,,criticisms ,,on ,,the ,,origin ,,of   
,,species  ',the ,natural ,history      
,review'1 #ahfd  #a  ,by ,thomas ,h4    
,huxley   ,in the course of the present 
year several foreign commentaries upon  
,mr4 ,darwin's great work have made     
their appearance4 ,those who have       
perused that remarkable chapter of the  
',antiquity of ,man1' in which ,sir     
,charles ,lyell draws a parallel between
 the development of species and that of 
languages1 will be glad to hear that one
 of the most eminent philologers of     
,germany1 ,professor ,schleicher1 has1  
independently1 published a most         
instructive and philosophical pamphlet  
7an excellent notice of which is to be  
found in the ',reader'1 for ,february   
#bgth of this year7 supporting similar  
views with all the weight of his special
 knowledge and established authority as 
a linguist4 ,professor ,haeckel1 to whom
 ,schleicher addresses himself1         
previously took occasion1 in his        
splendid monograph on the ',radiolaria' 

#b1 to express his high appreciation of1
 and general concordance with1 ,mr4     
,darwin's views4  ,but the most         
elaborate criticisms of the ',origin of 
,species' which have appeared are two   
works of very widely different merit1   
the one by ,professor ,kolliker1 the    
well-known anatomist and histologist of 
,wurzburg2 the other by ,m4 ,flourens1  
,perpetual ,secretary of the ,french    
,academy of ,sciences4  ,professor      
,kolliker's critical essay ',upon the   
,darwinian ,theory' is1 like all that   
proceeds from the pen of that thoughtful
 and accomplished writer1 worthy of the 
most careful consideration4 ,it         
comprises a brief but clear sketch of   
,darwin's views1 followed by an         
enumeration of the leading difficulties 
in the way of their acceptance2         
difficulties which would appear to be   
insurmountable to ,professor ,kolliker1 
inasmuch as he proposes to replace ,mr4 
,darwin's ,theory by one which he terms 
the ',theory of ,heterogeneous          

,generation4' ,we shall proceed to      
consider first the destructive1 and     
secondly1 the constructive portion of   
the essay4  ,we regret to find ourselves
 compelled to dissent very widely from  
many of ,professor ,kolliker's remarks2 
and from none more thoroughly than from 
those in which he seeks to define what  
we may term the philosophical position  
of ,darwinism4  ,darwin1 says ,professor
 ,kolliker1 is1 in the fullest sense of 
the word1 a ,teleologist4 ,he says quite
 distinctly 7,first ,edition1 pp4 #aii1 
#bjj7 that every particular in the      
structure of an animal has been created 
for its benefit1 and he regards the     
whole series of animal forms only from  
this point of view4  ,and again3  #g4   
,the teleological general conception    
adopted by ,darwin is a mistaken one4   
,varieties arise irrespectively of the  
notion of purpose1 or of utility1       
according to general laws of ,nature1   
and may be either useful1 or hurtful1 or
 indifferent4  ,the assumption that an  

organism exists only on account of some 
definite end in view1 and represents    
something more than the incorporation of
 a general idea1 or law1 implies a      
one-sided conception of the universe4   
,assuredly1 every organ has1 and every  
organism fulfils1 its end1 but its      
purpose is not the condition of its     
existence4 ,every organism is also      
sufficiently perfect for the purpose it 
serves1 and in that1 at least1 it is    
useless to seek for a cause of its      
improvement4  ,it is singular how       
differently one and the same book will  
impress different minds4 ,that which    
struck the present writer most forcibly 
on his first perusal of the ',origin of 
,species' was the conviction that       
,teleology1 as commonly understood1 had 
received its deathblow at ,mr4 ,darwin's
 hands4 ,for the teleological argument  
runs thus3 an organ or organism 7,a7 is 
precisely fitted to perform a function  
or purpose 7,b72 therefore it was       
specially constructed to perform that   

function4 ,in ,paley's famous           
illustration1 the adaptation of all the 
parts of the watch to the function1 or  
purpose1 of showing the time1 is held to
 be evidence that the watch was         
specially contrived to that end2 on the 
ground1 that the only cause we know of1 
competent to produce such an effect as a
 watch which shall keep time1 is a      
contriving intelligence adapting the    
means directly to that end4  ,suppose1  
however1 that any one had been able to  
show that the watch had not been made   
directly by any person1 but that it was 
the result of the modification of       
another watch which kept time but       
poorly2 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 rudimentary2 and that    
going back and back in time we came at  
last to a revolving barrel as the       
earliest traceable rudiment of the whole
 fabric4 ,and imagine that it had been  

possible to show that all these changes 
had resulted1 first1 from a tendency of 
the structure to vary indefinitely2 and 
secondly1 from something in the         
surrounding world which helped all      
variations in the direction of an       
accurate time-keeper1 and checked all   
those in other directions2 then it is   
obvious that the force of ,paley's      
argument would be gone4 ,for it would be
 demonstrated that an apparatus         
thoroughly well adapted to a particular 
purpose might be the result of a method 
of trial and error worked by            
unintelligent agents1 as well as of the 
direct application of the means         
appropriate to that end1 by an          
intelligent agent4  ,now it appears to  
us that what we have here1 for          
illustration's sake1 supposed to be done
 with the watch1 is exactly what the    
establishment of ,darwin's ,theory will 
do for the organic world4 ,for the      
notion that every organism has been     
created as it is and launched straight  

at a purpose1 ,mr4 ,darwin substitutes  
the conception of something which may   
fairly be termed a method of trial and  
error4 ,organisms vary incessantly2 of  
these variations the few meet with      
surrounding conditions which suit them  
and thrive2 the many are unsuited and   
become extinguished4  ,according to     
,teleology1 each organism is like a     
rifle bullet fired straight at a mark2  
according to ,darwin1 organisms are like
 grapeshot of which one hits something  
and the rest fall wide4  ,for the       
teleologist an organism exists because  
it was made for the conditions in which 
it is found2 for the ,darwinian an      
organism exists because1 out of many of 
its kind1 it is the only one which has  
been able to persist in the conditions  
in which it is found4  ,teleology       
implies that the organs of every        
organism are perfect and cannot be      
improved2 the ,darwinian theory simply  
affirms that they work well enough to   
enable the organism to hold its own     

against such competitors as it has met  
with1 but admits the possibility of     
indefinite improvement4 ,but an example 
may bring into clearer light the        
profound opposition between the ordinary
 teleological1 and the ,darwinian1      
conception4  ,cats catch mice1 small    
birds and the like1 very well4          
,teleology tells us that they do so     
because they were expressly constructed 
for so doing--that they are perfect     
mousing apparatuses1 so perfect and so  
delicately adjusted that no one of their
 organs could be altered1 without the   
change involving the alteration of all  
the rest4 ,darwinism affirms on the     
contrary1 that there was no express     
construction concerned in the matter2   
but that among the multitudinous        
variations of the ,feline stock1 many of
 which died out from want of power to   
resist opposing influences1 some1 the   
cats1 were better fitted to catch mice  
than others1 whence they throve and     
persisted1 in proportion to the         

advantage over their fellows thus       
offered to them4  ,far from imagining   
that cats exist 'in order' to catch mice
 well1 ,darwinism supposes that cats    
exist 'because' they catch mice         
well--mousing being not the end1 but the
 condition1 of their existence4 ,and if 
the cat type has long persisted as we   
know it1 the interpretation of the fact 
upon ,darwinian principles would be1 not
 that the cats have remained invariable1
 but that such varieties as have        
incessantly occurred have been1 on the  
whole1 less fitted to get on in the     
world than the existing stock4  ,if we  
apprehend the spirit of the ',origin of 
,species' rightly1 then1 nothing can be 
more entirely and absolutely opposed to 
,teleology1 as it is commonly           
understood1 than the ,darwinian ,theory4
 ,so far from being a ,teleologist in   
the fullest sense of the word1 we would 
deny that he is a ,teleologist in the   
ordinary sense at all2 and we should say
 that1 apart from his merits as a       

naturalist1 he has rendered a most      
remarkable service to philosophical     
thought by enabling the student of      
,nature to recognise1 to their fullest  
extent1 those adaptations to purpose    
which are so striking in the organic    
world1 and which ,teleology has done    
good service in keeping before our      
minds1 without being false to the       
fundamental principles of a scientific  
conception of the universe4 ,the        
apparently diverging teachings of the   
,teleologist and of the ,morphologist   
are reconciled by the ,darwinian        
hypothesis4  ,but leaving our own       
impressions of the ',origin of          
,species1' and turning to those passages
 especially cited by ,professor         
,kolliker1 we cannot admit that they    
bear the interpretation he puts upon    
them4 ,darwin1 if we read him rightly1  
does 'not' affirm that every detail in  
the structure of an animal has been     
created for its benefit4 ,his words are 
7p4 #aii73--  ,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 good of its possessor4 
,they believe that very many structures 
have been created for beauty in the eyes
 of man1 or for mere variety4 ,this     
doctrine1 if true1 would be absolutely  
fatal to my theory--yet ,i fully admit  
that many structures are of no direct   
use to their possessor4  ,and after     
sundry illustrations and qualifications1
 he concludes 7p4 #bjj73--  ,hence every
 detail of structure in every living    
creature 7making some little allowance  
for the direct action of physical       
conditions7 may be viewed either as     
having been of special use to some      
ancestral form1 or as being now of      
special use to the descendants of this  
form--either directly1 or indirectly1   
through the complex laws of growth4     
,but it is one thing to say1            
,darwinically1 that every detail        

observed in an animal's structure is of 
use to it1 or has been of use to its    
ancestors2 and quite another to affirm1 
teleologically1 that every detail of an 
animal's structure has been created for 
its benefit4 ,on the former hypothesis1 
for example1 the teeth of the foetal    
,balaena have a meaning2 on the latter1 
none4 ,so far as we are aware1 there is 
not a phrase in the ',origin of         
,species'1 inconsistent with ,professor 
,kolliker's position1 that varieties    
arise irrespectively of the notion of   
purpose1 or of utility1 according to    
general laws of ,nature1 and may be     
either useful1 or hurtful1 or           
indifferent4  ,on the contrary1 ,mr4    
,darwin writes 7,summary of ,chap4      
,v473--  ,our ignorance of the laws of  
variation is profound4 ,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 the parents4444 ,the external        
conditions of life1 as climate and food1

 etc41 seem to have induced some slight 
modifications4 ,habit1 in producing     
constitutional differences1 and use1 in 
strengthening1 and disuse1 in weakening 
and diminishing organs1 seem to have    
been more potent in their effects4  ,and
 finally1 as if to prevent all possible 
misconception1 ,mr4 ,darwin concludes   
his ,chapter on ,variation with these   
pregnant words3--  ,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 accumulation1 through natural    
selection of such differences1 when     
beneficial to the individual1 that gives
 rise to all the more important         
modifications of structure which the    
innumerable beings on the face of the   
earth are enabled to struggle with each 
other1 and the best adapted to survive4 
,we have dwelt at length upon this      
subject1 because of its great general   
importance1 and because we believe that 
,professor ,kolliker's criticisms on    

this head are based upon a              
misapprehension of ,mr4 ,darwin's       
views--substantially they appear to us  
to coincide with his own4 ,the other    
objections which ,professor ,kolliker   
enumerates and discusses are the        
following #c3--  #a4 ,no transitional   
forms between existing species are      
known2 and known varieties1 whether     
selected or spontaneous1 never go so far
 as to establish new species4  ,to this 
,professor ,kolliker appears to attach  
some weight4 ,he makes the suggestion   
that the short-faced tumbler pigeon may 
be a pathological product4  #b4 ,no     
transitional forms of animals are met   
with among the organic remains of       
earlier epochs4  ,upon this1 ,professor 
,kolliker remarks that the absence of   
transitional forms in the fossil world1 
though not necessarily fatal to         
,darwin's views1 weakens his case4  #c4 
,the struggle for existence does not    
take place4  ,to this objection1 urged  
by ,pelzeln1 ,kolliker1 very justly1    

attaches no weight4  #d4 ,a tendency of 
organisms to give rise to useful        
varieties1 and a natural selection1 do  
not exist4  ,the varieties which are    
found arise in consequence of manifold  
external influences1 and it is not      
obvious why they all1 or partially1     
should be particularly useful4 ,each    
animal suffices for its own ends1 is    
perfect of its kind1 and needs no       
further development4 ,should1 however1 a
 variety be useful and even maintain    
itself1 there is no obvious reason why  
it should change any further4 ,the whole
 conception of the imperfection of      
organisms and the necessity of their    
becoming perfected is plainly the       
weakest side of ,darwin's ,theory1 and a
 'pis aller' 7,nothbehelf7 because      
,darwin could think of no other         
principle by which to explain the       
metamorphoses which1 as ,i also believe1
 have occurred4  ,here again we must    
venture to dissent completely from      
,professor ,kolliker's conception of    

,mr4 ,darwin's hypothesis4 ,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 organisms4        
,again1 ,mr4 ,darwin1 if we read him    
aright1 assumes no special tendency of  
organisms to give rise to useful        
varieties1 and knows nothing of needs of
 development1 or necessity of           
perfection4 ,what he says is1 in        
substance3 ,all organisms vary4 ,it is  
in the highest degree improbable that   
any given variety should have exactly   
the same relations to surrounding       
conditions as the parent stock4 ,in that
 case it is either better fitted 7when  
the variation may be called useful71 or 
worse fitted1 to cope with them4 ,if    
better1 it will tend to supplant the    
parent stock2 if worse1 it will tend to 
be extinguished by the parent stock4    
,if 7as is hardly conceivable7 the new  
variety is so perfectly adapted to the  
conditions that no improvement upon it  

is possible1--it will persist1 because1 
though it does not cease to vary1 the   
varieties will be inferior to itself4   
,if1 as is more probable1 the new       
variety is by no means perfectly adapted
 to its conditions1 but only fairly well
 adapted to them1 it will persist1 so   
long as none of the varieties which it  
throws off are better adapted than      
itself4  ,on the other hand1 as soon as 
it varies in a useful way1 i4e4 when the
 variation is such as to adapt it more  
perfectly to its conditions1 the fresh  
variety will tend to supplant the       
former4  ,so far from a gradual progress
 towards perfection forming any         
necessary part of the ,darwinian creed1 
it appears to us that it is perfectly   
consistent with indefinite persistence  
in one estate1 or with a gradual        
retrogression4 ,suppose1 for example1 a 
return of the glacial epoch and a spread
 of polar climatal conditions over the  
whole globe4 ,the operation of natural  
selection under these circumstances     

would tend1 on the whole1 to the weeding
 out of the higher organisms and the    
cherishing of the lower forms of life4  
,cryptogamic vegetation would have the  
advantage over ,phanerogamic2 ,hydrozoa 
over ,corals2 ,crustacea over ,insecta1 
and ,amphipoda and ,isopoda over the    
higher ,crustacea2 ,cetaceans and ,seals
 over the ,primates2 the civilization of
 the ,esquimaux over that of the        
,european4  #e4 ,pelzeln has also       
objected that if the later organisms    
have proceeded from the earlier1 the    
whole developmental series1 from the    
simplest to the highest1 could not now  
exist2 in such a case the simpler       
organisms must have disappeared4  ,to   
this ,professor ,kolliker replies1 with 
perfect justice1 that the conclusion    
drawn by ,pelzeln does not really follow
 from ,darwin's premisses1 and that1 if 
we take the facts of ,palaeontology as  
they stand1 they rather support than    
oppose ,darwin's theory4  #f4 ,great    
weight must be attached to the objection

 brought forward by ,huxley1 otherwise a
 warm supporter of ,darwin's hypothesis1
 that we know of no varieties which are 
sterile with one another1 as is the rule
 among sharply distinguished animal     
forms4  ,if ,darwin is right1 it must be
 demonstrated that forms may be produced
 by selection1 which1 like the present  
sharply distinguished animal forms1 are 
infertile1 when coupled with one        
another1 and this has not been done4    
,the weight of this objection is        
obvious2 but our ignorance of the       
conditions of fertility and sterility1  
the want of carefully conducted         
experiments extending over long series  
of years1 and the strange anomalies     
presented by the results of the         
cross-fertilization of many plants1     
should all1 as ,mr4 ,darwin has urged1  
be taken into account in considering it4
  ,the seventh objection is that we have
 already discussed 7'supra'1 p4 #agh74  
,the eighth and last stands as          
follows3--  #h4 ,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 perfect4  ,the existence of
 general laws of ,nature explains this  
harmony1 even if we assume that all     
beings have arisen separately and       
independent of one another4 ,darwin     
forgets that inorganic nature1 in which 
there can be no thought of genetic      
connexion of forms1 exhibits the same   
regular plan1 the same harmony1 as the  
organic world2 and that1 to cite only   
one example1 there is as much a natural 
system of minerals as of plants and     
animals4  ,we do not feel quite sure    
that we seize ,professor ,kolliker's    
meaning here1 but he appears to suggest 
that the observation of the general     
order and harmony which pervade         
inorganic nature1 would lead us to      
anticipate a similar order and harmony  
in the organic world4 ,and this is no   
doubt true1 but it by no means follows  

that the particular order and harmony   
observed among them should be that which
 we see4 ,surely the stripes of dun     
horses1 and the teeth of the foetal     
',balaena'1 are not explained by the    
existence of general laws of ,nature4   
,mr4 ,darwin endeavours to explain the  
exact order of organic nature which     
exists2 not the mere fact that there is 
some order4  ,and with regard to the    
existence of a natural system of        
minerals2 the obvious reply is that     
there may be a natural classification of
 any objects--of stones on a sea-beach1 
or of works of art2 a natural           
classification being simply an          
assemblage of objects in groups1 so as  
to express their most important and     
fundamental resemblances and            
differences4 ,no doubt ,mr4 ,darwin     
believes that those resemblances and    
differences upon which our natural      
systems or classifications of animals   
and plants are based1 are resemblances  
and differences which have been produced

 genetically1 but we can discover no    
reason for supposing that he denies the 
existence of natural classifications of 
other kinds4  ,and1 after all1 is it    
quite so certain that a genetic relation
 may not underlie the classification of 
minerals8 ,the inorganic world has not  
always been what we see it4 ,it has     
certainly had its metamorphoses1 and1   
very probably1 a long                   
,entwickelungsgeschichte out of a       
nebular blastema4 ,who knows how far    
that amount of likeness among sets of   
minerals1 in virtue of which they are   
now grouped into families and orders1   
may not be the expression of the common 
conditions to which that particular     
patch of nebulous fog1 which may have   
been constituted by their atoms1 and of 
which they may be1 in the strictest     
sense1 the descendants1 was subjected8  
,it will be obvious from what has       
preceded1 that we do not agree with     
,professor ,kolliker in thinking the    
objections which he brings forward so   

weighty as to be fatal to ,darwin's     
view4 ,but even if the case were        
otherwise1 we should be unable to accept
 the ,theory of ,heterogeneous          
,generation which is offered as a       
substitute4 ,that theory is thus        
stated3--  ,the fundamental conception  
of this hypothesis is1 that1 under the  
influence of a general law of           
development1 the germs of organisms     
produce others different from           
themselves4 ,this might happen 7#a7 by  
the fecundated ova passing1 in the      
course of their development1 under      
particular circumstances1 into higher   
forms2 7#b7 by the primitive and later  
organisms producing other organisms     
without fecundation1 out of germs or    
eggs 7,parthenogenesis74  ,in favour of 
this hypothesis1 ,professor ,kolliker   
adduces the well-known facts of         
,agamogenesis1 or alternate generation2 
the extreme dissimilarity of the males  
and females of many animals2 and of the 
males1 females1 and neuters of those    

insects which live in colonies3 and he  
defines its relations to the ,darwinian 
theory as follows3--  ,it is obvious    
that my hypothesis is apparently very   
similar to ,darwin's1 inasmuch as ,i    
also consider that the various forms of 
animals have proceeded directly from one
 another4 ,my hypothesis of the creation
 of organisms by heterogeneous          
generation1 however1 is distinguished   
very essentially from ,darwin's by the  
entire absence of the principle of      
useful variations and their natural     
selection3 and my fundamental conception
 is this1 that a great plan of          
development lies at the foundation of   
the origin of the whole organic world1  
impelling the simpler forms to more and 
more complex developments4 ,how this law
 operates1 what influences determine the
 development of the eggs and germs1 and 
impel them to assume constantly new     
forms1 ,i naturally cannot pretend to   
say2 but ,i can at least adduce the     
great analogy of the alternation of     

generations4 ,if a ',bipinnaria'1 a     
',brachialaria'1 a ',pluteus'1 is       
competent to produce the ,echinoderm1   
which is so widely different from it2 if
 a hydroid polype can produce the higher
 ,medusa2 if the vermiform ,trematode   
'nurse' can develop within itself the   
very unlike ',cercaria'1 it will not    
appear impossible that the egg1 or      
ciliated embryo1 of a sponge1 for once1 
under special conditions1 might become a
 hydroid polype1 or the embryo of a     
,medusa1 an ,echinoderm4  ,it is        
obvious1 from these extracts1 that      
,professor ,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 ones4 ,but is 
the analogy a real one8 ,we think that  
it is not1 and1 by the hypothesis1      
cannot be4  ,for what are the phenomena 
of ,agamogenesis1 stated generally8 ,an 
impregnated egg develops into an asexual
 form1 ,a2 this gives rise1 asexually1  

to a second form or forms1 ,b1 more or  
less different from ,a4 ,b may multiply 
asexually again2 in the simpler cases1  
however1 it does not1 but1 acquiring    
sexual characters1 produces impregnated 
eggs from whence ,a1 once more1 arises4 
,no case of ,agamogenesis is known in   
which1 'when ,a differs widely from ,b'1
 it is itself capable of sexual         
propagation4 ,no case whatever is known 
in which the progeny of ,b1 by sexual   
generation1 is other than a reproduction
 of ,a4  ,but if this be a true         
statement of the nature of the process  
of ,agamogenesis1 how can it enable us  
to comprehend the production of new     
species from already existing ones8 ,let
 us suppose ,hyaenas to have preceded   
,dogs1 and to have produced the latter  
in this way4 ,then the ,hyena will      
represent ,a1 and the ,dog1 ,b4 ,the    
first difficulty that presents itself is
 that the ,hyena must be asexual1 or the
 process will be wholly without analogy 
in the world of ,agamogenesis4 ,but     

passing over this difficulty1 and       
supposing a male and female ,dog to be  
produced at the same time from the      
,hyaena stock1 the progeny of the pair1 
if the analogy of the simpler kinds of  
,agamogenesis #d is to be followed1     
should be a litter1 not of puppies1 but 
of young ,hyenas4 ,for the ,agamogenetic
 series is always1 as we have seen1 ,a3 
,b3 ,a3 ,b1 etc42 whereas1 for the      
production of a new species1 the series 
must be ,a3 ,b3 ,b3 ,b1 etc4 ,the       
production of new species1 or genera1 is
 the extreme permanent divergence from  
the primitive stock4 ,all known         
,agamogenetic processes1 on the other   
hand1 end in a complete return to the   
primitive stock4 ,how then is the       
production of new species to be rendered
 intelligible by the analogy of         
,agamogenesis8  ,the other alternative  
put by ,professor ,kolliker--the passage
 of fecundated ova in the course of     
their development into higher           
forms--would1 if it occurred1 be merely 

an extreme case of variation in the     
,darwinian sense1 greater in degree     
than1 but perfectly similar in kind to1 
that which occurred when the well-known 
,ancon ,ram was developed from an       
ordinary ,ewe's ovum4 ,indeed we have   
always thought that ,mr4 ,darwin has    
unnecessarily hampered himself by       
adhering so strictly to his favourite   
,natura non facit saltum4 ,we greatly   
suspect that she does make considerable 
jumps in the way of variation now and   
then1 and that these saltations give    
rise to some of the gaps which appear to
 exist in the series of known forms4    
,strongly and freely as we have ventured
 to disagree with ,professor ,kolliker1 
we have always done so with regret1 and 
we trust without violating that respect 
which is due1 not only to his scientific
 eminence and to the careful study which
 he has devoted to the subject1 but to  
the perfect fairness of his             
argumentation1 and the generous         
appreciation of the worth of ,mr4       

,darwin's labours which he always       
displays4 ,it would be satisfactory to  
be able to say as much for ,m4          
,flourens4  ,but the ,perpetual         
,secretary of the ,french ,academy of   
,sciences deals with ,mr4 ,darwin as the
 first ,napoleon would have treated an  
ideologue2 and while displaying a       
painful weakness of logic and           
shallowness of information1 assumes a   
tone of authority1 which always touches 
upon the ludicrous1 and sometimes passes
 the limits of good breeding4  ,for     
example 7p4 #ef73--  ,m4 ,darwin        
continue3 ',aucune distinction absolue  
n'a ete et ne pout etre etablie entre   
les especes et les varietes4' ,je vous  
ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez2 une 
distinction absolue separe les varietes 
d'avec les especes4  ,je vous ai deja   
dit2 moi1 ,m4 le ,secretaire perpetuel  
de l',academie des ,sciences3 et vous   
',qui n'etes rien1 ,pas meme            
,academicien2'  what do you mean by     
asserting the contrary8' ,being devoid  

of the blessings of an ,academy in      
,england1 we are unaccustomed to see our
 ablest men treated in this fashion1    
even by a ,perpetual ,secretary4  ,or   
again1 considering that if there is any 
one quality of ,mr4 ,darwin's work to   
which friends and foes have alike borne 
witness1 it is his candour and fairness 
in admitting and discussing objections1 
what is to be thought of ,m4 ,flourens' 
assertion1 that  ,m4 ,darwin ne cite que
 les auteurs qui partagent ses opinions4
 7,p4 #dj47  ,once more 7p4 #fe73--     
,enfin l'ouvrage de ,m4 ,darwin a paru4 
,on ne peut qu'etre frappe du talent de 
l'auteur4 ,mais que d'idees obscures1   
que d'idees fausses6 ,quel jargon       
metaphysique jete mal a propos dans     
l'histoire naturelle1 qui tombe dans le 
galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees   
claires1 des idees justes6 ,quel langage
 pretentieux et vide6 ,quelles          
personifications pueriles et surannees6 
,o lucidite6 ,o solidite de l'esprit    
,francais1 que devenez-vous8  ,obscure  

ideas1 metaphysical jargon1 pretentious 
and empty language1 puerile and         
superannuated personifications4 ,mr4    
,darwin has many and hot opponents on   
this side of the ,channel and in        
,germany1 but we do not recollect to    
have found precisely these sins in the  
long catalogue of those hitherto laid to
 his charge4 ,it is worth while1        
therefore1 to examine into these        
discoveries effected solely by the aid  
of the lucidity and solidity of the mind
 of ,m4 ,flourens4  ,according to ,m4   
,flourens1 ,mr4 ,darwin's great error is
 that he has personified ,nature 7p4    
#aj71 and further that he has  imagined 
a natural selection3 he imagines        
afterwards that this power of selection 
7pouvoir d'lire7 which he gives to      
,nature is similar to the power of man4 
,these two suppositions admitted1       
nothing stops him3 he plays with ,nature
 as he likes1 and makes her do all he   
pleases4 7,p4 #f47  ,and this is the way
 ,m4 ,flourens extinguishes natural     

selection3  ,voyons donc encore une     
fois1 ce qu'il peut y avoir de fonde    
dans ce qu'on nomme election naturelle4 
,l'election naturelle n'est sous un     
autre nom que la nature4 ,pour un etre  
organise1 la nature n'est que           
l'organisation1 ni plus ni moins4  ,il  
faudra donc aussi personnifier          
l'organisation1 et dire que             
l'organisation choisit l'organisation4  
,l'election naturelle est cette forme   
substantielle dont on jouait autrefois  
avec tant de facilite4 ,aristote disait 
que ',si l'art de batir etait dans le   
bois1 cet art agirait comme la nature4' 
,a la place de l'art de batir ,m4       
,darwin met l'election naturelle1 et    
c'est tout un3 l'un n'est pas plus      
chimerique que l'autre4 7,p4#ca47  ,and 
this is really all that ,m4 ,flourens   
can make of ,natural ,selection4 ,we    
have given the original1 in fear lest a 
translation should be regarded as a     
travesty2 but with the original before  
the reader1 we may try to analyse the   

passage4 ,for an organized being1       
,nature is only organization1 neither   
more nor less4  ,organized beings then  
have absolutely no relation to inorganic
 nature3 a plant does not1 depend on    
soil or sunshine1 climate1 depth in the 
ocean1 height above it2 the quantity of 
saline matters in water have no         
influence upon animal life2 the         
substitution of carbonic acid for oxygen
 in our atmosphere would hurt nobody6   
,that these are absurdities no one      
should know better than ,m4 ,flourens2  
but they are logical deductions from the
 assertion just quoted1 and from the    
further statement that natural selection
 means only that organization chooses   
and selects organization4  ,for if it be
 once admitted 7what no sane man denies7
 that the chances of life of any given  
organism are increased by certain       
conditions 7,a7 and diminished by their 
opposites 7,b71 then it is              
mathematically certain that any change  
of conditions in the direction of 7,a7  

will exercise a selective influence in  
favour of that organism1 tending to its 
increase and multiplication1 while any  
change in the direction of 7,b7 will    
exercise a selective influence against  
that organism1 tending to its decrease  
and extinction4  ,or1 on the other hand1
 conditions remaining the same1 let a   
given organism vary 7and no one doubts  
that they do vary7 in two directions3   
into one form 7a7 better fitted to cope 
with these conditions than the original 
stock1 and a second 7b7 less well       
adapted to them4 ,then it is no less    
certain that the conditions in question 
must exercise a selective influence in  
favour of 7a7 and against 7 b71 so that 
7a7 will tend to predominance1 and 7b7  
to extirpation4  ,that ,m4 ,flourens    
should be unable to perceive the logical
 necessity of these simple arguments1   
which lie at the foundation of all ,mr4 
,darwin's reasoning2 that he should     
confound an irrefragable deduction from 
the observed relations of organisms to  

the conditions which lie around them1   
with a metaphysical forme substantielle1
 or a chimerical personification of the 
powers of ,nature1 would be incredible1 
were it not that other passages of his  
work leave no room for doubt upon the   
subject4  ,on imagine une 'election     
naturelle' que1 pour plus de menagement1
 on me dit etre inconsciente1 sans      
s'apercevoir que le contre-sens litteral
 est precisement la3 'election          
inconsciente'4 7,p4 #eb47  ,j'ai deja   
dit ce qu'il faut penser de 'l'election 
naturelle'4 ,ou 'l'election naturelle'  
n'est rien1 ou c'est la nature3 mais la 
nature douee 'd'election'1 mais la      
nature personnifiee3 derniere erreur du 
dernier siecle3 ,le xixe fait plus de   
personnifications4 7,p4 #ec47  ,m4      
,flourens cannot imagine an unconscious 
selection--it is for him a contradiction
 in terms4 ,did ,m4 ,flourens ever visit
 one of the prettiest watering-places of
 la belle ,france1 the ,baie            
d',arcachon8 ,if so1 he will probably   

have passed through the district of the 
,landes1 and will have had an           
opportunity of observing the formation  
of dunes on a grand scale4 ,what are    
these dunes8 ,the winds and waves of the
 ,bay of ,biscay have not much          
consciousness1 and yet they have with   
great care selected1 from among an      
infinity of masses of silex of all      
shapes and sizes1 which have been       
submitted to their action1 all the      
grains of sand below a certain size1 and
 have heaped them by themselves over a  
great area4 ,this sand has been         
unconsciously selected from amidst the  
gravel in which it first lay with as    
much precision as if man had consciously
 selected it by the aid of a sieve4     
,physical ,geology is full of such      
selections--of the picking out of the   
soft from the hard1 of the soluble from 
the insoluble1 of the fusible from the  
infusible1 by natural agencies to which 
we are certainly not in the habit of    
ascribing consciousness4  ,but that     

which wind and sea are to a sandy beach1
 the sum of influences1 which we term   
the conditions of existence1 is to      
living organisms4 ,the weak are sifted  
out from the strong4 ,a frosty night    
selects the hardy plants in a plantation
 from among the tender ones as          
effectually as if it were the wind1 and 
they1 the sand and pebbles1 of our      
illustration2 or1 on the other hand1 as 
if the intelligence of a gardener had   
been operative in cutting the weaker    
organisms down4 ,the thistle1 which has 
spread over the ,pampas1 to the         
destruction of native plants1 has been  
more effectually selected by the        
unconscious operation of natural        
conditions than if a thousand           
agriculturists had spent their time in  
sowing it4  ,it is one of ,mr4 ,darwin's
 many great services to ,biological     
science that he has demonstrated the    
significance of these facts4 ,he has    
shown that--given variation and given   
change of conditions--the inevitable    

result is the exercise of such an       
influence upon organisms that one is    
helped and another is impeded2 one tends
 to predominate1 another to disappear2  
and thus the living world bears within  
itself1 and is surrounded by1 impulses  
towards incessant change4  ,but the     
truths just stated are as certain as any
 other physical laws1 quite             
independently of the truth1 or          
falsehood1 of the hypothesis which ,mr4 
,darwin has based upon them2 and that   
,m4 ,flourens1 missing the substance and
 grasping at a shadow1 should be blind  
to the admirable exposition of them1    
which ,mr4 ,darwin has given1 and see   
nothing there but a derniere erreur du  
dernier siecle --a personification of   
,nature--leads us indeed to cry with    
him3 ,o lucidite6 ,o solidite de        
l'esprit ,francais1 que devenez-vous8   
,m4 ,flourens has1 in fact1 utterly     
failed to comprehend the first          
principles of the doctrine which he     
assails so rudely4 ,his objections to   

details are of the old sort1 so battered
 and hackneyed on this side of the      
,channel1 that not even a ,quarterly    
,reviewer could be induced to pick them 
up for the purpose of pelting ,mr4      
,darwin over again4 ,we have ,cuvier and
 the mummies2 ,m4 ,roulin and the       
domesticated animals of ,america2 the   
difficulties presented by hybridism and 
by ,palaeontology2 ,darwinism a         
'rifacciamento' of ,de ,maillet and     
,lamarck2 ,darwinism a system without a 
commencement1 and its author bound to   
believe in ,m4 ,pouchet1 etc4 etc4 ,how 
one knows it all by heart1 and with what
 relief one reads at p4 #fe--  ,je      
laisse ,m4 ,darwin6  ,but we cannot     
leave ,m4 ,flourens without calling our 
readers' attention to his wonderful     
tenth chapter1 ,de la ,preexistence des 
,germes et de l',epigenese1 which opens 
thus3--  ,spontaneous generation is only
 a chimaera4 ,this point established1   
two hypotheses remain3 that of          
'pre-existence' and that of             

'epigenesis'4 ,the one of these         
hypotheses has as little foundation as  
the other4 7,p4 #afc47  ,the doctrine of
 'epigenesis' is derived from ,harvey3  
following by ocular inspection the      
development of the new being in the     
,windsor does1 he saw each part appear  
successively1 and taking the moment of  
'appearance' for the moment of          
'formation' he imagined 'epigenesis'4   
7,p4 #afe47  ,on the contrary1 says ,m4 
,flourens 7p4 #afg71  ,the new being is 
formed at a stroke 7'tout d'un coup'7 as
 a whole1 instantaneously2 it is not    
formed part by part1 and at different   
times4 ,it is formed at once at the     
single 'individual' moment at which the 
conjunction of the male and female      
elements takes place4  ,it will be      
observed that ,m4 ,flourens uses        
language which cannot be mistaken4 ,for 
him1 the labours of von ,baer1 of       
,rathke1 of ,coste1 and their           
contemporaries and successors in        
,germany1 ,france1 and ,england1 are    

non-existent3 and1 as ,darwin imagina   
natural selection1 so ,harvey imagina   
that doctrine which gives him an even   
greater claim to the veneration of      
posterity than his better known         
discovery of the circulation of the     
blood4  ,language such as that we have  
quoted is1 in fact1 so preposterous1 so 
utterly incompatible with anything but  
absolute ignorance of some of the best  
established facts1 that we should have  
passed it over in silence had it not    
appeared to afford some clue to ,m4     
,flourens' unhesitating1 'a priori'1    
repudiation of all forms of the doctrine
 of progressive modification of living  
beings4 ,he whose mind remains          
uninfluenced by an acquaintance with the
 phenomena of development1 must indeed  
lack one of the chief motives towards   
the endeavour to trace a genetic        
relation between the different existing 
forms of life4 ,those who are ignorant  
of ,geology1 find no difficulty in      
believing that the world was made as it 

is2 and the shepherd1 untutored in      
history1 sees no reason to regard the   
green mounds which indicate the site of 
a ,roman camp1 as aught but part and    
parcel of the primeval hill-side4 ,so   
,m4 ,flourens1 who believes that embryos
 are formed tout d'un coup1 naturally   
finds no difficulty in conceiving that  
species came into existence in the same 
way4    ,footnote #a3 ,the ,natural     
,history ,review'1 #ahfd4 #a4 ,,ueber   
,,die ,,darwin',,sche ,,sch             
,,pfungstheorie2 ,,ein ,,vortrag1 ,,von 
,a4 ,k ,,lliker4 ,leipzig1 #ahfd4 #b4   
,,examination ,,du ,,livre ,,de ,m4     
,,darwin ,,sur ,l',,origine ,,des       
,,especes4 ,,par ,p4 ,,flourens4 ,paris1
 #ahfd4  ,footnote #b3 ',die            
,radiolarien3 eine ,monographie'1 p4    
#bca4  ,footnote #c3 ,space will not    
allow us to give ,professor ,kolliker's 
arguments in detail2 our readers will   
find a full and accurate version of them
 in the ',reader' for ,august #acth and 
#bjth1 #ahfd4  ,footnote #d3 ,if1 on the

 contrary1 we follow the analogy of the 
more complex forms of ,agamogenesis1    
such as that exhibited by some          
',trematoda' and by the ',aphides'1 the 
,hyaena must produce1 asexually1 a brood
 of asexual ,dogs1 from which other     
sexless ,dogs must proceed4 ,at the end 
of a certain number of terms of the     
series1 the ,dogs would acquire sexes   
and generate young2 but these young     
would be1 not ,dogs1 but ,hyaenas4 ,in  
fact1 we have 'demonstrated'1 in        
,agamogenetic phenomena1 that inevitable
 recurrence to the original type1 which 
is 'asserted' to be true of variations  
in general1 by ,mr4 ,darwin's opponents2
 and which1 if the assertion could be   
changed into a demonstration would1 in  
fact1 be fatal to his hypothesis4