Mr. Wallace's valuable services in the We venture, however, to point out that cause of science, we may certainly say that there is no inseparable logical bond beMr. Darwin possessed in an extraordi- tween the two parts of the theory in quesnary measure the power of dispelling tion, and consequently that it is open to prejudice and gaining admission for any one to gratefully accept the light which newer ideas into the minds of other men. the great scientific teacher has thrown Mr. Darwin's doctrine with regard to upon the mutual relations of organic beorganic life on earth consists of two parts.ings, and yet not to admit to its full exHe maintains, firstly, that all existing ani- tent what he claims for natural selection mals are descended from only four or five and other secondary causes. Mr. Darprogenitors, and all existing plants from win himself, as we shall see, does not an equal or lesser number; and, secondly, represent natural selection as all-powerthat the main instrument in the develop-ful, whatever the title of his book may ment of the different species has been seem to indicate. natural selection, or, to use the term which he adopted from Mr. Spencer, the "survival of the fittest" in the struggle for existence.

The strength of the argument for the development of species consists in the number and importance of the facts, or rather classes of facts, which the theory With regard to the first point, it is to explains, and which on the theory of be observed that Mr. Darwin resisted the separate creation are totally inexplicable. temptation to carry his simplification fur. Among these facts are those of the geother, making the significant remark that graphical distribution of plants and anithough analogy might lead to the belief mals, the succession of different but allied that all animals and plants are descended species as shown (though as yet but very from some one prototype, analogy may be imperfectly) by the geological record; the a deceitful guide. His moderation has difficulties so long felt in the way of drawunfortunately not been followed by all ing in many cases rigid lines of demar who have embraced his doctrine. If a fany-cation between species for the purpose of thing could bring that doctrine into disre- classification; the singular instances of pute it would certainly be the extrava- rudimentary organs, such as the undevelgance of some writers on evolution. It is oped mamma of all male mammalia; the no new phenomenon in the history of remarkable affinities that bind together thought for a brilliant and fertile theory all organic beings, past or present, in one to be pushed beyond due bounds. Hasty or another of a few great classes, and in generalization has ever been the bane of groups subordinate to groups, while exscience. With ultra-evolutionists, how-tinct groups often occupy intermediate ever, we are not now concerned. places between recent groups; besides

The bond of connection which Mr. Dar-embryological facts, such as the complete win asserts between the two halves of his resemblance between the early stages of theory is that the second half is the ex- the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, planation of the means by which the state and fishes. of things affirmed in the first half was brought about. A naturalist, he says, might conceivably hold that species had descended like varieties from other species; but that such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, unless it could be shown how the won derful perfection of structure and coadaptation of various species have been obtained. In a scientific sense it may be admitted that the absence of the desired explanation would be unsatisfactory; nor do we now intend to enter upon any discussion of the explanation offered.

• As a remarkable instance of co-adaptation Mr. Darwin mentions the mistletoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes, absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other. (The Origin of Species, p. 2.)

It may be well to give here one example of the kind of argument which is brought into play. The fact is well known that large classes of organisms are so formed that a multitude of orders, families, and species share some one general type. The vertebrate animals, for instance, are, anatomically, merely varieties of one osseous skeleton, howsoever the different portions of that skeleton may, in the fully formed animal, be differently de. veloped. This identity of type is strik ingly seen on a comparison of the anterior members of widely differing species of the vertebrates. We quote the followples of Comparative Physiology," PP. 5, ing words from Dr. Carpenter's "Princi6 (4th edition, 1854), to show that this identity, which Professor Owen called the homology of limbs, was thoroughly recognized before Mr. Darwin published

the theory by which he explains it. Dr. | verse conditions, most of the inhabitants
Carpenter says:
within each great class are plainly re-
lated.*

No Comparative Anatomist has the slightest
hesitation in admitting that the pectoral fin of
If there were no plasticity or variabil-
a fish, the wing of a bird, the paddle of a dol- ity in species under our observation at
phin, the fore-leg of a deer, the wing of a bat, the present time, the deductions drawn
and the arm of a man, are the same organs, | from the various classes of facts men-
notwithstanding that their forms are so varied, tioned, and others besides, would have no
and the uses to which they are applied so un-independent substratum of fact, and the
like each other. For all these organs not only theory of development would be obvi.
occupy the same position in the fabric, but are ously an ingenious or a daring hypothesis,
developed after the same manner; and when and nothing more. But the extraordi-
their osseous frame-work is examined, it is
found to be composed of parts which are nary variability of almost all domesticated
strictly comparable one with another, although plants and animals is notorious. It is
well known that horticulturists and breed-
varying in number and relative proportion.
ers of animals can by a methodical selec-
tion, continued through a few generations,
cause this variability to produce astonish-
ing results. Whatever may be the quality
that the gardener or the breeder desires
to vary or enhance, whether it be, as in
the case of plants, size or color of blos-
som, or variegation of foliage, or, as in
the case of animals, improvements in the
coat, or in the serviceableness for human
food, success within certain limits is al-
most as certainly obtainable as in the pro-
duction of a manufactured article. We
cannot now linger upon the subject; but
the lover of natural history will find in
Mr. Darwin's work upon it a complete
exposition and many facts of singular
interest.t

Now if these facts of homology, of which the foregoing is but one example out of many, stood alone, the unity of type would indicate nothing more than unity of design, or would furnish no very powerful argument for a theory of the descent of the various species from a common ancestor. Descent might be conjectured as possible, but the facts would be also regarded as explicable on the theory of special creation. At any rate, until recently they were not supposed to conflict seriously with the latter view.

But here the facts of geographical distribution come in, and they, it is alleged and that, as it seems to us, with much force from the scientific point of view considerably alter the balance in favor of descent. If each species, say of vertebrate animals, be the result of special creation, why should the species vary as they do in different parts of the globe? Why should every oceanic island, until man interferes, have its own separate and distinct species, closely allied to, it may be, yet differing from those inhabiting another island in its proximity? The answer of the evolutionist to this question, is that differentiation has gone on since the alteration of geographical conditions took place, since, in fact, the island became an island. If the maintainer of special creation be then driven as a last resource to the assertion that the several species were constituted with the peculiar powers and characters which suit their several habitats, the evolutionist is ready with the denial of any adequate ground for such a statement; he asserts that although two countries may present physical conditions as closely similar as the same species ever require, their inhabitants are widely different if they (the countries) have been for a long period widely sundered from each other; whereas, on the same continent, under the most di

It is not the duty of a writer in this review to argue the case for the evolution theory, but it seemed desirable to indicate some of the chief foundations on which it rests. To any one who appreciates the nature and strength of those foundations it will be obvious that there is no force whatever in the common argument against it that we see no process of evolution or transformation of species going on at the present time. This argument, if it were absolutely true, which it may not be, does not touch the argument on which the theory rests, and, moreover, the very brief experience of a human life, even the com

* See The Origin of Species, p. 418. See also, for

independent proof of the statements in the text, Mr. Wallace's Geographical Distribution of Animals" and his "Island Life." In the opening pages of the attention to such striking facts as the following. There latter work, which appeared in 1880, the author calls is a general resemblance between the birds and insects found in England and those found in Japan. If, how ever, Australia be compared with New Zealand at less than 1,300 miles distance, the productions are found to be totally unlike. More striking still is the case of Bali and Lombok, two islands in the Malay Archipelago. Each is about the size of Corsica, and though they are only 15 miles apart, the two islands differ far more as to birds and quadrupeds than England and Japan.

See The Variation of Auimals and Plants under Domestication.

paratively brief experience of historical | ceeded from the same pen various volman, may be challenged with much ap. umes treating in full detail subjects such pearance of reason, if it be offered as a as the variation of domesticated animals criterion of what has or has not taken and plants, which had been more briefly place in the vast periods that belong to handled in the previous work. These geological time. But may not assertion volumes exhibit marvellous ingenuity in be met by counter-assertion? May it not the choice of subjects for observation, be argued that we can at any rate see the and fertility of invention in regard to expossibility of distinct species arising? periments. They are the fruits of patient Take, for example, the case of the dog. and concentrated labor, and the facts colAt the present time a graduated series of lected are illuminated by the light of genvarieties and mongrels of all kinds con- ius. For readers imbued with a tincture nects together dogs of the most dissimi- of science, and with sufficient courage to lar breeds, such as the huge Newfound master the scientific terminology, each of land and the tiniest of toy terriers, and the green volumes possess a fascinating dog, we are told, knows dog, wherever interest, whether the subjects be the mar they meet. But supposing that the whole vellous mutual adaptations of flowers and of the intervening varieties between such insects, or the habits of climbing plants, breeds were from some cause to become or the power of movement in plants, or extinct, which we admit to be very im- the action of earth-worms. probable in the case of a species so inti- If the belief in the immutability of spemately associated with man, it seems cies is now regarded as an exploded error evident that we soon should have two by almost all who possesses sufficient sciseparate species instead of one, though it entific knowledge to understand the arguis impossible to say how many canine ment against it, the triumph has certainly generations would be required to elapse not been gained through the absence of before an individual of either breed would opposition. Refutations, so called, striccease to recognize "a dog and a brother "tures upon, exposures of Darwinism have (to vary a familiar phrase) in an individual appeared by the score, and it is note of the other breed. worthy that the more recent the attempts Before leaving our present topic, the to put it down the less power they seem nature and the strength of the argument to show. Nor was it in England alone in favor of evolution, we repeat that there that the evolution theory encountered hos. is no logical connection between the be-tility. There is a modern world of thought lief that such a process has taken place and the assertion that the main agency, much less that the sole agency, by which it has been accomplished has been nat ural selection, or the rise of hap-hazard individual differences, perpetuated by a hap-hazard combination and series of favoring circumstances. Whatever force there may be in the independent argument by which the influence, be it more or less, of natural selection is sought to be supported, and it would be futile to deny that it possesses considerable force, yet after all the two arguments are inde pendent of each other; each must stand or fall by its own merits, and it may be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the argument for natural selection has nothing approaching to the cogency of the other.

*

"The Origin of Species" was but an abstract; and the truth of this statement became evident as one after another pro

Of course we do not mean to deny that if natural selection were absolutely established it would carry the other point; just as, if it were proved that a particular man had committed a murder, we should not need to inquire whether murder had been committed.

which, as regards the possession of knowledge and of a common passion for the attainment of truth, has a kind of "solidarity," causing it to correspond in matters intellectual to what the oikovμévη of old was in matters political. The whole world of man, in this sense, was profoundly moved by the publication of Mr. Darwin's argument for evolution. If in England we have had Darwinism Examined," and (under the auspices of Cardinal Manning) "Darwinism brought to Book," elsewhere there were "Observaciones contra el transformismo Darvinista," "Errori et delirii del Darwinismo," "Confutazione delle dottrine transformistiche di Huxley, Darwin, &c.," "Bemerkungen gegen Dar win's Theorie vom Ursprung der Spezies," and many other works of a similar na

ture.

For English readers the chief representative of that section of Mr. Darwin's opponents which possessed sufficient scientific knowledge to distinguish the weak points of his theory was Mr. St. George Mivart, to whose merits, previously to replying in detail to his objections, Mr. Darwin bears the following testimony:

A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George | the main but not the exclusive means of modi. Mivart, has recently collected all the objec-fication."* tions which have ever been advanced by myself and others against the theory of natural selection, as propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself, and has illustrated them with admirable art and force.*

On the same page Mr. Darwin asserts that his opponent erroneously assumes him to "attribute nothing to variation in dependently of natural selection." Whether or how far Mr. Mivart has misunder. stood or misrepresented the theory which

he controverts we will not now discuss.

Quite apart, however, from the culpability or innocence, whether of the writer just named or of any other writer against whom a similar charge may have been made, the question as to what really was Mr. Dar win's view on the point referred to is one of great interest. This point seems to us to be one of capital importance in regard to the compatibility of the Darwinian theory with religious belief, and we shall return to it later on. For the present it will suffice to say, before quoting Mr. Darwin's own words on the subject, that science is as yet far from proving that all variation in living beings is due to natural selection, and that even if such a tenet formed part of Mr. Darwin's theory of development, we should be at liberty to reject it and yet admit the probability or even profess the belief that a process of development has taken place. It is, however, interesting, and it may be service. able to remember, that Mr. Darwin never

The importance, from a religious point of view, of the concession that the modification of species arises from other causes besides natural selection, and that, in fact, most of the minor variations on which

when amplified in successive generations
the rise of new species itself depends, are
originated by unknown causes, was natu-
rally overlooked in the first heat of preju-
diced opposition, and it has hitherto, per-
haps, scarcely received due recognition.
most momentous portion or consequence
But we have not yet touched upon the
of the doctrine of the development of
species. If only the brute creation had
been in question, it is not probable that
either the interest in the subject or the
been greater than such as are usually ex-
opposition to the new views would have
cited by novel scientific theories. But it

the question how lower species were orig-
was immediately seen that any answer to
inated must have some bearing upon the
There is,
it is true, a broad gulf, and Mr. Darwin
question of the origin of man.
reasserts the fact, between the least in-
telligent race of men and the most intelli-
gent of animals, between the lowest sav-
so much with other terrestrial forms of
and the highest ape; but man shares
life that the difficulty was at once per-
ceived of scientifically separating his ori-
gin from that of the organic world gener-
been a common origin for all. Every
ally. On the traditional view there had
species had been called suddenly into be-

age

maintained that natural selection was the sole cause of the differentiation of species, and that, in point of fact, his fullering by the fiat of creative will; though reflection and riper judgment at the time of publishing the latest edition of "The Origin of Species," induced a lower instead of a higher estimate of its power. We now quote his words, premising that the variations to which he refers are those which "seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously:"

It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifica-tions of structure independently of natural selection. But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been

stated that I attribute the modification of spe

cies exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-namely, at the close of the Introduction - the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been

* See The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, p. 176.

the religious view of special spiritual en-
this doctrine was held compatible with
dowments for man. It seemed now, er-
creative will the mechanical action of ma-
roneously as we believe, that instead of
terial forces was to be substituted as the
and, erroneously again as we believe, that
primal cause of the varied life around us,
the doctrine of evolution would require
us, instead of saying "God created man
in his own image," to say, "Man became
by natural development.'

the evolution theory, so as to include man,
The apprehensions of an extension of
proved to be well founded when "The
was followed, after
Origin of Species"
no long interval, by "The Descent of
Man," a work which included the detailed
exposition of "Selection in Relation to
Sex." The classes of facts which, along
with many of the others already used in

See The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, p. 421.