in Geology, the value of which
he subsequently warmly acknowledged. (I. p.
237.) In another direction, Henslow did him an
immense, though not altogether intentional
service, by recommending him to buy and study
the recently published first volume of Lyell’s
“Principles.” As an orthodox geologist of the
then dominant catastrophic school, Henslow
accompanied his recommendation with the
admonition on no account to adopt Lyell’s
general views. But the warning fell on deaf
ears, and it is hardly too much to say that
Darwin’s greatest work is the outcome of the
unflinching application to Biology of the leading
idea and the method applied in the “ Principles”
to geology.! Finally, it was through Henslow,
and at his suggestion, that Darwin was offered the
appointment to the “ Beagle” as naturalist.
During the latter part of Darwin’s residence at
Cambridge the prospect of entering the Church,
though the plan was never formally renounced,

1 «* After my return to England it appeared to me that by
following the example of Lyellin Geology, and by collecting all
facts which bore in any way on the variation of animals and
plants under domestication and nature, some light might per-
haps be thrown on the whole subject [of the origin of species].”
(I. p. 83.) See also the dedication of the second edition of the
Journal of a Naturalist.

x OBITUARY 269

seems to have grown very shadowy. Humboldt’s
“Personal Narrative,’ and Herschel’s “ Introduc-
tion to the Study of Natural Philosophy,” fell in
his way and revealed to him his real vocation.
The impression made by the former work was
very strong. “My whole course of life,’ says
Darwin in sending a message to Humboldt, “is
due to having read and re-read, as a youth, his
personal narrative.” (I. p. 336.) The description
of Teneriffe inspired Darwin with such a strong
desire to visit the island, that he took some steps
towards going there—inquiring about ships, and
SO on.

But, while this project was fermenting, Henslow,
who had been asked to recommend a naturalist for
Captain Fitzroy’s projected expedition, at once
thought of his pupil. In his letter of the 24th
August, 1831, he says: “I have stated that I
consider you to be the best qualified person I know
of who is likely to undertake such a situation. I
state this—not on the supposition of your being a
jfimished naturalist, but as amply qualified. for
collecting, observing, and noting anything worthy
to be noted in Natural History .. . . The voyage
is to last two years, and if you take plenty of
books with you, anything you please may be done.”
(I. p. 193.) The state of the case could not have
been better put. Assuredly the young naturalist’s
theoretical and practical scientific training had
gone no further than might suffice for the outfit

270 OBITUARY x

of an intelligent collector and note-taker, He was
fully conscious of the fact, and his ambition hardly
rose above the hope that he should bring back
materials for the scientific “lions” at home of
sufficient excellence to prevent them from turning
and rending him. (I. p. 248.)

But a fourth educational experiment was to be
tried. This time Nature took him in hand herself
and showed him the way by which, to borrow
Henslow’s prophetic phrase, “anything he pleased
might be done.”

The conditions of life presented by a ship-of-war
of only 242 tons burthen, would not, primd facie,
appear to be so favourable to intellectual develop-
ment as those offered by the cloistered retirement
of Christ’s College. Darwin had not evenacabin
to himself; while, in addition to the hindrances
and interruptions incidental to sea-life, which can
be appreciated only by those who have had
experience of them, sea-sickness came on whenever
the little ship was “lively”; and, considering the
circumstances of the cruise, that must have been
her normal state. Nevertheless, Darwin found on
board the “Beagle” that which neither the
pedagogues of Shrewsbury, nor the professoriate
of Edinburgh, nor the tutors of Cambridge had
managed to give him. “I have always felt that I
owe to the voyage the first real training or
education of my mind (I. p. 61); ” and in a letter
written as he was leaving England, he calls the

x OBITUARY 271

voyage on which he was starting, with just insight,
his “second life.” (I. p. 214.) Happily for Darwin’s
education, the school time of the “ Beagle” lasted
five years instead of two; and the countries
which the ship visited were singularly well fitted
to provide him with object-lessons, on the nature
of things, of the greatest value.

While at sea, he diligently collected, studied,
and made copious notes upon the surface Fauna.
But with no previous training in dissection, hardly
- any power of drawing, and next to no knowledge
of comparative anatomy, his occupation with work
of this kind—notwithstanding all his zeal and
industry—resulted, for the most part, in a
vast accumulation of useless manuscript. Some
acquaintance with the marine Crustacea, observa-
tions on Planarie and on the ubiquitous Sagitia,
seem to have been the chief results of a great.
amount of labour in this direction.

It was otherwise with the terrestrial phenomena
which came under the voyager’s notice: and
Geology very soon took her revenge for the scorn
which the much-bored Edinburgh student had
poured upon her. Three weeks after leaving
England the ship touched land for the first time
at St. Jago, in the Cape de Verd Islands, and
Darwin found his attention vividly engaged by the
voleanic phenomena and the signs of upheaval
which the island presented. His geological
studies had already indicated the direction in

yA hy OBITUARY x

which a great deal might be done, beyond collect-
ing; and it was while sitting beneath a low lava
cliff on the shore of this island, that a sense of his
real capability first dawned upon Darwin, and
prompted the ambition to write a book on the
geology of the various countries visited. (I. p. 66.)
Even at this early date, Darwin must have thought
much on geological topics, for he was already
convinced of the superiority of Lyell’s views to
those entertained by the catastrophists!; and his
subsequent study of the tertiary deposits and of the
terraced gravel beds of South America was
eminently fitted to strengthen that conviction,
The letters from South America contain little
reference to any scientific topic except geology ;
and even the theory of the formation of coral
reefs was prompted by the evidence of extensive
and gradual changes of level afforded by the
geology of South America; “No other work of
mine,” he says, “ was begun in so deductive a spirit
as this; for the whole theory was thought out on
the West Coast of South America, before I had
seen a true coral reef. I had, therefore, only to
verify and extend my views by a careful exam-

1 «Thad brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles
of Geology, which I studied attentively ; and the book was of
the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place
which I examined, namely, St. Jago, in the Cape de Verd
Islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s
manner of treating Geology, compared with that of any other
author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards
read ”—(I. p. 62.)

x . OBITUARY 273

ination of living reefs. (I. p. 70.) In 1835, when
starting from Lima for the Galapagos, he recom-
mends his friend, W. D. Fox, to take up geology:
—‘“There is so much larger a field for thought
than in the other branches of Natural History.
I am become a zealous disciple of Mr. Lyell’s views,
as made known in his admirable book. Geologising
in South America, | am tempted to carry parts to
a greater extent even than he does. Geology is a
capital science to begin with, as it requires nothing
but a little reading, thinking, and hammering.”
(I. p. 263.) The truth of the last statement, when
it was written, is a curious mark of the subsequent
progress of geology. Even so late as 1836, Darwin
speaks of being “much more inclined for geology
than the other branches of Natural History.”
(I. p. 275.)

At the end of the letter to Mr. Fox, however, a
little doubt is expressed whether zoological studies
might not, after all, have been more profitable ;
and an interesting passage in the “ Autobiography ”
enables us to understand the origin of this
hesitation.

“ During the voyage of the ‘ Beagle’ I had been
deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean
formation great fossil animals covered with armour
like that on the existing armadillos ; secondly, by
the manner in which closely-allied animals replace
one another in proceeding southwards over the
continent ; and, thirdly, by the South American

VOL. Il T

274 OBITUARY x

character of most of the productions of the
Galapagos Archipelago, and, more especially, by
the manner in which they differ slightly on each
island of the group; some of the islands appearing
to be very ancient in a geological sense.

“Tt was evident that such facts as these, as well
as many others, could only be explained on the
supposition that species gradually become modi-
fied; and the subject haunted me. But it was
equally evident that neither the action of the
surrounding conditions, nor the will of the organ-
isms (especially in the case of plants) could account
for the innumerable cases in which organisms of
every kind are beautifully adapted to their habits
of life ; for instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to
climb trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or
plumes. I had always been much struck by such
adaptations, and until these could be explained it
seemed to me almost useless to endeavour to prove
by indirect evidence that species have been modi-
fied.” (I. p. 82.)

The facts to which reference is here made were,
without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the at-
tention of a philosophical thinker ; but, until the
relations of the existing with the extinct species and
of the species of the different geographical areas
with one another, were determined with some
exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation
for speculation. It was not possible that this
determination should have been effected before

x OBITUARY 275

the return of the “ Beagle ” to England ; and thus
the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to
the dawn of the new light which was rising in his
mind becomes intelligible.?

“Tn July opened first note-book on Transmuta-
tion of Species. Had been greatly struck from
about the month of previous March on character
of South American fossils and species on Gala-
pagos Archipelago. These facts (especially latter)
origin of all my views.” (I. p. 276.)

From March, 1837, then, Darwin, not without
many misgivings and fluctuations of opinion,
inclined towards transmutation as a provisional
hypothesis. Three months afterwards he is hard
at work collecting facts for the purpose of test-
ing the hypothesis; and an almost apologetic
passage in a letter to Lyell shows that, already,
the attractions of biology are beginning to pre-
dominate over those of geology.

“T have lately been sadly tempted to be idle?—

1 Tam indebted to Mr. F. Darwin for the knowledge of a
letter addressed by his father to Dr. Otto Zacharias in 1877
which contains the following paragraph, confirmatory of the
view expressed above: ‘‘ When I was on board the Beagle, I
believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can
remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind.
On my return home in the autumn of 1836, I immediately began
to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many
facts indicated the common descent of species, so that in July,
1837, I opened a note-book to record any facts which might bear
on the question. But I did not become convinced that species

were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed.”

* Darwin generally uses the word ‘‘idle” in a peculiar sense.
He means by it working hard at something he likes when he

T 2

276 OBITUARY x

that is, as far as pure Geology is concerned—by
the delightful number of new views which have
been coming in thickly and steadily—on the
classification and affinities and instincts of animals
—bearing on the question of species. Note-book
after note-book has been filled with facts which
begin to group themselves clearly under sub-laws.”
(I. p. 298.)

The problem which was to be Darwin’s chief
subject of occupation for the rest of his life thus
presented itself, at first, mainly under its distribu-
tional aspect. Why do species present certain re-
lations in space and in time? Why are the
animals and plants of the Galapagos Archipelago
so like those of South America and yet different
from them? Why are those of the several islets
more or less different from one another? Why
are the animals of the latest geological epoch in
South America similar in facies to those which
exist in the same region at the present day, and
yet specifically or generically different ?

The reply to these questions, which was almost
universally received fifty years ago, was that apie
mals and plants were created such as they are ;
and that their present distribution, at any rate so
far as terrestrial organisms are concerned, has been
effected by the migration of their ancestors from

ought to be occupied with a less attractive subject. Though it
sounds paradoxical, there is a good deal to be said in favour of
this view of pleasant work.

x OBITUARY 277

the region in which the ark stranded after the
subsidence of the deluge. It is true that the
geologists had drawn attention to a good many
tolerably serious difficulties in the way of the
diluvial part of this hypothesis, no less than to the
supposition that the work of creation had occupied
only a brief space of time. But even those, such
as Lyell, who most strenuously argued in favour
of the sufficiency of natural causes for the pro-
duction of the phenomena of the inorganic world,
held stoutly by the hypothesis of creation in the
case of those of the world of life.

For persons who were unable to feel satisfied
with the fashionable doctrine, there remained only
two alternatives—the hypothesis of spontaneous
generation, and that of descent with modification.
The former was simply the creative hypothesis
with the creator left out; the latter had already
been propounded by De Maillet and Erasmus
Darwin, among others; and, later, systematically
expounded by Lamarck. But in the eyes of the
naturalist of the “ Beagle” (and, probably, in those
of most sober thinkers), the advocates of transmu-
tation had done the doctrine they expounded more
harm than good.

Darwin’s opinion of the scientific value of the
“Zoonomia” has already been mentioned. His
verdict on Lamarck is given in the following pas-
sage of a letter to Lyell (March, 1863) :—

“Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a

278 OBITUARY x

modification of Lamarck’s doctrine of development
and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion
there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem
so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather, before
Lamarck and others, propounded the obvious view
that if species were not created separately they
must have descended from other species, and I
can see nothing else in common between the
“Origin” and Lamarck. I believe this way of
putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance,
as it implies necessary progression, and closely
connects Wallace’s and my views with what I con-
sider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched
book, and one from which (I well remember to my
surprise) I gained nothing.”

* But,’ adds Darwin with a little touch of
banter, “ I know you rank it higher, which is curi-
ous, as it did not in the least shake your belief.”
(III. p. 14; see also p. 16, “to me it was an ab-
solutely useless book.”)

Unable to find any satisfactory theory of the
process of descent with modification in the works
of his predecessors, Darwin proceeded to lay the
foundations of his own views independently ; and
he naturally turned, in the first place, to the only
certainly known examples of descent with modifi-
cation, namely, those which are presented by
domestic animals and cultivated plants. He
devoted himself to the study of these cases with
a thoroughness to which none of his predecessors

x OBITUARY 279

even remotely approximated ; and he very soon
had his reward in the discovery “that selec-
tion was the keystone of man’s success in mak-
ing useful races of animals and plants.” (I. p.
83.)

This was the first step in Darwin’s progress,
though its immediate result was to bring him face
to face with a great difficulty. ‘“ But how selection
could be applied to organisms living in a state of
nature remained for some time a mystery to me.”
(I. p. 83.)

The key to this mystery was furnished by the
accidental perusal of the famous essay of Malthus
“On Population” in the autumn of 1838. The
necessary result of unrestricted multiplication is
competition for the means of existence. The suc-
cess of one competitor involves the failure of the
rest, that is, their extinction ; and this “ selection”
is dependent on the better adaptation of the suc-
cessful competitor to the conditions of the com-
petition. Variation occurs under natural, no less
than under artificial, conditions. Unrestricted
multiplication implies the competition of varieties
and the selection of those which are relatively best
adapted to the conditions,

Neither Erasmus Darwin, nor Lamarck, had any
inkling of the possibility of this process of “natural
selection” ; and though it had been foreshadowed
by Wells in 1813, and more fully stated by
Matthew in 1831, the speculations of the latter

280 OBITUARY x

writer remained unknown to naturalists until after
the publication of the “ Origin of Species,”

Darwin found in the doctrine of the selection of
favourable variations by natural causes, which thus
presented itself to his mind, not merely a probable
theory of the origin ofthe diverse species of living
forms, but that explanation of the phenomena of
adaptation, which previous speculations had utterly
failed to give. The process of natural selection is,
in fact, dependent on adaptation—it is all one,
whether one says that the competitor which sur-
vives is the “ fittest” or the “ best adapted.” And
it was a perfectly fair deduction that even the
most complicated adaptations might result from
the summation of a long series of simple favour-
able variations. :

Darwin notes as a serious defect in the first
sketch of his theory that he had omitted to con-
sider one very important problem, the solution of
which did not occur to him till some time after-
wards. “This problem is the tendency in organic
beings descended from the same stock to diverge
in character as they become modified. ... The
solution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring
of all dominant and increasing forms tend to
become adapted to many and highly diversified
places in the economy of nature.” (1, p. 84.)

It is curious that so much importance should be
attached to this supplementary idea. It seems
obvious that the theory of the origin of species

x OBITUARY 281

by natural selection necessarily involves the diverg-
ence of the forms selected. An individual which
varies, tpso facto diverges from the type of its
species; and its progeny, in which the variation
becomes intensified by selection, must diverge still
more, not only from the parent stock, but from
any other race of that stock starting from a varia-
tion of a different character. The selective process
could not take place unless the selected variety
was either better adapted to the conditions than
the original stock, or adapted to other conditions
than the original stock. In the first case, the
original stock would be sooner or later extirpated ;
in the second, the type, as represented by the
original stock and the variety, would occupy more
diversified stations than it did before.

The theory, essentially such as it was published
fourteen years later, was written out in 1844, and
Darwin was so fully convinced of the importance
of his work, as it then stood, that he made special
arrangements for its publication in case of his
death. But it is a singular example of reticent
fortitude, that, although for the next fourteen years
the subject never left his mind, and during the
latter half of that period he was constantly en-
gaged in amassing facts bearing upon it from wide
reading, a colossal correspondence, and a long series
of experiments, only two or three friends were
cognisant of his views. ‘To the outside world he
seemed to have his hands quite sufficiently full of

282 OBITUARY x

other matters. In 1844, he published his observa-
tions on the volcanic islands visited during the
voyage of the “ Beagle.” In 1845, a largely re-
modelled edition of his “ Journal” made its appear-
ance, and immediately won, as it has ever since
held, the favour of both the scientific and the un-
scientific public. In 1846, the “ Geological Ob-
servations in South America” came out, and this
book was no sooner finished than Darwin set to
work upon the Cirripedes. He was led to under-
take this long and heavy task, partly by his desire
to make out the relations of a very anomalous
form which he had discovered on the coast of
Chili; and partly by a sense of “ presumption in
accumulating facts and speculating on the subject
of variation without having worked out my due
share of species.” (II. p. 31.) The eight or nine
years of labour, which resulted in a monograph of
first-rate importance in systematic zoology (to say
nothing of such novel points as the discovery of
complemental males), left Darwin no room to re-
proach himself on this score, and few will share
his “doubt whether the work was worth the con-
sumption of so much time.” (I. p, 82.)

In science no man can safely speculate about
the nature and relation of things with which he is
unacquainted at first hand, and the acquirement
of an intimate and practical knowledge of the
process of species-making and of all the uncertain-
ties which underlie the boundaries between species

x OBITUARY 283

and varieties, drawn by even the most careful and
conscientious systematists! were of no less im-
portance to the author of the “ Origin of Species”
than was the bearing of the Cirripede work upon
“the principles of a natural classification.” (I. p.
81.) No one, as Darwin justly observes, has a
“right to examine the question of species who
has not minutely described many.” (II. p. 39.)
In September, 1854, the Cirripede work was
finished, “ ten thousand barnacles ” had been sent
“out of the house, all over the world,” and Darwin
had the satisfaction of being free to turn again to
his “old notes on species.” In 1855, he began to
breed pigeons, and to make observations on the
effects of use and disuse, experiments on seeds,
and so on, while resuming his industrious collec-
tion of facts, with a view “to see how far they
favour or are opposed to the notion that wild species
are mutable or immutable. I mean with my
utmost power to give all arguments and facts on
both sides. I have a nwmber of people helping
me every way, and giving me most valuable

1 “ After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing
up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and
making them separate, and then making them one again (which
has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species,
and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished.” (II.
p. 40.) Isthere any naturalist provided with a logical sense and
a large suite of specimens, who has not undergone pangs of the
sort described in this vigorous paragraph, which might, with
advantage, be printed on the title-page of every systematic
monograph as a warning to the uninitiated ?

284 OBITUARY x

assistance ; but I often doubt whether the subject
will not quite overpower me.” (II. p. 49.)

Early in 1856, on Lyell’s advice, Darwin began
to write out his views on the origin of species on a
scale three or four times as extensive as that of the
work published in 1859. In July of the same
year he gave a brief sketch of his theory in a
letter to Asa Gray; and, in the year 1857, his
letters to his correspondents show him to be busily
engaged on what he calls his “big book.” (II.
pp. 85, 94.) In May, 1857, Darwin writes to
Wallace: “I am now preparing my work [on the
question how and in what way do species and
varieties differ from each other] for publication,
but I find the subject so very large, that, though
I have written many chapters, I do not suppose I
shall go to press for two years.” (II. p. 95.) In
December, 1857, he writes, in the course of a long
letter to the same correspondent, “ I am extremely
glad to hear that you are attending to distribution
in accordance with theoretical ideas. Iam a firm
believer that without speculation there is no good
and original observation.” (II. p. 108.)? In
June, 1858, he received from Mr. Wallace, then.
in the Malay Archipelago, an “Essay on the
tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from

1 The last remark contains a pregnant truth, but it must be
confessed it hardly squares with the declaration in the Auto-
biography, (I. p. 83), that he worked on ‘‘true Baconian

principles.”

x OBITUARY 285

the original type,’ of which Darwin says, “If
Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in 1842
he could not have made a better short abstract!
Even his terms stand now as heads of my chapters.
Please return me the MS., which he does not say
he wishes me to publish, but I shall, of course, at
once write and offer to send it to any journal.
So all my originality, whatever it may amount to,
will be smashed, though my book, if ever it will
have any value, will not be deteriorated ; as all
the labour consists in the application of the
theory.” (II. p. 116.)

Thus, Darwin’s first impulse was to publish
Wallace’s essay without note or comment of his
own, But,onconsultation with Lyell and Hooker,
the latter of whom had read the sketch of 1844,
they suggested, as an undoubtedly more equitable
course, that extracts from the MS. of 1844 and
from the letter to Dr. Asa Gray should be com-
municated to the Linnean Society along with
Wallace’s essay. The joint communication was
read on July 1, 1858, and published under the
title “On the Tendency of Species to form
Varieties ; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties
and Species by Natural Means of Selection.”
This was followed, on Darwin’s part, by the com-
position of a summary account of the conclusions
to which his twenty years’ work on the species
question had led him. It occupied him for
thirteen months, and appeared in November,

286 OBITUARY x

1859, under the title “On the Origin of Species
by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation
of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life.”

It is doubtful if any single book, except the
“ Principia,’ ever worked so great and so rapid a
revolution in science, or made so deep an
impression on the general mind. It aroused a
tempest of opposition and met with equally
vehement support, and it must be added that
no book has been more widely and persistently
misunderstood by both friends and foes. In 1861,
Darwin remarks to a correspondent, “ You under-
stand my book perfectly, and that I find a very
rare event with my critics.” (I. p. 313.) The
immense popularity which the “ Origin” at once
acquired was no doubt largely due to its many
points of contact with philosophical and theo-
logical questions in which every intelligent man
feels a profound interest; but a good deal must
be assigned to a somewhat delusive simplicity of
style, which tends to disguise the complexity and
difficulty of the subject, and much to the wealth
of information on all sorts of curious problems of
natural history, which is made accessible to the
most unlearned reader. But long occupation with
the work has led the present writer to believe
that the “ Origin of Species” is one of the hardest
of books to master; and he is justified in this

1 He is comforted to find that probably the best qualified
judge among all the readers of the Origin in 1859 was of the

|

x OBITUARY 287

conviction by observing that although the
“Origin” has been close on thirty-years before the
world, the strangest misconceptions of the
essential nature of the theory therein advocated
are still put forth by serious writers.

Although, then, the present occasion is not
suitable for any detailed criticism of the theory, or
of the objections which have been brought against
it, it may not be out of place to endeavour to
separate the substance of the theory from its
accidents ; and to show that a variety not only of
hostile comments, but of friendly would-be im-
provements lose their raison d’étre to the careful
student. Observation proves the existence among
all living beings of phenomena of three kinds, de-
noted by the terms heredity, variation, and multi-
plication. Progeny tend to resemble their parents ;
nevertheless all their organs and functions are sus-
ceptible of departing more or less from the average
parental character ; and their number is in excess
of that of their parents. Severe competition for
the means of living, or the struggle for existence,
is a necessary consequence of unlimited multipli-
cation; while selection, or the preservation of
favourable variations and the extinction of others,
is a necessary consequence of severe competition.
“Favourable variations” are those which are
better adapted to surrounding conditions. It

same opinion. Sir J. Hooker writes, ‘‘It is the very hardest
book to read, to full profit, that I ever tried.”” (II. p. 242.)

288 OBITUARY x

follows, therefore, that every variety which is
selected into a species is so favoured and pre-
served in consequence of being, in some one or
more respects, better adapted to its surroundings
than its rivals. Im other words, every species
which exists, exists in virtue of adaptation, and
whatever accounts for that adaptation accounts for
the existence of the species.

To say that Darwin has put forward a theory of
the adaptation of species, but not of their origin,
is therefore to misunderstand the first principles
of the theory. For, as has been pointed out, it is
a necessary consequence of the theory of selection
that every species must have some one or more
structural or functional peculiarities, in virtue of
the advantage conferred by which, it has fought
through the crowd of its competitors and achieved
a certain duration. In this sense, it is true
that every species has been “originated” by
selection.

There is another sense, however, in which it is
equally true that selection originates nothing.
“Unless profitable variations . . . . occur natural
selection can do nothing” (“ Origin,” Ed. I. p. 82).
“Nothing can be effected unless favourable
variations occur” (aid., p. 108). “ What applies
to one animal will apply throughout time to all
animals—that is, if they vary—for otherwise
natural selection can do nothing. So it will be
with plants” (idid., p. 113). Strictly speaking,

x OBITUARY 289

therefore, the origin of species in general lies in
variation; while the origin of any particular
species lies, firstly, in the occurrence, and secondly,
in the selection and preservation of a particular
variation. Clearness on this head will relieve one
from the necessity of attending to the fallacious
assertion that natural selection is a deus ex machind,
or occult agency.

Those, again, who confuse the operation of the
natural causes which bring about variation and
selection with what they are pleased to call
“chance” can hardly have read the opening
paragraph of the fifth chapter of the “Origin”
(Ed. I, p. 181): “I have sometimes spoken as if
the variations . . . . had been due to chance.
This is of course a wholly imcorrect expression,
but it seems to acknowledge plainly our igno-
rance of the cause of each particular variation.”

Another point of great importance to the right
comprehension of the theory, is, that while every
species must needs have some adaptive advanta-
geous characters to which it owes its preservation
by selection, it may possess any number of others
which are neither advantageous nor disadvanta-
geous, but indifferent, or even slightly disadvan-
tageous. (Jbid., p.81.) For variations take place,
not merely in one organ or function at a time, but
in many; and thus an advantageous variation,
which gives rise to the selection of a new race or
species, may be accompanied by others which are

VOL, II U

290 OBITUARY x

indifferent, but which are just as strongly heredi-
tary as the advantageous variations. The advan-
tageous structure is but one product of a modified
general constitution which may manifest itself by
several other products; and the selective process
carries the general constitution along with the
advantageous special peculiarity. A given species
of plant may owe its existence to the selective
adaptation of its flowers to insect fertilisers ; but the
character of its leaves may be the result of varia-
tions of an indifferent character. It is the origin
of variations of this kind to which Darwin refers in
his frequent reference to what he calls “laws of
correlation of growth” or “ correlated variation.”

These considerations lead us further to see the
inappropriateness of the objections raised to
Darwin’s theory on the ground that natural
selection does not account for the first commence-
ments of useful organs. But it does not pretend
to do so. The source of such commencements is
necessarily to be sought in different variations,
which remain unaffected by selection until they
have taken such a form as to become utilisable in
the struggle for existence.

It is not essential to Darwin’s theory that
anything more should be assumed than the facts
of heredity, variation, and unlimited multiplication ;
and the validity of the deductive reasoning as to
the effect of the last (that is, of the struggle for
existence which it involves) upon the varieties

x OBITUARY 291

resulting from the operation of the former. Nor
is it essential that one should take up any
particular position in regard to the mode of
variation, whether, for example, it takes place per
saltwm or gradually; whether it is definite in
character or indefinite. Still less are those who
accept the theory bound to any particular views as
to the causes of heredity or of variation.

That Darwin held strong opinions on some or all
of these points may be quite true; but, so far as
the theory is concerned, they must be regarded as
oliter dicta. With respect to the causes of vari-
ation, Darwin’s opinions are, from first to last,
put forward altogether tentatively. In the first
edition of the “ Origin,” he attributes the strongest
influence to changes in the conditions of life of
parental organisms, which he appears to think act
on the germ through the intermediation of the
sexual organs. He points out, over and over again,
that habit, use, disuse, and the direct influence of
conditions have some effect, but he does not think
it great, and he draws attention to the difficulty
of distinguishing between effects of these agencies
and those of selection. There is, however, one
class of variations which he withdraws from the
direct influence of selection, namely, the variations
in the fertility of the sexual union of more or less
closely allied forms. He regards less fertility, or
more or less complete sterility, as “incidental to
other acquired differences,” (Jbid., p. 245.)

U 2

292 OBITUARY Xx

Considering the difficulties which surround the
question of the causes of variation, it is not to be
wondered at, that Darwin should have inclined,
sometimes, rather more to one and, sometimes,
rather more to another of the possible alternatives.
There is little difference between the last edition
of the “ Origin ” (1872) and the first on this head.
In 1876, however, he writes to Moritz Wagner,
“Tn my opinion, the greatest error which I have
committed has been not allowing sufficient weight
to the direct action of the environments, 7.¢., food,
climate, &c., independently of natural selection.

. When I wrote the ‘ Origin,’ and for some
years afterwards, I could find little good evidence
of the direct action of the environment ; now there
is a large body of evidence, and your case of the
Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which
I have heard.” (III, p. 159.) But there is really
nothing to prevent the most tenacious adherent to
the theory of natural selection from taking any
view he pleases as to the importance of the direct
influence of conditions and the hereditary trans-
missibility of the modifications which they produce.
In fact, there is a good deal to be said for the view
that the so-called direct influence of conditions is
itself a case of selection. Whether the hypothesis
of Pangenesis be accepted or rejected, it can hardly
be doubted that the struggle for existence goes on
not merely between distinct organisms, but between
the physiological units of which each organism is

x OBITUARY 293

composed, and that changes in external conditions
favour some and hinder others,

After a short stay in Cambridge, Darwin resided
in London for the first five years which followed
his return to England ; and for three years, he held
the post of Secretary to the Geological Society,
though he shared to the full his friend Lyell’s
objection to entanglement in such engagements,
In fact, he used to say in later life, more than half
in earnest, that he gave up hoping for work from
men who accepted official duties and, especially,
Government appointments. Happily for him, he
was exempted from the necessity of making any
sacrifice of this kind, but an even heavier burden
was laid upon him. During the earlier half of his
voyage Darwin retained the vigorous health of his
boyhood, and indeed proved himself to be excep-
tionally capable of enduring fatigue and privation,
An anomalous but severe disorder, which laid him
up for several weeks at Valparaiso in 1834, how-
ever, seems to have left its mark on his constitution;
and, in the later years of his London life, attacks
of illness, usually accompanied by severe vomiting
and great prostration of strength, became frequent.
As he grew older, a considerable part of every day,
even at his best times, was spent in misery; while,
not unfrequently, months of suffering rendered work
of any kind impossible. Even Darwin’s remarkable
tenacity of purpose and methodical utilisation of

294 OBITUARY x

every particle of available energy could not have
enabled him to achieve a fraction of the vast
amount of labour he got through, in the course of
the following forty years, had not the wisest and the
most loving care unceasingly surrounded him from
the time of his marriage in 1839. As early as
1842, the failure of health was so marked
that removal from London became imperatively
necessary ; and Darwin purchased a house and
grounds at Down, a solitary hamlet in Kent, which
was his home for the rest of his life. Under the
strictly regulated conditions of a valetudinarian
existence, the intellectual activity of the invalid
might have put to shame most healthy men; and,
so long as he could hold his head up, there was no
limit to the genial kindness of thought and action
for all about him, Those friends who were
privileged to share the intimate life of the house-
hold at Down have an abiding memory of the
cheerful restfulness which pervaded and character-
ised it.

After mentioning his settlement at Down,
Darwin writes in his Autobiography :—

“My chief enjoyment and sole employment
throughout life has been scientific work ; and the
excitement from such work makes me, for the time,
forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort.
I have, therefore, nothing to record during the rest
of my life, except the publication of my several
books.” (1, p. 79.)

OBITUARY 295

Of such works published subsequently to 1859,
several are monographic discussions of topics
briefly dealt with in the “ Origin,” which, it must
always be recollected, was considered by the
author to be merely an abstract of an opus majus.

The earliest of the books which may be placed
in this category, “On the Various Contrivances
by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects,” was
published in 1862, and whether we regard its
theoretical significance, the excellence of the ob-
servations and the ingenuity of the reasonings
which it records, or the prodigious mass of sub-
sequent investigation of which it has been the
parent, it has no superior in point of importance.
The conviction that no theory of the origin of
species could be satisfactory which failed to offer
an explanation of the way in which mechanisms
involving adaptations of structure and function to
the performance of certain operations are brought
about, was, from the first, dominant in Darwin’s
mind, As has been seen, he rejected Lamarck’s
views because of their obvious incapacity to furnish
such an explanation in the case of the great
majority of animal mechanisms, and in that
of all those presented by the vegetable world.

So far back as 1793, the wonderful work of
Sprengel had established, beyond any reasonable
doubt, the fact that, in a large number of cases, a
flower is a piece of mechanism the object of which
is to convert insect visitors into agents of fertilisa-

296 OBITUARY x

tion. Sprengel’s observations had been most
undeservedly neglected and well-nigh forgotten ;
but Robert Brown having directed Darwin’s
attention to them in 1841, he was attracted
towards the subject, and verified many of Sprengel’s
statements. (III, p. 258.) It may be doubted
whether there was a living botanical specialist,
except perhaps Brown, who had done as much,
If, however, adaptations of this kind were to be
explained by natural selection, it was necessary to
show that the plants which were provided with
mechanisms for ensuring the aid of insects as
fertilisers, were by so much the better fitted
to compete with their rivals. This Sprengel
had not done. Darwin had been attending to
cross fertilisation in plants so far back as 1839,
from having arrived, in the course of his specu-
lations on the origin of species, at the convic-
tion “that crossing played an important part
in keeping specific forms constant” (I, p. 90).
The further development of his views on the
importance of cross fertilisation appears to have
taken place between this time and 1857, when he
published his first papers on the fertilisation of
flowers in the “Gardener’s Chronicle.” If the
conclusion at which he ultimately arrived, that
cross fertilisation is favourable to the fertility of
the parent and to the vigour of the offspring, is
correct, then it follows that all those mechanisms
which hinder self-fertilisation and favour crossing

- OBITUARY 297

must be advantageous in the struggle for exist-
ence; and, the more perfect the action of the
‘mechanism, the greater the advantage. Thus the
way lay open for the operation of natural selection
in gradually perfecting the flower as a fertilisation-
trap. Analogous reasoning applies to the fertil-
ising insect. The better its structure is adapted
to that of the trap, the more will it be able to
profit by the bait, whether of honey or of pollen,
to the exclusion of its competitors, Thus, by a
sort of action and reaction, a two-fold series of
adaptive modifications will be brought about.

In 1865, the important bearing of this subject
on his theory led Darwin to commence a great
series of laborious and difficult experiments on the
fertilisation of plants, which occupied him for
eleven years, and furnished him with the unex-
pectedly strong evidence in favour of the influence
of crossing which he published in 1876, under the
title of “ The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation
in the Vegetable Kingdom.” Incidentally, as it
were, to this heavy piece of work, he made the
remarkable series of observations on the different
arrangements by which crossing is favoured and,
in many cases, necessitated, which appeared in the
work on “The Different Forms of Flowers in
Plants of the same Species” in 1877,

In the course of the twenty years during which
Darwin was thus occupied in opening up new
regions of investigation to the botanist and

298 OBITUARY x

showing the profound physiological significance of
the apparently meaningless diversities of floral
structure, his attention was keenly alive to any
other interesting phenomena of plant life which
came in his way. In his correspondence, he not
unfrequently laughs at himself for his ignorance
of systematic botany; and his acquaintance with
vegetable anatomy and physiology was of the
slenderest. Nevertheless, if any of the less
common features of plant life came under his
notice, that imperious necessity of seeking for
causes which nature had laid upon him, impelled,
and indeed compelled, him to inquire the how
and the why of the fact, and its bearing on his
general views. And as, happily, the atavic ten-
dency to frame hypotheses was accompanied
by an equally strong need to test them by well-
devised experiments, and to acquire all possible
information before publishing his results, the
effect was that he touched no topic without
elucidating it.

Thus the investigation of the operations of
insectivorous plants, embodied in the work on that
topic published in 1875, was started fifteen years
before, by a passing observation made during one
of Darwin’s rare holidays.

“Tn the summer of 1860, I was idling and
resting near Hartfield, where two species of
Drosera abound; and I noticed that numerous
insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I

x OBITUARY 299

- earried home some plants, and on giving them
some insects saw the movements of the tentacles,
and this made me think it possible that the insects
were caught for some special purpose. Fortu-
nately, a crucial test occurred to me, that of placing
a large number of leaves in various nitrogenous
and non-nitrogenous fluids of equal density; and
as soon as I found that the former alone excited
energetic movements, it was obvious that here was
a fine new field for investigation.” (I, p. 95.)

The researches thus initiated led to the proof
that plants are capable of secreting a digestive
fluid like that of animals, and of profiting by the
result of digestion ; whereby the peculiar appara-
tuses of the insectivorous plants were brought
within the scope of natural selection. Moreover,
these inquiries widely enlarged our knowledge of
the manner in which stimuli are transmitted in
plants, and opened up a prospect of drawing closer
the analogies between the motor processes of plants
and those of animals.

So with respect to the books on “Climbing
Plants” (1875), and on the “ Power of Movement
in Plants” (1880), Darwin says ;—

“JT was led to take up this subject by reading a
short paper by Asa Gray, published in 1858. He
sent me some seeds, and on raising some plants I
was so much fascinated and perplexed by the
revolving movements of the tendrils and stems,
which movements are really very simple, though

300 OBITUARY x

appearing at first sight very complex, that I pro-
cured various other kinds of climbing plants
and studied the whole subject. . . . Some of the
adaptations displayed by climbing plants are as
beautiful as those of orchids for ensuring cross-
fertilisation.” (I, p. 93.)

In the midst of all this amount of work,
remarkable alike for its variety and its importance,
among plants, the animal kingdom was by no
means neglected. A large moiety of “The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domesti-
cation” (1868), which contains the pidces justifica-
tives of the first chapter of the “ Origin,” is devoted
to domestic animals, and the hypothesis of
“pangenesis ” propounded in the second volume
applies to the whole living world. In the “ Ori-
gin” Darwin throws out some suggestions as to
the causes of variation, but he takes heredity, as it
is manifested by individual organisms, for granted,
as an ultimate fact ; pangenesis is an attempt to
account for the phenomena of heredity in the
organism, on the assumption that the physiological
units of which the organism is composed give off
gemmules, which, in virtue of heredity, tend to
reproduce the unit from which they are derived.

That Darwin had the application of his theory
to the origin of the human species clearly in his
mind in 1859, is obvious from a passage in the
first edition of “The Origin of Species.” (Ed. I,
p. 488.) “In the distant future I see open fields

x OBITUARY 301

for far more important researches. Psychology
will be based on a new foundation, that of the
necessary acquirement of each mental power and
capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on
the origin of man and his history.” It is one of
the curiosities of scientific literature, that, in the
face of this plain declaration, its author should have
been charged with concealing his opinions on the
subject of the origin of man. But he reserved the
full statement of his views until 1871, when the
“Descent of Man” was published. The “ Expres-
sion of the Emotions” (originally intended to form
only a chapter in the “ Descent of Man”) grew into
a separate volume, which appeared in 1872,
Although always taking a keen interest in geology,
Darwin naturally found no time disposable for
geological work, even had his health permitted it,
after he became seriously engaged with the great
problem of species. But the last of his labours is,
in some sense, a return to his earliest, inasmuch as
it is an expansion of a short paper read before the
Geological Society more than forty years before,
and, as he says, “revived old geological thoughts ”
(I, p. 98). In fact, “ The Formation of Vegetable
Mould through the Action of Worms,” affords as
striking an example of the great results produced
by the long-continued operation of small causes as
even the author of the “ Principles of Geology”
could have desired.

In the early months of 1882 Darwin’s health

302 OBITUARY x

underwent a change for the worse; attacks of
giddiness and fainting supervened, and on the 19th
of April he died. On the 24th, his remains were
interred in Westminster Abbey, in accordance with
the general feeling that such a man as he should
not go to the grave without some public recogni-
tion of the greatness of his work.

Mr. Darwin became a Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1839; one of the Royal Medals was
awarded to him in 18538, and he received the
Copley Medal in 1864. The “ Life and Letters,”
edited with admirable skill and judgment by Mr.
Francis Darwin, gives a full and singularly vivid
presentment of his father’s personal character, of
his mode of work, and of the events of his life. In
the present brief obituary notice, the writer has
attempted nothing more than to select and put
together those facts which enable us to trace the
intellectual evolution of one of the greatest of the
many great men of science whose names adorn the

long roll of the Fellows of the Royal Society.

XI

ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES
OF THE PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC
NATURE

[Sia Lectures to Working Men.—1863.]
I.

THE PRESENT CONDITION OF ORGANIC NATURE.

WHEN it was my duty to consider what subject I
would select for the six lectures which I shall now
have the pleasure of delivering to you, it occurred
to me that I could not do better than endeavour
to put before you in a true light, or in what I
might perhaps with more modesty call, that which
I conceive myself to be the true light, the position
of a book which has been more praised and more
abused, perhaps, than any book which has appeared
for some years ;—I mean Mr. Darwin’s work on the
“Origin of Species.” That work, I doubt not,
many of you have read ; for I know the inquiring
spirit which is rife among you. At any rate, all
of you will have heard of it,—some by one kind of
report and some by another kind of report ; the

304 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

attention of all and the curiosity of all have been
probably more or less excited on the subject of
that work. All I can do, and all I shall attempt
to do, is to put before you that kind of judgment
which has been formed by a man, who, of course,
is liable to judge erroneously ; but, at any rate, of
one whose business and profession it is to form
judgments upon questions of this nature.

And here, as it will always happen when dealing
with an extensive subject, the greater part of my
course—if, indeed, so small a number of lectures
can be properly called a course—must be devoted
to preliminary matters, or rather to a statement of
those facts and of those principles which the work
itself dwells upon, and brings more or less directly
before us, I have no right to suppose that all or
any of you are naturalists ; and, even if you were,
the misconceptions and misunderstandings prev-
alent even among naturalists, on these matters,
would make it desirable that I should take the
course I now propose to take,—that I should
start from the beginning,—that I should endeavour
to point out what is the existing state of the
organic world—that I should point out its past
condition,—that I should state what is the precise
nature of the undertaking which Mr. Darwin has
taken in hand ; that I should endeavour to show
you what are the only methods by which that
undertaking can be brought to an issue, and to
point out to you how far the author of the work

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 305

in question has satisfied those conditions, how far
he has not satisfied them, how far they are satis-
fiable by man, and how far they are not satisfiable
by man.

To-night, in taking up the first part of the
question, I shall endeavour to put before you a
sort of broad notion of our knowledge of the con-
dition of the living world. There are many ways
of doing this. I might deal with it pictorially and
graphically. Following the example of Humboldt
in his “ Aspects of Nature,” I might endeavour to
point out the infinite variety of organic life in
every mode of its existence, with reference to the
variations of climate and the like; and such an
attempt would be fraught with interest to us all;
but considering the subject before us, such a course
would not be that best calculated to assist us. In
an argument of this kind we must go further and
dig deeper into the matter ; we must endeavour to
look into the foundations of living Nature, if I
may so say, and discover the principles involved in
some of her most secret operations. I propose,
therefore, in the first place, to take some ordinary
animal with which you are all familiar, and, by
easily comprehensible and obvious examples drawn
from it, to show what are the kind of problems
which living beings in general lay before us; and
IT shall then show you that the same problems are
laid open to us by all kinds of living beings.
But, first, let me say in what sense I have used the

VOL. IL x

306 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

words “organic nature.” In speaking of the
causes which lead to our present knowledge of
organic nature, | have used it almost as an
equivalent of the word “living,” and for this
reason,—that in almost all living beings you can
distinguish several distinct portions set apart to
do particular things and work in a particular way.
These are termed “organs,” and the whole
together is called “organic.” And as it is
universally characteristic of them, the term
“organic” has been very conveniently employed
to denote the whole of living nature,—the whole
of the plant world, and the whole of the animal
world.

Few animals can be more familiar to you than
that whose skeleton is shown on our diagram.
You need not bother yourselves with this “ Zguws
caballus” written under it; that is only the Latin
name of it, and does not make it any better. It
simply means the common horse. Suppose we
wish to understand all about the horse. Our
first object must be to study the structure of the
animal. The whole of his body is inclosed within
a hide, a skin covered with hair; and if that hide
or skin be taken off, we find a great mass of flesh,
or what is technically called muscle, being the
substance which by its power of contraction enables
the animal to move. These muscles move the hard .
parts one upon the other, and so give that strength
and power of motion which renders the horse so

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 307

useful to us in the performance of those services
in which we employ him.

And then, on separating and removing the whole
of this skin and flesh, you have a great series
of bones, hard structures, bound together with
ligaments, and forming the skeleton which is
represented here.

In that skeleton there are a number of parts to
be recognised. The long series of bones, beginning
from the skull and ending in the tail, is called the
spine, and those in front are the ribs; and then
there are two pairs of limbs, one before and one
behind ; and there are what we all know as the
fore-legs and the hind-legs. If we pursue our
researches into the interior of this animal, we find
within the framework of the skeleton a great
cavity, or rather, I should say, two great cavities,
—one cavity beginning in the skull and running
through the neck-bones, along the spine, and
ending in the tail, containing the brain and the
spinal marrow, which are extremely important
organs. The second great cavity, commencing
with the mouth, contains the gullet, the stomach,
the long intestine, and all the rest of those internal
apparatus which are essential for digestion; and
then in the same great cavity, there are lodged the
heart and all the great vessels going from it; and,
besides that, the organs of respiration—the lungs :
and then the kidneys, and the organs of repro-
duction, and so on. Let us now endeavour to

x 2

308 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

reduce this notion of a horse that we now have, to
some such kind of simple expressions as can be at
once, and without difficulty, retained in the mind,
apart from all minor details. If I make a trans-
verse section, that is, if I were to saw a dead
horse across, I should find that, if I left out the
details, and supposing I took my section through
the anterior region, and through the fore-limbs, I
should have here this kind of section of the body
(Fig. 1). Here would be the upper part of the
animal—that great
mass of bones that
we spoke of as the
spme (a, Fig. 1),
Here I should have
the alimentary
canal (b, Fig. 1).
Here I should have
the heart (¢, Fig.
1); and then you
see, there would be
a kind of double
Fig.t. tube, the whole

being inclosed with-

in the hide; the spinal marrow would be placed
in the upper tube (a, Fig. 1), and in the lower
tube (d d, Fig. 1), there would be the alimentary
canal (5), and the heart (c); and here I shall
have the legs proceeding from each side. For
simplicity’s sake, I represent them merely as

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 309

stumps (e ¢, Fig. 1). Now that is a horse—as
mathematicians would say—reduced to its most
simple expression. Carry that in your minds, if
you please, as a simplified idea of the structure of
the horse. The considerations which I have now
put before you belong to what we technically call
the “ Anatomy” of the horse. Now, suppose we
go to work upon these several parts,—flesh and
hair, and skin and bone, and lay open these various
organs with our scalpels, and examine them by
means of our magnifying-glasses, and see what we
can make of them. We shall find that the flesh
is made up of bundles of strong fibres. The brain
and nerves, too, we shall find, are made up of
fibres, and these queer-looking things that are
called ganglionic corpuscles. If we take a slice of
the bone and examine it, we shall find that it is
very like this diagram of a section of the bone of
on ostrich, though differing, of course, in some
details ; and if we take any part whatsoever of the
tissue, and examine it, we shall find it all has a
minute structure, visible only under the microscope.
All these parts constitute microscopic anatomy or
“Histology.” These parts are constantly being
changed; every part is constantly growing, decay-
ing, and being replaced during the life of the animal.
The tissue is constantly replaced by new material ;
and if you go back to the young state of the tissue
in the case of muscle, or in the case of skin, or any
of the organs I have mentioned, you will find that

310 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

they all come under the same condition, Every
one of these microscopic filaments and fibres (I
now speak merely of the general character of the
whole process)—every one of these parts—could
be traced down to some modification of a tissue
which can be readily divided into little particles of
fleshy matter, of that substance which is composed
of the chemical elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen, having such a shape as this (Fig. 2).
These particles, into which all primitive tissues
break up, are called cells. If I were to make a
section of a piece of the skin of my
hand, I should find that it was
made up of these cells. If I
examine the fibres which form the
various organs of all living animals,
I should find that all of them, at
one time or other, had been formed
out of a substance consisting of similar elements ;
so that you see, just as we reduced the whole body
in the gross to that sort of simple expression given
in Fig. 1, so we may reduce the whole of the
microscopic structural elements to a form of even
greater simplicity ; just as the plan of the whole
body may be so represented in a sense (Fig. 1), so
the primary structure of every tissue may be
represented by a mass of cells (Fig. 2).

Having thus, in this sort of general way,
sketched to you what I may call, perhaps, the
architecture of the body of the horse (what we

Fig.z.

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE silt

term technically its Morphology), I must now turn
to another aspect. A horse is not a mere dead
structure : it is an active, living, working machine.
Hitherto we have, as it were, been looking at a
steam-engine with the fires out, and nothing in the
boiler; but the body of the living animal is a
beautifully-formed active machine, and every part
has its different work to do in the working of that
machine, which is what we call its life. The
horse, if you see him after his day’s work is done,
is cropping the grass in the fields, as it may be, or
munching the oats in his stable. What is he
doing? His jaws are working as a mill—and a
very complex mill too—grinding the corn, or
crushing the grass to a pulp. As soon as that
operation has taken place, the food is passed down
to the stomach, and there it is mixed with the
chemical fluid called the gastric juice, a substance
which has the peculiar property of making soluble
and dissolving out the nutritious matter in the
grass, and leaving behind those parts which are
not nutritious; so that you have, first, the mill,
then a sort of chemical digester; and then the
food, thus partially dissolved, is carried back
by the muscular contractions of the intestines into
the hinder parts of the body, while the soluble
portions are taken up into the blood. The blood
_is contained in a vast system of pipes, spreading
through the whole body, connected with a force-
pump,—the heart,—which, by its position and by

ole THE CAUSES OF THE xI

the contractions of its valves, keeps the blood
constantly circulating in one direction, never
allowing it to rest; and then, by means of this
circulation of the blood, laden as it is with the
products of digestion, the skin, the flesh, the hair,
and every other part of the body, draws from it
that which it wants, and every one of these organs
derives those materials which are necessary to
enable it to do its work.

The action of each of these organs, the per-
formance of each of these various duties, involve
in their operation a continual absorption of the
matters necessary for their support, from the
blood, and a constant formation of waste products,
which are returned to the blood, and conveyed by
it to the lungs and the kidneys, which are organs
that have allotted to them the office of extracting,
separating, and getting rid of these waste products ;
and thus the general nourishment, labour, and
repair of the whole machine are kept up with order
and regularity. But not only is it a machine
which feeds and appropriates to its own support
the nourishment necessary to its existence—it is
an engine for locomotive purposes. The horse
desires to go from one place to another; and to
enable it to do this, it has those strong contractile
bundles of muscles attached to the bones of its
limbs, which are put in motion by means of a sort
of telegraphic apparatus formed by the brain and —
the great spinal cord running through the spine or

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE sis

backbone ; and to this spinal cord are attached a
number of fibres termed nerves, which proceed to
all parts of the structure. By means of these the
eyes, nose, tongue, and skin—all the organs of per-
ception—transmit impressions or sensations to the
brain, which acts as a sort of great central tele-
graph-office, receiving impressions and sending
messages to all parts of the body, and putting in
motion the muscles necessary to accomplish any
movement that may be desired. So that you have
here an extremely complex and _ beautifully-pro-
portioned machine, with all its parts working
harmoniously together towards one common
object—the preservation of the life of the
animal.

Now, note this: the horse makes up its waste
by feeding, and its food is grass or oats, or perhaps
other vegetable products; therefore, in the long
run, the source of all this complex machinery lies in
the vegetable kingdom. But where does the grass,
or the oat, or any other plant, obtain this nourish-
ing food-producing material? At first it is a little
seed, which soon begins to draw into itself from
the earth and the surrounding air matters which
in themselves contain no vital properties what-
ever; it absorbs into its own substance water,
an inorganic body; it draws into its substance
carbonic acid, an inorganic matter ; and ammonia,
another inorganic matter, found in the air; and
then, by some wonderful chemical process, the

314 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

details of which chemists do not yet understand,
though they are near foreshadowing them, it
combines them into one substance, which is known
to us as “ Protein,” a complex compound of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, which alone pos-
sesses the property of manifesting vitality and of
permanently supporting animal life. So that, you
see, the waste products of the animal economy,
the effete materials which are continually being
thrown off by all living beings, in the form of
organic matters, are constantly replaced by sup-
plies of the necessary repairing and rebuilding
materials drawn from the plants, which in their
turn manufacture them, so to speak, by a
mysterious combination of those same inorganic
materials.

Let us trace out the history of the horse in
another direction. After a certain time, as the
result of sickness or disease, the effect of accident,
or the consequence of old age, sooner or later, the
animal dies. The multitudinous operations of
this beautiful mechanism flag in their perform-
ance, the horse loses its vigour, and after passing
through the curious series of changes comprised
in its formation and preservation, it finally decays,
and ends its life by going back into that inorganic
world from which all but an inappreciable fraction
of its substance was derived. Its bones become
mere carbonate and phosphate of lime ; the matter
of its flesh, and of its other parts, becomes, in the

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 315

long run, converted into carbonic acid, into water,
and into ammonia. You will now, perhaps, under-
stand the curious relation of the animal with the
plant, of the organic with the inorganic world,
which is shown in this diagram.

Inorganic World

CARBONIC ACID. WATER. AMMONIA. F] SALINES.

Vegetable World Fig.3. Animal World

The plant gathers these inorganic materials
together and makes them up into its own
substance. The animal eats the plant and appro-
priates the nutritious portions to its own susten-
ance, rejects and gets rid of the useless matters ;
and, finally, the animal itself dies, and its whole
body is decomposed and returned into the inorganic
world. There is thus a constant circulation from
one to the other, a continual formation of organic
life from inorganic matters, and as constant
a return of the matter of living bodies to the
inorganic world; so that the materials of which

316 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

our bodies are composed are largely, in all
probability, the substances which constituted the
matter of long extinct creations, but which have
in the interval constituted a part of the inorganic
world. :

Thus we come to the conclusion, strange at first
sight, that the MATTER constituting the living
world is identical with that which forms the
inorganic world. And not less true is it that,
remarkable as are the powers or, in other words,
as are the Forces which are exerted by living
beings, yet all these forces are either identical
with those which exist in the inorganic world, or
they are convertible into them ; I mean in just the
same sense as the researches of physical philo-
sophers have shown that heat is convertible into
electricity, that electricity is convertible into
magnetism, magnetism into mechanical force or
chemical force, and any one of them with the
other, each being measurable in terms of the other,
—even so, I say, that great law is applicable to
the living world. Consider why is the skeleton of
this horse capable of supporting the masses of
flesh and the various organs forming the living
body, unless it is because of the action of the same
forces of cohesion which combines together the
particles of matter composing this piece of chalk ?
What is there in the muscular contractile power
of the animal but the force which is expressible,
and which is in a certain sense convertible, into

XT PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE oe

the force of gravity which it overcomes? Or, if
you go to more hidden processes, in what does the
process of digestion differ from those processes
which are carried on in the laboratory of the
chemist ? Even if we take the most recondite
and most complex operations of animal life—those
of the nervous system, these of late years have
been shown to be—I do not say identical in any
sense with the electrical processes—but this has
been shown, that they are in some way or other
associated with them; that is to say, that every
amount of nervous action is accompanied by a
certain amount of electrical disturbance in the
particles of the nerves in which that nervous
action is carried on. In this way the nervous
action is related to electricity in the same way
that heat is related to electricity ; and the same
sort of argument which demonstrates the two latter
to be related to one another shows that the nervous
forces are correlated to electricity ; for the experi-
ments of M. Dubois Reymond and others have
shown that whenever a nerve is in a state of
excitement, sending a message to the muscles or
conveying an impression to the brain, there is a
disturbance of the electrical condition of that
nerve which does not exist at other times; and
there are a number of other facts and phenomena
of that sort; so that we come to the broad con-
clusion that not only as to living matter itself, but
as to the forces that matter exerts, there is a close

318 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

relationship between the organic and the inorganic
world—the difference between them arising from
the diverse combination and disposition of identical
forces, and not from any primary diversity, so far
as we can see.

I said just now that the horse eventually died
and became converted into the same inorganic
substances from whence all but an inappreciable
fraction of its substance demonstrably originated,
so that the actual wanderings of matter are as
remarkable as the transmigrations of the soul
fabled by Indian tradition. But before death has
occurred, in the one sex or the other, and in fact
in both, certain products or parts of the organism
have been set free, certain parts of the organisms
of the two sexes have come into contact with one
another, and from that conjunction, from that
union which then takes place, there results the
formation of a new being. At stated times the
mare, from a particular part of the interior of her
body, called the ovary, gets rid of a minute
particle of matter comparable in all essential
respects with that which we called a cell a little
while since, which cell contains a kind of nucleus
in its centre, surrounded by a clear space and by a
viscid mass of protein substance (Fig. 2); and
though it is different in appearance from the eggs
which we are mostly acquainted with, it is really
an egg. After a time this minute particle of
matter, which may only be a small fraction of a

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 319

grain in weight, undergoes a series of changes,—
wonderful, complex changes. Finally, upon its
surface there is fashioned a little elevation, which
afterwards becomes divided and marked by a
groove. The lateral boundaries of the groove
extend upwards and downwards, and at length
give rise to a double tube. In the upper and
smaller tube the spinal marrow and brain are
fashioned ; in the lower, the alimentary canal and
heart ; and at length two pairs of buds shoot out at
the sides of the body, and they are the rudiments
of the limbs. In fact a true drawing of a section
of the embryo in this state would in all essential
respects resemble that diagram of a horse reduced
to its simplest expression, which I first placed
before you (Fig. 1).

Slowly and gradually these changes take place.
The whole of the body, at first, can be broken up
into “cells,’ which become in one place meta-
morphosed into muscle,—in another place into
gristle and bone,—in another place into fibrous:
tissue,—and in another into hair; every part
becoming gradually and slowly fashioned, as if
there were an artificer at work in each of these
complex structures that I have mentioned. This
embryo, as it is called, then passes into other con-
ditions, I should tell you that there is a time when
- the embryos of neither dog, nor horse, nor porpoise,
nor monkey, nor man, can be distinguished by any
essential feature one from the other; there is a

320 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

time when they each and all of them resemble
this one of the dog. But as development
advances, all the parts acquire their speciality,
till at length you have the embryo converted into
the form of the parent from which it started. So
that you see, this living animal, this horse, begins
its existence as a minute particle of nitrogenous
matter, which, being supplied with nutriment
(derived, as I have shown, from the inorganic
world), grows up according to the special type and
construction of its parents, works and undergoes a
constant waste, and that waste is made good by
nutriment derived from the inorganic world ; the
waste given off in this way being directly added
to the inorganic world. Eventually the animal
itself dies, and, by the process of decomposition,
its whole body is returned to those conditions
of inorganic matter in which its substance
originated.

This, then, is that which is true of every living
form, from the lowest plant to the highest animal
—to man himself. You might define the life of
every one in exactly the same terms as those
which I have now used; the difference between
the highest and the lowest being simply in the
complexity of the developmental changes, the
variety of the structural forms, and the diversity
of the physiological functions which are exerted
by each.

If I were to take an oak tree, as a specimen of

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 321

the plant world, I should find that it originated in
an acorn, which, too, commenced in a cell; the
acorn is placed in the ground, and it very speedily
begins to absorb the inorganic matters I have
named, adds enormously to its bulk, and we can
see it, year after year, extending itself upward
and downward, attracting and appropriating to
itself inorganic materials, which it vivifies, and
eventually, as it ripens, gives off its own proper
acorns, which again run the same course. But I
need not multiply examples,—from the highest to
the lowest the essential features of life are the
same as I have described in each of these cases,

So much, then, for these particular features of
the organic world, which you can understand and
comprehend, so long as you confine yourself to one
sort of living being, and study that only.

But, as you know, horses are not the only living
creatures in the world; and again, horses, like all
other animals, have certain limits—are confined
to a certain area on the surface of the earth on
which we live,—and, as that is the simpler matter,
I may take that first. In its wild state, and before
the discovery of America, when the natural state
of things was interfered with by the Spaniards, the
horse was only to be found in parts of the earth
which are known to geographers as the Old
World; that is to say, you might meet with
horses in Europe, Asia, or Africa ; but there were
none in Australia, and there were none whatsoever

VOL, Il bs

322 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

in the whole continent of America, from Labrador
down to Cape Horn. This is an empirical fact, and
it is what is called, stated in the way I have
given it you, the “ Geographical Distribution ” of
the horse.

Why horses should be found in Europe, Asia,
and Africa, and not in America, is not obvious ;
the explanation that the conditions of life in
America are unfavourable to their existence, and
that, therefore, they had not been created there,
evidently does not apply ; for when the invading
Spaniards, or our own yeomen farmers, conveyed
horses to these countries for their own use, they
were found to thrive well and multiply very
rapidly ; and many are even now running wild in
those countries, and in a perfectly natural condition.
Now, suppose we were to do for every animal
what we have here done for the horse,—that. is,
to mark off and distinguish the particular district
or region to which each belonged ; and supposing
we tabulated all these results, that would be
called the Geographical Distribution of animals,
while a corresponding study of plants would yield
as a result the Geographical Distribution of
plants.

I pass on from that now, as I merely wished to
explain to you what I meant by the use of the
term “Geographical Distribution.” As I said,
there is another aspect, and a much more im-
portant one, and that is, the relations of the various

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE B25

animals to one another. The horse is a very well-
defined matter-of-fact sort of animal, and we are
all pretty familiar with its structure. I dare say
it may have struck you, that it resembles very
much no other member of the animal kingdom,
except perhaps the zebra or the ass. But let me
ask you to look along these diagrams. Here is
the skeleton of the horse, and here the skeleton
of the dog. You will notice that we have in the
horse a skull, a backbone and ribs, shoulder-blades
and haunch-bones. In the fore-limb, one upper
arm-bone, two fore arm-bones, wrist-bones (wrongly
called knee), and middle hand-bones, ending in
the three bones of a finger, the last of which is
sheathed in the horny hoof of the fore-foot : in the
hind-limb, one thigh-bone, two leg-bones, ankle-
bones, and middle foot-bones, ending in the three
bones of a toe, the last of which is encased in the
hoof of the hind-foot. Now turn to the dog’s
skeleton. We find identically the same bones, but
more of them, there being more toes in each foot,
and hence more toe-bones.

Well, that is a very curious thing! The fact is
that the dog and the horse—when one .gets a
look at them without the outward impediments of
the skin—are found to be made in very much the
same sort of fashion. And if I were to make a
transverse section of the dog, I should find the
same organs that I have already shown you as
forming parts of the horse. Well, here is another

Y 2

324 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

skeleton—that of a kind of lemur—you see he
has just the same bones; and if I were to make a
transverse section of it, it would be just the same
again. In your mind’s eye turn him round, so as
to put his backbone in a position inclined obliquely
upwards and forwards, just as in the next three
diagrams, which represent the skeletons of an
orang, a chimpanzee, and a gorilla, and you find
you have no trouble in identifying the bones
throughout ; and lastly turn to the end of the
series, the diagram representing a man’s skeleton,
and still you find no great structural feature
essentially altered. There are the same bones in
the same relations. From the horse we pass on
and on, with gradual steps until we arrive at last
at the highest known forms. On the other hand,
take the other line of diagrams, and pass from the
horse downwards in the scale to this fish; and
still, though the modifications are vastly greater,
the essential framework of the organisation
remains unchanged. Here, for instance, is a
porpoise: here is its strong backbone, with the
cavity running through it, which contains the
spinal cord ; here are the ribs, here the shoulder-
blade; here is the little short upper-arm bone,
here are the two forearm bones, the wrist-bone,
and the finger-bones.

Strange, is it not, that the porpoise should have
in this queer-looking affair—its flapper (as it 1s
called), the same fundamental elements as the

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 325

fore-leg of the horse or the dog, or the ape or
man; and here you will notice a very curious
thing,—the hinder limbs are absent. Now, let
us make another jump. Let us go to the codfish:
here you see 1s the forearm, in this large pectoral fin
—carrying your mind’s eye onward from the flapper
of the porpoise. And here you have the hinder
limbs restored in the shape of these ventral fins.
If I were to make a transverse section of this, I
should find just the same organs that we have
before noticed, So that, you see, there comes out
this strange conclusion as the result of our
investigations, that the horse, when examined
and compared with other animals, is found by no
means to stand alone in Nature; but that there
are an enormous number of other creatures which
have backbones, ribs, and legs, and other parts
arranged in the same general manner, and in
all their formation exhibiting the same broad
peculiarities.

I am sure that you cannot have followed me
even in this extremely elementary exposition of
the structural relations of animals, without seeing
what I have been driving at all through, which is,
to show you that, step by step, naturalists have
come to the idea of a unity of plan, or conformity
of construction, among animals which appeared at
first sight to be extremely dissimilar.

And here you have evidence of such a unity of
plan among all the animals which have backbones,

326 THE CAUSES OF THE x1

and which we technically call Vertebrata. But
there are multitudes of other animals, such as
crabs, lobsters, spiders, and so on, which we term
Annulosa, In these I could not point out to you the
parts that correspond with those of the horse,—
the backbone, for instance,—as they are constructed
upon a very different principle, which is also
common to all of them; that is to say, the lobster,
the spider, and the centipede, have a common
plan running through their whole arrangement,
in just the same way that the horse, the dog,
and the porpoise assimilate to each other.

Yet other creatures—whelks, cuttlefishes,
oysters, snails, and all their tribe (Mollusca)—
resemble one another in the same way, but differ
from both Vertebrata and Annulosa ; and the like
is true of the animals called Cwlenterata (Polypes)
and Protozoa (animalcules and sponges).

Now, by pursuing this sort of comparison,
naturalists have arrived at the conviction that
there are,—some think five, and some seven,—but
certainly not more than the latter number—and
perhaps it is simpler to assume five—distinct plans
or constructions in the whole of the animal world ;
and that the hundreds of thousands of species
of creatures on the surface of the earth, are all
reducible to those five, or, at most, seven, plans of
organisation.

But can we go no further than that? When
one has got so far, one is tempted to go on a step

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 327

and inquire whether we cannot go back yet
further and bring down the whole to modifications
of one primordial unit. The anatomist cannot do
this ; but if he call to his aid the study of develop-
ment, he can do it. For we shall find that, dis-
tinct as those plans are, whether it be a porpoise
or man, or lobster, or any of those other kinds I
have mentioned, every one begins its existence
with one and the same primitive form,—that of
the egg, consisting, as we have seen, of a nitro-
genous substance, having a small particle or nucleus
in the centre of it. Furthermore, the earlier
changes of each are substantially the same. And
it is in this that lies that true “unity of organi-
sation” of the animal kingdom which has been
guessed at and fancied for many years; but which
it has been left to the present time to be demon-
strated by the careful study of development. But
is it possible to go another step further still, and
to show that in the same way the whole of the
organic world is reducible to one primitive con-
dition of form? Is there among the plants the
same primitive form of organisation, and is that
identical with that of the animal kingdom? The
reply to that question, too, is not uncertain or
doubtful. It is now proved that every plant
begins its existence under the same form ; that is
to say, in that of a cell—a particle of nitrogenous
matter having substantially the same conditions.
So that if you trace back the oak to its first

328 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

germ, or a man, or a horse, or lobster, or oyster, or
any other animal you choose to name, you shall find
each and all of these commencing their existence
in forms essentially similar to each other; and,
furthermore, that the first processes of growth,
and many of the subsequent modifications, are
essentially the same in principle in almost all.

In conclusion, let me, in a few words, recapitu-
late the positions which I have laid down. And
you must understand that I have not been
talking mere theory; I have been speaking of
matters which are as plainly demonstrable as the
commonest propositions of Euclid—of facts that
must form the basis of all speculations and beliefs
in Biological science. We have gradually traced
down all organic forms, or, in other words, we have
analysed the present condition of animated nature,
until we found that each species took its origin in
a form similar to that under which all the others
commenced their existence. We have found the
whole of the vast array of living forms with which
we are surrounded, constantly growing, increasing,
decaying and disappearing ; the animal constantly
attracting, modifying, and applying to its susten-
ance the matter of the vegetable kingdom, which
derived its support from the absorption and con-
version of inorganic matter. And so constant and
universal is this absorption, waste, and repro-
duction, that it may be said with perfect certainty
that there is left in no one of our bodies at the

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 329

present moment a millionth part of the matter of
which they were originally formed! We have
seen, again, that not only is the living matter
derived from the inorganic world, but that the
forces of that matter are all of them correlative
with and convertible into those of iorganic
nature.

This, for our present purposes, is the best view
of the present condition of organic nature which I
can lay before you: it gives you the great outlines
of a vast picture, which you must fill up by your
own study.

In the next lecture I shall endeavour in the
same way to go back into the past, and to sketch
in the same broad manner the history of life in
epochs preceding our own.

II
THE PAST CONDITION OF ORGANIC NATURE.

In the lecture which I delivered last Monday
evening, I endeavoured to sketch in a very brief
manner, but as well as the time at my disposal
would permit, the present condition of organic
nature, meaning by that large title simply an
indication of the great, broad, and general
principles which are to be discovered by those
who look attentively at the phenomena of organic
nature as at present displayed. The general
result of our investigations might be summed up
thus: we found that the multiplicity of the forms
of animal life, great as that may be, may be
reduced to a comparatively few primitive plans or
types of construction ; that a further study of the
development of those different forms revealed to
_us that they were again reducible, until we at
last brought the infinite diversity of animal, and
even vegetable life, down to the primordial form
of a single cell.

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 331

We found that our analysis of the organic
world, whether animals or plants, showed, in the
long run, that they might both be reduced into,
and were, in fact, composed of, the same con-
‘stituents. And we saw that the plant obtained
the materials constituting its substance by a
peculiar combination of matters belonging entirely
to the inorganic world ; that, then, the animal was
constantly appropriating the nitrogenous matters
of the plant to its own nourishment, and returning
them back to the inorganic world, in what we
spoke of as its waste; and that finally, when the
animal ceased to exist, the constituents of its body
were dissolved and transmitted to that imorganic
world whence they had been at first abstracted.
Thus we saw in both the blade of grass and the
horse but the same elements differently combined
and arranged, We discovered a continual circula-
tion going on,—the plant drawing in the elements
of organic nature and combining them into food
for the animal creation; the animal borrowing
from the plant the matter for its own support,
giving off during its life products which returned
immediately to the inorganic world; and that,
eventually, the constituent materials of the whole
structure of both animals and plants were thus
returned to their original source: there was a
_constant passage from one state of existence to
another, and a returning back again.

Lastly, when we endeavoured to form some

soe THE CAUSES OF THE XI

notion of the nature of the forces exercised by
living beings, we discovered that they—if not
capable of being subjected to the same minute
analysis as the constituents of those beings them-
selves—that they were correlative with—that they
were the equivalents of the forces of inorganic
nature—that they were, in the sense in which the
term is now used, convertible with them. That was
our general result.

And now, leaving the Present, I must endeavour
in the same manner to put before you the facts
that are to be discovered in the Past history of
the living world, in the past conditions of organic
nature. We have, to-night, to deal with the facts
of that history—a history involving periods of
time before which our mere human records sink
into utter insignificance—a history the variety and
physical magnitude of whose events cannot even
be foreshadowed by the history of human life and
human phenomena—a history of the most varied
and complex character.

We must deal with the history, then, in the
first place, as we should deal with all other
histories. The historical student knows that his
first business should be to inquire into the validity
of his evidence, and the nature of the record in
which the evidence is contained, that he may be
able to form a proper estimate of the correctness
of the conclusions which have been drawn from
that evidence. So, here, we must pass, in the first

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 333

place, to the consideration of a matter which may
seem foreign to the question under discussion.
We must dwell upon the nature of the records,
and the credibility of the evidence they contain ;
we must look to the completeness or incomplete-
ness of those records themselves, before we turn to
that which they contain and reveal. The question
of the credibility of the history, happily for us,
will not require much consideration, for, in this
history, unlike those of human origin, there can
be no cavilling, no differences as to the reality and
truth of the facts of which it is made up; the
facts state themselves, and are laid out clearly
before us.

But, although one of the greatest difficulties of
the historical student is cleared out of our path,
there are other difficulties—difficulties in rightly
interpreting the facts as they are presented to us
—which may be compared with the greatest
difficulties of any other kinds of historical study,

What is this record of the past history of the
globe, and what are the questions which are
involved in an inquiry into its completeness or
incompleteness? That record is composed of
mud; and the question which we have to investi-
gate this evening resolves itself into a question of
the formation of mud. You may think, perhaps,
that this is a vast step—of almost from the
sublime to the ridiculous—from the contemplation
of the history of the past ages of the world’s

334 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

existence to the consideration of the history of the
formation of mud! But, in Nature, there is
nothing mean and unworthy of attention ; there is
nothing ridiculous or contemptible in any of her
works ; and this inquiry, you will soon see, I hope,
takes us to the very root and foundations of our
subject.

How, then, is mud formed? Always, with
some trifling exceptions, which I need not consider
now—always, as the result of the action of water,
wearing down and disintegrating the surface of
the earth and rocks with which it comes in
contact—pounding and grinding it down, and
carrying the particles away to places where they
cease to be disturbed by this mechanical action,
and where they can subside and rest. For the
ocean, urged by winds, washes, as we know, a long
extent of coast, and every wave, loaded as it is
with particles of sand and gravel as it breaks
upon the shore, does something towards the dis-
integrating process. And thus, slowly but surely,
the hardest rocks are gradually ground down to a
powdery substance; and the mud thus formed,
coarser or finer, as the case may be, is carried by
the rush of the tides, or currents, till it reaches
the comparatively deeper parts of the ocean, in
which it can sink to the bottom, that is, to parts
where there is a depth of about fourteen or fifteen
fathoms, a depth at which the water is, usually,
nearly motionless, and in which, of course, the

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 335

finer particles of this detritus, or mud as we call
it, sinks to the bottom.

Or, again, if you take a river, eebiee down
from its mountain sources, brawling over the
stones and rocks that intersect its eithi, loosening,
removing, and carrying with it in its downward
course the pebbles and lighter matters from its
banks, it crushes and pounds down the rocks and
earths in precisely the same way as the wearing
action of the sea waves. The matters forming the
deposit are torn from the mountain-side and
whirled impetuously into the valley, more slowly
over the plain, thence into the estuary, and from
the estuary they are swept into the sea. The
coarser and heavier fragments are obviously
deposited first, that is, as soon as the current
begins to lose its force by becoming amalgamated
with the stiller depths of the ocean, but the finer
and lighter particles are carried further on, and
eventually deposited in a deeper and stiller portion
of the ocean.

It clearly follows from this that mud gives us a
chronology; for it is evident that supposing this,
which I now sketch, to be the sea bottom, and
supposing this to be a coast-line ; from the wash-
ing action of the sea upon the rock, wearing and
grinding it down into a sediment of mud, the mud
will be carried down, and, at length, deposited in
the deeper parts of this sea bottom, where it will
form a layer; and then, while that first layer is

336 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

hardening, other mud which is coming from the
same source will, of course, be carried to the same
place ; and, as it is quite impossible for it to get
beneath the layer already there, it deposits itself
above it, and forms another layer, and in that
way you gradually have layers of mud constantly
forming and hardening one above the other, and
conveying a record of time.

It is a necessary result of the operation of the
law of gravitation that the uppermost layer shall
be the youngest and the lowest the oldest, and
that the different beds shall be older at any
particular point or spot in exactly the ratio of their
depth from the surface. So that if they were
upheaved afterwards, and you had a series of
these different layers of mud, converted into sand-
stone, or limestone, as the case might be, you
might be sure that the bottom layer was deposited
first, and that the upper layers were formed after-
wards. Here, you see, is the first step in the history
-—these layers of mud give us an idea of time.

The whole surface of the earth,—I speak
broadly, and leave out minor qualifications,—is
made up of such layers of mud, so hard, the
majority of them, that we call them rock whether
limestone or sandstone, or other varieties of rock,
And, seeing that*every part of the crust of the
earth is made up in this way, you might think
that the determination of the chronology, the
fixing of the time which it has taken to form this

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 337

crust is a comparatively simple matter. Take a
broad average, ascertain how fast the mud is
deposited upon the bottom of the sea, or in the
estuary of rivers ; take it to be an inch, or two, or
three inches a year, or whatever you may roughly
estimate it at; then take the total thickness of
the whole series of stratified rocks, which geolo-
gists estimate at twelve or thirteen miles, or about
seventy thousand feet, make a sum in short
division, divide the total thickness by that of the
quantity deposited in one year, and the result will,
of course, give you the number of years which the
crust has taken to form.

Truly, that looks a very simple process! It
would be so except for certain difficulties, the very
first of which is that of finding how rapidly
sediments are deposited; but the main difficulty
—a difficulty which renders any certain calcula-
tions of such a matter out of the question—is
this, the sea-bottom on which the deposit takes
place is continually shifting.

Instead of the surface of the earth being that
stable, fixed thing that it is popularly believed to
be, being, in common parlance, the very emblem
of fixity itself, it is incessantly moving, and is,
in fact, as unstable as the surface of the sea,
except that its undulations are infinitely slower
and enormously higher and deeper.

Now, what is the effect of this oscillation ?
Take the case to which I have previously

VOL, Il Z

338 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

referred. The finer or coarser sediments that
are carried down by the current of the river,
will only be carried out a certain distance, and
eventually, as we have already seen, on reaching
the stiller part of the ocean, will be deposited at
the bottom.

Let C y (Fig. 4) be the sea-bottom, y D the
shore, x y the sea-level, then the coarser deposit
will subside over the region B, the finer over A,
while beyond A there will be no deposit at all .

D

and, consequently, no record will be kept, simply
because no deposit is going on. Now, suppose
that the whole land, C, D, which we have regarded
as stationary, goes down, as it does so, both A and
B go further out from the shore, which will be at
y'; zw, y’, being the new sea-level. The con-
sequence will be that the layer of mud (A), being
now, for the most part, further than the force of
the current is strong enough to convey even the
finest débris, will, of course, receive no more

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 339

deposits, and having attained a certain thickness
will now grow no thicker.

We should be misled in taking the thickness of
that layer, whenever it may be exposed to our
view, as a record of time in the manner in which
we are now regarding this subject, as it would
give us only an imperfect and partial record:
it would seem to represent too short a period of
time.

Suppose, on the other hand, that the land (C D)
had gone on rising slowly and gradually—say an
inch or two inches in the course of a century,
what would be the practical effect of that move-
ment? Why, that the sediment A and B which
has been already deposited, would eventually be
brought nearer to the shore-level and again sub-
jected to the wear and tear of the sea ; and directly
the sea begins to act upon it, it would of course
soon cut up and carry it way, to a greater or less
extent, to be re-deposited further out.

Well, as there is, in all probability, not one single
spot on the whole surface of the earth, which has
not been up and down in this way a great many
times, it follows that the thickness of the deposits
formed at any particular spot cannot be taken
(even supposing we had at first obtained correct
data as to the rate at which they took place), as
affording reliable information as to the period of
time occupied in its deposit, So that you see it is
absolutely necessary from these facts, seeing that

Zz 2

340 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

our record entirely consists of accumulations of
mud, superimposed one on the other; seeing in
the next place that any particular spots on which
accumulations have occurred, have been constantly
moving up and down, and sometimes out of the
reach of a deposit, and at other times its own
deposit broken up and carried away, it follows that
our record must be in the highest degree imper-
fect, and we have hardly a trace left of thick
deposits, or any definite knowledge of the area
that they occupied, in a great many cases. And
mark this! That supposing even that the whole
surface of the earth had been accessible to the
geologist,—that man had had access to every part
of the earth, and had made sections of the whole,
and put them all together,—even then his record
must of necessity be imperfect.

But to how much has man really access? If
you will look at this map you will see that it
represents the proportion of the sea to the earth :
this coloured part indicates all the dry land, and
this other portion is the water. You will notice
at once that the water covers three-fifths of the
whole surface of the globe, and has covered it in
the same manner ever since man has kept any
record of his own observations, to say nothing of
the minute period during which he has cultivated
geological inquiry. So that three-fifths of the
surface of the earth is shut out from us because
it is under the sea, Let us look at the other

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 341

two-fifths, and see what are the countries in
which anything that may be termed searching
geological inquiry has been carried out: a good
deal of France, Germany, and Great Britain and
Ireland, bits of Spain, of Italy, and of Russia, have
been examined, but of the whole great mass of
Africa, except parts of the southern extremity,
we know next to nothing; little bits of India, but
of the greater part of the Asiatic continent
nothing ; bits of the Northern American States
and of Canada, but of the greater part of the
continent of North America, and in still larger
proportion, of South America, nothing !

Under these circumstances, it follows that even
with reference to that kind of imperfect informa-
tion which we can possess, it is only of about the
ten-thousandth part of the accessible parts of the
earth that has been examined properly. There-
fore, it is with justice that the most thoughtful of
those who are concerned in these inquiries insist
continually upon the imperfection of the geological
record; for, I repeat, it is absolutely necessary,
from the nature of things, that that record should
be of the most fragmentary and imperfect
character. Unfortunately this circumstance has
been constantly forgotten. Men of science, like
young colts in a fresh pasture, are apt to be
exhilarated on being turned into a new field of
inquiry, to go off at a hand-gallop, in total
disregard of hedges and ditches, to lose sight of

342 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

the real limitation of their inquiries, and to
forget the extreme imperfection of what is really
known. Geologists have imagined that they could
tell us what was going on at all parts of the
earth’s surface during a given epoch; they have
talked of this deposit being contemporaneous with
that deposit, until, from our little local histories of
the changes at limited spots of the earth’s surface,
they have constructed a universal history of the —
globe as full of wonders and portents as any other
story of antiquity.

But what does this attempt to construct a
universal history of the globe imply? It implies
that we shall not only have a precise knowledge of
the events which have occurred at any particular
point, but that we shall be able to say what events,
at any one spot, took place at the same time with
those at other spots.

Let us see how far that is in the nature of
things practicable. Suppose that here I make
a section of the Lake of Killarney, and here the
section of another lake—that of Loch Lomond
in Scotland for instance. The rivers that flow
into them are constantly carrying down deposits
of mud, and beds, or strata, are being as constantly
formed, one above the other, at the bottom of
those lakes. Now, there is not a shadow of doubt
that in these two lakes the lower beds are all
older than the upper—there is no doubt about
that; but what does ¢his tell us about the age of

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 343

any given bed in Loch Lomond, as compared with
that of any given bed in the Lake of Killarney ?
It is, indeed, obvious that if any two sets of
deposits are separated and discontinuous, there is
absolutely no means whatever given you by the
nature of the deposit of saying whether one is
much younger or older than the other; but you
may say, as many have said and think, that the
ease is very much altered if the beds which we
are comparing are continuous. Suppose two beds

A

Fig.s.

of mud hardened into rock,—A and B—are seen
in section. (Fig. 5.)

Well, you say, it is admitted that the lower-
most bed is always the older. Very well; B,
therefore, is older than A. No doubt, as a whole,
it is so; or if any parts of the two beds which are
in the same vertical line are compared, it is so.
But suppose you take what seems a very natural
step further, and say that the part a of the bed A
is younger than the part b of the bed B. Is this
sound reasonmg ? If you find any record of
changes taking place at b, did they occur before

344 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

any events which took place while a was being
deposited ? It looks all very plain sailing, indeed,
to say that they did; and yet there is no proof of
anything of the kind. As the former Director of
this Institution, Sir H. De la Beche, long ago
showed, this reasoning may involve an entire
fallacy. It is extremely possible that a may have
been deposited ages before b. It is very easy to
understand how that can be. To return to Fig.
4; when A and B were deposited, they were
substantially contemporaneous; A being simply
the finer deposit, and B the coarser of the same
detritus or waste of land. Now suppose that
that sea-bottom goes down (as shown in Fig. 4),
so that the first deposit is carried no farther than
a, forming the bed A!, and the coarse no farther
than 0, forming the bed B', the result will be the
formation of two continuous beds, one of fine
sediment (A A’) over-lapping another of coarse
sediment (B B'). Now suppose the whole sea-
pottom is raised up, and a section exposed about
the point A!; no doubt, at this spot, the upper
bed is younger than the lower. But we should
obviously greatly err if we concluded that the
mass of the upper bed at A was younger than the
lower bed at B; for we have just seen that they
are contemporaneous deposits. Still more should
we be in error if we supposed the upper bed at A
to be younger than the continuation of the lower
bed at B!; for A was depcsited long before B}

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 345

In fine, if, instead of comparing immediately
adjacent parts of two beds, one of which lies upon
another, we compare distant parts, it is quite
possible that the upper may be any number of
years older than the under, and the under any
number of years younger than the upper.

Now you must not suppose that I put this
before you for the purpose of raising a paradoxical
difficulty; the fact is, that the great mass of
deposits have taken place in sea-bottoms which
are gradually sinking, and have been formed
under the very conditions I am here supposing.

Do not run away with the notion that this
subverts the principle I laid down at first. The
error lies in extending a principle which is_per-
fectly applicable to deposits in the same vertical
line to deposits which are not in that relation to
one another.

It is in consequence of circumstances of this
kind, and of others that I might mention to you,
that our conclusions on and interpretations of the
record are really and strictly only valid so long as
we confine ourselves to one vertical section. I do
not mean to tell you that there are no qualifying
circumstances, so that, even in very considerable
areas, we may safely speak of conformably super-
imposed beds being older or younger than others
at many different points. But we can never be
quite sure in coming to that conclusion, and
especially we cannot be sure if there is any break

346 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

in their continuity, or any very great distance
between the points to be compared.

Well now, so much for the record itself,—so
much for its imperfections,—so much for the con-
ditions to be observed in interpreting it, and its
chronological indications, the moment we pass
beyond the limits of a vertical linear section.

Now let us pass from the record to that which it
contains,—from the book itself to the writing and
the figures on its pages. This writing and these
figures consist of remains of animals and plants
which, in the great majority of cases, have lived
and died in the very spot in which we now find
them, or at least in the immediate vicinity. You
must all of you be aware—and I referred to the
fact in my last lecture—that there are vast
numbers of creatures living at the bottom of the
sea. These creatures, like all others, sooner or
later die, and their shells and hard parts lie at
the bottom; and then the fine mud which is
being constantly brought down by rivers and the
action of the wear and tear of the sea, covers
them over and protects them from any further
change or alteration ; and, of course, as in process
of time the mud becomes hardened and solidified,
the shells of these animals are preserved and
firmly imbedded in the limestone or sandstone
which is being thus formed. You may see in the
galleries of the Museum up stairs specimens of
limestones in which such fossil remains of existing

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 347

animals are imbedded. There are some specimens
in which turtles’ eggs have been imbedded in
calcareous sand, and before the sun had hatched
the young turtles, they became covered over with
calcareous mud, and thus have been preserved
and fossilised.

Not only does this process of imbedding ano
fossilisation occur with marine and other aquatic
animals and plants, but it affects those land
animals and plants which are drifted away to sea,
or become buried in bogs or morasses; and the
animals which have been trodden down by their
fellows and crushed in the mud at the river’s
bank, as the herd have come to drink. In any of
these cases, the organisms may be crushed or be
mutilated, before or after putrefaction, in such a
manner that perhaps only a part will be left in
the form in which it reaches us. It is, indeed, a
most remarkable fact, that it is quite an exceptional
ease to find a skeleton of any one of all the
thousands of. wild land animals that we know are
constantly being killed, or dying in the course of
nature: they are preyed on and devoured by
other animals, or die in places where their bodies
are not afterwards protected by mud. There are
other animals existing on the sea, the shells of
which form exceedingly large deposits, You are
probably aware that before the attempt was made
to lay the Atlantic telegraphic cable, the Govern-
ment employed vessels in making a series of very

348 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

careful observations and soundings of the bottom
of the Atlantic; and although, as we must all
regret, that up to the present time that project has
not succeeded, we have the satisfaction of knowing
that it yielded some most remarkable results to
science. The Atlantic Ocean had to be sounded
right across, to depths of several miles in some
places, and the nature of its bottom was carefully
ascertained. Well, now, a space of about 1,000
miles wide from east to west, and I do not exactly
know how many from north to south, but at any
rate 600 or 700 miles, was carefully examined, and
it was found that over the whole of that immense
area an excessively fine chalky mud is being
deposited ; and this deposit is entirely made up of
animals whose hard parts are deposited in this
part of the ocean, and are doubtless gradually
acquiring solidity and becoming metamorphosed
into a chalky limestone. Thus, you see, it is quite
possible in this way to preserve unmistakable
records of animal and vegetable life. Whenever
the sea-bottom, by some of those undulations of
the earth’s crust that I have referred to, becomes
up-heaved, and sections or borings are made, or
pits are dug, then we become able to examine
the contents and constituents of these ancient sea-
bottoms, and find out what manner of animals
lived at that period.

Now it is a very important consideration in its
bearing on the completeness of the record, to

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 349

inquire how far the remains contained in these
fossiliferous limestones are able to convey any-
thing like an accurate or complete account of the
animals which were in existence at the time of its
formation. Upon that point we can form a very
clear judgment, and one in which there is no
possible room for any mistake. There are of
course a great number of animals—such as jelly-
fishes, and other animals—without any hard parts,
of which we cannot reasonably expect to find any
traces whatever: there is nothing of them to pre-
serve. Within a very short time, you will have
noticed, after they are removed from the water,
they dry up to a mere nothing; certainly they
are not of a nature to leave any very visible traces
of their existence on such bodies as chalk or mud.
Then again, look at land animals; it is, as I have
said, a very uncommon thing to find a land animal
entire after death. Insects and other carnivorous
animals very speedily pull them to pieces, putre-
faction takes place, and so, out of the hundreds of
thousands that are known to die every year, it is
the rarest thing in the world to see one imbedded
in such a way that its remains would be preserved
for a lengthened period. Not only is this the
case, but even when animal remains have been
safely imbedded, certain natural agents may wholly
destroy and remove them.

Almost all the hard parts of animals—the
bones and so on—are composed chiefly of phosphate

950 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

of lime and carbonate of lime. Some years ago,
I had to make an inquiry into the nature of some
very curious fossils sent to me from the North of
Scotland. Fossils are usually hard bony structures
that have become imbedded in the way I have de-
scribed, and have gradually acquired the nature and
solidity of the body with which they are associated ;
but in this case I had a series of holes in some
pieces of rock, and nothing else. Those holes,
however, had a certain definite shape about them,
and when I got a skilful workman to make castings
of the interior of these holes, I found that they.
were the impressions of the joints of a backbone
and of the armour of a great reptile, twelve or more
feet long. This great beast had died and got.
buried in the sand; the sand had gradually
hardened over the bones, but remained porous,
Water had trickled through it, and that water
being probably charged with a superfluity of
carbonic acid, had dissolved all the phosphate and
carbonate of lime, and the bones themselves had
thus decayed and entirely disappeared ; but as
the saridstone happened to have consolidated by
that time, the precise shape of the bones was
retained. If that sandstone had remained soft a
little longer, we should have known nothing what-
soever of the existence of the reptile whose bones
it had encased.

How certain it is that a vast number of animals
which have existed at one period on this earth

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE ae |

have entirely perished, and left no trace whatever
of their forms, may be proved to you by other
considerations. There are large tracts of sand-
stone in various parts of the world, in which
nobody has yet found anything but footsteps.
Not a bone of any description, but an enormous
number of traces of footsteps. There is no
question about them. There is a whole valley in
Connecticut covered with these footsteps, and not
a single fragment of the animals which made
them have yet been found, Let me mention
another case while upon that matter, which is
even more surprising than those to which I have
yet referred. There is a limestone formation near
Oxford, at a place called Stonesfield, which has
yielded the remains of certain very interesting
mammalian animals, and up to this time, if I
recollect’ rightly, there have been found seven
specimens of its lower jaws, and not a bit of any-
thing else, neither limb-bones nor skull, nor any
part whatever; not a fragment of the whole
system! Of course, it would be preposterous to
imagine that the beasts had nothing else but a
lower jaw! The probability is, as Dr, Buckland
showed, as the result of his observations on dead
dogs in the river Thames, that the lower jaw, not
being secured by very firm ligaments to the bones
of the head, and being a weighty affair, would
easily be knocked off, or might drop away from
the body as it floated in water in a state of de-

352 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

composition. The jaw would thus be deposited
immediately, while the rest of the body would
float and drift away altogether, ultimately reaching
the sea, and perhaps becoming destroyed. The
jaw becomes covered up and preserved in the river
silt, and thus it comes that we have such a
curious circumstance as that of the lower jaws in
the Stonesfield slates. So that, you see, faulty as
these layers of stone in the earth’s crust are,
defective as they necessarily are as a record, the
account of contemporaneous vital phenomena
presented by them is, by the necessity of the case,
infinitely more defective and fragmentary.

It was necessary that I should put all this very
strongly before you, because, otherwise, you might
have been led to think differently of the com-
pleteness of our knowledge by the next facts I
shall state to you.

The researches of the last three-quarters of a
century have, in truth, revealed a wonderful
richness of organic life in those rocks. Certainly
not fewer than thirty or forty thousand different
species of fossils have been discovered. You have
no more ground for doubting that these creatures
really lived and died at or near the places in
which we find them than you have for like
scepticism about a shell on the sea-shore. The
evidence is as good in the one case as in the other.

Our next business is to look at the general
character of these fossil remains, and it is a subject

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 353

which will be requisite to consider carefully ; and
the first point for us is to examine how much the
extinct Flora and Fauna as a whole—disregarding
altogether the succession of their constituents, of
which I shall speak afterwards—differ from the
Flora and Fauna of the present day ;—how far they
differ in what we do know about them, leaving
altogether out of consideration speculations based
upon what we do not know.

I strongly imagine that if it were not for the
peculiar appearance that fossilised animals have,
any of you might readily walk through a
museum which contains fossil remains mixed up
with those of the present forms of life, and I doubt
very much whether your uninstructed eyes would
lead you to see any vast or wonderful difference
between the two. If you looked closely, you would
notice, in the first place, a great many things very
like animals with which you are acquainted now :
you would see differences of shape and proportion,
but on the whole a close similarity.

I explained what I meant by ORDERs the other
day, when I described the animal kingdom as
being divided into sub-kingdoms, classes and
orders. If you divide the animal kingdom into
orders you will find that there are above one
hundred and twenty. The number may vary on
one side or the other, but this is a fair estimate.
That is the sum total of the orders of all the
animals which we know now, and which have

VOL, Il AA

354 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

been known in past times, and left remains
behind.

Now, how many of those are absolutely extinct ?
That is to say, how many of these orders of animals
have lived at a former period of the world’s history
but have at present no representatives? That is
the sense in which I meant to use the word
“extinct.” I mean that those animals did live
on this earth at one time, but have left no one
of their kind with us at the present moment.
So that estimating the number of extinct animals
is a sort of way of comparing the past creation as
a whole with the present as a whole. Among the
mammalia and birds there are none extinct ; but
when we come to the reptiles there is a most
wonderful thing: out of the eight orders, or
thereabouts, which you can make among reptiles,
one-half are extinct. These diagrams of the
plesiosaurus, the ichthyosaurus, the pterodactyle,
give you a notion of some of these extinct reptiles.
And here is a cast of the pterodactyle and bones
of the ichthyosaurus and the plesiosaurus, just as
fresh-looking as if it had been recently dug up ina
churchyard. Thus, in the reptile class, there are
no less than half of the orders which are absolutely
extinct. If we turn to the Amphibia, there was
one extinct order, the Labyrinthodonts, typified
by the large salamander-like beast shown in this
diagram.

No order of fishes is known to be extinct.

a ee en ee

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 355

Every fish that we find in the strata—to which I
have been referrimg—can be identified and placed
in one of the orders which exist at the present day.
There is not known to be a single ordinal form
of insect extinct. There are only two orders
extinct among the Crustacea. There is not known
to be an extinct order of these creatures, the
parasitic and other worms ; but there are two, not
to say three, absolutely extinct orders of this
class, the Hchinodermata ; out of all the orders of
the Celenterata and Protozoa only one, the Rugose
Corals.

So that, you see, out of somewhere about 120
orders of animals, taking them altogether, you
will not, at the outside estimate, find above ten
or a dozen extinct. Summing up all the order of
animals which have left remains behind them,
you will not find above ten or a dozen which
cannot be arranged with those of the present day ;
that is to say, that the difference does not amount
to much more than ten per cent.: and the
proportion of extinct orders of plants is still
smaller. I think that that is a very astounding
a most astonishing fact: seeing the enormous
epochs of time which have elapsed during the
constitution of the surface of the earth as it at
present exists, it is, indeed, a most astounding
thing that the proportion of extinct ordinal types
should be so exceedingly small.

But now, there is another point of view in which

AA 2

356 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

we must look at this past creation. Suppose that
we were to sink a vertical pit through the floor
beneath us, and that I could succeed in making
a section right through in the direction of New
Zealand; I should find in each of the different
beds through which I passed the remains of
animals which I should find in that stratum and
not in the others. First, I should come upon
beds of gravel or drift containing the bones of
large animals, such as the elephant, rhinoceros,
and cave tiger. Rather curious things to fall
across in Piccadilly! If I should dig lower still,
I should come upon a bed of what we call the
London clay, and in this, as you will see in
our galleries up stairs, are found remains of
strange cattle, remains of turtles, palms, and large
tropical fruits; with shell-fish such as you see the
like of now only in tropical regions. If I went
below that, I should come upon the chalk, and
there I should find something altogether different,
the remains of ichthyosauria and pterodactyles,
and ammonites, and so forth.

I do not know what Mr. Godwin Austin would
say comes next, but probably rocks containing
more ammonites, and more ichthyosauria and
plesiosauria, with a vast number of other things;
and under that I should meet with yet older
rocks containing numbers of strange shells and
fishes ; and in thus passing from the surface to the
lowest depths of the earth’s crust, the forms of

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE ood

animal life and vegetable life which I should meet
with in the successive beds would, looking at them
broadly, be the more different the further that I
went down. Or, in other words, inasmuch as we
started with the clear principle, that in a series of
naturally-disposed mud beds the lowest are the
oldest, we should come to this result, that the
further we go back in time the more difference
exists between the animal and vegetable life of
an epoch and that which now exists. That was
the conclusion to which I wished to bring you at
the end of this lecture.

III

THE METHOD BY WHICH THE CAUSES OF THE
PRESENT AND PAST CONDITIONS OF ORGANIC
NATURE ARE TO BE DISCOVERED,—THE
ORIGINATION OF LIVING BEINGS.

In the two preceding lectures I have endeavoured
to indicate to you the extent of the subject-matter
of the inquiry upon which we are engaged; and
having thus acquired some conception of the past
and present phenomena of organic nature, I must
now turn to that which constitutes the great prob-
lem which we have set before ourselves ;—I mean,
the question of what knowledge we have of the
causes of these phenomena of organic nature, and
how such knowledge is obtainable.

Here, on the threshold of the inquiry, an
objection meets us. There are in the world a
number of extremely worthy, well-meaning
persons, whose judgments and opinions are
entitled to the utmost respect on account of
their sincerity, who are of opinion that vital

rier ae

ts

ps Reg pO hes late eile EDIT pe BN a Oe

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 359

phenomena, and especially all questions relating
to the origin of vital phenomena, are questions
quite apart from the ordinary run of inquiry, and
are, by their very nature, placed out of our reach,
They say that all these phenomena originated
miraculously, or in some way totally different from
the ordinary course of nature, and that therefore
they conceive it to be futile, not to say pre-
sumptuous, to attempt to inquire into them.

To such sincere and earnest persons, I would
only say, that a question of this kind is not to be
shelved upon theoretical or speculative grounds,
You may remember the story of the Sophist who
demonstrated to Diogenes in the most complete
and satisfactory manner that he could not walk ;
that, in fact, all motion was an impossibility ; and
that Diogenes refuted him by simply getting up
and walking round his tub, So, in the same way,
the man of science replies to objections of this
kind, by simply getting up and walking onward,
and showing what science has done and is doing
—by pointing to that immense mass of facts
which have been ascertained as systematised
under the forms of the great doctrines of morpho-
logy, of development, of distribution, and the
like. He sees an enormous mass of facts and laws
relating to organic beings, which stand on the
same good sound foundation as every other natural
law. With this mass of facts and laws before us,
therefore, seeing that, as far as organic matters

360 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

have hitherto been accessible and studied, they
have shown themselves capable of yielding to
scientific investigation, we may accept this as
proof that order and law reign there as well as
in the rest of Nature. The man of science says
nothing to objectors of this sort, but supposes
that we can and shall walk to a knowledge of the
origin of organic nature, in the same way that we
have walked to a knowledge of the laws and
principles of the inorganic world.

But there are objectors who say the same from
ignorance and ill-will. To such I would reply
that the objection comes ill from them, and that
the real presumption, [ may almost say the real
blasphemy, in this matter, is in the attempt to
limit that inquiry into the causes of phenomena,
which is the source of all human blessings, and
from which has sprung all human prosperity and
progress ; for, after all, we can accomplish com-
paratively little; the limited range of our own
faculties bounds us on every side,—the field of
our powers of observation is small enough, and
he who endeavours to narrow the sphere of our
inquiries is only pursuing a course that is likely
to produce the greatest harm to his fellow-
men.

But now, assuming, as we all do, I hope, that
these phenomena are properly accessible to inquiry,
and setting out upon our search into the causes
of the phenomena of organic nature, or at any

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 301

rate, setting out to discover how much we at
present know upon these abstruse matters, the
question arises as to what is to be our course of
proceeding, and what method we must lay down
for our guidance. I reply to that question, that
our method must be exactly the same as that which
is pursued in any other scientific inquiry, the
method of scientific investigation being the same
for all orders of facts and phenomena whatsoever.

I must dwell a little on this point, for I wish you
to leave this room with a very clear conviction that
scientific investigation is not, as many people seem
to suppose, some kind of modern black art. I say
that you might easily gather this impression from
the manner in which many persons speak of
scientific inquiry, or talk about inductive and
deductive philosophy, or the principles of the
“ Baconian philosophy.” I do protest that, of the
vast number of cants in this world, there are
none, to my mind, so contemptible as the pseudo-
scientific cant which is talked about the “ Baconian
philosophy.”

To hear people talk about the great Chancellor
—and a very great man he certainly was,—you
would think that it was he who had invented
science, and that there was no such thing as
sound reasoning before the time of Queen
Elizabeth! Of course you say, that cannot
possibly be true; you perceive, on a moment’s
reflection, that such an idea is absurdly wrong,

362 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

and yet, so firmly rooted is this sort of impression,
—I cannot call it an idea, or conception,—the
thing is too absurd to be entertained,—but so
completely does it exist at the bottom of most
men’s minds, that this has been a matter of ob-
servation with me for many years past. There
are many men who, though knowing absolutely
nothing of the subject with which they may be
dealing, wish, nevertheless, to damage the author
of some view with which they think fit to disagree.
What they do, then, is not to go and learn some.
thing about the subject, which one would naturally
think the best way of fairly dealing with it; but
they abuse the originator of the view they ques-
tion, in a general manner, and wind up by saying
that, “After all, you know, the principles and
method of this author are totally opposed to the
canons of the Baconian philosophy.” Then every-
body applauds, as a matter of course, and agrees
that it must be so. But if you were to stop them
all in the middle of their applause, you would
probably find that neither the speaker nor his
applauders could tell you how or in what way it
was so; neither the one nor the other having the
slightest idea of what they mean when they speak
of the “ Baconian philosophy.”

You will understand, I hope, that I have not
the slightest desire to join in the outcry against
either the morals, the intellect, or the great genius
of Lord Chancellor Bacon. He was undoubtedly

bo a ee oe ee

iy AR a AS

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 363

a very great man, let people say what they will of
him; but notwithstanding all that he did for
philosophy, it would be entirely wrong to suppose
that the methods of modern scientific inquiry
originated with him, or with his age; they origin-
ated with the first man, whoever he was; and
indeed existed long before him, for many of the
essential processes of reasoning are exerted by the
higher order of brutes as completely and effectively
as by ourselves. We see in many of the brute
creation the exercise of one, at least, of the same
powers of reasoning as that which we ourselves
employ.

The method of scientific investigation is nothing
but the expression of the necessary mode of work-
ing of the human mind. It is simply the mode
at which all phenomena are reasoned about, ren-
dered precise and exact. There is no more differ-
ence, but there is just the same kind of difference,
between the mental operations of a man of science
_ and those of an ordinary person, as there is between
the operations and methods of a baker or of a
butcher weighing out his goods in common scales,
and the operations of a chemist in performing a
difficult and complex analysis by means of his
balance and finely-graduated weights. It is not
that the action of the scales in the one case, and
the balance in the other, differ in the principles of
- their construction or manner of working ; but the
beam of one is set on an infinitely finer axis than

364 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

the other, and of course turns by the addition of
a much smaller weight.

You will understand this better, perhaps, if I
give you some familiar example. You have all
heard it repeated, I dare say, that men of science
work by means of induction and deduction, and
that by the help of these operations, they, in a sort
of sense, wring from Nature certain other things,
which are called natural laws, and causes, and
that out of these, by some cunning skill of their
own, they build up hypotheses and_ theories,
And it is imagined by many, that the operations
of the common mind can be by no means com-
pared with these processes, and that they have to
be acquired by a sort of special apprenticeship to
the craft. To hear all these large words, you
would think that the mind of a man of science
must be constituted differently from that of his
fellow men ; but if you will not be frightened by
terms, you will discover that you are quite wrong,
and that all these terrible apparatus are being
used by yourselves every day and every hour of
your lives.

There is a well-known incident in one of —
Moliere’s plays, where the author makes the hero
express unbounded delight on being told that he
had been talking prose during the whole of his
life. In the same way, I trust, that you will take
comfort, and be delighted with yourselves, on the
discovery that you have been acting on the prin-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 365

ciples of inductive and deductive philosophy dur-
ing the same period. Probably there is not one
here who has not in the course of the day had
occasion to set in motion a complex train of reason-
ing, of the very same kind, though differing of
course in degree, as that which a scientific man
goes through in tracing the causes of natural
phenomena.

A very trivial circumstance will serve to ex-
emplify this. Suppose you go into a fruiterer’s
shop, wanting an apple,—you take up one, and,
on biting it, you find it is sour; you look at it,
and see that it is hard and green. You take
up another one, and that too is hard, green,
and sour. The shopman offers you a third;
but, before biting it, you examine it, and find
that it is hard and green, and you immediately
say that you will not have it, as it must
be sour, like those that you have already
tried.

Nothing can be more simple than that, you
think ; but if you will take the trouble to analyse
and trace out into its logical elements what has
been done by the mind, you will be greatly sur-
prised. In the first place, you have performed
the operation of induction. You found that, in
two experiences, hardness and greenness in apples
went together with sourness. It was so in the
first case, and it was confirmed by the second.
True, it is a very small basis, but still it is enough

366 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

to make an induction from; you generalise the
facts, and you expect to find sourness in apples
where you get hardness and greenness. You found
upon that a general law, that all hard and green
apples are sour; and that, so far as it goes, is a
perfect induction. Well, having got your natural
law in this way, when you are offered another
apple which you find is hard and green, you say,
“All hard and green apples are sour; this apple
is hard and green, therefore this apple is sour.”
That train of reasoning is what logicians call a
syllogism, and has all its various parts and terms,
—its major premiss, its minor premiss, and its
conclusion. And, by the help of further reason-
ing, which, if drawn out, would have to be exhibited
in two or three other syllogisms, you arrive at your
final determination, “I will not have that apple.”
So that, you see, you have, in the first place,
established a law by induction, and upon that you
have founded a deduction, and reasoned out the
special conclusion of the particular case. Well
now, suppose, having got your law, that at some
time afterwards, you are discussing the qualities
of apples with a friend : you will say to him, “ It is
a very curious thing,—but I find that all hard and
green apples are sour!” Your friend says to you,
“But how do you know that?” You at once
reply, “Oh, because I have tried them over and
over again, and have always found them to be so.”
Well, if we were talking science instead of common

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 367

sense, we should call that an experimental verifica-
tion. And, if still opposed, you go further, and
say, “I have heard from the people in Somerset-
shire and Devonshire, where a large number of
apples are grown, that they have observed the
same thing. It is also found to be the case in
Normandy, and in North America. In short, I
find it to be the universal experience of mankind
wherever attention has been directed to the sub-
ject.” Whereupon, your friend, unless he is a
very unreasonable man, agrees with you, and is
convinced that you are quite right in the conclu-
sion you have drawn. He believes, although per-
haps he does not know he believes it, that the
more extensive verifications are,—that the more
frequently experiments have been made, and re-
sults of the same kind arrived at,—that the more
varied the conditions under which the same results
are attained, the more certain is the ultimate con-
clusion, and he disputes the question no further.
He sees that the experiment has been tried under
all sorts of conditions, as to time, place, and people,
with the same result; and he says with you,
therefore, that the law you have laid down must
be a good one, and he must believe it.

In science we do the same thing ;—the philo-
sopher exercises precisely the same faculties,
though in a much more delicate manner. In
scientific inquiry it becomes a matter of duty to
expose a supposed law to every possible kind of

368 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

verification, and to take care, moreover, that this
is done intentionally, and not left to a mere acci-
dent, as in the case of the apples. And in science,
as in common life, our confidence in a law is in
exact proportion to the absence of variation in
the result of our experimental verifications. For
instance, if you let go your grasp of an article
you may have in your hand, it will immediately
fall to the ground. That is a very common veri-
fication of one of the best established laws of
nature—that of gravitation. The method by
which men of science establish the existence of
that law is exactly the same as that by which we
have established the trivial proposition about the
sourness of hard and green apples. But we believe
it in such an extensive, thorough, and unhesitat-
ing manner because the universal experience of
mankind verifies it, and we can verify it ourselves
at any time; and that is the strongest possible
foundation on which any natural law can rest.

So much, then, by way of proof that the method
of establishing laws in science is exactly the same
as that pursued in common life. Let us now turn
to another matter (though really it is but another
phase of the same question), and that is, the
method by which, from the relations of certain
phenomena, we prove that some stand in the posi-
tion of causes towards the others.

I want to put the case clearly before you, and I
will therefore show you what I mean by another

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 369

familiar example. I will suppose that one of you,
on coming down in the morning to the parlour of
your house, finds that a tea-pot and some spoons
which had been left in the room on the previous
evening are gone,—the window is open, and you
observe the mark of a dirty hand on the window-
frame, and perhaps, in addition to that, you notice
the impress of a hob-nailed shoe on the gravel
outside. All these phenomena have struck your
attention instantly, and before two seconds have
passed you say, “ Oh, somebody has broken open
the window, entered the room, and run off with
the spoons and the tea-pot!” That speech is out
of your mouth in a moment. And you will prob-
ably add, “I know there has ; I am quite sure of
it!” You mean to say exactly what you know;
but in reality you are giving expression to what
is, in all essential particulars, an hypothesis.
You do not know it at all; it is nothing but an
hypothesis rapidly framed in yourown mind, And
it is an hypothesis founded on a long train of in-
ductions and deductions.

What are those inductions and deductions, and
how haye you got at this hypothesis? You have
observed, in the first place, that the window is
open; but by a train of reasoning involving many
inductions and deductions, you have probably
arrived long before at the general law—and a
very good one it is—that windows do not open of
themselves; and you therefore conclude that

VOL, IT BB

370 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

something has opened the window. A second
general law that you have arrived at in the same
way is, that tea-pots and spoons do not go out of
a window spontaneously, and you are satisfied that,
as they are not now where you left them, they
have been removed. In the third place, you look
at the marks on the window-sill, and the shoe-
marks outside, and you say that in all previous
experience the former kind of mark has never
been produced by anything else but the hand of a
human being ; and the same experience shows that
no other animal but man at present wears shoes
with hob-nails in them such as would produce the
marks in the gravel. Ido not know, even if we
could discover any of those “ missing links” that
are talked about, that they would help us to any
other conclusion! At any rate the law which
states our present experience is strong enough for
my present purpose. You next reach the con-
clusion, that as these kinds of marks have not been
left by any other animals than men, or are liable
to be formed in any other way than by a man’s
hand and shoe, the marks in question have been
formed by a manin that way. You have, further,
a general law, founded on observation and experi-
ence, and that, too, is, I am sorry to say, a very
universal and unimpeachable one,—that some men
are thieves ; and you assume at once from all these
premisses—and that is what constitutes your
hypothesis—that the man who made the marks

xt PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 371

outside and on the window-sill, opened the window,
got into the room, and stole your tea-pot and
spoons. You have now arrived at a vera causa ;
—you have assumed a cause which, it is plain, is
competent to produce all the phenomena you have
observed. You can explain all these phenomena
only by the hypothesis of a thief. But that is a
hypothetical conclusion, of the justice of which
you have no absolute proof at all; it is only
rendered highly probable by a series of inductive
and deductive reasonings,

I suppose your first action, assuming that you
are a man of ordinary common sense, and that
you have established this hypothesis to your own
satisfaction, will very likely be to go off for the
police, and set them on the track of the burglar,
with the view to the recovery of your property.
But just as you are starting with this object, some
person comes in, and on learning what you are
about, says, “ My good friend, you are going on a
great deal too fast. How do you know that the
man who really made the marks took the spoons ?
It might have been a monkey that took them, and
the man may have merely looked in afterwards.”
You would probably reply, “ Well, that is all very
well, but you see it is contrary to all experience
of the way tea-pots and spoons are abstracted ; so
that, at any rate, your hypothesis is less probable
than mine.” While you are talking the thing
over in this way, another friend arrives, one of

| BB2

372 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

that good kind of people that I was talking of a
little while ago. And he might say, “ Oh, my dear
sir, you are certainly going on a great deal too
fast. You are most presumptuous. You admit
that all these occurrences took place when you
were fast asleep, at a time when you could not
possibly have known anything about what was
taking place. How do you know that the laws of
Nature are not suspended during the night? It
may be that there has been some kind of super-
natural interference in this case.’ In point of
fact, he declares that your hypothesis is one of
which you cannot at all demonstrate the truth,
and that you are by no means sure that the laws
of Nature are the same when you are asleep as
when you are awake.

Well, now, you cannot at the moment answer
that kind of reasoning. You feel that your worthy
friend has you somewhat at a disadvantage. You
will feel perfectly convinced in your own mind,
however, that you are quite right, and you say to
him, “ My good friend, I can only be guided by
the natural probabilities of the case, and if you
will be kind enough to stand aside and permit me
to pass, J will go and fetch the police.” Well, we
will suppose that your journey is successful, and
that by good luck you meet with a policeman ;
that eventually the burglar is found with your
property on his person, and the marks correspond
to his hand and to his boots, Probably any jury

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 373

would consider those facts a very good experimental
verification of your hypothesis, touching the cause
of the abnormal phenomena observed in your
parlour, and would act accordingly.

Now, in this suppositious case, I have taken
phenomena of a very common kind, in order that
you might see what are the different steps in an
ordinary process of reasoning, if you will only take
the trouble to analyse it carefully. All the opera-
tions I have described, you will see, are involved
in the mind of any man of sense in leading him
to a conclusion as to the course he should take in
order to make good a robbery and punish the
offender. I say that you are led, in that case, to
your conclusion by exactly the same train of
reasoning as that which a man of science pursues
when he is endeavouring to discover the origin and
laws of the most occult phenomena. The process
is, and always must be, the same; and precisely
the same mode of reasoning was employed by
Newton and Laplace in their endeavours to dis-
cover and define the causes of the movements of
the heavenly bodies, as you, with your own common
sense, would employ to detect a burglar. The
only difference is, that the nature of the inquiry
being more abstruse, every step has to be most
carefully watched, so that there may not be a
single crack or flaw in your hypothesis. <A
flaw or crack in many of the hypotheses of

374 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

daily life may be of little or no moment as
affecting the general correctness of the conclusions
at which we may arrive; but, in a scientific in-
quiry, a fallacy, great or small, is always of im-
portance, and is sure to be in the long run
constantly productive of mischievous, if not fatal
results.

Do not allow yourselves to be misled by the
common notion that an hypothesis is untrustworthy
simply because it is an hypothesis, It is often
urged, in respect to some scientific conclusion,
that, after all, it is only an hypothesis. But what
more have we to guide us in nine-tenths of the
most important affairs of daily life than hypotheses,
and often very ill-based ones? So that in science,
where the evidence of an hypothesis is subjected
to the most rigid examination, we may rightly
pursue the same course, You may have hypo-
theses and hypotheses. A man may say, if he
likes, that the moon is made of green cheese:
that isan hypothesis. But another man, who has
devoted a great deal of time and attention to the
subject, and availed himself of the most powerful
telescopes and the results of the observations of
others, declares that in his opinion it is probably
composed of materials very similar to those of
which our own earth is made up: and that is also
only an hypothesis. But I need not tell you that
there is an enormous difference in the value of the

~

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 375

two hypotheses. That one which is based on
sound scientific knowledge is sure to have a corre-
sponding value ; and that which is a mere hasty
random guess is likely to have but little value.
Every great step in our progress in discovering
causes has been made in exactly the same way as
that which I have detailed to you. A person
observing the occurrence of certain facts and
phenomena asks, naturally enough, what process,
what kind of operation known to occur in Nature
applied to the particular case, will unravel and
explain the mystery? Hence you have the
scientific hypothesis; and its value will be pro-
portionate to the care and completeness with which
its basis had been tested and verified. It is in
these matters as in the commonest affairs of prac-
tical life: the guess of the fool will be folly, while
the guess of the wise man will contain wisdom.
In all cases, you see that the value of the result
depends on the patience and faithfulness with
which the investigator applies to his hypothesis
every possible kind of verification.

I dare say I may have to return to this point
by and by; but having dealt thus far with our
logical methods, I must now turn to something
which, perhaps, you may consider more interesting,
or, at any rate, more tangible. But in reality
there are but few things that can be more import-
ant for you to understand than the mental pro-
cesses and the means by which we obtain scientific

376 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

conclusions and theories.' Having granted that
the inquiry is a proper one, and having determined
on the nature of the methods we are to pursue
and which only can lead to success, I must now
turn to the consideration of our knowledge of the
nature of the processes which have resulted in the
present condition of organic nature.

Here, let me say at once, lest some of you mis-
understand me, that I have extremely little to
report. The question of how the present condition
of organic nature came about, resolves itself into
two questions. The first is: How has organic or
living matter commenced its existence? And the
second is : How has it been perpetuated? On the
second question I shall have more to say hereafter.
But on the first one, what I now have to say will
be for the most part of a negative character.

If you consider what kind of evidence we can
have upon this matter, it will resolve itself into
two kinds. We may have historical evidence and we
may have experimental evidence. It is, for example,
conceivable, that inasmuch as the hardened mud
which forms a considerable portion of the thick-
ness of the earth’s crust contains faithful records
of the past forms of life, and inasmuch as these
differ more and more as we go further down,—it
is possible and conceivable that we might come to

' Those who wish to study fully the doctrines of which I
have endeavoured to give some rough-and-ready illustrations,
must read Mr. John Stuart Mill’s System of Logie.

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 377

some particular bed or stratum which should con-
tain the remains of those creatures with which
organic life began upon the earth. And if we did
so, and if such forms of organic life were pre-
servable, we should have what I would call his-
torical evidence of the mode in which organic life
began upon this planet. Many persons will tell
you, and indeed you will find it stated in many
works on geology, that this has been done, and
that we really possess such a record; there are
some who imagine that the earliest forms of life
of which we have as yet discovered any record, are
in truth the forms in which animal life began upon
the globe. The grounds on which they base that
supposition are these :—That if you go through
the enormous thickness of the earth’s crust and
get down to the older rocks, the higher vertebrate
animals—the quadrupeds, birds, and fishes—cease
to be found; beneath them you find only the in-
vertebrate animals ; and in the deepest and lowest
rocks those remains become scantier and scantier,
not in any very gradual progression, however,
until, at length, in what are supposed to be the
oldest rocks, the animal remains which are found
are almost always confined to four forms—Oldhamia,
whose precise nature is not known, whether plant
or animal; Zingula, a kind of molluse ; Trilobites,
a crustacean animal, having the same essential
plan of construction, though differing in many
details from a lobster or crab; and Hymenocaris,

378 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

which is also a crustacean. So that you have all
the Fauna reduced, at this period, to four forms :
one a kind of animal or plant that we know no-
thing about, and three undoubted animals—two
crustaceans and one mollusc.

I think, considering the organisation of these
mollusca and crustacea, and looking at their very
complex nature, that it does indeed require a very
strong imagination to conceive that these were the
first created of all living things. And you must
take into consideration the fact that we have not
the slightest proof that these which we call the
oldest beds are really so: I repeat, we have not
the slightest proof of it. When you find in some
places that in an enormous thickness of rocks
there are but very scanty traces of life, or abso-
lutely none at all; and that in other parts of the
world rocks of the very same formation are
crowded with the records of living forms, I think
it is impossible to place any reliance on the sup-
position, or to feel one’s self justified in supposing
that these are the forms in which life first com-
menced. I have not time here to enter upon the
technical grounds upon which I am led to this
conclusion,—that could hardly be done properly
in half a dozen lectures on that part alone :—I
must content myself with saying that I do not
at all believe that these are the oldest forms
of life.

I turn to the experimental side to see what

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 379

evidence we have there. To enable us to say that
we know anything about the experimental origin-
ation of organisation and life, the investigator
ought to be able to take inorganic matters, such
as carbonic acid, ammonia, water, and salines, in
any sort of inorganic combination, and be able to
build them up into protein matter, and then that
protein matter ought to begin to live in an
organic form. That, nobody has done as yet, and
I suspect it will be a long while before anybody
does do it. But the thing is by no means so
impossible as it looks ; for the researches of modern
chemistry have shown us—I won't say the road
towards it, but, if I may so say, they have shown
the finger-post pointing to the road that may lead
to it.

It is not many years ago—and you must recol-
lect that Organic Chemistry is a young science,
not above a couple of generations old, you must
not expect too much of it,—it is not many years
ago since it was said to be perfectly impossible to
fabricate any organic compound ; that is to say,
any non-mineral compound which is to be found
in an organised being. It remained so for a very
long period; but it is now a considerable number
of years since a distinguished foreign chemist con-
trived to fabricate urea, a substance of a very
complex character, which forms one of the waste
products of animal structures. And of late years
a number of other compounds, such as butyric

380 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

acid, and others, have been added to the list. I
need not tell you that chemistry is an enormous
distance from the goal I indicate; all I wish to
point out to you is, that it is by no means safe
to say that that goal may not be reached one
day. It may be that it is impossible for us
to produce the conditions requisite to the origina-
tion of life; but we must speak modestly about
the matter, and recollect that Science has put her
foot upon the bottom round of the ladder. Truly
he would be a bold man who would venture to
predict where she will be fifty years hence.

There is another inquiry which bears indirectly
upon this question, and upon which I must say a
few words. You are all of you aware of the
phenomena of what is called spontaneous genera-
tion. Our forefathers, down to the seventeenth
century, or thereabouts, all imagined, in perfectly
good faith, that certain vegetable and animal
forms gave birth, in the process of their decom-
position, to insect life. Thus, if you put a piece
of meat in the sun, and allowed it to putrefy, they
conceived that the grubs which soon began to
appear were the result of the action of a power of
spontaneous generation which the meat contained.
And they could give you receipts for making
various animal and vegetable preparations which
would produce particular kinds of animals. <A
very distinguished Italian naturalist, named Redi,
took up the question, at a time when everybody

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 381

believed in it; among others our own great Harvey,
the discoverer of the circulation of the blood.
You will constantly find his name quoted, how-
ever, as an opponent of the doctrine of spontaneous
generation ; but the fact is, and you will see it if
you will take the trouble to look into his works,
Harvey believed it as profoundly as any man of
his time; but he happened to enunciate a very
curious proposition—that every living thing came
from an egg; he did not mean to use the word in
the sense in which we now employ it, he only
meant to say that every living thing originated in
a little rounded particle of organised substance ;
and it is from this circumstance, probably, that
the notion of Harvey having opposed the doctrine
originated. Then came Redi, and he proceeded
to upset the doctrine in a very simple manner.
He merely covered the piece of meat with some
very fine gauze, and then he exposed it to the
same conditions. The result of this was that no
grubs or insects were produced; he proved that
the grubs originated from the insects who came
and deposited their eggs in the meat, and that
they were hatched by the heat of the sun. By
this kind of inquiry he thoroughly upset the
doctrine of spontaneous generation, for his time
at least.

Then came the discovery and application of the
microscope to scientific inquiries, which showed to
naturalists that besides the organisms which they

389 THE CAUSES OF THE xt

already knew as living beings and plants, there
were an immense number of minute things which
could be obtained apparently almost at will from
decaying vegetable and animal forms. Thus, if
you took some ordinary black pepper or some hay,
and steeped it in water, you would find inthe course
of a few days that the water had become impreg-
nated with an immense number of animalcules
swimming about in all directions. From facts of
this kind naturalists were led to revive the theory
of spontaneous generation. They were headed
here by an English naturalist,—Needham,—and
afterwards in France by the learned Buffon. They
said that these things were absolutely begotten
in the water of the decaying substances out of
which the infusion was made. It did not matter
whether you took animal or vegetable matter, you
had only to steep it in water and expose it, and
you would soon have plenty of animalcules, They
made an hypothesis about this which was a very
fair one. They said, this matter of the animal
world, or of the higher plants, appears to be dead,
but in reality it has a sort of dim life about it,
which, if it is placed under fair conditions, will
cause it to break up into the forms of these little
animalcules, and they will go through their lives
in the same way as the animal or plant of which
they once formed a part.

The question now became very hotly debated.
Spallanzani, an Italian naturalist, took up opposite

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 383

views to those of Needham and Buffon, and by
means of certain experiments he showed that it
was quite possible to stop the process by boiling
the water, and closing the vessel in which it was
contained. ‘‘ Oh!” said his opponents; “ but what
do you know you may be doing when you heat the
air over the water in this way? You may be de-
stroying some property of the air requisite for the
spontaneous generation of the animalcules.”
However, Spallanzani’s views were supposed to
be upon the right side, and those of the others fell
into discredit; although the fact was that Spallan-
zani had not made good his views. Well, then,
the subject continued to be revived from time to
time, and experiments were made by several per-
sons ; but these experiments were not altogether
satisfactory. It was found that if you put an in-
fusion in which animalcules would appear if it were
exposed to the air into a vessel and boiled it, and
then sealed up the mouth of the vessel, so that no
air, save such as had been heated to 212°, could
reach its contents, that then no animalcules would
be found ; but if you took the same vessel and ex-
posed the infusion to the air, then you would get
animalcules. Furthermore, it was found that if
you connected the mouth of the vessel with a red-
hot tube in such a way that the air would have to
pass through the tube before reaching the infusion,
that then you would get no animalcules, Yet
another thing was noticed: if you took two flasks

384 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

containing the same kind of infusion, and left one
entirely exposed to the air, and in the mouth of
the other placed a ball of cotton wool, so that the
air would have to filter itself through it before
reaching the infusion, that then, although you
might have plenty of animalcules in the first flask,
you would certainly obtain none from the second.

These experiments, you see, all tended towards
one conclusion—that the infusoria were developed
from little minute spores or eggs which were con-
stantly floating in the atmosphere, and which lose
their power of germination if subjected to heat.
But one observer now made another experiment,
which seemed to go entirely the other way, and
puzzled him altogether. He took some of this
boiled infusion that I have been speaking of, and
by the use of a mercurial bath—a kind of trough
used in laboratories—he deftly inverted a vessel
containing the infusion into the mercury, so that
the latter reached a little beyond the level of the
mouth of the inverted vessel. You see that he
thus had a quantity of the infusion shut off from
any possible communication with the outer air by
being inverted upon a bed of mercury,

He then prepared some pure oxygen and nitro-
gen gases, and passed them by means of a tube
going from the outside of the vessel, up through
the mercury into the infusion; so that he thus
had it exposed to a perfectly pure atmosphere of
the same constituents as the external air. Of

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 385

course, he expected he would get no infusorial
animalcules at all in that infusion; but, to his
great dismay and discomfiture, he found he almost
always did get them.

Furthermore, it has been found that experi-
ments made in the manner described above answer
well with most infusions; but that if you fill the
vessel with boiled milk, and then stop the neck
with cotton-wool, you will have infusoria. So that
you see there were two experiments that brought
you to one kind of conclusion, and three to an-
other; which was a most unsatisfactory state of
things to arrive at in a scientific inquiry.

Some few years after this, the question began
to be very hotly discussed in France. There was
M. Pouchet, a professor at Rouen, a very learned
man, but certainly not a very rigid experimental-
ist. He published a number of experiments of his
own, some of which were very ingenious, to show
that if you went to work in a proper way, there
was a truth in the doctrine of spontaneous genera-
tion. Well, it was one of the most fortunate things
in the world that M. Pouchet took up this question,
because it induced a distinguished French chemist,
M. Pasteur, to take up the question on the other
side ; and he has certainly worked it out in the
most perfect manner. I am glad to say, too, that
he has published his researches in time to enable
me to give you an account of them. He verified
all the experiments which I have just mentioned

VOL. II CC

386 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

to you—and then finding those extraordinary
anomalies, as in the case of the mercury bath and
the milk, he set himself to work to discover their
nature. In the case of milk he found it to be a
question of temperature. Milk in a fresh state is
slightly alkaline ; and it is a very curious circum-
stance, but this very slight degree of alkalinity
seems to have the effect of preserving the organ-
isms which fall into it from the air from being
destroyed at a temperature of 212°, which is the
boiling point. But if you raise the temperature
10° when you boil it, the milk behaves like every-
thing else ; and if the air with which it comes in
contact, after being boiled at this temperature, is
passed through a red-hot tube, you will not get a
trace of organisms.

He then turned his attention to the mercury
bath, and found on examination that the surface of
the mercury was almost always covered with a
very fine dust. He found that even the mercury
itself was positively full of organic matters; that
from being constantly exposed to the air, it had
collected an immense number of these infusorial
organisms from the air. Well, under these circum-
stances he felt that the case was quite clear, and
that the mereury was not what it had appeared to
M. Schwann to be,—a bar to the admission of these
organisms ; but that,in reality, it acted as a reservoir
from which the infusion was immediately supplied
with the large quantity that had so puzzled him.

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 387

But not content with explaining the experiments
of others, M. Pasteur went to work to satisfy himself
completely. He said to himself: “If my view is
right, and if, in point of fact, all these appearances
of spontaneous generation are altogether due to the
falling of minute germs suspended in the atmo-
sphere,—why, I ought not only to be able to show
the germs, but I ought to be able to catch
and sow them, and produce the resulting organ-
isms.’ He, accordingly, constructed a very in-
genious apparatus to enable him to accomplish the
trapping of the “ germ dust” in the air. He fixed
in the window of his room a glass tube, in the
centre of which he had placed a ball of gun-cotton,
which, as you all know, is ordinary cotton-wool,
which, from having been steeped in strong acid, is
converted into a substance of great explosive power.
It is also soluble in alcohol and ether. One end
of the glass tube was, of course, open to the ex-
ternal air; and at the other end of it he placed an
aspirator, a contrivance for causing a current of
the external air to pass through the tube. He
kept this apparatus going for four-and-twenty
hours, and then removed the dusted gun-cotton,
and dissolved it in alcohol and ether. He then
allowed this to stand for a few hours, and the re-
sult was, that a very fine dust was gradually de-
posited at the bottom of it. That dust, on being
transferred to the stage of a microscope, was found
to contain an enormous number of starch grains.

cc 2

588 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

You know that the materials of our food and the
greater portion of plants are composed of starch,
and we are constantly making use of it in a variety
of ways, so that there is always a quantity of it
suspended in the air. It is these starch grains
which form many of those bright specks that we
see dancing in a ray of light sometimes. But be-
sides these, M. Pasteur found also an immense
number of other organic substances such as spores
of fungi, which had been floating about in the air
and had got caged in this way.

He went farther, and said to himself, “ If these
really are the things that give rise to the appear-
ance of spontaneous generation, I ought to be able
to take a ball of this dusted gun-cotton and put it
into one of my vessels, containing that boiled in-
fusion which has been kept away from the air, and
in which no infusoria are at present developed, and
then, if I am right, the introduction of this gun-
cotton will give rise to organisms.”

Accordingly, he took one of these vessels of in-
fusion, which had been kept eighteen months,
without the least appearance of life in it, and by a
most ingenious contrivance, he managed to break
it open and introduce such a ball of gun-cotton,
without allowing the infusion or the cotton ball to
come into contact with any air but that which had
been subjected to a red heat, and in twenty-four
hours he had the satisfaction of finding all the in-
dications of what had been hitherto called spon-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 389

taneous generation. He had succeeded in catching
the germs and developing organisms in the way
he had anticipated.

It now struck him that the truth of his conclu-
sions might be demonstrated without all the appa-
ratus he had employed. To do this, he took some
decaying animal or vegetable substance, such as
urine, which is an extremely decomposable sub-
stance, or the juice of yeast, or perhaps some other
artificial preparation, and filled a vessel having a
long tubular neck with it. He then boiled the
liquid and bent that long neck into an S shape or
zig-zag, leaving it open at the end. The infusion
then gave no trace of any appearance of spontaneous
generation, however long it might be left, as all
the germs in the air were deposited in the begin-
ning of the bent neck. He then cut the tube close
to the vessel, and allowed the ordinary air to have
free and direct access ; and the result of that was
the appearance of organisms in it, as soon as the
infusion had been allowed to stand long enough to
allow of the growth of those it received from the
air, which was about forty-eight hours, The re-
sult of M. Pasteur’s experiments proved, therefore,
in the most conclusive manner, that all the appear-
ances of spontaneous generation arose from nothing
more than the deposition of the germs of organisms
which were constantly floating in the air.

To this conclusion, however, the objection was
made, that if that were the cause, then the air

390 PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE x1

would contain such an enormous number of these
germs, that it would be a continual fog. But M.
Pasteur replied that they are not there in any-
thing like the number we might suppose, and that
an exaggerated view has been held on that subject;
he showed that the chances of animal or vegetable
life appearing in infusions, depend entirely on the
conditions under which they are exposed. If they
are exposed to the ordinary atmosphere around
us, why, of course, you may have organisms ap-
pearing early. But, on the other hand, if they are
exposed to air at a great height, or in some very
quiet cellar, you will often not find a single trace
of life,

So that M. Pasteur arrived at last at the clear
and definite result, that all these appearances are
like the case of the worms in the piece of meat,
which was refuted by Redi, simply germs carried
by the air and deposited in the liquids in which
they afterwards appear. For my own part, I con-
ceive that, with the particulars of M. Pasteur’s ex-
periments before us, we cannot fail to arrive at his
conclusions ; and that the doctrine of spontaneous
generation has received a final cowp de grdce.

You, of course, understand that all this in no
way interferes with the possibility of the fabrica-
tion of organic matters by the direct method to
which I have referred, remote as that possibility
may be.

IV

THE PERPETUATION OF LIVING BEINGS, HEREDI-
TARY TRANSMISSION AND VARIATION.

THE inquiry which we undertook, at our last
meeting, into the state of our knowledge of the
causes of the phenomena of organic nature,—of
the past and of the present,—resolved itself into
two subsidiary inquiries: the first was, whether we
know anything, either historically or experimen-
tally, of the mode of origin of living beings; the
second subsidiary inquiry was, whether, granting
the origin, we know anything about the perpetua-
tion and modificationsof the formsof organic beings.
The reply which I had to give to the first question
was altogether negative, and the chief result of my
last lecture was, that, neither historically nor ex-
perimentally, do we at present know anything
whatsoever about the origin of living forms. We
saw that, historically, we are not likely to know
anything about it, although we may perhaps learn
something experimentally ; but that at present we
are an enormous distance from the goal I indicated.

392 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

I now, then, take up the next question, What
do we know of the reproduction, the perpetuation,
and the modifications of the forms of living beings,
supposing that we have put the question as to their
origination on one side, and have assumed that at
present the causes of their origination are beyond
us, and that we know nothing about them? Upon
this question the state of our knowledge is ex-
tremely different ; it is exceedingly large: and, if
not complete, our experience is certainly most ex-
tensive. It would be impossible to lay it all before
you, and the most I can do, or need do to-night, is
to take up the principal points and put them be-
fore you with such prominence as may subserve
the purposes of our present argument.

The method of the perpetuation of organic beings
isof two kinds,—the non-sexual and the sexual. In
the first the perpetuation takes place from and by
a particular act of an individual organism, which
sometimes may not be classed as belonging to any
sex at all. In the second case, it is in con-
sequence of the mutual action and interaction of
certain portions of the organisms of usually two
distinct individuals,—the male and the female. The
cases of non-sexual perpetuation are by no means
so common as the cases of sexual perpetuation ;
and they are by no means so common in the animal
as in the vegetable world. You are all probably
familiar with the fact, as a matter of experience,
that you can propagate plants by means of what

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 393

are called “cuttings”; for example, that by tak-
ing a cutting from a geranium plant, and rearing
it properly, by supplying it with light and warmth
and nourishment from the earth, it grows up and
takes the form of its parent, having all the pro-
perties and peculiarities of the original plant.

Sometimes this process, which the gardener per-
forms artificially, takes place naturally ; that is to
say, a little bulb, or portion of the plant, detaches
itself, drops off, and becomes capable of growing
as a separate thing. That is the case with many
bulbous plants, which throw off in this way second-
ary bulbs, which are lodged in the ground and
become developed into plants. This is a non-sexual
process, and from it results the repetition or re-
production of the form of the original being from
which the bulb proceeds. |

Among animals the same thing takes place.
Among the lower forms of animal life, the infusorial
animalculz we have already spoken of throw off
certain portions, or break themselves up in various
directions, sometimes transversely or sometimes
longitudinally ; or they may give off buds, which
detach themselves and develop into their proper
forms. There is the common fresh-water polype,
for instance, which multiplies itself in this way.
Just in the same way as the gardener is able to
multiply and reproduce the peculiarities and char-
acters of particular plants by means of cuttings,
so can the physiological experimentalist—as was

394 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

shown by the Abbé Trembley many years ago—so
can he do the same thing with many of the lower
forms of animal life. M. de Trembley showed
that you could take a polype and cut it into two,
or four, or many pieces, mutilating it in all direc-
tions, and the pieces would still grow up and re-
produce completely the original form of the animal.
These are all cases of non-sexual multiplication,
and there are other instances, and still more extra-
ordinary ones, in which this process takes place
naturally, in a more hidden, a more recondite kind
of way. You are all of you familiar with that
little green insect, the Aphis or blight, as it is
called. These little animals, during a very con-
siderable part of their existence, multiply them-
selves by means of a kind of internal budding, the
buds being developed into essentially non-sexual
animals, which are neither male nor female; they
become converted into young Aphides, which re-
peat the process, and their offspring after them,
and so on again; you may go on for nine or ten,
or even twenty or more successions ; and there is no
very good reason to say how soon it might terminate,
or how long it might not go on if the proper con-
ditions of warmth and nourishment were kept up.

Sexual reproduction is quite a distinct matter.
Here, in all these cases, what is required is the
detachment of two portions of the parental
organisms, which portions we know as the egg
or the spermatozoon. In plants it is the ovule

xt PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 395

and the pollen-grain, as in the flowering plants, or
the ovule and the antherozooid, as in the flower-
less. Among all forms of animal life, the sperma-
tozoa proceed from the male sex, and the egg is
the product of the female. Now, what is remark-
able about this mode of reproduction is this, that
the egg by itself, or the spermatozoa by themselves,
are unable to assume the parental form; but if
they be brought into contact with one another,
the effect of the mixture of organic substances
proceeding from two sources appears to confer an
altogether new vigour to the mixed product, This
process is brought about, as we all know, by the
sexual intercourse of the two sexes, and is called
the act of impregnation. The result of this act
on the part of the male and female is, that the
formation of a new being is set up in the ovule or
egg; this ovule or egg soon begins to be divided
and subdivided, and to be fashioned into various
complex organs, and eventually to develop into
the form of one of its parents, as I explained in
the first lecture. These are the processes by
which the perpetuation of organic beings is secured.
Why there should be the two modes—why this
re-invigoration should be required on the part of
the female element we do not know ; but it is most
assuredly the fact, and it is presumable, that, how-
ever long the process of non-sexual multiplication
could be continued—I say there is good reason to
believe that it would come to an end if a new

396 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

commencement were not obtained by a conjunc-
tion of the two sexual elements.

That character which is common to these two
distinct processes is this, that, whether we con-
sider the reproduction, or perpetuation, or modifica-
tion of organic beings as they take place non-sexu-
ally, or as they may take place sexually—in either
case, I say, the offspring has a constant tendency
to assume, speaking generally, the character of
the parent. As I said just now, if you take a slip
of a plant, and tend it with care, it will eventually
grow up and develop into a plant like that from
which it had sprung; and this tendency is so
strong that, as gardeners know, this mode of
multiplying by means of cuttings is the only secure
mode of propagating very many varieties of plants ;
the peculiarity of the primitive stock seems to be
better preserved if you propagate it by means of a
slip than if you resort to the sexual mode.

Again, in experiments upon the lower animals,
such as the polype, to which I have referred, it is
most extraordinary that, although cut up into
various pieces, each particular piece will grow up
into the form of the primitive stock; the head, if
separated, will reproduce the body and the tail;
and if you cut off the tail, you will find that that
will reproduce the body and all the rest of the
members, without in any way deviating from the
plan of the organism from which these portions
have been detached. And so far does this go, that

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 397

some experimentalists have carefully examined the
lower orders of animals,—among them the Abbé
Spallanzani, who made a number of experiments
upon snails and salamanders,—and have found
that they might mutilate them to an incredible
extent; that you might cut off the jaw or the
greater part of the head, or the leg or the tail, and
repeat the experiment several times, perhaps cut-
ting off the same member again and again ; and
yet each of those types would be reproduced
according to the primitive type: Nature making
no mistake, never putting on a fresh kind of leg,
or head, or tail, but always tending to repeat and
to return to the primitive type.

It is the same in sexual reproduction: it is a
matter of perfectly common experience, that the
tendency on the part of the offspring always is,
speaking broadly, to reproduce the form of the
parents. The proverb has it that the thistle does
not bring forth grapes ; so, among ourselves, there
is always a likeness, more or less marked and dis-
tinct, between children and their parents. That is
a matter of familiar and ordinary observation. We
notice the same thing occurring in the cases of the
domestic animals—dogs, for instance, and their
offspring. In all these cases of propagation and
perpetuation, there seems to be a tendency in the
offspring to take the characters of the parental
organisms, To that tendency a special name is given
—and as I may very often use it, I will write it

3958 THE CAUSES OF THE xi

up here on this black-board that you may remem-
ber it—it is called Atavism ; it expresses this
tendency to revert to the ancestral type, and comes
from the Latin word atavus, ancestor.

Well, this Atavism which I shall speak of, is, as
I said before, one of the most marked and striking
tendencies of organic beings; but, side by side
with this hereditary tendency there is an equally
distinct and remarkable tendency to variation.
The tendency to reproduce the original stock has,
as it were, its limits, and side by side with it there
is a tendency to vary in certain directions, as if
there were two opposing powers working upon the
organic being, one tending to take it in a straight
line, and the other tending to make it diverge
from that straight line, first to one side and then
to the other.

So that you see these two tendencies need not
precisely contradict one another, as the ultimate
result may not always be very remote from what
would have been the case if the line had been quite
straight.

This tendency to variation is less marked in that
mode of propagation which takes place non-sexu-
ally ; it isin that mode that the minor characters of
animal and vegetable structures are most com-
pletely preserved. Still,it will happen sometimes,
that the gardener, when he has planted a cutting
of some favourite plant, will find, contrary to his
expectation, that the slip grows up alittle different

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 399

from the primitive stock—that it produces flowers
of a different colour or make, or some deviation
in one way or another. This is what is called the
“sporting ” of plants.

In animals the phenomena of non-sexual pro-
pagation are so obscure, that at present we cannot
besaid to know much about them ; but if we turn to
that mode of perpetuation which results from the
sexual process, then we find variation a perfectly
constant occurrence, to a certain extent; and, in-
deed, I think that a certain amount of variation
from the primitive stock is the necessary result of
the method of sexual propagation itself; for, inas-
much as the thing propagated proceeds from two
organisms of different sexes and different makes
and temperaments, and as the offspring is to be
either of one sex or the other, it is quite clear that.
it cannot be an exact diagonal of the two, or it
would be of no sex at all; it cannot be an exact
intermediate form between that of each of its
parents—it must deviate to one side or the other.
You do not find that the male follows the precise
type of the male parent, nor does the female al-
ways inherit the precise characteristics of the
mother,—there is always a proportion of the female
character in the male offspring, and of the male
character in the female offspring. That must be quite
plain toall of you who have looked atall attentively
~ on your own children or those of your neighbours ;
you will have noticed how very often it may hap-

400 THE CAUSES OF THE x1

pen that the son shall exhibit the maternal type
of character, or the daughter possess the character-
istics of the father’s family. There are all sorts of
intermixtures and intermediate conditions between
the two, where complexion, or beauty, or fifty other
different peculiarities belonging to either side of
the house, are reproduced in other members of the
same family. Indeed, it is sometimes to be re-
marked in this kind of variation, that the variety
belongs, strictly speaking, to neither of the im-
mediate parents; you will see a child in a family
who is not like either its father or its mother; but
some old person who knew its grandfather or
grandmother, or, it may be, an uncle, or, perhaps,
even a more distant relative will see a great
similarity between the child and one of these. In
this way it constantly happens that the character-
istic of some previous member of the family comes
out and is reproduced and recognised in the most
unexpected manner.

But apart from that matter of general experience,
there are some cases which put that curious mix-
ture in a very clear light. You are aware that the
offspring of the ass and the horse, or rather of the
he-ass and the mare, is what is called a mule ; and,
on the other hand, the offspring of the stallion
and the she-ass is what is called a hinny. It is
a very rare thing in this country to see a hinny.
I never saw one myself; but they have been very
carefully studied. Now, the curious thing is this,

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 401

that although you have the same elements in the
experiment in each case, the offspring is entirely
different in character, according as the male influ-
ence comes from the ass or the horse. Where the
ass is the male, as in the case of the mule, you
find that the head is like that of the ass, that the
ears are long, the tail is tufted at the end, the feet
are small, and the voice is an unmistakable bray ;
these are all points of similarity to the ass; but,
on the other hand, the barrel of the body and the
cut of the neck are much more like those of the
mare. Then, if you look at the hinny,—the result
of the union of the stallion and the she-ass, then
you find it is the horse that has the predominance ;
that the head is more like that of the horse, the
ears are shorter, the legs coarser, and the type is
altogether altered ; while the voice, instead of being
a bray, is the ordinary neigh of the horse. Here,
you see, is a most curious thing: you take exactly
the same elements, ass and horse, but you combine
the sexes in a different manner, and the result is
modified accordingly. You have in this case, how-
ever, a result which is not general and universal—
there is usually an important preponderance, but
not always on the same side.

Here, then, is one intelligible, and, perhaps,
necessary cause of variation: the fact, that there
are two sexes sharing in the production of the off-
spring, and that the share taken by each 1s differ-
ent and variable, not only for each combination,

VOL, II D-»p

4()2 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

but also for different members of the same
family.

Secondly, there is a variation, to a certain ex-
tent—though, in all probability, the influence of
this cause has been very much exaggerated—but
there is no doubt that variation is produced, to a
certain extent, by what are commonly known as
external conditions,—such as temperature, food,
warmth, and moisture. In the long run, every
variation depends, in some sense, upon external
conditions, seeing that everything has a cause of
its own. I use the term “external conditions”
now in the sense in which it is ordinarily em-
ployed : certain it is, that external conditions have
a definite effect. You may take a plant which has
single flowers, and by dealing with the soil, and
nourishment, and so on, you may by and by con-
vert single flowers into double flowers, and make
thorns shoot out into branches. You may thicken
or make various modifications in the shape of the
fruit. Inanimals, too, you may produce analogous
changes in this way, as in the case of that deep
bronze colour which persons rarely lose after
having passed any length of time in tropical coun-
tries. You may also alter the development of the
muscles very much, by dint of training; all the
world knows that exercise has a great effect in this
way ; we always expect to find the arm of a black-
smith hard and wiry, and possessing a large
development of the brachial muscles, No doubt

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 403

training, which is one of the forms of external
conditions, converts what are originally only in-
structions, teachings, into habits, or, in other
words, into organisations, to a great extent; but
this second cause of variation cannot be considered
to be by any means a large one. The third cause
that I have to mention, however, is a very exten-
sive one. It is one that, for want of a better
name, has been called “spontaneous variation ” ;
which means that when we do not know anything
about the cause of phenomena, we call it spon-
taneous. In the orderly chain of causes and
effects in this world, there are very few things of
which it can be said with truth that they are
spontaneous. Certainly not in these physical
matters—in these there is nothing of the kind—
everything depends on previous conditions. But
when we cannot trace the cause of phenomena,
we call them spontaneous.

Of these variations, multitudinous as they are,
but little is known with perfect accuracy. I will
mention to you some two or three cases, because
they are very remarkable in themselves, and also
because I shall want to use them afterwards.
Réaumur, a famous French naturalist, a great
many years ago, in an essay which he wrote upon
the art of hatching chickens—which was indeed a
very curious essay—had occasion to speak of
variations and monstrosities. One very remark-
able case had come under his notice of a variation

DD 2

404 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

in the form of a human member, in the person
of a Maltese, of the name of Gratio Kelleia, who
was born with six fingers upon each hand, and the
like number of toes to each of his feet. That
was a case of spontaneous variation. Nobody
knows why he was born with that number of
fingers and toes, and as we don’t know, we call it
a case of “spontaneous” variation. There is
another remarkable case also. I select these,
because they happen to have been observed and
noted very carefully at the time. It frequently
happens that a variation occurs, but the persons
who notice it do not take any care in noting down
the particulars, until at length, when inquiries
come to be made, the exact circumstances are
forgotten; and hence, multitudinous as may be
such “spontaneous ” variations, it is exceedingly
difficult to get at the origin of them.

The second case is one of which you may find
the whole details in the ‘ Philosophical Transac-
tions ” for the year 1813, ina paper communicated
by Colonel Humphrey to the President of the
Royal Society—*“ On a new Variety in the Breed
of Sheep,” giving an account of a very remarkable
breed of sheep, which at one time was well known
in the northern states of America, and which
went by the name of the Ancon or the Otter
breed of sheep. In the year 1791, there was a
farmer of the name of Seth Wright in Massa-
chusetts, who had a flock of sheep, consisting of a

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 405

ram and, I think, of some twelve or thirteen ewes.
Of this flock of ewes, one at the breeding-time
bore a lamb which was very singularly formed ; it
had a very long body, very short legs, and those
legs were bowed. I will tell you by and by how
this singular variation in the breed of sheep came
to be noted, and to have the prominence that it
now has. For the present, I mention only these
two cases ; but the extent of variation in the breed
of animals is perfectly obvious to any one who has
studied natural history with ordinary attention, or
to any person who compares animals with others
of the same kind. It is strictly true that there
are never any two specimens which are exactly
alike ; however similar, they will always differ in
some certain particular.

Now let us go back to Atavism—to the here-
ditary tendency I spoke of. What will come of a
variation when you breed from it, when Atavism
comes, if I may say so, to intersect variation ?
The two cases of which I have mentioned the
history give a most excellent illustration of what
occurs. Gratio Kelleia, the Maltese, married when
he was twenty-two years of age, and, as I suppose
there were no six-fingered ladies in Malta, he
married an ordinary five-fingered person. The
result of that marriage was four children; the
first, who was christened Salvator, had six fingers
and six toes, like his father; the second was
George, who had five fingers and toes, but one of

406 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

them was deformed, showing a tendency to varia-
tion; the third was André; he had five fingers
and five toes, quite perfect ; the fourth was a girl,
Marie ; she had five fingers and five toes, but her
thumbs were deformed, showing a tendency toward
the sixth.

These children grew up, and when they came to
adult years, they all married, and of course it
happened that they all married five-fingered and
five-toed persons. Now let us see what were the
results. Salvator had four children; they were
two boys, a girl, and another boy; the first two
boys and the girl were six-fingered and six-toed
like their grandfather; the fourth boy had only
five fingers and five toes. George had only four
children ; there were two girls with six fingers
and six toes; there was one girl with six fingers
and five toes on the right side, and five fingers
and five toes on the left side, so that she was half
and half. The last, a boy, had five fingers and
five toes. The third, André, you will recollect,
was perfectly well-formed, and he had many
children whose hands and feet were all regularly
developed. Marie, the last, who, of course, mar-
ried a man who had only five fingers, had four
children ; the first, a boy, was born with six toes,
but the other three were normal.

Nowobserve what very extraordinary phenomena
are presented here. You have an accidental varia-
tion giving rise to what you may call a monstrosity ;

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 407

you have that monstrosity or variation diluted
in the first imstance by an admixture with
a female of normal construction, and you would
naturally expect that, in the results of such an
union, the monstrosity, if repeated, would be in
equal proportion with the normal type; that is to
say, that the children would be half and half, some
taking the peculiarity of the father, and the others
being of the purely normal type of the mother;
but you see we have a great preponderance of the
abnormal type. Well, this comes to be mixed once
more with the pure, the normal type, and the ab-
normal is again produced in large proportion, not-
withstanding the second dilution. Now what
would have happened if these abnormal types had
intermarried with each other; that is to say, sup-
pose the two boys of Salvator had taken it into
their heads to marry their first cousins, the two
first girls of George, their uncle? You will remem-
ber that these are all of the abnormal type of their
grandfather, The result would probably have been,
that their offspring would have been in every case
a further development of that abnormal type. You
see it is only in the fourth, in the person of Marie,
that the tendency, when it appears but slightly in
the second generation, is washed out in the third,
while the progeny of André, who escaped in the
first instance, escape altogether.

We have in this case a good example of nature’s
tendency tothe perpetuation of a variation. Here

408 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

it is certainly a variation which carried with it no
use or benefit; and yet you see the tendency to
perpetuation may be so strong, that, notwithstand-
ing a great admixture of pure blood, the variety
continues itself up to the third generation, which
is largely marked with it. In this case, as I have
said, there was no means of the second generation
intermarrying with any but five-fingered persons,
and the question naturally suggests itself, What
would have been the result of such marriage ?
Réaumur narrates this case only as far as the third
generation. Certainly it would have been an ex-
ceedingly curious thing if we could have traced this
matter any further; had the cousins intermarried,
a six-fingered variety of the human race might
have been set up.

To show you that this supposition is by no means
an unreasonable one, let me now point out what
took place in the case of Seth Wright’s sheep,
where it happened to be a matter of moment to
him to obtain a breed or raise a flock of sheep like
that accidental variety that I have described—and
I will tell you why. In that part of Massachusetts
where Seth Wright was living, the fields were
separated by fences, and the sheep, which were
very active and robust, would roam abroad, and
without much difficulty jump over these fences in-
to other people’s farms, As a matter of course,
this exuberant activity on the part of the sheep
constantly gave rise to all sorts of quarrels, bicker-

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 409

ings, and contentions among the farmers of the
neighbourhood ; so it occurred to Seth Wright,
who was, like his successors, more or less cute, that
if he could get a stock of sheep like those with the
bandy legs, they would not be able to jump over
the fences so readily ; and he acted upon that idea.
He killed his old ram, and as soon as the young
one arrived at maturity, he bred altogether from
it. The result was even more striking than in the
human experiment which I mentioned just now.
Colonel Humphreys testifies that it always hap-
pened that the offspring were either pure Ancons
or pure ordinary sheep; that in no case was there
any mixing of the Ancons with the others. In
consequence of this, in the course of a very few
years, the farmer was able to get a very consider-
able flock of this variety, and a large number of
them were spread throughout Massachusetts. Most
unfortunately, however—I suppose it was because
they were so common—nobody took enough notice
of them to preserve their skeletons ; and although
Colonel Humphreys states that he sent a skeleton
to the President of the Royal Society at the same
time that he forwarded his paper, I am afraid
that the variety has entirely disappeared; for a
short time after these sheep had become prevalent
in that district, the Merino sheep were introduced ;
and as their wool was much more valuable, and as
they were a quiet race of sheep, and showed no
tendency to trespass or jump over fences, the Otter

410 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

breed of sheep, the wool of which was inferior to
that of the Merimo, was gradually allowed to
die out.

You see that these facts illustrate perfectly well
what may be done if you take care to breed from
stocks that are similar to each other. After having
got a variation, if, by crossing a variation with the
original stock, you multiply that variation,and then
take care to keep that variation distinct from the
original stock, and make them breed together,—
then you may almost certainly produce a race whose
tendency to continue the variation is exceedingly
strong.

This is what is called “ selection” ; and it is by
exactly the same process as that by which Seth
Wright bred his Ancon sheep, that our breeds of
cattle, dogs, and fowls are obtained. There are
some possibilities of exception, but still, speaking
broadly, I may say that this is the way in which
all our varied races of domestic animals have arisen;
and you must understand that it is not one
peculiarity or one characteristic alone in which
animals may vary. There is not a single peculiarity
or characteristic of any kind, bodily or mental, in
which offspring may not vary to a certain extent
from the parent and other animals.

Among ourselves this is well known. The sim-
plest physical peculiarity is mostly reproduced. I
know a case of a woman who has the lobe of one
of her ears a little flattened. An ordinary obser-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 411

ver might scarcely notice it, and yet every one of
her children has an approximation to the same
peculiarity to some extent. If you look at the
other extreme, too, the gravest diseases, such as
gout, scrofula, and consumption, may be handed
down with just the same certainty and persistence
as we noticed in the perpetuation of the bandy
legs of the Ancon sheep.

However, these facts are best illustrated in
animals, and the extent of the variation, as is well
known, is very remarkable in dogs. For example,
there are some dogs very much smaller than others;
indeed, the variation is so enormous that probably
the smallest dog would be about the size of the
head of the largest ; there are very great variations
in the structural forms not only of the skeleton
but also in the shape of the skull, and in the pro-
portions of the face and the disposition of the teeth.

The Pointer, the Retriever, Bulldog, and the
Terrier differ very greatly, and yet there is every
reason to believe that every one of these races
has arisen from the same source,—that all the
most important races have arisen by this selective
breeding from accidental variation.

A still more striking case of what may be done
by selective breeding, and it is a better case, be-
cause there is no chance of that partial infusion of

error to which I alluded, has been studied very
~ earefully by Mr. Darwin,—the case of the domestic
pigeons. I dare say there may be some among you

412 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

who may be pigeon fanciers, and I wish you to
understand that in approaching the subject, I would
speak with all humility and hesitation, as I regret
to say that I am not a pigeon fancier. I know it
is agreat art and mystery, and a thing upon which
a man must not speak lightly; but I shall en-
deavour, as far as my understanding goes, to give
you a summary of the published and unpublished
information which I have gained from Mr. Darwin.

Among the enormous variety,—I believe there
are somewhere about a hundred and fifty kinds of
pigeons,—there are four kinds which may be se-
lected as representing the extremest divergences
of one kind from another. Their names are the
Carrier, the Pouter, the Fantail, and the Tumbler.
In these large diagrams that I have here they are
each represented in their relative sizes to each
other. This first one is the Carrier; you will
notice this large excrescence on its beak ; it has a
comparatively small head; there is a bare space
round the eyes; it has a long neck, a very long
beak, very strong legs, large feet, long wings, and
soon. The second one is the Pouter, a very large
bird, with very long legs and beak, It is called
the Pouter because it is in the habit of causing its
gullet to swell up by inflating it with air. I should
tell you that all pigeons have a tendency to do this
at times, but in the Pouter it is carried to an
enormous extent. The birds appear to be quite
proud of their power of swelling and puffing them-

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 413

selves out in this way; and I think it is about as
droll a sight as you can well see to look at a cage
full of these pigeons puffing and blowing them-
selves out in this ridiculous manner.

This diagram is a representation of the third
kind I mentioned—the Fantail. It is, you see, a
small bird, with exceedingly small legs and a very
small beak. It is most curiously distinguished by
the size and extent of its tail, which, instead of
containing twelve feathers, may have many more,
—say thirty, or even more—I believe there are
some with as many as forty-two. This bird has a
curious habit of spreading out the feathers of its
tail in such a way that they reach forward and
touch its head; and if this can be accomplished, I
believe it is looked upon asa point of great beauty.

But here is the last great variety,—the Tumbler;
and of that great variety, one of the principal
kinds, and one most prized, is the specimen repre-
sented here—the short-faced Tumbler. Its beak,
you see, is reduced to a mere nothing. Just com-
pare the beak of this one and that of the first one,
the Carrier—I believe the orthodox comparison of
the head and beak of a thoroughly well-bred Tum-
bler is to stick an oat into a cherry, and that will
give you the proper relative proportions of the
beak and head. The feet and legs are exceedingly
small, and the bird appears to be quite a dwarf
when placed side by side with this great Carrier.

These are differences enough in regard to their

414 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

external appearance ; but these differences are by
no means the whole or even the most important of
the differences which obtain between these birds.
There is hardly a single point of their structure
which has not become more or less altered ; and to
give you an idea of how extensive these alterations
are, [ have here some very good skeletons,for which
I am indebted to my friend, Mr. Tegetmeier, a
great authority in these matters; by means of
which, if you examine them by and by, you will
be able to see the enormous difference in their
bony structures.

I had the privilege, some time ago, of access to
some important MSS. of Mr. Darwin, who, I may
tell you, has taken very great pains and spent
much valuable time and attention on the investi-
gation of these variations, and getting together all
the facts that bear upon them. I obtained from
these MSS. the following summary of the differ-
ences between the domestic breeds of pigeons ;
that is to say, a notification of the various points
in which their organisation differs. In the first
place, the back of the skull may differ a good deal,
and the development of the bones of the face may
vary a great deal; the back varies a good deal;
the shape of the lower jaw varies; the tongue
varies very greatly, not only in correlation to the
length and size of the beak, but it seems also to
have a kind of independent variation of its own.
Then the amount of naked skin round the eyes,

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 415

and at the base of the beak, may vary enormously ;
so may the length of the eyelids, the shape of the
nostrils, and the length of the neck. I have al-
ready noticed the habit of blowing out the gullet,
so remarkable in the Pouter, and comparatively so
in the others. There are great differences, too, in
the size of the female and the male, the shape of
the body, the number and width of the processes
of the ribs, the development of the ribs, and the
size, shape, and development of the breastbone.
We may notice, too—and I mention the fact be-
cause it has been disputed by what is assumed to
be high authority,—the variation in the number
of the sacral vertebre. The number of these
varies from eleven to fourteen, and that without
any diminution in the number of the vertebree of
the back or of the tail. Then the number and
position of the tail-feathers may vary enormously,
and so may the number of the primary and second-
ary feathers of the wings. Again, the length of
the feet and of the beak,—although they have no
relation to each other, yet appear to go together,—
that is, you have a long beak wherever you have
long feet. There are differences also in the
periods of the acquirement of the perfect plum-
age—the size and shape of the eggs—the nature
of flight, and the powers of flight—so-called
“homing” birds having enormous flying powers ;!

1 The ‘‘Carricr,” I learn from Mr. Tegetmeier, does not
carry ; a high-bred bird of this breed being but a poor flier.

416 PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE XI

while, on the other hand, the little Tumbler is so
called because of its extraordinary faculty of turn-
ing head over heels in the air, instead of pursuing
a direct course. And, lastly, the dispositions and
voices of the birds may vary. Thus the case of
the pigeons shows you that there is hardly a
single particular—whether of instinct, or habit,
or bony structure, or of plumage—of either the
internal economy or the external shape, in which
some variation or change may not take place,
which, by selective breeding, may become perpetu-
ated, and form the foundation of, and give rise to,
a new race,

If you carry in your mind’s eye these four
varieties of pigeons, you will bear with you as
good a notion as you can have, perhaps, of the
enormous extent to which a deviation from a
primitive type may be carried by means of this
process of selective breeding.

The birds which fly long distances, and come home—‘‘ homing ”’

birds—and are consequently used as carriers, are not ‘‘carriers”’
in the fancy sense.

Vv

THE CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE AS AFFECTING
THE PERPETUATION OF LIVING BEINGS.

In the last Lecture I endeavoured to prove to
you that, while, as a general rule, organic beings
tend to reproduce their kind, there is in them,
also, a constantly recurring tendency to vary—to
vary to a greater or to a less extent. Such a
variety, I pointed out to you, might arise from
causes which we do not understand; we there-
fore called it spontaneous; and it might come
into existence as a definite and marked thing,
without any gradations between itself and the
form which preceded it. I further pointed out,
that such a variety having once arisen, might be
perpetuated to some extent, and indeed to a very
marked extent, without any direct interference, or
without any exercise of that process which we
called selection. And then I stated further, that
by such selection, when exercised artificially—if
you. took care to breed only from those forms
which presented the same peculiarities of any

VOL, II EE

418 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

variety which had arisen in this manner—the
variation might be perpetuated, as far as we can
see, indefinitely.

The next question, and it is an important one
for us, is this: Is there any limit to the amount
of variation from the primitive stock which can
be produced by this process of selective breeding ?
In considering this question, it will be useful to
class the characteristics, in respect of which
organic beings vary, under two heads: we may
consider structural characteristics, and we may
consider physiological characteristics,

In the first place, as regards structural charac-
teristics, I endeayoured to show you, by the
skeletons which I had upon the table, and by
reference to a great many well-ascertained facts,
that the different breeds of Pigeons, the Carriers,
Pouters, and Tumblers, might vary in any of their
internal and important structural characters to a
very great degree ; not only might there be changes
in the proportions of the skull, and the characters
of the feet and beaks, and so on; but that there
might be an absolute difference in the number of
the vertebrae of the back, as in the sacral vertebrze
of the Pouter; and so great is the extent of the
variation in these and similar characters that I
pointed out to you, by reference to the skeletons
and the diagrams, that these extreme varieties
may absolutely differ more from one another in
their structural characters than do what naturalists

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 419

call distinct SPECIES of pigeons ; that is to say,
that they differ so much in structure that there is
a greater difference between the Pouter and the
Tumbler than there is between such wild and dis-
tinct forms as the Rock Pigeon or the Ring Pigeon,
or the Ring Pigeon and the Stock Dove; and
indeed the differences are of greater value than
this, for the structural differences between these
domesticated pigeons are such as would be ad-
mitted bya naturalist, supposing he knew nothing
at all about their origin, to entitle them to con-
stitute even distinct genera.

As I have used this term SPECIES, and shall prob-
ably use it a good deal, I had betterperhaps devote
a word or two to explaining what I mean by it.

Animals and plants are divided into groups,
which become gradually smaller, beginning with
a KInGpDoM, which is divided into SuB-KINGDOMs ;
then come the smaller divisions called PROVINCEs ;
and so on from a PROVINCE to a CLASS, from a
CLASS to an ORDER, from ORDERS to FAMILIES,
and from these to GENERA, until we come at
length to the smallest groups of animals which
can be defined one from the other by constant
characters, which are not sexual; and these are
what naturalists call SPECIES in practice, whatever
they may do in theory.

If, ina state of nature, you find any two groups |
of living beings, which are separated one from the
other by some constantly-recurring characteristic,

EE 2

420) THE CAUSES OF THE XI

I don’t care how slight and trivial, so long as it is
defined and constant, and does not depend on
sexual peculiarities, then all naturalists agree in
calling them two species; that is what is meant
by the use of the word species—that is to say, it
is, for the practical naturalist, a mere question of
structural differences.!

We have seen now—to repeat this point once
more, and it is very essential that we should
rightly understand it—we have seen that breeds,
known to have been derived from a common stock
by selection, may be as different in their structure
from the original stock as species may be distinct
from each other.

But is the like true of the physiological charac-
teristics of animals? Do the physiological differ-
ences of varieties amount in degree to those
observed between forms which naturalists call
distinct species? This is a most important point
for us to consider.

As regards the great majority of physiological
characteristics, there is no doubt that they are
capable of being developed, increased, and modi-
fied by selection.

There is no doubt that breeds may be made as
different as species in many physiological charac-
ters. I have already pointed out to you very

1 | lay stress here on the practical signification of ‘‘ Species.”
Whether a physologicel test between species exist or not, it is
hardly ever applicable by the practical naturalist.

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 491

briefly the different habits of the breeds of
Pigeons, all of which depend upon their physio-
logical peculiarities—as the peculiar habit of
tumbling, in the Tumbler—the peculiarities of
flight, in the “ homing” birds—the strange habit
of spreading out the tail, and walking ina peculiar
fashion, in the Fantail—and, lastly, the habit. of
blowing out the gullet, so characteristic of the
Pouter. These are all due to physiological modifi-
cations, and in all these respects these birds differ
as much from each other as any two ordinary
species do.

So with Dogs in their habits and instincts. It
is a physiological peculiarity which leads the
Greyhound to chase its prey by sight—that enables
the Beagle to track it by the scent—that impels
the Terrier to its rat-hunting propensity—and
that leads the Retriever to its habit of retrieving.
These habits and instincts are all the results of
physiological differences and peculiarities, which
have been developed from a common stock, at
least there is every reason to believe so. But it
is a most singular circumstance, that while you
may run through almost the whole series of
physiological processes, without finding a check to
your argument, you come at last to a point where
you do find a check, and that is in the reproduc-
tive processes. For there is a most singular cir-
cumstance in respect to natural species—at least
about some of them—and it would be sufficient

422 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

for the purposes of this argument if it were true
of only one of them, but there is, in fact, a great
number of such cases—and that is, that, similar
as they may appear to be to mere races or breeds,
they present a marked peculiarity in the repro-
ductive process. If you breed from the male and
female of the same race, you of course have off-
spring of the like kind, and if you make the off-
spring breed together, you obtain the same result,
and if you breed from these again, you will still
have the same kind of offspring; there is no
check. But if you take members of two distinct
species, however similar they may be to each other,
and make them breed together, you will find a
check, with some modifications and exceptions,
however, which I shall speak of presently. If
you cross two such species with each other, then
—although you may get offspring in the case of
the first cross, yet, if you attempt to breed from
the products of that crossing, which are what are
called Hyprips—that is, if you couple a male
and a female hybrid—then the result is that in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will
get no offspring at all; there will be no result
whatsoever.

The reason of this is quite obvious in some
cases ; the male hybrids, although possessing all
the external appearances and characteristics of
perfect animals, are physiologically imperfect and
deficient in the structural parts of the reproductive

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 4.23

elements necessary to generation. It is said to
be invariably the case with the male mule, the
cross between the Ass and the Mare; and hence
it is, that, although crossing the Horse with the
Ass is easy enough, and is constantly done, as far
as I am aware, if you take two mules, a male and
a female, and endeavour to breed from them, you
get no offspring whatever; no generation will take
place. This is what is called the sterility of the
hybrids between two distinct species.

You see that this is a very extraordinary cir-
cumstance ; one does not see why it should be.
The common teleological explanation is, that it is
to prevent the impurity of the blood resulting
from the crossing of one species with another, but
you see it does not in reality do anything of the
kind. There is nothing in this fact that hybrids
cannot breed with each other, to establish such a
theory ; there is nothing to prevent the Horse
breeding with the Ass, or the Ass with the Horse.
So that this explanation breaks down, as a great
many explanations of this kind do, that are only
founded on mere assumptions.

Thus you see that there is a great difference
between “mongrels,” which are crosses between
distinct races, and “hybrids,” which are crosses
between distinct species. The mongrels are, so
far as we know, fertile with one another. But
between species, in many cases, you cannot suc-
ceed in obtaining even the first cross ; at any rate

4.2.4 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

it is quite certain that the hybrids are often abso-
lutely infertile one with another.

Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may
be, which distinguishes natural species of animals,
Can we find any approximation to this in the
different races known to be produced by selective
breeding from a common stock? Up to the
present time the answer to that question is abso-
lutely a negative one. As far as we know at
present, there is nothing approximating to this
check. In crossing the breeds between the Fan-
tail and the Pouter, the Carrier and the Tumbler,
or any other variety or race you may name—so far
as we know at present—there is no difficulty in
breeding together the mongrels, Take the Carrier
and the Fantail, for instance, and let them repre-
sent the Horse and the Ass in the case of distinct
species; then you have, as the result of their breed-
ing, the Carrier-Fantail mongrel,—we will say the
male and female mongrel,—and, as far as we know,
these two when crossed would not be less fertile
than the original cross, or than Carrier with Car-
rier. Here, you see, is a physiological contrast
between the races produced by selective modifica-
tion and natural species. I shall inquire into the
value of this fact, and of some modifying circum-
stances by and by; for the present I merely put
it broadly before you.

But while considering this question of the limi-
tations of species, a word must be said about what

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 425

is called RECURRENCE—the tendency of races
which have been developed by selective breeding
from varieties to return to their primitive type.
This is supposed by many to put an absolute limit
to the extent of selective and all other variations.
People say, “It is all very well to talk about pro-
ducing these different races, but you know very
well that if you turned all these birds wild, these
Pouters, and Carriers, and so on, they would all re-
turn to their primitive stock.” This is very com-
monly assumed to be a fact, and it is an argument
that is commonly brought forward as conclusive ;
but if you will take the trouble to inquire into it
rather closely, I think you will find that it is not
worth very much. The first question of course is,
Do they thus return to the primitive stock? And
commonly as the thing is assumed and accepted,
it is extremely difficult to get anything like good
evidence of it. It is constantly said, for example,
that if domesticated Horses are turned wild, as
they have been in some parts of Asia Minor and
South America, that they return at once to the
primitive stock from which they were bred. But
the first answer that you make to this assumption
is, to ask who knows what the primitive stock
was; and the second answer is, that in that case
the wild Horses of Asia Minor ought to be exactly
like the wild Horses of South America. If they
are both like the same thing, they ought mani-
festly to be like each other! The best authorities,

426 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

however, tell you that it is quite different. The
wild Horse of Asia is said to be of a dun colour,
with a largish head, and a great many other pe-
culiarities; while the best authorities on the wild
Horses of South America tell you that there is no
similarity between their wild Horses and those of
Asia Minor; the cut of their heads is very differ-
ent, and they are commonly chestnut or bay-
coloured. It is quite clear, therefore, that as by
these facts there ought to have been two primitive
stocks, they go for nothing in support of the as-
sumption that races recur to one primitive stock,
and so far as this evidence is concerned, it falls to
the ground.

Suppose for a moment that it were so, and
that domesticated races, when turned wild, did
return to some common condition, I cannot see
that this would prove much more than that simi-
lar conditions are likely to produce similar results ;
and that when you take back domesticated ani-
mals into what we call natural conditions, you do
exactly the same thing as if you carefully undid
all the work you had gone through, for the pur-
pose of bringing the animal from its wild to its
domesticated state. I do not see anything very
wonderful in the fact, if it took all that trouble to
get it from a wild state, that it should go back in-
to its original state as soon as you removed the
conditions which produced the variation to the
domesticated form, ‘There is an important fact,

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 427

however, forcibly brought forward by Mr. Darwin,
which has been noticed in connection with the breed-
ing of domesticated pigeons; and it is, that how-
ever different these breeds of pigeons may be from
each other, and we have already noticed the great
differences in these breeds, that if, among any of
those variations, you chance to have a blue pigeon
turn up, it will be sure to have the black bars
across the wings, which are characteristic of the
original wild stock, the Rock Pigeon.

Now, this is certainly a very remarkable cir-
cumstance; but I do not see myself how it tells
very strongly either one way or the other. I
think, in fact, that this argument in favour of re-
currence to the primitive type might prove a great
deal too much for those who so constantly bring it
forward. For example, Mr. Darwin has very for-
cibly urged, that nothing is commoner than if you
examine a dun horse—and I had an opportunity
of verifying this illustration lately while in the
islands of the West Highlands, where there are a
great many dun horses—to find that horse exhibit
a long black stripe down his back, very often
stripes on his shoulder, and very often stripes on
his legs. I, myself, saw a pony of this description
a short time ago, in a baker’s cart, near Rothesay,
in Bute: it had the long stripe down the back,
and stripes on the shoulders and legs, just like
those of the Ass, the Quagga, and the Zebra.
Now, if we interpret the theory of recurrence as

428 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

applied to this case, might it not be said that here
was a case of a variation exhibiting the characters
and conditions of an animal occupying something
like an intermediate position between the Horse,
the Ass, the Quagga, and the Zebra, and from
which these had been developed? In the same
way with regard even to Man. Every anatomist
will tell you that there is nothing commoner, m
dissecting the human body, than to meet with
what are called muscular variations—that is, if
you dissect two bodies very carefully, you will prob-
ably find that the modes of attachment and in-
sertion of the muscles are not exactly the same in
both, there being great peculiarities in the mode
in which the muscles are arranged ; and it is very
singular, that in some dissections of the human
body you will come upon arrangements of the
muscles very similar indeed to the same parts
in the Apes. Is the conclusion in that case
to be, that this is like the black bars in the case
of the Pigeon, and that it indicates a recurrence
to the primitive type from which the animals
have been probably developed? ‘Truly, I think
that the opponents of modification and variation
had better leave the argument of recurrence
alone, or it may prove altogether too strong for
them,

To sum up,—the evidence as far as we have
gone is against the argument as to any limit to
divergences, so far as structure is concerned ; and

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 429

in favour of a physiological limitation. By selec-
tive breeding we can produce structural diver-
gences as great as those of species, but we cannot
produce equal physiological divergences, For the
present I leave the question there.

Now, the next problem that lies before us—and
it is an extremely important one—is this: Does
this selective breeding occur in nature? Because,
if there is no proof of it, all that I have been tell-
ing you goes for nothing in accounting for the
origin of species. Are natural causes competent
to play the part of selection in perpetuating
varieties? Here we labour under very great
difficulties. In the last lecture I had occasion to
point out to you the extreme difficulty of obtain-
ing evidence even of the first origin of those
varieties which we know to have occurred in
domesticated animals. I told you, that almost al-
ways the origin of these varieties is overlooked, so
that I could only produce two or three cases, as
that of Gratio Kelleia and of the Ancon sheep.
People forget, or do not take notice of them until
they come to have a prominence ; and if that is
true of artificial cases, under our own eyes, and in
animals in our own care, how much more difficult
it must be to have at first hand good evidence of
the origin of varieties in nature! Indeed, I do
not know that it is possible by direct evidence to
prove the origin of a variety in nature, or to prove
selective breeding; but I will tell you what we

430 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

can prove—and this comes to the same thing—
that varieties exist in nature within the limits of
species, and, what is more, that when a variety has
come into existence in nature, there are natural
causes and conditions, which are amply competent
to play the part of a selective breeder; and al-
though that is not quite the evidence that one
would like to have—though it is not direct testi-
mony—yet it is exceeding good and exceedingly
powerful evidence in its way.

As to the first point, of varieties existing
among natural species, I might appeal to the
universal experience of every naturalist, and of
any person who has ever turned any attention
at all to the characteristics of plants and animals
in a state of nature; but I may as well take
a few definite cases, and I will begin with Man
himself.

I am one of those who believe that, at present,
there is no evidence whatever for saying, that man-
kind sprang originally from any more than a single
pair; I must say, that I cannot see any good
ground whatever, or even any tenable sort of evi-
dence, for believing that there is more than one
species of Man. Nevertheless, as you know, just
as there are numbers of varieties in animals, so
there are remarkable varieties of men, I speak
not merely of those broad and distinct variations
which you see at a glance. Everybody, of course,
knows the difference between a Negro and a white

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 431

man, and can tell a Chinaman from an English-
man. ‘They each have peculiar characteristics of
colour and physiognomy; but you must recollect
that the characters of these races go very far
deeper—they extend to the bony structure, and to
the characters of that most important of all organs
to us—the brain; so that, among men belonging
to different races, or even within the same race,
one man shall have a brain a third, or half, or even
seventy per cent. bigger than another; and if you
take the whole range of human brains, you will
find a variation in some cases of a hundred per
cent. Apart from these variations in the size of
the brain, the characters of the skull vary. Thus
if I draw the figures of a Mongol and of a Negro
head on the blackboard, in the case of the last the
breadth would be about seven-tenths, and in the
other it would be nine-tenths of the total length.
So that you see there is abundant evidence of
variation among men in their natural condition.
And if you turn to other animals there is just the
same thing. The fox, for example, which has a
very large geographical distribution all over
Europe, and parts of Asia, and on the American
Continent, varies greatly. There are mostly large
foxes in the North, and smaller ones in the South.
In Germany alone the foresters reckon some eight
different sorts,

Of the tiger, no one supposes that there is more
than one species; they extend from the hottest

432 THE CAUSES OF THE xI

parts of Bengal, into the dry, cold, bitter steppes
of Siberia, into a latitude of 50°,—so that they may
even prey upon the reindeer. These tigers have
exceedingly different characteristics, but still they
all keep their general features, so that there is no
doubt as to their being tigers. The Siberian
tiger has a thick fur, a small mane, and a longi-
tudinal stripe down the back, while the tigers of
Java and Sumatra differ in many important re-
spects from the tigers of Northern Asia. So lions
vary ; so birds vary; and so, if you go further back
and lower down in creation, you find that fishes
vary. In different streams, in the same country
even, you will find the trout to be quite different
to each other and easily recognisable by those who
fish in the particular streams. There is the same
differences in leeches ; leech collectors can easily
point out to you the differences and the peculiari-
ties which you yourself: would probably pass by ;
so with fresh-water mussels ; so, in fact, with every
animal you can mention.

In plants there is the same kind of variation.
Take such a case even as the common bramble.
The botanists are all at war about it; some of
them wanting to make out that there are many
species of it, and others maintaining that they are
but many varieties of one species ; and they can-
not settle to this day which is a species and which
is a variety !

So that there can be no doubt whatsoever that

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 433

any plant and any animal may vary in nature;
that varieties may arise in the way I have described
—as spontaneous varieties—and that those varie-
ties may be perpetuated in the same way that I
have shown you spontaneous varieties are perpetu-
ated ; I say, therefore, that there can be no doubt
as to the origin and perpetuation of varieties in
nature.

But the question now is :—Does selection take
place in nature? Is there anything like the
operation of man in exercising selective breeding,
taking place in nature? You will observe that,
at present, I say nothing about species ; I wish to
confine myself to the consideration of the pro-
duction of those natural races which everybody
admits to exist. The question is, whether in
nature there are causes competent to produce
races, just in the same way as man is able to pro-
duce by selection, such races of animals as we
have already noticed.

When a variety has arisen, the CONDITIONS OF
EXISTENCE are such as to exercise an influence
which is exactly comparable to that of artificial
selection, By Conditions of Existence I mean
two things—there are conditions which are fur-
nished by the physical, the inorganic world, and
there are conditions of existence which are fur-
nished by the organic world, There is, in the first
place, CLIMATE; under that head I include only
temperature and the varied amount of moisture

VOL, II a

434 THE CAUSES OF THE xl

of particular places. Jn the next place there is
what is technically called STATION, which means
—given the climate, the particular kind of place
in which an animal or a plant lives or grows; for
example, the station of a fish is in the water, of a
fresh-water fish in fresh water; the station of a
marine fish is in the sea, and a marine animal
may have a station higher or deeper. So again
with land animals : the differences in their stations
are those of different soils and neighbourhoods ;
some being best adapted to a calcareous, and
others to an arenaceous soil. The third condition
of existence is Foop, by which I mean food in
the broadest sense, the supply of the materials
necessary to the existence of an organic being ; in
the case of a plant the inorganic matters, such as
carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and the earthy
salts or salines ; in the case of the animal the in-
organic and organic matters, which we have seen
they require ; then these are all, at least the first
two, what we may call the inorganic or physical
conditions of existence. Food takes a mid-place,
and then come the organic conditions; by which
I mean the conditions which depend upon the
state of the rest of the organic creation, upon the
number and kind of living beings, with which an
animal is surrounded. You may class these under
two heads: there are organic beings, which operate
as opponents, and there are organic beings which
operate as helpers to any given organic creature.

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 435

The opponents may be of two kinds: there are
the indirect opponents, which are what we may
call rivals; and there are the direct opponents,
those which strive to destroy the creature; and
these we callenemzes. By rivals I mean, of course,
in the case of plants, those which require for their
support the same kind of soil and station, and,
among animals, those which require the same kind
of station, or food, or climate; those are the in-
direct opponents; the direct opponents are, of
course, those which prey upon an animal or
vegetable. The helpers may also be regarded as
direct and indirect: in the case of a carnivorous
animal, for example, a particular herbaceous plant
may, in multiplying, be an indirect helper, by en-
abling the herbivora on which the carnivore preys
to get more food, and thus to nourish the carnivore
more abundantly ; the direct helper may be best
illustrated by reference to some parasitic creature,
such as the tape-worm, The tape-worm exists in
the human intestines, so that the fewer there are
of men the fewer there will be of tape-worms,
other things being alike. It is a humiliating re-
flection, perhaps, that we may be classed as direct
helpers to the tape-worm, but the fact is so: we
can all see that if there were no men there would
be no tape-worms.

It is extremely difficult to estimate, in a proper
way, the importance and the working of the Con-
ditions of Existence. Ido not think there were
any of us who had the remotest notion of properly

FF 2

436 THE CAUSES OF THE X1

estimating them until the publication of Mr.
Darwin’s work, which has placed them before us
with remarkable clearness ; and I must endeavour,
as far as I can in my own fashion, to give you
some notion of how they work. We shall find it
easiest to take a simple case, and one as free as
possible from every kind of complication.

I will suppose, therefore, that all the habitable
part of this globe—the dry land, amounting to
about 51,000,000 square miles—I will suppose
that the whole of that dry land has the same
climate, and that it is composed of the same kind
of rock or soil, so that there will be the same
station everywhere ; we thus get rid of the peculiar
influence of different climates and stations, I
will then imagine that there shall be but one
organic being in the world, and that shall be a
plant. In this we start fair. Its food is to be
carbonic acid, water and ammonia, and the saline
matters in the soil, which are, by the supposition,
everywhere alike. We take one single plant,
with no opponents, no helpers, and no rivals; it is
to be a “fair field, and no favour.” Now, I will
ask you to imagine further that it shall bea plant
which shall produce every year fifty seeds, which
is a very moderate number for a plant to produce ;
and that, by the action of the winds and currents,
these seeds shall be equally and gradually dis-
tributed over.the whole surface of the land. I
want you now to trace out what will occur, and
you will observe that I am not talking fallaciously

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 437

any more than a mathematician does when he ex-
pounds his problem. If you show that the con-
ditions of your problem are such as may actually
occur in Nature and do not transgress any of the
known laws of Nature in working out your pro-
position, then you are as safe in the conclusion
you arrive at as is the mathematician in arriving
at the solution of his problem. Im science, the
only way of getting rid of the complications with
which a subject of this kind is environed, is to
work in this déductive method. What will be
the result, then? I will suppose that every plant
requires one square foot of ground to live upon;
and the result will be that, in the course of nine
years, the plant will have occupied every single
available spot in the whole globe! I have chalked
upon the blackboard the figures by which I arrive
at the result :—

Plants. Plants.

1 x 50 in Ist year = 50

50 x 50,,2nd ,, = 2,500

2,500 x 50,,3rd ,, = 125,000

125,000 x 50 ,, 4th ,, = 6,250,000

6,250,000 x 50,, 5th ,, = 312,500,000
312,500,000 x 50 ,, 6th ,, = 15, 625,000,000
15,625,000,000 x 50,, 7th ,, = 781,250,000,000
781,250,000,000 x 50 ,, 8th ,, = 39,062,500, 000,000
39,062,500,000,000 x 50,, 9th ,, = 1,953,125,000,000,000

51,000,000 square miles—the
Pat the the the earth x 1 —sq.ft. 1,421,798,400,000,000

sq. ft. in 1 sq. mile

being 531,326,600, 000,000
square feet less than would be required at the end of the ninth
year.

438 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

You will see from this that, at the end of the
first year the single plant will have produced fifty
more of its kind; by the end of the second year
these will have increased to 2,500; and so on, in
succeeding years, you get beyond even trillions;
and I am not at all sure that I could tell you what
the proper arithmetical denomination of the total
number really is; but, at any rate, you will under-
stand the meaning of all those noughts. Then
you see that, at the bottom, I have taken the
51,000,000 of square miles, constituting the sur-
face of the dry land; and as the number of square
feet are placed under and subtracted from the
number of seeds that would be produced in the
ninth year, you can see at once that there would
be an immense number more of plants than there
would be square feet of ground for their accom-
modation. This is certainly quite enough to
prove my point; that between the eighth and ninth
year after being planted the single plant would have
stocked the whole available surface of the earth.

This is a thing which is hardly conceivable—it
seems hardly imaginable—yet it is so. It is
indeed simply the law of Malthus exemplified.
Mr. Malthus was a clergyman, who worked out
this subject most minutely and truthfully some
years ago ; he showed quite clearly—and although
he was much abused for his conclusions at the
time, they have never yet been disproved and
never will be—he showed that in consequence of

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 439

the increase in the number of organic beings in a
geometrical ratio, while the means of existence
cannot be made to increase in the same ratio, that
there must come a time when the number of or-
ganic beings will be in excess of the power of pro-
duction of nutriment, and that thus some check
must arise to the further increase of those organic
beings. At the end of the ninth year we have seen
that each plant would not be able to get its full
square foot of ground, and at the end of another
year it would have to share that space with fifty
others the produce of the seeds which it would
give off.

What, then, takes place? Every plant grows
up, flourishes, occupies its square foot of ground,
and gives off its fifty seeds; but notice this, that
out of this number only one can come to anything;
there is thus, as it were, forty-nine chances to one
against its growing up; it depends upon the most
fortuitous circumstances whether any one of these
fifty seeds shall grow up and flourish, or whether
it shall die and perish. This is what Mr. Darwin
has drawn attention to, and called the “ STRUGGLE
FOR EXISTENCE’’; and I have taken this simple
case of a plant because some people imagine that
the phrase seems to imply a sort of fight.

I have taken this plant and shown you that this
is the result of the ratio of the increase, the neces-
sary result of the arrival of a time coming for every
species when exactly as many members must be

440 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

destroyed as are born; that is the inevitable ulti-
mate result of the rate of production. Now, what
is the result of all this? I have said that there
are forty-nine struggling against every one; and
it amounts to this, that the smallest possible start
given to any one seed may give it an advantage
which will enable it to get ahead of all the others ;
anything that will enable any one of these seeds to
germinate six hours before any of the others will,
other things being alike, enable it to choke them
out altogether. I have shown you that there is
no particular in which plants will not vary from
each other; it is quite possible that one of our
imaginary plants may vary in such a character as
the thickness of the integument of its seeds; it
might happen that one of the plants might pro-
duce seeds having a thinner integument, and that
would enable the seeds of that plant to germinate
a little quicker than those of any of the others, and
those seeds would most inevitably extinguish the
forty-nine times as many that were struggling
with them.

I have put it in this way, but you see the practi-
cal result of the process is the same as if some
person had nurtured the one and destroyed the
other seeds. Itdoes not matter how the variation
is produced, so long as it is once allowed to occur.
The variation in the plant once fairly started tends
to become hereditary and reproduce itself; the
seeds would spread themselves in the same way

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 441

and take part in the struggle with the forty-nine
hundred, or forty-nine thousand, with which they
might be exposed. Thus, by degrees, this variety
with some slight organic change or modification,
must spread itself over the whole surface of the
habitable globe, and extirpate or replace the other
kinds. That is what is meant by NATURAL
SELECTION ; that is the kind of argument by which
it is perfectly demonstrable that the conditions of
existence may play exactly the same part for
natural varieties as man does for domesticated
varieties. No one doubts at all that particular
circumstances may be more favourable for one
plant and less so for another, and the moment you
admit that, you admit the selective power of
nature. Now, although I have been putting a
hypothetical case, you must not suppose that I
have been reasoning hypothetically. There are
plenty of direct experiments which bear out what
we may call the theory of natural selection ; there
is extremely good authority for the statement that
if you take the seed of mixed varieties of wheat
and sow it, collecting the seed next year and sow-
ing it again, at length you will find that out of all
your varieties only two or three have lived, or per-
haps even only one. There were one or two
varieties which were best fitted to get on, and they
have killed out the other kinds in just the same
way and with just the same certainty asif you had
taken the trouble to remove them. As I have

442 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

already said, the operation of nature is exactly
the same as the artificial operation of man.

But if this be true of that simple case, which I
put before you, where there is nothing but the
rivalry of one member of a species with others,
what must be the operation of selective conditions,
when you recollect as a matter of fact, that for
every species of animal or plant there are fifty or
a hundred species which might all, more or less, be
comprehended in the same climate, food, and sta-
tion ;—that every plant has multitudinous animals
which prey upon it, and which are its direct oppo-
nents ; and that these have other animals preying
upon them,—that every plant has its indirect
helpers in the birds that scatter abroad its seed,
and the animals that manure it with their dung ;—
I say, when these things are considered, it seems
impossible that any variation which may arise in
a species in nature should not tend in some way
or other either to be a little better or worse than
the previous stock ; if it is a little better it will
have an advantage over and tend to extirpate the
latter in this crush and struggle; and if it is a
little worse it will itself be extirpated.

I know nothing that more appropriately ex-
presses this, than the phrase, “the struggle for
existence”; because it brings before your minds,
in a vivid sort of way, some of the simplest pos-
sible circumstances connected with it. When a
struggle is intense there must be some who are

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 443

sure to be trodden down, crushed, and overpowered
by others; and there will be some who just
manage to get through only by the help of the
slightest accident. I recollect reading an account
of the famous retreat of the French troops, under
Napoleon, from Moscow. Worn out, tired, and
dejected, they at length came to a great river over
which there was but one bridge for the passage of
the vast army. Disorganised and demoralised as
that army was, the struggle must certainly have
been a terrible one—every one heeding only him-
self, and crushing through the ranks and treading
down his fellows. The writer of the narrative,
who was himself one of those who were fortunate
enough to succeed in getting over, and not among
the thousands who were left behind or forced into
the river, ascribed his escape to the fact that he
saw striding onward through the mass a great
strong fellow,—one of the French Cuirassiers, who
had on a large blue cloak—and he had enough
presence of mind to catch and retain a hold of this
strong man’s cloak. He says, “I caught hold of
his cloak, and although he swore at me and cut
at and struck me by turns, and at last, when he
found he could not shake me off, fell to entreating
me to leave go or I should prevent him from
escaping, besides not assisting myself, I still kept
tight hold of him, and would not quit my grasp
until he had at last dragged me through.” Here
you see was a case of selective saving—if we may

444 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

so term it—depending for its success on the
strength of the cloth of the Cuirassier’s cloak. It
is the same in nature ; every species has its bridge of
Beresina ; it has to fight its way through and strug-
gle with other species ; and when well-nigh over-
powered, it may be that the smallest chance, some-
thing in its colour, perhaps—the minutest circum-
stance—will turn the scale one way or the other.
Suppose that by a variation of the black race it
had produced the white man at any time—you
know that the Negroes are said to believe this to
have been the case, and to imagine that Cain
was the first white man, and that we are his
descendants—suppose that this had ever hap-
pened, and that the first residence of this human
being was on the West Coast of Africa. There is no
great structural difference between the white man
and the Negro, and yet there is something so sin-
gularly different in the constitution of the two,
that the malarias of that country, which do not
hurt the black at all, cut off and destroy the white.
Then you see there would have been a selective
operation performed ; if the white man had risen
in that way, he would have been selected out and
removed by means of the malaria. Now there
really is a very curious case of selection of this
sort among pigs, and it is a case of selection of
colour too. In the woods of Florida there are a
great many pigs, and it is a very curious thing that
they are all black, every one of them. Professor

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 445

Wyman was there some years ago, and on noticing
no pigs but these black ones, he asked some of the
people how it was that they had no white pigs,
and the reply was that in the woods of Florida
there was a root which they called the Paint
Root, and that if the white pigs were to eat any
of it, it had the effect of making their hoofs crack,
and they died, but if the black pigs ate any of it,
it did not hurt them at all. Here was a very
simple case of natural selection. A skilful breeder
could not more carefully develop the black breed
of pigs, and weed out all the white pigs, than the
Paint Root does.

To show you how remarkably indirect may be
such natural selective agencies as I have referred
to, I will conclude by noticing a case mentioned
by Mr. Darwin, and which is certainly one of the
most curious of its kind. It is that of the Humble
Bee. It has been noticed that there are a great
many more humble bees in the neighbourhood of
towns, than out in the open country; and the ex-
planation of the matter is this: the humble bees
build nests, in which they store their honey and
deposit the larve and eggs. The field mice are
amazingly fond of the honey and larvee ; therefore,
wherever there are plenty of field mice, as in the
country, the humble bees are kept down ; but in
the neighbourhood of towns, the number of cats
which prowl about the fields eat up the field mice,
and of course the more mice they eat up the less

446 PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE xI

there are to prey upon the larvee of the bees—the
cats are therefore the INDIRECT HELPERS of the
bees. Coming back a step farther we may say
that the old maids are also indirect friends of the
humble bees, and indirect enemies of the field
mice, as they keep the cats which eat up the
latter! This is an illustration somewhat beneath
the dignity of the subject, perhaps, but it occurs
to me in passing, and with it I will conclude this
lecture.

1 The humble bees, on the other hand, are direct helpers of
some plants, such as the heartsease and red clover, which are
fertilised by the visits of the bees ; and they are indirect helpers
of the numerous insects which are more or less completely sup-
ported by the heartsease and red clover.

VI

A ORITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE POSITION OF
MR. DARWIN’S WORK, “ON THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES,’ IN RELATION TO THE COMPLETE
THEORY OF THE CAUSES OF THE PHENOMENA
OF ORGANIC NATURE.

In the preceding five lectures I have endeay-
oured to give you an account of those facts, and
of those reasonings from facts, which form the
data upon which all theories regarding the causes
of the phenomena of organic nature must be
based. And, although I have had _ frequent
occasion to quote Mr. Darwin—as all persons here-
after, in speaking upon these subjects, will have
occasion to quote his famous book on the “ Origin
of Species,’—you must yet remember that, wher-
ever I have quoted him, it has not been upon
theoretical points, or for statements in any way
connected with his particular speculations, but on
matters of fact, brought forward by himself, or
collected by himself, and which appear incidentally
in his book. If a man will make a book, pro-

448 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

fessing to discuss a single question, an encyclo-
pedia, [ cannot help it.

Now, having had an opportunity of considering
in this sort of way the different statements bear-
ing upon all theories whatsoever, I have to lay
before you, as fairly as I can, what is Mr. Darwin’s
view of the matter and what position his theories
hold, when judged by the principles which I have
previously laid down, as deciding our judgments
upon all theories and hypotheses.

I have already stated to you that the inquiry
respecting the causes of the phenomena of organic
nature resolves itself into two problems—the first
being the question of the origination of living or
organic beings; and the second being the totally
distinct problem of the modification and perpetua-
tion of organic beings when they have already
come into existence. The first question Mr.
Darwin does not touch; he does not deal with it
at all; but he says :—“ Given the origin of organic
matter—supposing its creation to have already
taken place, my object is to show in consequence
of what laws and what demonstrable properties of
organic matter, and of its environments, such
states of organic nature as those with which we
are acquainted must have come about.” This, you
will observe, is a perfectly legitimate proposition ;
every person has a right to define the limits of
the inquiry which he sets before himself; and yet
it is a most singular thing that in all the multi-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 44,9

farious, and, not unfrequently, ignorant attacks
which have been made upon the “Origin of
Species,” there is nothing which has been more
speciously criticised than this particular limitation.
If people have nothing else to urge against the
book, they say—“ Well, after all, you see Mr.
Darwin’s explanation of the ‘ Origin of Species’
is not good for much, because, in the long run, he
admits that he does not know how organic matter
began to exist. But if you admit any special
creation for the first particle of organic matter
you may just as well admit it for all the rest; five
hundred or five thousand distinct creations are
just as intelligible, and just as little difficult to
understand, as one.’ The answer to these cavils
is two-fold. In the first place, all human inquiry
must stop somewhere ; all our knowledge and all
our investigation cannot take us beyond the limits
set by the finite and restricted character of our
faculties, or destroy the endless unknown, which
accompanies, like its shadow, the endless procession
of phenomena. So far as I can venture to offer
an opinion on such a matter, the purpose of our
being in existence, the highest object that human
beings can set before themselves, is not the pursuit
of any such chimera as the annihilation of the
unknown ; but it is simply the unwearied endeay-
our to remove its boundaries a little further from
our little sphere of action.

I wonder if any historian would for a moment

VOL, II GG

450 THE CAUSES OF THE x1

admit the objection, that it is preposterous to
trouble ourselves about the history of the Roman
Kmpire, because we do not know anything positive
about the origin and first building of the city of
Rome! Would it be a fair objection to urge,
respecting the sublime discoveries of a Newton, or
a Kepler, those great philosophers, whose dis-
coveries have been of the profoundest benefit and
service to all men—to say to them—“ After all
that you have told us as to how the planets re-
volve, and how they are maintained in their orbits,
you cannot tell us what is the cause of the origin
of the sun, moon, and stars. So what is the use
of what you have done?” Yet these objections
would not be one whit more preposterous than
the objections which have been made to the
“Origin of Species.’ Mr. Darwin, then, had a
perfect right to limit his inquiry as he pleased,
and the only question for us—the inquiry being
so limited—is to ascertain whether the method of
his inquiry is sound or unsound ; whether he has
obeyed the canons which must guide and govern
all investigation, or whether he has_ broken
them; and it was because our inquiry this
evening is essentially limited to that question,
that I spent a good deal of time in a former
lecture (which, perhaps some of you thought
might have been better employed), in endeavour-
ing to illustrate the method and nature of scien-
tific inquiry in general. We shall now have to

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 451

put in practice the principles that I then laid
down. |

I stated to you in substance, if not in words, that
wherever there are complex masses of phenomena
to be inquired into, whether they be phenomena
of the affairs of daily life, or whether they belong
to the more abstruse and difficult problems laid
before the philosopher, our course of proceeding
in unravelling that complex chain of phenomena
with a view to get at its cause, is always the same ;
in all cases we must invent an hypothesis; we
must place before ourselves some more or less
likely supposition respecting that cause ; and then,
having assumed an hypothesis, having supposed a
cause for the phenomena in question, we must
endeavour, on the one hand, to demonstrate our
hypothesis, or, on the other, to upset and reject it
altogether, by testing it in three ways. We must,
in the first place, be prepared to prove that the
supposed causes of the phenomena exist in nature ;
that they are what the logicians call vera cawse—
true causes ;—in the next place, we should be pre-
pared to show that the assumed causes of the
phenomena are competent to produce such pheno-
mena as those which we wish to explain by them ;
and in the last place, we ought to be able to show
that no other known causes are competent to pro-
duce these phenomena. If we can succeed in satis-
- fying these three conditions we shall have demon-
strated our hypothesis ; or rather I ought to say

GG 2

452 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

we shall have proved it as far as certainty is pos-
sible for us; for, after all, there is no one of our
surest convictions which may not be upset, or at
any rate modified by a further accession of know-
ledge. It was because it satisfied these condi-
tions that we accepted the hypothesis as to the
disappearance of the tea-pot and spoons in the
case I supposed in a previous lecture; we found
that our hypothesis on that subject was tenable
and valid, because the supposed cause existed in
nature, because it was competent to account for
the phenomena, and because no other known cause
was competent to account for them ; and it is upon
similar grounds that any hypothesis you choose to
name is accepted in science as tenable and
valid.

What is Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis? As I appre-
hend it—for I have put it into a shape more con-
venient for common purposes than I could find
verbatim in his book—as I apprehend it, I say,
it is, that all the phenomena of organic nature,
past and present, result from, or are caused by,
the inter-action of those properties of organic
matter, which we have called ATAVISM and VARIA-
BILITY, with the CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE, or,
in other words,—given the existence of organic
matter, its tendency to transmit its properties, and
its tendency occasionally to vary ; and, lastly, given
the conditions of existence by which organic mat- -
ter is surrounded—that these put together are the

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 453

causes of the Present and of the Past conditions of
ORGANIC NATURE,

Such is the hypothesis as I understand it. Now
let us see how it will stand the various tests which
I laid down just now. In the first place, do these
supposed causes of the phenomena exist in nature ?
Is it the fact that, in nature, these properties of
organic matter—atavism and variability—and
those phenomena which we have called the con-
ditions of existence,—is it true that they exist ?
Well, of course, if they do not exist, all that I have
told you in the last three or four lectures must be
incorrect, because I have been attempting to prove
that they do exist, and I take it that there is
abundant evidence that they do exist; so far,
therefore, the hypothesis does not break down.

But in the next place comes a much more diffi-
cult inquiry :—Are the causes indicated compe-
tent to give rise to the phenomena of organic
nature? I suspect that this is indubitable to a
certain extent. It is demonstrable, I think, as I
have endeavoured to show you, that they are per-
fectly competent to give rise to all the phenomena
which are exhibited by RACES in nature. Further-
more, I believe that they are quite competent to
account for all that we may call purely structural
phenomena which are exhibited by SPECIES in
nature. On that point also I have already en-
larged somewhat. Again, I think that the causes
assumed are competent to account for most of the

454 THE CAUSES OF THE xt

physiological characteristics of species, and I not
only think that they are competent to account for
them, but I think that they account for many
things which otherwise remain wholly unaccount-
able and inexplicable, and I may say incompre-
hensible. For a full exposition of the grounds on
which this conviction is based, I must refer you to
Mr. Darwin’s work; all that I can do now is to
illustrate what I have said by two or three cases
taken almost at random.

I drew your attention, on a previous evening, to
the facts which are embodied in our systems of
Classification, which are the results of the examin-
ation and comparison of the different members
of the animal kingdom one with another. I men-
tioned that the whole of the animal kingdom is
divisible into five sub-kingdoms ; that each of these
sub-kingdoms is again divisible into provinces ;
that each province may be divided into classes,
and the classes into the successively smaller groups,
orders, families, genera, and species,

Now, in each of these groups the resemblance
in structure among the members of the group is
closer in proportion as the groupis smaller. Thus,
a man and a worm are members of the animal
kingdom in virtue of certain apparently slight
though really fundamental resemblances which
they present. Buta man and a fish are members of
the same sub-kingdom Vertebrata, because they are
much more like one another than either of them

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 45S

is to a worm, ora snail, or any member of the other
sub-kingdoms. For similar reasons men and horses
are arranged as members of the same Class, Mam-
malia; men and apes as members of the same
Order, Primates ; and if there were any animals
more like men than they were like any of the
apes, and yet different from men in important and
constant particulars of their organisation, we should
rank them as members of the same Family, or of
the same Genus, but as of distinct Species.

That it is possible to arrange all the varied
forms of animals into groups, having this sort of
singular subordination one to the other, is a very
remarkable circumstance ; but, as Mr. Darwin re-
marks, this is a result which is quite to be ex-
pected, if the principles which he lays down be
correct. Take the case of the races which are
known to be produced by the operation of atavism
and variability, and the conditions of existence
which check and modify these tendencies. Take
the case of the pigeons that I brought before you:
there it was shown that they might be all classed
as belonging to some one of five principal divi-
sions, and that within these divisions other sub-
ordinate groups might be formed. The members
of these groups are related to one another in just
the same way as the genera of a family, and the
groups themselves as the families of an order, or
the orders of a class ; while all have the same sort
of structural relations with the wild rock-pigeon,

456 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

as the members of any great natural group have
with a real or imaginary typical form. Now, we
know that all varieties of pigeons of every kind
have arisen by a process of selective breeding from
a common stock, the rock-pigeon ; hence, you see,
that if all species of animals have proceeded from
some common stock, the general character of their
structural relations, and of our systems of classifi-
cation, which express those relations, would be just
what we find them to be. In other words, the
hypothetical cause is, so far, competent to produce
effects similar to those of the real cause.

Take, again, another set of very remarkable
facts,—the existence of what are called rudi-
mentary organs, organs for which we can find
no obvious use, in the particular animal econ-
omy in which they are found, and yet which are
there.

Such are the splint-like bones in the leg of the
horse, which I here show you, and which corre-
spond with bones which belong to certain toes and
fingers in the human hand and foot. In the horse
you see they are quite rudimentary, and bear
neither toes nor fingers; so that the horse has
only one “finger” in his fore-foot and one “ toe”
in his hind-foot. But it is a very curious thing
that the animals closely allied to the horse show
more toes than he ; as the rhinoceros, for instance:
he has these extra toes well formed, and anatomi-
cal facts show very clearly that he is very closely

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 457

related to the horse indeed. So we may say that
animals, in an anatomical sense nearly related to
the horse, have those parts which are rudimentary
in him fully developed.

Again, the sheep and the cow have no cutting-
teeth, but only a hard pad in the upper jaw. That
is the common characteristic of ruminants in
general, But the calf has in its upper jaw some
rudiments of teeth which never are developed, and
never play the part of teeth at all. Well, if
you go back in time, you find some of the older,
now extinct, allies of the ruminants have well-
developed teeth in their upper jaws; and at the
present day the pig (which is in structure closely
connected with ruminants) has well-developed
teeth in its upper jaw; so that here is another
instance of organs well-developed and very useful,
in one animal, represented by rudimentary organs,
for which we can discover no purpose whatsoever
in another closely allied animal. The whalebone
whale, again, has horny “ whalebone” plates in its
mouth, and no teeth; but the young foetal whale
before it is born has teeth in its jaws; they, how-
ever, are never used, and they never come to any-
thing. But other members of the group to which
the whale belongs have well-developed teeth in
both jaws.

Upon any hypothesis of special creation, facts of
this kind appear to me to be entirely unaccount-
able and inexplicable, but they cease to be so if

458 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

you accept Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis, and see reason
for believing that the whalebone whale and the
whale with teeth in its mouth both sprang from a
whale that had teeth, and that the teeth of the
foetal whale are merely remnants—recollections,
if we may so say—of the extinct whale. So in
the case of the horse and the rhinoceros : suppose
that both have descended by modification from
some earlier form which had the normal number
of toes, and the persistence of the rudimentary
bones which no longer support toes in the horse
becomes comprehensible.

In the language that we speak in England, and
in the language of the Greeks, there are identical
verbal roots, or elements entering into the com-
position of words. That fact remains unintellig-
ible so long as we suppose English and Greek to
be independently created tongues; but when it is
shown that both languages are descended from
one original, we give an explanation of that
resemblance. In the same way the existence
of identical structural roots, if I may so term
them, entering into the composition of widely
different animals, is striking evidence in favour of
the descent of those animals from a common
original.

To turn to another kind of illustration :—If you
regard the whole series of stratified rocks—that
enormous thickness of sixty or seventy thousand
feet that I have mentioned before, constituting the

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 459

only record we have of a most prodigious lapse of
time, that time being, in all probability, but a
fraction of that of which we have no record ;—if
you observe in these successive strata of rocks
successive groups of animals arising and dying
out, a constant succession, giving you the same
kind of impression, as you travel from one group
of strata to another, as you would have in travel-
ling from one country to another ;—when you
find this constant succession of forms, their
traces obliterated except to the man of science
—when you look at this wonderful history, and
ask what it means, it is only a paltering with
words if you are offered the reply—“ They were
so created.”

But if, on the other hand, you look on all
forms of organised beings as the results of the
gradual modification of a primitive type, the facts
receive a@ meaning, and you see that these older
conditions are the necessary predecessors of the
present. Viewed in this light the facts of pale-
ontology receive a meaning—upon any other
hypothesis I am unable to see, in the slightest
degree, what knowledge or signification we are
to draw out of them, Again, note as bearing
upon the same point, the singular likeness which
obtains between the successive Faun and Flore,
whose remains are preserved on the rocks: you
never find any great and enormous difference
between the immediately successive Faunze and

460 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

Florz, unless you have reason to believe there
has also been a great lapse of time or a great
change of conditions. The animals, for instance,
of the newest tertiary rocks, in any part of the
world, are always, and without exception, found
to be closely allied with those which now live in
that part of the world. For example, in Europe,
Asia, and Africa, the large mammals are at pres-
ent rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, elephants, lions,
tigers, oxen, horses, &c.; and if you examine the
newest tertiary deposits, which contain the
animals and plants which immediately preceded
those which now exist in the same country, you
do not find gigantic specimens of ant-eaters and
kangaroos, but you find rhinoceroses, elephants,
lions, tigers, &c.,—of different species to those now
living—but still their close allies, If you turn to
South America, where, at the present day, we have
great sloths and armadilloes and creatures of that
kind, what do you find in the newest tertiaries ?
You find the great sloth-like creature, the Mega-
therium, and the great armadillo, the Glyptodon,
and soon. And if you go to Australia you find
the same law holds good, namely, that that con-
dition of organic nature which has preceded the
one which now exists, presents differences perhaps
of species, and of genera, but that the great types
of organic structure are the same as those which
now flourish.

What meaning has this fact upon any other

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE A461

hypothesis or supposition than one of successive
modification? But if the population of the
world, in any age, is the result of the gradual
modification of the forms which peopled it in the
preceding age—if that has been the case, it is in-
telligible enough ; because we may expect that
the creature that results from the modification of
an elephantine mammal shall be something like
an elephant, and the creature which is produced
by the modification of an armadillo-like mammal
shall be like an armadillo. Upon that supposition,
I say, the facts are intelligible ; upon any other,
that I am aware of, they are not.

So far, the facts of palzeontology are consistent
with almost any form of the doctrine of progressive
modification ; they would not be absolutely incon-
sistent with the wild speculations of De Maillet,
or with the less objectionable hypothesis of La-
marek, But Mr. Darwin’s views have one peculiar
merit; and that is, that they are perfectly con-
sistent with an array of facts which are utterly in-
consistent with, and fatal to, any other hypothesis
of progressive modification which has yet been
advanced, It is one remarkable peculiarity of
Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis that it involves no neces-
sary progression or incessant modification, and
that it is perfectly consistent with the persistence
for any length of time of a given primitive stock,
contemporaneously with its modifications. To
return to the case of the domestic breeds of

462 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

pigeons, for example; you have the dove-cot
pigeon, which closely resembles the rock pigeon,
from which they all started, existing at the same
time with the others. And if species are developed
in the same way in nature, a primitive stock and
its modifications may, occasionally, all find the
conditions fitted for their existence ; and though
they come into competition, to a certain extent,
with one another, the derivative species may not
necessarily extirpate the primitive one, or vice
vers.

Now paleontology shows us many facts which
are perfectly harmonious with these observed
effects of the process by which Mr. Darwin sup-
poses species to have originated, but which appear
to me to be totally inconsistent with any other
hypothesis which has been proposed. There are
some groups of animals and plants, in the fossil
world, which have been said to belong to “ persist-
ent types,” because they have persisted, with
very little change indeed, through a very great
range of time, while everything about them has
changed largely. There are families of fishes
whose type of construction has persisted all the
way from the carboniferous strata right up to the
cretaceous ; and others which have lasted through
almost the whole range of the secondary rocks,
and from the lias to the older tertiaries. It is
something stupendous this—to consider a genus
lasting without essential modifications through all

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 463

this enormous lapse of time while almost every-
thing else was changed and modified.

Thus I have no doubt that Mr. Darwin’s hypo-
thesis will be found competent to explain the ma-
jority of the phenomena exhibited by species in
nature ; but in an earlier lecture I spoke cautiously
with respect to its power of explaining all the
physiological peculiarities of species.

There is, in fact, one set of these peculiarities
which the theory of selective modification, as it
stands at present, is not wholly competent to
explain, and that is the group of phenomena which
I mentioned to you under the name of Hybridism,
and which I explained to consist in the sterility of
the offspring of certain species when crossed one
with another. It matters not one whit whether
this sterility is universal, or whether it exists only
in a single case. Every hypothesis is bound to
explain, or, at any rate, not be inconsistent with,
the whole of the facts which it professes to account
for; and if there is a single one of these facts
which can be shown to be inconsistent with (I do
not merely mean inexplicable by, but contrary to)
the hypothesis, the hypothesis falls to the ground,
—it is worth nothing. One fact with which it is
positively inconsistent is worth as much, and as
powerful in negativing the hypothesis, as five
hundred. If I am right in thus defining the obli-
gations of an hypothesis, Mr. Darwin, in order to
place his views beyond the reach of all possible

464 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

assault, ought to be able to demonstrate the possi-
bility of developing from a particular stock by se-
lective breeding, two forms, which should either
be unable to cross one with another, or whose
cross-bred offspring should be infertile with one
another.

For, you see, if you have not done that you have
not strictly fulfilled all the conditions of the prob-
lem; you have not shown that you can produce,
by the cause assumed, all the phenomena which
you have in nature. Here are the phenomena of
Hybridism staring you in the face, and you cannot
say, “I can, by selective modification, produce
these same results.” Now, it is admitted on all
hands that, at present, so far as experiments have
gone, it has not been found possible to produce
this complete physiological divergence by selective
breeding. I stated this very clearly before, and I
now refer to the point, because, if it could be
proved, not only that this Has not been done, but
that it cannot be done ; if it could be demonstrated
that it is impossible to breed selectively, from any
stock, a form which shall not breed with another,
produced from the same stock; and if we were
shown that this must be the necessary and inevit-
able results of all experiments, I hold that Mr.
Darwin’s hypothesis would be utterly shattered.

But has this been done? or what is really the
state of the case? It is simply that, so far as we
have gone yet with our breeding, we have not pro-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 465

duced from a common stock two breeds which are
not more or less fertile with one another.

I do not know that there is a single fact which
would justify any one in saying that any degree of
sterility has been observed between breeds abso-
lutely known to have been produced by selective
breeding from a common stock. On the other
hand, I do not know that there is a single fact
which can justify any one in asserting that such
sterility cannot be produced by proper experiment-
ation. For my own part, I see every reason to
believe that it may, and will beso produced. For,
as Mr. Darwin has very properly urged, when we
consider the phenomena of sterility, we find they
are most capricious; we do not know what it is
that the sterility depends on. There are some
animals which will not breed in captivity ; whether
it arises from the simple fact of their being shut
up and deprived of their liberty, or not, we do not
know, but they certainly will not breed. What an
astounding thing this is, to find one of the most
important of all functions annihilated by mere
imprisonment !

So, again, there are cases known of animals
which have been thought by naturalists to be un-
doubted species, which have yielded perfectly fer-
tile hybrids ; while there are other species which
present what everybody believes to be varieties!

1 And as I conceive with very good reason ; but if any objec-
tor urges that we cannot prove that they have been produced by

VOL, II ) : ae: 3

466 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

which are more or less infertile with one another.
There are other cases which are truly extraordi-
nary; there is one, for example, which has been
carefully examined,—of two kinds of sea-weed, of
which the male element of the one, which we may
call A, fertilises the female element of the other,
B; while the male element of B will not fertilise
the female element of A; so that, while the for-
mer experiment seems to show us that they are
varieties, the latter leads to the conviction that
they are species.

When we see how capricious and uncertain this
sterility is, how unknown the conditions on which
it depends, I say that we have no right to affirm
that those conditions will not be better understood
by and by, and we have no ground for supposing
that we may not be able to experiment so as to
obtain that crucial result which I mentioned just
now. So that though Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis
does not completely extricate us from this difficulty
at present, we have not the least right to say it
will not do so.

There is a wide gulf between the thing you can-
not explain and the thing that upsets you alto-
gether. There is hardly any hypothesis in this
world which has not some fact in connection with
it which has not been explained, but that is a very
different affair to a fact that entirely opposes your

artificial or natural selection, the objection must be admitted—
ultra-sceptical as it is. But in science, scepticism is a duty.

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 467

hypothesis; in this case all you Can say is,
that your hypothesis is in the same position as a
good many others.

Now, as to the third test, that there are no
other causes competent to explain the phenomena,
I explained to you that one should be able to say
of an hypothesis, that no other known causes than
those supposed by it are competent to give rise to
the phenomena, Here, I think, Mr. Darwin’s
view is pretty strong. I really believe that the
alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I
do not know of any rational conception or theory
of the organic universe which has any scientific
position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s. I do not
know of any proposition that has been put before
us with the intention of explaining the phenomena
of organic nature, which has in its favour a
thousandth part of the evidence which may be ad-
duced in favour of Mr. Darwin’s views. Whatever
may be the objections to his views, certainly all
other theories are absolutely out of court.

Take the Lamarckian hypothesis, for example.
Lamarck was a great naturalist, and to a certain
extent went the right way to work; he argued
from what was undoubtedly a true cause of some
of the phenomena of organic nature. He said it
is a matter of experience that an animal may be
modified more or less in consequence of its desires
and consequent actions. Thus, if a man exercise
himself as a blacksmith, his arms will become

HH 2

468 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

strong and muscular ; such organic modification is
a result of this particular action and exercise.
Lamarck thought that by a very simple supposi-
tion based on this truth he could explain the origin
of the various animal species: he said, for ex-
ample, that the short-legged birds which live on
fish had been converted into the long-legged
waders by desiring to get the fish without wetting
their feathers, and so stretching their legs more
and more through successive generations. If
Lamarck could have shown experimentally that
even races of animals could be produced in this
way, there might have been some ground for his
speculations. But he could show nothing of the
kind, and his hypothesis has pretty well dropped
into oblivion, as it deserved to do. I said in an
earlier lecture that there are hypotheses and hy-
potheses, and when people tell you that Mr. Dar-
win’s strongly-based hypothesis is nothing but a
mere modification of Lamarck’s, you will know
what to think of their capacity for forming a
judgment on this subject.

But you must recollect that when I say I think
it is either Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis or nothing ;
that either we must take his view, or look upon
the whole of organic nature as an enigma, the
meaning of which is wholly hidden from us; you
must understand that I mean that I accept it
provisionally, in exactly the same way as I accept
any other hypothesis. Men of science do not

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 469

pledge themselves to creeds; they are bound by
articles of no sort ; there is not a single belief that
it is not a bounden duty with them to hold with
a light hand and to part with cheerfully, the
moment it is really proved to be contrary to any
fact, great or small. And if, in course of time I
see good reasons for such a proceeding, I shall have
no hesitation in coming before you, and pointing
out any change in my opinion without finding the
slightest occasion to blush for so domg. So I say
that we accept this view as we accept any other,
so long as it will help us, and we feel bound tc
retain it only so long as it will serve our great
purpose—the improvement of Man’s estate and
the widening of his knowledge. The moment
this, or any other conception, ceases to be useful
for these purposes, away with it to the four winds;
we care not what becomes of it!

But to say truth, although it has been my busi-
ness to attend closely to the controversies roused
by the publication of Mr. Darwin’s book, I think
that not one of the enormous mass of objections
and obstacles which have been raised is of any
very great value, except that sterility case which
I brought before you just now. All the rest are
misunderstandings of some sort, arising either
from prejudice, or want of knowledge, or stili
more from want of patience and care in reading
the work.

For you must recollect that it is not a book to

4'70 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

be read with as much ease as its pleasant style
may lead you to imagine. You spin through it
as if it were a novel the first time you read it, and
think you know all about it ; the second time you
read it you think you know rather less about it ;
and the third time, you are amazed to find how
little you have really apprehended its vast scope
and objects. I can positively say that I never
take it up without finding in it some new view, or
light, or suggestion that I have not noticed before.
That is the best characteristic of a thorough and
profound book ; and I believe this feature of the
“Origin of Species” explains why so many per-
sons have ventured to pass judgment and criti-
cisms upon it which are by no means worth the
paper they are written on.

Before concluding these lectures there is one
point to which I must advert—though, as Mr.
Darwin has said nothing about man in his book,
it concerns myself rather than him ;—for I have
strongly maintained on sundry occasions that if
Mr. Darwin’s views are sound, they apply as much
to man as to the lower mammals, seeing that it is
perfectly demonstrable that the structural differ-
ences which separate man from the apes are not
greater than those which separate some apes
from others. There cannot be the slightest doubt
in the world that the argument which applies to
the improvement of the horse from an earlier
stock, or of ape from ape, applies to the improve-

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 471

ment of man from some simpler and lower stock
than man. There is not a single faculty—func-
tional or structural, moral, intellectual, or instinc-
tive, there—is no faculty whatever that is not
capable of improvement; there is no faculty what-
soever which does not depend upon structure, and
as structure tends to vary, it is capable of being
improved,

Well, I have taken a good deal of pains at
various times to prove this, and I have endeay-
oured to meet the objections of those who main-
tain, that the structural differences between man
and the lower animals are of so vast a character
and enormous extent, that even if Mr. Darwin’s
views are correct, you cannot imagine this par-
ticular modification to take place. It is, in fact,
an easy matter to prove that, so far as structure is
concerned, man differs to no greater extent from
the animals which are immediately below him
than these do from other members of the same
order. Upon the other hand, there is no one who
estimates more highly than I do the dignity of
human nature, and the width of the gulf in in-
tellectual and moral matters which hes between
man and the whole of the lower creation.

But I find this very argument brought forward
vehemently by some. “ You say that man has
proceeded from a modification of some lower
animal, and you take pains to prove that the
structural differences which are said to exist in his

472 THE CAUSES OF THE XI

brain do not exist at all, and you teach that all
functions, intellectual, moral, and others, are the
expression or the result, in the long run, of struc-
tures, and of the molecular forces which they
exert.” It is quite true that I do so.

“Well, but,” I am told at once, somewhat
triumphantly, “ you say in the same breath that
there is a great moral and intellectual chasm
between man and the lower animals. How is
this possible when you declare that moral and in-
tellectual characteristics depend on structure, and
yet tell us that there is no such gulf between the
structure of man and that of the lower animals ?”

I think that objection is based upon a miscon-
ception of the real relations which exist between
structure and function, between mechanism and
work. Function is the expression of molecular
forces and arrangements no doubt; but, does it
follow from this, that variation in function so
depends upon variation in structure that the former
is always exactly proportioned to the latter? If
there is no such relation, if the variation in func-
tion which follows on a variation in structure may
be enormously greater than the variation of the
structure, then, you see, the objection falls to the
ground.

Take a couple of watches—made by the same
maker, and as completely alike as possible ; set
them upon the table, and the function of each—
which is its rate of goimg—will be performed in

XI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 473

the same manner, and you shall be able to dis-
tinguish no difference between them ; but let me
take a pair of pincers, and if my hand is steady
enough to do it, let me just lightly crush together
the bearings of the balance-wheel, or force to a
slightly different angle the teeth of the escape-
ment of one of them, and of course you know the
immediate result will be that the watch, so treated,
from that moment will cease to go. But what
proportion is there between the structural altera-
tion and the functional result? Is it not perfectly
obvious that the alteration is of the minutest kind,
yet that, slight as it is, it has produced an infinite
difference in the performance of the functions of
these two instruments ?

Well, now, apply that to the present question.
What is it that constitutes and makes man what
he is? What is it but his power of language—
that language giving him the means of recording
his experience—making every generation some-
what wiser than its predecessor—more in accord-
ance with the established order of the universe ?

What is it but this power of speech, of record-
ing experience, which enables men to be men—
looking before and after and, in some dim sense,
understanding the working of this wondrous uni-
verse—and which distinguishes man from the
whole of the brute world? I say that this func-
tional difference is vast, unfathomable, and truly
infinite in its consequences ; and I say at the same

474 THE CAUSES OF THE Xl

time, that it may depend upon structural differ-
ences which shall be absolutely inappreciable to
us with our present means of investigation. What
is this very speech that we are talking about? I
am speaking to you at this moment, but if you
were to alter, in the minutest degree, the propor-
tion of the nervous forces now active in the two
nerves which supply the muscles of my glottis, I
should become suddenly dumb. The voice is pro-
duced only so long as the vocal chords are parallel ;
and these are parallel only so long as certain
muscles contract with exact equality ; and that
again depends on the equality of action of
those two nerves I spoke of. So that a change of
the minutest kind in the structure of one of these
nerves, or in the structure of the part in which it
originates, or of the supply of blood to that part,
or of one of the muscles to which it is distributed,
might render all of usdumb. But a race of dumb
men, deprived of all communication with those
who could speak, would be little indeed removed
from the brutes. And the moral and intellectual
difference between them and ourselves would be
practically infinite, though the naturalist should
not be able to find a single shadow of even specific
structural difference.

But let me dismiss this question now, and, in
conclusion, let me say that you may go away with
it as my mature conviction, that Mr. Darwin’s
work is the greatest contribution which has been

xI PHENOMENA OF ORGANIC NATURE 475

made to biological science since the publication of
the “Régne Animal” of Cuvier, and since that
of the “ History of Development,” of Von Baer.
I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part
it still remains one of the greatest encyclopedias
of biological doctrine that any one man ever
brought forth ; and I believe that, if you take it
as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined
to be the guide of biological and psychological
speculation for the next three or four genera-
tions.

END OF VOL, II

RicHARD CLay aNnpD Sons, Limirep
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

fs, ie
Hida

.
Se ae

~