,,darwiniana ,,essays ,,and ,,reviews ,,pertaining ,,to ,,darwinism ,,by ,,asa ,,gray ,,fisher ,,professor ,,of ,,natural ,,history 7,,botany7 ,,in ,,harvard ,,university ,,new ,,york3 #ahgf4 ,,contents ,,darwiniana ,,preface ,,article ,i ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,species ,,by ,,means ,,of ,,natural ,,selection ,views and ,definitions of ,species--,how ,darwin's differs from that of ,agassiz1 and from the ,common ,view--,variation1 its ,causes unknown4--,darwin's ,genealogical ,tree--,darwin and ,agassiz agree in the ,capital ,facts--,embryology--,physical ,connection of ,species compatible with ,intellectual ,connection--,how to prove ,transmutation4--,known ,extent of ,variation--,cause of ,likeness unknown--,artificial ,selection4--,reversion--,interbreeding- -,natural ,selection4--,classification tentative4--,what ,darwin assumes4--,argument stated4--,how ,natural ,selection works4--,where the ,argument is weakest4--,objections--,morphology and ,teleology harmonized4--,theory not atheistical4--,conceivable ,modes of ,relation of ,god to ,nature ,,article ,,ii ,,design ,,versus ,,necessity-- ,a ,,discussion ,how ,design in ,nature can be shown--,design not inconsistent with ,indirect ,attainment ,,article ,,iii ,,natural ,,selection ,,not ,,inconsistent ,,with ,,natural ,,theology ,,part ,i4--,premonitions of ,darwinism4--,a ,proper ,subject for ,speculation4--,summary of ,facts and ,ideas suggestive of ,hypotheses of ,derivation ,part ,,ii--,limitations of ,theory conceded by ,darwin4--,what ,darwinism explains4--,geological ,argument strong in the ,tertiary ,period4-- ,correspondence between ,rank and ,geological ,succession--,difficulties in ,classification4--,nature of ,affinity4--,no ,absolute ,distinction between ,vegetable and ,animal ,kingdoms4--,individuality4--,gradation ,,part ,,iii4--,theories contrasted4--,early ,arguments against ,darwinism4--,philosophical and ,theological ,objections--,theory may be theistic4--,final ,cause not excluded4--,cause of ,variation unknown4--,three ,views of ,efficient ,cause compatible with ,theism4--,agassiz's ,objections of a ,philosophical ,nature4--,minor ,objections4--,conclusion ,,article ,,iv ,,species ,,as ,,to ,,variation1 ,,geographical ,,distribution1 ,,and ,,succession ,alphonse ,de ,candolle's ,study of the ,oak ,genus4--,variability of the ,species4--,antiquity4--,a ,common ,origin probable4--,dr4 ,falconer on the ,common ,origin of ,elephants--,variation and ,natural ,selection distinguished4--,saporta on the ,gradation between the ,vegetable ,forms of the ,cretaceous and the ,tertiary4--,hypothesis of ,derivation more likely to be favored by ,botanists than by ,zoologists4--,views of ,agassiz respecting the ,origin1 ,dispersion1 ,variation1 ,characteristics1 and ,successive ,creation of ,species contrasted with those of ,de ,candolle and others--,definition of ,species--,whether its ,essence is in the ,likeness or in the ,genealogical ,connection of the ,individuals composing a ,species ,,article ,v ,,sequoia ,,and ,,its ,,history3 ,,the ,,relations ,,of ,,north ,,american ,,to ,,northeast ,,asian ,,and ,,to ,,tertiary ,,vegetation ,age and ,size of ,sequoia4--,isolation4--,decadence4--,re lated ,genera4-- ,former ,distribution4--,similarity between the ,flora of ,japan and that of the ,united ,states1 especially on the ,atlantic ,side4--,former ,glaciation as explaining the ,present ,dispersion of ,species4--,this confirmed by the ,arctic ,fossil ,flora of the ,tertiary ,period4--,tertiary ,flora derived from the ,preceding ,cretaceous4--,order and ,adaptation in ,organic ,nature likened to a ,flow4--,order implies an ,ordainer ,,article ,,vi ,,the ,,attitude ,,of ,,working ,,naturalists ,,toward ,,darwinism ,general ,tendency to ,acceptance of the ,derivative ,hypothesis noted4--,lyell1 ,owen1 ,alphonse ,de ,candolle1 ,bentham1 ,flower1 ,ailman4-- ,dr4 ,dawson's ,story of the ,earth and ,man examined4--,difference between ,scientific ,men and ,general ,speculators or ,amateurs in the ,use of ,hypotheses ,,article ,,vii ,,evolution ,,and ,,theology ,writings of ,henslow1 ,hodges1 and ,le ,conte examined4--,evolution and ,design compatible4--,the ,admission of a ,system of ,nature1 with ,fixed ,laws1 concedes in ,principle all that the ,doctrine of ,evolution requires4--,hypotheses1 ,probabilities1 and ,surmises1 not to be decried by ,theologians1 who use them1 perhaps1 more freely and loosely than ,naturalists4--,theologians risk too much in the ,defense of ,untenable ,outposts ,,article ,,viii ,,what ,,is ,,darwinism8 ,dr4 ,hodges ,book with this ,title criticised4--,he declares that ,darwinism is ,atheism1 yet its ,founder a ,theist4--,darwinism founded1 however1 upon ,orthodox ,conceptions1 and opposed1 not to ,theism1 but only to ,intervention in ,nature1 while the ,key-note of ,dr4 ,hedge's ,system is ,interference4--,views and ,writings of ,st4 ,clair1 ,winchell1 and ,kingsley adverted to ,,article ,,ix ,,charles ,,darwin3 ,,sketch ,,accompanying ,a ,,portrait ,,in ,,nature ,darwin's ,characteristics and ,work as a ,naturalist compared with those of ,robert ,brown4--,his ,illustration of the ,principle that ,nature abhors ,close ,fertilization4 --,his ,impression upon ,natural ,history exceeded only by ,linnaeus4--,his ,service in restoring ,teleology to ,natural ,history ,,article ,x ,,insectivorous ,,plants ,classification marks ,distinctions where ,nature exhibits ,gradations4-- ,recovery of ,forgotten ,knowledge and ,history of what was known of ,dionzea1 ,drosera1 and ,sarracenia4 ,,article ,,xi ,,insectivorous ,,and ,,climbing ,,plants ,review of ,darwin's ,two ,works upon these ,subjects--,no ,absolute ,marks for distinguishing between ,vegetables and ,animals4--,new observations upon the ,sundews or ,droseras4--,their ,sensitiveness1 ,movements1 ,discernment of the ,presence and ,appropriation of ,animal ,matter4--,dionaea1 and other ,plants of the same ,order4--,utricularia and ,pinguicula4--,sarracenia and ,nepenthes4--,climbing ,plants2 the ,climbing effected through ,sensitiveness or ,response to ,external ,impression and ,automatic ,movement4--,capacities inherent in ,plants generally1 and apparently of no ,service to them1 developed and utilized by those which climb4--,natural ,selection not a ,complete ,explanation ,,article ,,xii ,,duration ,,and ,,origination ,,of ,,race ,,and ,,species ,,part ,i4--,do ,varieties in ,plants wear out1 or tend to wear out8--,the ,question considered in the ,light of ,facts1 and in that of the ,darwinian ,theory4--,conclusion that ,races sexually propagated need not die of ,old ,age4--,this ,conclusion inferred from the ,provisions and ,arrangements in ,nature to secure ,cross-,fertilization of ,individuals4-- ,reference to ,mr4 ,darwin's ,development of this ,view ,,part ,,ii4--,do ,species wear out1 and1 if not1 why not8--,implication of the ,darwinian ,theory that ,species are unlimited in ,existence4--,examination of an ,opposite ,doctrine maintained by ,naudin4--,evidence that ,species may die out from ,inherent ,causes only indirect and inferential from ,arrangements to secure ,wide ,breeding--,physiological ,import of ,sexes--,doubtful whether ,sexual ,reproduction with ,wide ,breeding is a ,preventive or only a ,palliative of ,decrepitude in ,species4-- ,darwinian ,hypothesis must suppose the ,former ,,article ,,xiii ,,evolutionary ,,teleology ,the ,opposition between ,morphology and ,teleology reconciled by ,darwinism1 and the ,latter reinstated--,character of the ,new ,teleology4--,purpose and ,design distinguished--,man has no ,monopoly of the ,latter4--,inference of ,design from ,adaptation and ,utility legitimate2 also in ,hume's ,opinion irresistible--,the ,principle of ,design1 taken with ,specific ,creation1 totally insufficient and largely inapplicable2 but1 taken with the ,doctrine of the ,evolution of ,species in ,nature1 applicable1 pertinent1 and1 moreover1 necessary4--,illustrations from ,abortive ,organs1 supposed ,waste of ,being1 etc4--,all ,nature being of a ,piece1 ,design must either pervade or be absent from the ,whole4--,its ,absence not to be inferred because the ,events take place in ,nature--,illustration of the ,nature and ,province of ,natural ,selection4--,it picks out1 but does not originate ,variations2 these not a ,product of1 but a ,response to1 the ,environment2 not physical1 but physiological--,adaptations in ,nature not explained by ,natural ,selection apart from ,design or ,final ,cause--,absurdity of associating ,design only with ,miracle--,what is meant by ,nature4--,the ,tradition of the ,,divine in ,nature1 testified to by ,aristotle1 comes down to our ,day with ,undiminished ,value ,,preface ,these papers are now collected at the request of friends and correspondents1 who think that they may be useful2 and two new essays are added4 ,most of the articles were written as occasion called for them within the past sixteen years1 and contributed to various periodicals1 with little thought of their forming a series1 and none of ever bringing them together into a volume1 although one of them 7the third7 was once reprinted in a pamphlet form4 ,it is1 therefore1 inevitable that there should be considerable iteration in the argument1 if not in the language4 ,this could not be eliminated except by recasting the whole1 which was neither practicable nor really desirable4 ,it is better that they should record1 as they do1 the writer's freely-expressed thoughts upon the subject at the time2 and to many readers there may be some advantage in going more than once1 in different directions1 over the same ground4 ,if these essays were to be written now1 some things might be differently expressed or qualified1 but probably not so as to affect materially any important point4 ,accordingly1 they are here reprinted unchanged1 except by a few merely verbal alterations made in proof-reading1 and the striking out of one or two superfluous or immaterial passages4 ,a very few additional notes or references are appended4 ,to the last article but one a second part is now added1 and the more elaborate ,article ,,xiii is wholly new4 ,if it be objected that some of these pages are written in a lightness of vein not quite congruous with the gravity of the subject and the seriousness of its issues1 the excuse must be that they were written with perfect freedom1 most of them as anonymous contributions to popular journals1 and that an argument may not be the less sound or an exposition less effective for being playful4 ,some of the essays1 however1 dealing with points of speculative scientific interest1 may redress the balance1 and be thought sufficiently heavy if not solid4 ,to the objection likely to be made1 that they cover only a part of the ground1 it can only be replied that they do not pretend to be systematic or complete4 ,they are all essays relating in some way or other to the subject which has been1 during these years1 of paramount interest to naturalists1 and not much less so to most thinking people4 ,the first appeared between sixteen and seventeen years ago1 immediately after the publication of ,darwin's ,origin of ,species by ,means of ,natural ,selection1 as a review of that volume1 which1 it was then foreseen1 was to initiate a revolution in general scientific opinion4 ,long before our last article was written1 it could be affirmed that the general doctrine of the derivation of species 7to put it comprehensively7 has prevailed over that of specific creation1 at least to the extent of being the received and presumably in some sense true conception4 ,far from undertaking any general discussion of evolution1 several even of ,mr4 ,darwin's writings have not been noticed1 and topics which have been much discussed elsewhere are not here adverted to4 ,this applies especially to what may be called deductive evolution--a subject which lay beyond the writer's immediate scope1 and to which neither the bent of his mind nor the line of his studies has fitted him to do justice4 ,if these papers are useful at all1 it will be as showing how these new views of our day are regarded by a practical naturalist1 versed in one department only 7viz41 ,botany71 most interested in their bearings upon its special problems1 one accustomed to direct and close dealings with the facts in hand1 and disposed to rise from them only to the consideration of those general questions upon which they throw or from which they receive illustration4 ,then as to the natural theological questions which 7owing to circumstances needless now to be recalled or explained7 are here throughout brought into what most naturalists1 and some other readers1 may deem undue prominence1 there are many who may be interested to know how these increasingly prevalent views and their tendencies are regarded by one who is scientifically1 and in his own fashion1 a ,darwinian1 philosophically a convinced theist1 and religiously an acceptor of the creed commonly called the ,nicene1 as the exponent of the ,christian faith4 ,truth emerges sooner from error than from confusion1 says ,bacon2 and clearer views than commonly prevail upon the points at issue regarding religion and science are still sufficiently needed to justify these endeavors4 ,,botanic ,,garden1 ,,cambridge1 ,,mass41 ,june1 #ahgf4 ,i ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,species ,,by ,,means ,,of ,,natural ,,selection ,i-#a 7,american ,journal of ,science and ,arts1 ,march1 #ahfj7 ,this book is already exciting much attention4 ,two ,american editions are announced1 through which it will become familiar to many of our readers1 before these pages are issued4 ,an abstract of the argument--for the whole volume is one long argument1 as the author states--is unnecessary in such a case2 and it would be difficult to give by detached extracts4 ,for the volume itself is an abstract1 a prodromus of a detailed work upon which the author has been laboring for twenty years1 and which will take two or three more years to complete4 ,it is exceedingly compact2 and although useful summaries are appended to the several chapters1 and a general recapitulation contains the essence of the whole1 yet much of the aroma escapes in the treble distillation1 or is so concentrated that the flavor is lost to the general or even to the scientific reader4 ,the volume itself--the proof-spirit--is just condensed enough for its purpose4 ,it will be far more widely read1 and perhaps will make deeper impression1 than the elaborate work might have done1 with all its full details of the facts upon which the author's sweeping conclusions have been grounded4 ,at least it is a more readable book3 but all the facts that can be mustered in favor of the theory are still likely to be needed4 ,who1 upon a single perusal1 shall pass judgment upon a work like this1 to which twenty of the best years of the life of a most able naturalist have been devoted8 ,and who among those naturalists who hold a position that entitles them to pronounce summarily upon the subject1 can be expected to divest himself for the nonce of the influence of received and favorite systems8 ,in fact1 the controversy now opened is not likely to be settled in an off-hand way1 nor is it desirable that it should be4 ,a spirited conflict among opinions of every grade must ensue1 which--to borrow an illustration from the doctrine of the book before us--may be likened to the conflict in ,nature among races in the struggle for life1 which ,mr4 ,darwin describes2 through which the views most favored by facts will be developed and tested by ,natural ,selection1 the weaker ones be destroyed in the process1 and the strongest in the long-run alone survive4 ,the duty of reviewing this volume in the ,american ,journal of ,science would naturally devolve upon the principal editor1' whose wide observation and profound knowledge of various departments of natural history1 as well as of geology1 particularly qualify him for the task4 ,but he has been obliged to lay aside his pen1 and to seek in distant lands the entire repose from scientific labor so essential to the restoration of his health--a consummation devoutly to be wished1 and confidently to be expected4 ,interested as ,mr4 ,dana would be in this volume1 he could not be expected to accept this doctrine4 ,views so idealistic as those upon which his ,thoughts upon ,species ,i-#b are grounded1 will not harmonize readily with a doctrine so thoroughly naturalistic as that of ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,though it is just possible that one who regards the kinds of elementary matter1 such as oxygen and hydrogen1 and the definite compounds of these elementary matters1 and their compounds again1 in the mineral kingdom1 as constituting species1 in the same sense1 fundamentally1 as that of animal and vegetable species1 might admit an evolution of one species from another in the latter as well as the former case4 ,between the doctrines of this volume and those of the other great naturalist whose name adorns the title-page of this journal1 the widest divergence appears4 ,it is interesting to contrast the two1 and1 indeed1 is necessary to our purpose2 for this contrast brings out most prominently1 and sets in strongest light and shade1 the main features of the theory of the origination of species by means of ,natural ,selection4 ,the ordinary and generally-received view assumes the independent1 specific creation of each kind of plant and animal in a primitive stock1 which reproduces its like from generation to generation1 and so continues the species4 ,taking the idea of species from this perennial succession of essentially similar individuals1 the chain is logically traceable back to a local origin in a single stock1 a single pair1 or a single individual1 from which all the individuals composing the species have proceeded by natural generation4 ,although the similarity of progeny to parent is fundamental in the conception of species1 yet the likeness is by no means absolute2 all species vary more or less1 and some vary remarkably--partly from the influence of altered circumstances1 and partly 7and more really7 from unknown constitutional causes which altered conditions favor rather than originate4 ,but these variations are supposed to be mere oscillations from a normal state1 and in ,nature to be limited if not transitory2 so that the primordial differences between species and species at their beginning have not been effaced1 nor largely obscured1 by blending through variation4 ,consequently1 whenever two reputed species are found to blend in ,nature through a series of intermediate forms1 community of origin is inferred1 and all the forms1 however diverse1 are held to belong to one species4 ,moreover1 since bisexuality is the rule in ,nature 7which is practically carried out1 in the long-run1 far more generally than has been suspected71 and the heritable qualities of two distinct individuals are mingled in the offspring1 it is supposed that the general sterility of hybrid progeny interposes an effectual barrier against the blending of the original species by crossing4 ,from this generally-accepted view the well-known theory of ,agassiz and the recent one of ,darwin diverge in exactly opposite directions4 ,that of ,agassiz differs fundamentally from the ordinary view only in this1 that it discards the idea of a common descent as the real bond of union among the individuals of a species1 and also the idea of a local origin--supposing1 instead1 that each species originated simultaneously1 generally speaking1 over the whole geographical area it now occupies or has occupied1 and in perhaps as many individuals as it numbered at any subsequent period4 ,mr4 ,darwin1 on the other hand1 holds the orthodox view of the descent of all the individuals of a species not only from a local birthplace1 but from a single ancestor or pair2 and that each species has extended and established itself1 through natural agencies1 wherever it could2 so that the actual geographical distribution of any species is by no means a primordial arrangement1 but a natural result4 ,he goes farther1 and this volume is a protracted argument intended to prove that the species we recognize have not been independently created1 as such1 but have descended1 like varieties1 from other species4 ,varieties1 on this view1 are incipient or possible species3 species are varieties of a larger growth and a wider and earlier divergence from the parent stock2 the difference is one of degree1 not of kind4 ,the ordinary view--rendering unto ,caesar the things that are ,caesar's--looks to natural agencies for the actual distribution and perpetuation of species1 to a supernatural for their origin4 ,the theory of ,agassiz regards the origin of species and their present general distribution over the world as equally primordial1 equally supernatural2 that of ,darwin1 as equally derivative1 equally natural4 ,the theory of ,agassiz1 referring as it does the phenomena both of origin and distribution directly to the ,divine will--thus removing the latter with the former out of the domain of inductive science 7in which efficient cause is not the first1 but the last word7--may be said to be theistic to excess4 ,the contrasted theory is not open to this objection4 ,studying the facts and phenomena in reference to proximate causes1 and endeavoring to trace back the series of cause and effect as far as possible1 ,darwin's aim and processes are strictly scientific1 and his endeavor1 whether successful or futile1 must be regarded as a legitimate attempt to extend the domain of natural or physical science4 ,for1 though it well may be that organic forms have no physical or secondary cause1 yet this can be proved only indirectly1 by the failure of every attempt to refer the phenomena in question to causal laws4 ,but1 however originated1 and whatever be thought of ,mr4 ,darwin's arduous undertaking in this respect1 it is certain that plants and animals are subject from their birth to physical influences1 to which they have to accommodate themselves as they can4 ,how literally they are born to trouble1 and how incessant and severe the struggle for life generally is1 the present volume graphically describes4 ,few will deny that such influences must have gravely affected the range and the association of individuals and species on the earth's surface4 ,mr4 ,darwin thinks that1 acting upon an inherent predisposition to vary1 they have sufficed even to modify the species themselves and produce the present diversity4 ,mr4 ,agassiz believes that they have not even affected the geographical range and the actual association of species1 still less their forms2 but that every adaptation of species to climate1 and of species to species1 is as aboriginal1 and therefore as inexplicable1 as are the organic forms themselves4 ,who shall decide between such extreme views so ably maintained on either hand1 and say how much of truth there may be in each8 ,the present reviewer has not the presumption to undertake such a task4 ,having no prepossession in favor of naturalistic theories1 but struck with the eminent ability of ,mr4 ,darwin's work1 and charmed with its fairness1 our humbler duty will be performed if1 laying aside prejudice as much as we can1 we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method and argument1 offering by the way a few suggestions1 such as might occur to any naturalist of an inquiring mind4 ,an editorial character for this article must in justice be disclaimed4 ,the plural pronoun is employed not to give editorial weight1 but to avoid even the appearance of egotism1 and also the circumlocution which attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style4 ,we have contrasted these two extremely divergent theories1 in their broad statements4 ,it must not be inferred that they have no points nor ultimate results in common4 ,in the first place1 they practically agree in upsetting1 each in its own way1 the generally-received definition of species1 and in sweeping away the ground of their objective existence in ,nature4 ,the orthodox conception of species is that of lineal descent3 all the descendants of a common parent1 and no other1 constitute a species2 they have a certain identity because of their descent1 by which they are supposed to be recognizable4 ,so naturalists had a distinct idea of what they meant by the term species1 and a practical rule1 which was hardly the less useful because difficult to apply in many cases1 and because its application was indirect3 that is1 the community of origin had to be inferred from the likeness2 such degree of similarity1 and such only1 being held to be con-specific as could be shown or reasonably inferred to be compatible with a common origin4 ,and the usual concurrence of the whole body of naturalists 7having the same data before them7 as to what forms are species attests the value of the rule1 and also indicates some real foundation for it in ,nature4 ,but if species were created in numberless individuals over broad spaces of territory1 these individuals are connected only in idea1 and species differ from varieties on the one hand1 and from genera1 tribes1 etc41 on the other1 only in degree2 and no obvious natural reason remains for fixing upon this or that degree as specific1 at least no natural standard1 by which the opinions of different naturalists may be correlated4 ,species upon this view are enduring1 but subjective and ideal4 ,any three or more of the human races1 for example1 are species or not species1 according to the bent of the naturalist's mind4 ,darwin's theory brings us the other way to the same result4 ,in his view1 not only all the individuals of a species are descendants of a common parent1 but of all the related species also4 ,affinity1 relationship1 all the terms which naturalists use figuratively to express an underived1 unexplained resemblance among species1 have a literal meaning upon ,darwin's system1 which they little suspected1 namely1 that of inheritance4 ,varieties are the latest offshoots of the genealogical tree in an unlineal order2 species1 those of an earlier date1 but of no definite distinction2 genera1 more ancient species1 and so on4 ,the human races1 upon this view1 likewise may or may not be species according to the notions of each naturalist as to what differences are specific2 but1 if not species already1 those races that last long enough are sure to become so4 ,it is only a question of time4 ,how well the simile of a genealogical tree illustrates the main ideas of ,darwin's theory the following extract from the summary of the fourth chapter shows3 ,it is a truly wonderful fact--the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity--that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other in group subordinate to group1 in the manner which we everywhere behold--namely1 varieties of the same species most closely related together1 species of the same genus less closely and unequally related together1 forming sections and sub-genera1 species of distinct genera much less closely related1 and genera related in different degrees1 forming sub-families1 families1 orders1 sub-classes1 and classes4 ,the several subordinate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file1 but seem rather to be clustered round points1 and these round other points1 and so on in almost endless cycles4 ,on the view that each species has been independently created1 ,i can see no explanation of this great fact in the classification of all organic beings2 but1 to the best of my judgment1 it is explained through inheritance and the complex action of natural selection1 entailing extinction and divergence of character1 as we have seen illustrated in the diagram4 ,the affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree4 ,i believe this simile largely speaks the truth4 ,the green and budding twigs may represent existing species2 and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species4 ,at each period of growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides1 and overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches1 in the same manner as species and groups of species have tried to overmaster other species in the great battle for life4 ,the limbs divided into great branches1 and these into lesser and lesser branches1 were themselves once1 when the tree was small1 budding twigs2 and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups4 ,of the many twigs which flourished when the tree was a mere bush1 only two or three1 now grown into great branches1 yet survive and bear all the other branches2 so with the species which lived during long-past geological periods1 very few now have living and modified descendants4 ,from the first growth of the tree1 many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off2 and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders1 families1 and genera1 which have now no living representatives1 and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state4 ,as we here and there see a thin1 straggling branch springing from a fork low down in a tree1 and which by some chance has been favored and is still alive on its summit1 so we occasionally see an animal like the ,ornithorhynchus or ,lepidosiren1 which in some small degree connects by its affinities two large branches of life1 and which has apparently been saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station4 ,as buds give rise by growth to fresh buds1 and these1 if vigorous1 branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch1 so by generation ,i believe it has been with the great ,tree of ,life1 which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth1 and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramification4 ,it may also be noted that there is a significant correspondence between the rival theories as to the main facts employed4 ,apparently every capital fact in the one view is a capital fact in the other4 ,the difference is in the interpretation4 ,to run the parallel ready made to our hands3 ,i-#d ,the simultaneous existence of the most diversified types under identical circumstances 4 4 4 the repetition of similar types under the most diversified circumstances 4 4 4 the unity of plan in otherwise highly-diversified types of animals 4 4 4 the correspondence1 now generally known as special homologies1 in the details of structure otherwise entirely disconnected1 down to the most minute peculiarities 4 4 4 the various degrees and different kinds of relationship among animals which 7apparently7 can have no genealogical connection 4 4 4 the simultaneous existence in the earliest geological periods1 4 4 4 of representatives of all the great types of the animal kingdom 4 4 4 the gradation based upon complications of structure which may be traced among animals built upon the same plan2 the distribution of some types over the most extensive range of surface of the globe1 while others are limited to particular geographical areas 4 4 4 the identity of structures of these types1 notwithstanding their wide geographical distribution 4 4 4 the community of structure in certain respects of animals otherwise entirely different1 but living within the same geographical area 4 4 4 the connection by series of special structures observed in animals widely scattered over the surface of the globe 4 4 4 the definite relations in which animals stand to the surrounding world1 4 4 4 the relations in which individuals of the same species stand to one another 4 4 4 the limitation of the range of changes which animals undergo during their growth 4 4 4 the return to a definite norm of animals which multiply in various ways 4 4 4 the order of succession of the different types of animals and plants characteristic of the different geological epochs1 4 4 4 the localization of some types of animals upon the same points of the surface of the globe during several successive geological periods 4 4 4 the parallelism between the order of succession of animals and plants in geological times1 and the gradation among their living representatives 4 4 4 the parallelism between the order of succession of animals in geological times and the changes their living representatives undergo during their embryological growth1 ,i-#e 4 4 4 the combination in many extinct types of characters which in later ages appear disconnected in different types1 4 4 4 the parallelism between the gradation among animals and the changes they undergo during their growth1 4 4 4 the relations existing between these different series and the geographical distribution of animals1 4 4 4 the connection of all the known features of ,nature into one system-- ,in a word1 the whole relations of animals1 etc41 to surrounding ,nature and to each other1 are regarded under the one view as ultimate facts1 or in the ultimate aspect1 and interpreted theologically2 under the other as complex facts1 to be analyzed and interpreted scientifically4 ,the one naturalist1 perhaps too largely assuming the scientifically unexplained to be inexplicable1 views the phenomena only in their supposed relation to the ,divine mind4 ,the other1 naturally expecting many of these phenomena to be resolvable under investigation1 views them in their relations to one another1 and endeavors to explain them as far as he can 7and perhaps farther7 through natural causes4 ,but does the one really exclude the other8 ,does the investigation of physical causes stand opposed to the theological view and the study of the harmonies between mind and ,nature8 ,more than this1 is it not most presumable that an intellectual conception realized in ,nature would be realized through natural agencies8 ,mr4 ,agassiz answers these questions affirmatively when he declares that the task of science is to investigate what has been done1 to inquire if possible how it has been done1 rather than to ask what is possible for the ,deity1 since we can know that only by what actually exists2 and also when he extends the argument for the intervention in ,nature of a creative mind to its legitimate application in the inorganic world2 which1 he remarks1 considered in the same light1 would not fail also to exhibit unexpected evidence of thought1 in the character of the laws regulating the chemical combinations1 the action of physical forces1 etc41 etc4 ,i-#f ,mr4 ,agassiz1 however1 pronounces that the connection between the facts is only intellectual--an opinion which the analogy of the inorganic world1 just referred to1 does not confirm1 for there a material connection between the facts is justly held to be consistent with an intellectual--and which the most analogous cases we can think of in the organic world do not favor2 for there is a material connection between the grub1 the pupa1 and the butterfly1 between the tadpole and the frog1 or1 still better1 between those distinct animals which succeed each other in alternate and very dissimilar generations4 ,so that mere analogy might rather suggest a natural connection than the contrary2 and the contrary cannot be demonstrated until the possibilities of ,nature under the ,deity are fathomed4 ,but1 the intellectual connection being undoubted1 ,mr4 ,agassiz properly refers the whole to the agency of ,intellect as its first cause4 ,in doing so1 however1 he is not supposed to be offering a scientific explanation of the phenomena4 ,evidently he is considering only the ultimate why1 not the proximate why or how4 ,now the latter is just what ,mr4 ,darwin is considering4 ,he conceives of a physical connection between allied species2 but we suppose he does not deny their intellectual connection1 as related to a supreme intelligence4 ,certainly we see no reason why he should1 and many reasons why he should not1 ,indeed1 as we contemplate the actual direction of investigation and speculation in the physical and natural sciences1 we dimly apprehend a probable synthesis of these divergent theories1 and in it the ground for a strong stand against mere naturalism4 ,even if the doctrine of the origin of species through natural selection should prevail in our day1 we shall not despair2 being confident that the genius of an ,agassiz will be found equal to the work of constructing1 upon the mental and material foundations combined1 a theory of ,nature as theistic and as scientific as that which he has so eloquently expounded4 ,to conceive the possibility of the descent of species from species by insensibly fine gradations during a long course of time1 and to demonstrate its compatibility with a strictly theistic view of the universe1 is one thing2 to substantiate the theory itself or show its likelihood is quite another thing4 ,this brings us to consider what ,darwin's theory actually is1 and how he supports it4 ,that the existing kinds of animals and plants1 or many of them1 may be derived from other and earlier kinds1 in the lapse of time1 is by no means a novel proposition4 ,not to speak of ancient speculations of the sort1 it is the well-known ,lamarckian theory4 ,the first difficulty which such theories meet with is that in the present age1 with all its own and its inherited prejudgments1 the whole burden of proof is naturally1 and indeed properly1 laid upon the shoulders of the propounders2 and thus far the burden has been more than they could bear4 ,from the very nature of the case1 substantive proof of specific creation is not attainable2 but that of derivation or transmutation of species may be4 ,he who affirms the latter view is bound to do one or both of two things3 #a4 ,either to assign real and adequate causes1 the natural or necessary result of which must be to produce the present diversity of species and their actual relations2 or1 #b4 ,to show the general conformity of the whole body of facts to such assumption1 and also to adduce instances explicable by it and inexplicable by the received view1 so perhaps winning our assent to the doctrine1 through its competency to harmonize all the facts1 even though the cause of the assumed variation remain as occult as that of the transformation of tadpoles into frogs1 or that of ,coryne into ,sarzia4 ,the first line of proof1 successfully carried out1 would establish derivation as a true physical theory2 the second1 as a sufficient hypothesis4 ,lamarck mainly undertook the first line1 in a theory which has been so assailed by ridicule that it rarely receives the credit for ability to which in its day it was entitled1 ,but he assigned partly unreal1 partly insufficient causes2 and the attempt to account for a progressive change in species through the direct influence of physical agencies1 and through the appetencies and habits of animals reacting upon their structure1 thus causing the production and the successive modification of organs1 is a conceded and total failure4 ,the shadowy author of the ,vestiges of the ,natural ,history of ,creation can hardly be said to have undertaken either line1 in a scientific way4 ,he would explain the whole progressive evolution of ,nature by virtue of an inherent tendency to development1 thus giving us an idea or a word in place of a natural cause1 a restatement of the proposition instead of an explanation4 ,mr4 ,darwin attempts both lines of proof1 and in a strictly scientific spirit2 but the stress falls mainly upon the first1 for1 as he does assign real causes1 he is bound to prove their adequacy4 ,it should be kept in mind that1 while all direct proof of independent origination is attainable from the nature of the case1 the overthrow of particular schemes of derivation has not established the opposite proposition4 ,the futility of each hypothesis thus far proposed to account for derivation may be made apparent1 or unanswerable objections may be urged against it2 and each victory of the kind may render derivation more improbable1 and therefore specific creation more probable1 without settling the question either way4 ,new facts1 or new arguments and a new mode of viewing the question1 may some day change the whole aspect of the case4 ,it is with the latter that ,mr4 ,darwin now reopens the discussion4 ,having conceived the idea that varieties are incipient species1 he is led to study variation in the field where it shows itself most strikingly1 and affords the greatest facilities to investigation4 ,thoughtful naturalists have had increasing grounds to suspect that a reexamination of the question of species in zoology and botany1 commencing with those races which man knows most about1 viz41 the domesticated and cultivated races1 would be likely somewhat to modify the received idea of the entire fixity of species4 ,this field1 rich with various but unsystematized stores of knowledge accumulated by cultivators and breeders1 has been generally neglected by naturalists1 because these races are not in a state of nature2 whereas they deserve particular attention on this very account1 as experiments1 or the materials for experiments1 ready to our hand4 ,in domestication we vary some of the natural conditions of a species1 and thus learn experimentally what changes are within the reach of varying conditions in ,nature4 ,we separate and protect a favorite race against its foes or its competitors1 and thus learn what it might become if ,nature ever afforded it equal opportunities4 ,even when1 to subserve human uses1 we modify a domesticated race to the detriment of its native vigor1 or to the extent of practical monstrosity1 although we secure forms which would not be originated and could not be perpetuated in free ,nature1 yet we attain wider and juster views of the possible degree of variation4 ,we perceive that some species are more variable than others1 but that no species subjected to the experiment persistently refuses to vary2 and that1 when it has once begun to vary1 its varieties are not the less but the more subject to variation4 ,no case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation4 ,it is fair to conclude1 from the observation of plants and animals in a wild as well as domesticated state1 that the tendency to vary is general1 and even universal4 ,mr4 ,darwin does not believe that variability is an inherent and necessary contingency1 under all circumstances1 with all organic beings1 as some authors have thought4 ,no one supposes variation could occur under all circumstances2 but the facts on the whole imply a universal tendency1 ready to be manifested under favorable circumstances4 ,in reply to the assumption that man has chosen for domestication animals and plants having an extraordinary inherent tendency to vary1 and likewise to withstand diverse climates1 it is asked3 ,how could a savage possibly know1 when he first tamed an animal1 whether it would vary in succeeding generations and whether it would endure other climates8 ,has the little variability of the ass or ,guinea-fowl1 or the small power of endurance of warmth by the reindeer1 or of cold by the common camel1 prevented their domestication8 ,i cannot doubt that if other animals and plants1 equal in number to our domesticated productions1 and belonging to equally diverse classes and countries1 were taken from a state of nature1 and could be made to breed for an equal number of generations under domestication1 they would vary on an average as largely as the parent species of our existing domesticated productions have varied4 ,as to amount of variation1 there is the common remark of naturalists that the varieties of domesticated plants or animals often differ more widely than do the individuals of distinct species in a wild state3 and even in ,nature the individuals of some species are known to vary to a degree sensibly wider than that which separates related species4 ,in his instructive section on the breeds of the domestic pigeon1 our author remarks that at least a score of pigeons might be chosen which if shown to an ornithologist1 and he were told that they were wild birds1 would certainly be ranked by him as well-defined species4 ,moreover1 ,i do not believe that any ornithologist would place the ,english carrier1 the short-faced tumbler1 the runt1 the barb1 pouter1 and fantail1 in the same genus2 more especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited sub-breeds1 or species1 as he might have called them1 could be shown him4 ,that this is not a case like that of dogs1 in which probably the blood of more than one species is mingled1 ,mr4 ,darwin proceeds to show1 adducing cogent reasons for the common opinion that all have descended from the wild rock-pigeon4 ,then follow some suggestive remarks3 ,i have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some1 yet quite insufficient1 length2 because when ,i first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds1 knowing well how true they bred1 ,i felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to many species of finches1 or other large groups of birds1 in ,nature4 ,one circumstance has struck me much2 namely1 that all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants1 with whom ,i have ever conversed1 or whose treatises ,i have read1 are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species4 ,ask1 as ,i have asked1 a celebrated raiser of ,hereford cattle1 whether his cattle might not have descended from long-horns1 and he will laugh you to scorn4 ,i have never met a pigeon1 or poultry1 or duck1 or rabbit fancier1 who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species4 ,van ,mons1 in his treatise on pears and apples1 shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several sorts1 for instance a ,ribston-pippin or ,codlin-apple1 could ever have proceeded from the seeds of the same tree4 ,innumerable other examples could be given4 ,the explanation1 ,i think1 is simple3 from long-continued study they arc strongly impressed with the differences between the several races2 and though they well know that each race varies slightly1 for they win their prizes by selecting such slight differences1 yet they ignore all general arguments1 and refuse to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during many successive generations4 ,may not those naturalists who1 knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder1 and knowing no more than he does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent1 yet admit that many of our domestic races have descended from the same parents--may they not learn a lesson of caution1 when they deride the idea of species in a state of nature being lineal descendants of other species8 ,the actual causes of variation are unknown4 ,mr4 ,darwin favors the opinion of the late ,mr4 ,knight1 the great philosopher of horticulture1 that variability tinder domestication is somehow connected with excess of food4 ,he regards the unknown cause as acting chiefly upon the reproductive system of the parents1 which system1 judging from the effect of confinement or cultivation upon its functions1 he concludes to be more susceptible than any other to the action of changed conditions of life4 ,the tendency to vary certainly appears to be much stronger under domestication than in free ,nature4 ,but we are not sure that the greater variableness of cultivated races is not mainly owing to the far greater opportunities for manifestation and accumulation--a view seemingly all the more favorable to ,mr4 ,darwin's theory4 ,the actual amount of certain changes1 such as size or abundance of fruit1 size of udder1 stands of course in obvious relation to supply of food4 ,really1 we no more know the reason why the progeny occasionally deviates from the parent than we do why it usually resembles it4 ,though the laws and conditions governing variation are known to a certain extent1 those governing inheritance are apparently inscrutable4 ,perhaps1 ,darwin remarks1 the correct way of viewing the whole subject would be1 to look at the inheritance of every character whatever as the rule1 and non-inheritance as the anomaly4 ,this1 from general and obvious considerations1 we have long been accustomed to do4 ,now1 as exceptional instances are expected to be capable of explanation1 while ultimate laws are not1 it is quite possible that variation may be accounted for1 while the great primary law of inheritance remains a mysterious fact4 ,the common proposition is1 that species reproduce their like2 this is a sort of general inference1 only a degree closer to fact than the statement that genera reproduce their like4 ,the true proposition1 the fact incapable of further analysis1 is1 that individuals reproduce their like--that characteristics are inheritable4 ,so varieties1 or deviations1 once originated1 are perpetuable1 like species4 ,not so likely to be perpetuated1 at the outset2 for the new form tends to resemble a grandparent and a long line of similar ancestors1 as well as to resemble its immediate progenitors4 ,two forces which coincide in the ordinary case1 where the offspring resembles its parent1 act in different directions when it does not and it is uncertain which will prevail4 ,if the remoter but very potent ancestral influence predominates1 the variation disappears with the life of the individual4 ,if that of the immediate parent--feebler no doubt1 but closer--the variety survives in the offspring2 whose progeny now has a redoubled tendency to produce its own like2 whose progeny again is almost sure to produce its like1 since it is much the same whether it takes after its mother or its grandmother4 ,in this way races arise1 which under favorable conditions may be as hereditary as species4 ,in following these indications1 watching opportunities1 and breeding only from those individuals which vary most in a desirable direction1 man leads the course of variation as he leads a streamlet--apparently at will1 but never against the force of gravitation--to a long distance from its source1 and makes it more subservient to his use or fancy4 ,he unconsciously strengthens those variations which he prizes when he plants the seed of a favorite fruit1 preserves a favorite domestic animal1 drowns the uglier kittens of a litter1 and allows only the handsomest or the best mousers to propagate4 ,still more1 by methodical selection1 in recent times almost marvelous results have been produced in new breeds of cattle1 sheep1 and poultry1 and new varieties of fruit of greater and greater size or excellence4 ,it is said that all domestic varieties1 if left to run wild1 would revert to their aboriginal stocks4 ,probably they would wherever various races of one species were left to commingle4 ,at least the abnormal or exaggerated characteristics induced by high feeding1 or high cultivation and prolonged close breeding1 would promptly disappear2 and the surviving stock would soon blend into a homogeneous result 7in a way presently explained71 which would naturally be taken for the original form2 but we could seldom know if it were so4 ,it is by no means certain that the result would be the same if the races ran wild each in a separate region4 ,dr4 ,hooker doubts if there is a true reversion in the case of plants4 ,mr4 ,darwin's observations rather favor it in the animal kingdom4 ,with mingled races reversion seems well made out in the case of pigeons4 ,the common opinion upon this subject therefore probably has some foundation1 ,but even if we regard varieties as oscillations around a primitive centre or type1 still it appears from the readiness with which such varieties originate that a certain amount of disturbance would carry them beyond the influence of the primordial attraction1 where they may become new centres of variation4 ,some suppose that races cannot be perpetuated indefinitely even by keeping up the conditions under which they were fixed2 but the high antiquity of several1 and the actual fixity of many of them1 negative this assumption4 ,to assert that we could not breed our cart and race horses1 long and short horned cattle1 and poultry of various breeds1 for almost an infinite number of generations1 would be opposed to all experience4 ,why varieties develop so readily and deviate so widely under domestication1 while they are apparently so rare or so transient in free ,nature1 may easily be shown4 ,in ,nature1 even with hermaphrodite plants1 there is a vast amount of cross-fertilization among various individuals of the same species4 ,the inevitable result of this 7as was long ago explained in this ,journal ,i-#g7 is to repress variation1 to keep the mass of a species comparatively homogeneous over any area in which it abounds in individuals4 ,starting from a suggestion of the late ,mr4 ,knight1 now so familiar1 that close interbreeding diminishes vigor and fertility2 ,i-#h and perceiving that bisexuality is ever aimed at in ,nature--being attained physiologically in numerous cases where it is not structurally--,mr4 ,darwin has worked out the subject in detail1 and shown how general is the concurrence1 either habitual or occasional1 of two hermaphrodite individuals in the reproduction of their kind2 and has drawn the philosophical inference that probably no organic being self-fertilizes indefinitely2 but that a cross with another individual is occasionally--perhaps at very long intervals--indispensable4 ,we refer the reader to the section on the intercrossing of individuals 7pp4 #if--aja71 and also to an article in the ,gardeners' ,chronicle a year and a half ago1 for the details of a very interesting contribution to science1 irrespective of theory4 ,in domestication1 this intercrossing may be prevented2 and in this prevention lies the art of producing varieties4 ,but the art itself is ,nature1 since the whole art consists in allowing the most universal of all natural tendencies in organic things 7inheritance7 to operate uncontrolled by other and obviously incidental tendencies4 ,no new power1 no artificial force1 is brought into play either by separating the stock of a desirable variety so as to prevent mixture1 or by selecting for breeders those individuals which most largely partake of the peculiarities for which the breed is valued4 ,i-#i ,we see everywhere around us the remarkable results which ,nature may be said to have brought about under artificial selection and separation4 ,could she accomplish similar results when left to herself8 ,variations might begin1 we know they do begin1 in a wild state4 ,but would any of them be preserved and carried to an equal degree of deviation8 ,is there anything in ,nature which in the long-run may answer to artificial selection8 ,mr4 ,darwin thinks that there is2 and ,natural ,selection is the key-note of his discourse1 ,as a preliminary1 he has a short chapter to show that there is variation in ,nature1 and therefore something for natural selection to act upon4 ,he readily shows that such mere variations as may be directly referred to physical conditions 7like the depauperation of plants in a sterile soil1 or their dwarfing as they approach an ,alpine summit1 the thicker fur of an animal from far northward1 etc471 and also those individual differences which we everywhere recognize but do not pretend to account for1 are not separable by any assignable line from more strongly-marked varieties2 likewise that there is no clear demarkation between the latter and sub-species1 or varieties of the highest grade 7distinguished from species not by any known inconstancy1 but by the supposed lower importance of their characteristics72 nor between these and recognized species4 ,these differences blend into each other in an insensible series1 and the series impresses the mind with an idea of an actual passage4 ,this gradation from species downward is well made out4 ,to carry it one step farther upward1 our author presents in a strong light the differences which prevail among naturalists as to what forms should be admitted to the rank of species4 ,some genera 7and these in some countries7 give rise to far more discrepancy than others2 and it is concluded that the large or dominant genera are usually the most variable4 ,in a flora so small as the ,british1 #ahb plants1 generally reckoned as varieties1 have been ranked by some botanists as species4 ,selecting the ,british genera which include the most polymorphous forms1 it appears that ,babington's ,flora gives them #bea species1 ,bentham's only #aab1 a difference of #aci doubtful forms4 ,these are nearly the extreme views1 but they are the views of two most capable and most experienced judges1 in respect to one of the best-known floras of the world4 ,the fact is suggestive1 that the best-known countries furnish the greatest number of such doubtful cases4 ,illustrations of this kind may be multiplied to a great extent4 ,they make it plain that1 whether species in ,nature are aboriginal and definite or not1 our practical conclusions about them1 as embodied in systematic works1 are not facts but judgments1 and largely fallible judgments- ,how much of the actual coincidence of authorities is owing to imperfect or restricted observation1 and to one naturalist's adopting the conclusions of another without independent observation1 this is not the place to consider4 ,it is our impression that species of animals are more definitely marked than those of plants2 this may arise from our somewhat extended acquaintance with the latter1 and our ignorance of the former4 ,but we are constrained by our experience to admit the strong likelihood1 in botany1 that varieties on the one hand1 and what are called closely-related species on the other1 do not differ except in degree4 ,whenever this wider difference separating the latter can be spanned by intermediate forms1 as it sometimes is1 no botanist long resists the inevitable conclusion4 ,whenever1 therefore1 this wider difference can be shown to be compatible with community of origin1 and explained through natural selection or in any other way1 we are ready to adopt the probable conclusion2 and we see beforehand how strikingly the actual geographical association of related species favors the broader view4 ,whether we should continue to regard the forms in question as distinct species1 depends upon what meaning we shall finally attach to that term2 and that depends upon how far the doctrine of derivation can be carried back and how well it can be supported4 ,in applying his principle of natural selection to the work in hand1 ,mr4 ,darwin assumes1 as we have seen3 i4 ,some variability of animals and plants in nature2 #b4 ,the absence of any definite distinction between slight variations1 and varieties of the highest grade2 #c4 ,the fact that naturalists do not practically agree1 and do not increasingly tend to agree1 as to what forms are species and what are strong varieties1 thus rendering it probable that there may be no essential and original difference1 or no possibility of ascertaining it1 at least in many cases2 also1 #d4 ,that the most flourishing and dominant species of the larger genera on an average vary most 7a proposition which can be substantiated only by extensive comparisons1 the details of which are not given72 and1 #e4 ,that in large genera the species are apt to be closely but unequally allied together1 forming little clusters round certain species--just such clusters as would be formed if we suppose their members once to have been satellites or varieties of a central or parent species1 but to have attained at length a wider divergence and a specific character4 ,the fact of such association is undeniable2 and the use which ,mr4 ,darwin makes of it seems fair and natural4 ,the gist of ,mr4 ,darwin's work is to show that such varieties are gradually diverged into species and genera through natural selection2 that natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for existence which all living things are engaged in2 and that this struggle is an unavoidable consequence of several natural causes1 but mainly of the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase4 ,curiously enough1 ,mr4 ,darwin's theory is grounded upon the doctrine of ,malthus and the doctrine of ,hobbes4 ,the elder ,de,candolle had conceived the idea of the struggle for existence1 and1 in a passage which would have delighted the cynical philosopher of ,malmesbury1 had declared that all ,nature is at war1 one organism with another or with external ,nature2 and ,lyell and ,herbert had made considerable use of it4 ,but ,hobbes in his theory of society1 and ,darwin in his theory of natural history1 alone have built their systems upon it4 ,however moralists and political economists may regard these doctrines in their original application to human society and the relation of population to subsistence1 their thorough applicability to the great society of the organic world in general is now undeniable4 ,and to ,mr4 ,darwin belongs the credit of making this extended application1 and of working out the immensely diversified results with rare sagacity and untiring patience4 ,he has brought to view real causes which have been largely operative in the establishment of the actual association and geographical distribution of plants and animals4 ,in this he must be allowed to have made a very important contribution to an interesting department of science1 even if his theory fails in the endeavor to explain the origin or diversity of species4 ,nothing is easier1 says our author1 than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life1 or more difficult--at least ,i have found it so--than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind4 ,yet1 unless it be thoroughly ingrained in the mind1 ,i am convinced that the whole economy of ,nature1 with every fact on distribution1 rarity1 abundance1 extinction1 and variation1 will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood4 ,we behold the face of ,nature bright with gladness1 we often see superabundance of food2 we do not see1 or we forget1 that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds1 and are thus constantly destroying life2 or we forget how largely these songsters1 or their eggs1 or their nestlings1 are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey2 we do not always bear in mind that1 though food may be now superabundant1 it is not so at all seasons of each recurring year4--7p4 #fb47 ,there is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate that1 if not destroyed1 the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair4 ,even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years1 and at this rate1 in a few thousand years1 there would literally not be standing-room for his progeny4 ,linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds--and there is no plant so unproductive as this--and their seedlings next year produced two1 and so on1 then in twenty years there would be a million plants4 ,the elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals1 and ,i have taken some pains to estimate its pro67able minimum rate of natural increase2 it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old1 and goes on breeding till ninety years old1 bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval2 if this be so1 at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants1 descended from the first pair4 ,but we have better evidence on this subject than mere theoretical calculations1 namely1 the numerous recorded cases of the astonishingly rapid increase of various animals in a state of nature1 when circumstances have been favorable to them during two or three following seasons4 ,still more striking is the evidence from our domestic animals of many kinds which have run wild in several parts of the world2 if the statements of the rate of increase of slow-breeding cattle and horses in ,south ,america1 and latterly in ,australia1 had not been well authenticated1 they would have been quite incredible4 ,so it is with plants3 cases could be given of introduced plants which have become common throughout whole islands in a period of less than ten years4 ,several of the plants now most numerous over the wide plains of ,la ,plata1 clothing square leagues of surface almost to the exclusion of all other plants1 have been introduced from ,europe2 and there are plants which now range in ,india1 as ,i hear from ,dr4 ,falconer1 from ,cape ,comorin to the ,himalaya1 which have been imported from ,america since its discovery4 ,in such cases1 and endless instances could be given1 no one supposes that the fertility of these animals or plants has been suddenly and temporarily increased in any sensible degree4 ,the obvious explanation is1 that the conditions of life have been very favorable1 and that there has consequently been less destruction of the old and young1 and that nearly all the young have been enabled to breed4 ,in such cases the geometrical ratio of increase1 the result of which never fails to be surprising1 simply explains the extraordinarily rapid increase and wide diffusion of naturalized productions in their new homes4--7pp4 #fd1 #fe47 ,all plants and animals are tending to increase at a geometrical ratio2 all would most rapidly stock any station in which they could anyhow exist2 the increase must be checked by destruction at some period of life4--7p4 #fe47 ,the difference between the most and the least prolific species is of no account3 ,the condor lays a couple of eggs1 and the ostrich a score2 and yet in the same country the condor may be the more numerous of the two4 ,the ,fulmar petrel lays but one egg1 yet it is believed to be the most numerous bird in the world4--7p4 #fh47 ,the amount of food gives the extreme limit to which each species can increase2 but very frequently it is not the obtaining of food1 but the serving as prey to other animals1 which determines the average numbers of species4--7p4 #fh47 ,climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species1 and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought ,i believe to be the most effective of all checks4 ,i estimated that the winter of #ahed--'ee destroyed four-fifths of the birds in my own grounds2 and this is a tremendous destruction1 when we remember that ten per cent1 is an extraordinarily severe mortality from epidemics with man4 ,the action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence2 but1 in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food1 it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals1 whether of the same or of distinct species1 which subsist on the same kind of food1 ,even when climate1 for instance extreme cold1 acts directly1 it will be the least vigorous1 or those which have got least food through the advancing winter1 which will suffer most4 ,when we travel from south to north1 or from a damp region to a dry1 we invariably see some species gradually getting rarer and rarer1 and finally disappearing2 and1 the change of climate being conspicuous1 we are tempted to attribute the whole effect to its direct action4 ,but this is a very false view2 we forget that each species1 even where it most abounds1 is constantly suffering enormous destruction at some period of its life1 from enemies or from competitors for the same place and food2 and if these enemies or competitors be in the least degree favored by any slight change of climate1 they will increase in numbers1 and1 as each area is already stocked with inhabitants1 the other species will decrease4 ,when we travel southward and see a species decreasing in numbers1 we may feel sure that the cause lies quite as much in other species being favored as in this one being hurt4 ,so it is when we travel northward1 but in a somewhat lesser degree1 for the number of species of all kinds1 and therefore of competitors1 decreases northward2 hence1 in going northward1 or in ascending a mountain1 we far oftener meet with stunted forms1 due to the directly injurious action of climate1 than we do in proceeding southward or in descending a mountain4 ,when we reach the arctic regions1 or snow-capped summits1 or absolute deserts1 the struggle for life is almost exclusively with the elements4 ,that climate acts in main part indirectly by favoring other species1 we may clearly see in the prodigious number of plants in our gardens which can perfectly well endure our climate1 but which never become naturalized1 for they cannot compete with our native plants1 nor resist destruction by our native animals4--7pp4 #fh1 #fi47 ,after an instructive instance in which cattle absolutely determine the existence of the ,scotch fir1 we are referred to cases in which insects determine the existence of cattle3 ,perhaps ,paraguay offers the most curious instance of this2 for here neither cattle1 nor horses1 nor dogs1 have ever run wild1 though they swarm southward and northward in a feral state2 and ,azara and ,rengger have shown that this is caused by the greater number in ,paraguay of a certain fly1 which lays its eggs in the navels of these animals when first born4 ,the increase of these flies1 numerous as they are1 must be habitually checked by some means1 probably by birds4 ,hence1 if certain insectivorous birds 7whose numbers are probably regulated by hawks or beasts of prey7 were to increase in ,paraguay1 the flies would decrease--then cattle and horses would become feral1 and this would certainly greatly alter 7as indeed ,i have observed in parts of ,south ,america7 the vegetation2 this1 again1 would largely affect the insects2 and this1 as we have just seen in ,staffordshire1 the insectivorous birds1 and so onward in ever-increasing circles of complexity4 ,we began this series by insectivorous birds1 and we had ended with them4 ,not that in ,nature the relations can ever be as simple as this4 ,battle within battle must ever be recurring with varying success2 and yet in the long-run the forces are so nicely balanced that the face of ,nature remains uniform for long periods of time1 though assuredly the merest trifle would often give the victory to one organic being over another4 ,nevertheless1 so profound is our ignorance1 and so high our presumption1 that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being2 and as we do not see the cause1 we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world1 or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life6--7pp4 #gb1 #gc47 ,when we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank1 we arc tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance4 ,but how false a view is this6 ,every one has heard that when an ,american forest is cut down1 a very different vegetation springs up2 but it has been observed that the trees now growing on the ancient ,indian mounds1 in the ,southern ,united ,states1 display the same beautiful diversity and proportion of kinds as in the surrounding virgin forests4 ,what a struggle between the several kinds of trees must here have gone on during long centuries1 each annually scattering its seeds by the thousand2 what war between insect and insect--between insects1 snails1 and other animals1 with birds and beasts of prey--all striving to increase1 and all feeding on each other or on the trees1 or their seeds and seedlings1 or on the other plants which first clothed the ground and thus checked the growth of the trees6 ,throw up a handful of feathers1 and all must fall to the ground according to definite laws2 but how simple is this problem compared to the action and reaction of the innumerable plants and animals which have determined1 in the course of centuries1 the proportional numbers and kinds of trees now growing on the old ,indian ruins6--7pp4 #gd1 #ge47 ,for reasons obvious upon reflection1 the competition is often1 if not generally1 most severe between nearly related species when they are in contact1 so that one drives the other before it1 as the ,hanoverian the old ,english rat1 the small ,asiatic cockroach in ,russia1 its greater congener1 etc4 ,and this1 when duly considered1 explains many curious results2 such1 for instance1 as the considerable number of different genera of plants and animals which are generally found to inhabit any limited area4 ,the truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure is seen under many natural circumstances4 ,in an extremely small area1 especially if freely open to immigration1 and where the contest between individual and individual must be severe1 we always find great diversity in its inhabitants4 ,for instance1 ,i found that a piece of turf1 three feet by four in size1 which had been exposed for many years to exactly the same conditions1 supported twenty species of plants1 and these belonged to eighteen genera1 and to eight orders1 which showed how much these plants differed from each other4 ,so it is with the plants and insects on small and uniform islets2 and so in small ponds of fresh water4 ,farmers find that they can raise most food by a rotation of plants belonging to the most different orders2 ,nature follows what may be called a simultaneous rotation4 ,most of the animals and plants which live close round any small piece of ground could live on it 7supposing it not to be in any way peculiar in its nature71 and may be said to be striving to the utmost to live there2 but it is seen that1 where they come into the closest competition with each other1 the advantages of diversification of structure1 with the accompanying differences of habit and constitution1 determine that the inhabitants1 which thus jostle each other most closely1 shall1 as a general rule1 belong to what we call different genera and orders4--7p4 #aad47 ,the abundance of some forms1 the rarity and final extinction of many others1 and the consequent divergence of character or increase of difference among the surviving representatives1 are other consequences4 ,as favored forms increase1 the less favored must diminish in number1 for there is not room for all2 and the slightest advantage1 at first probably inappreciable to human observation1 must decide which shall prevail and which must perish1 or be driven to another and for it more favorable locality4 ,we cannot do justice to the interesting chapter upon natural selection by separated extracts4 ,the following must serve to show how the principle is supposed to work3 ,if during the long course of ages1 and under varying conditions of life1 organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization1 and ,i think this cannot be disputed2 if there be1 owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species1 at some age1 season1 or year1 a severe struggle for life1 and this certainly cannot be disputed3 then1 considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence1 causing an infinite diversity in structure1 constitution1 and habits1 to be advantageous to them1 ,i think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare1 in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man4 ,but if variations useful to any organic being do occur1 assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life2 and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized4 ,this principle of preservation ,i have called1 for the sake of brevity1 ,natural ,selection4--7pp4 #abf1 #abg47 ,in order to make it clear how1 as ,i believe1 natural selection acts1 ,i must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations4 ,let us take the case of a wolf1 which preys on various animals1 securing some by craft1 some by strength1 and some by fleetness2 and let us suppose that the fleetest prey1 a deer for instance1 had from any change in the country increased in numbers1 or that other prey had decreased in numbers1 during that season of the year when the wolf is hardest pressed for food4 ,i can under such circumstances see no reason to doubt that the swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving1 and so be preserved or selected--provided always that they retained strength to master their prey at this or at some other period of the year1 when they might be compelled to prey on other animals4 ,i can see no more reason to doubt this than that man can improve the fleetness of his greyhounds by careful and methodical selection1 or by that unconscious selection which results from each man trying to keep the best dogs without any thought of modifying the breed4 ,even without any change in the proportional numbers of the animals on which our wolf preyed1 a cub might be born with an innate tendency to pursue certain kinds of prey4 ,nor can this be thought very improbable2 for we often observe great differences in the natural tendencies of our domestic animals3 one cat1 for instance1 taking to catching rats1 another mice2 one cat1 according to ,mr4 ,st4 ,john1 bringing home winged game1 another hares or rabbits1 and another hunting on marshy ground61 and almost nightly catching woodcocks or snipes4 ,the tendency to catch rats rather than mice is known to be inherited4 ,now1 if any slight innate change of habit or of structure benefited an individual wolf1 it would have the best chance of surviving and of leaving offspring4 ,some of its young would probably inherit the same habits or structure1 and by the repetition of this process a new variety might be formed which would either supplant or coexist with the parent-form of wolf4 ,or1 again1 the wolves inhabiting a mountainous district1 and those frequenting the lowlands1 would naturally be forced to hunt different prey2 and from a continued preservation of the individuals best fitted for the two sites1 two varieties might slowly be formed4 ,these varieties would cross and blend where they met2 but to this subject of intercrossing we shall soon have to return4 ,i may add that1 according to ,mr4 ,pierce1 there are two varieties of the wolf inhabiting the ,catskill ,mountains in the ,united ,states1 one with a light greyhound-like form1 which pursues deer1 and the other more bulky1 with shorter legs1 which more frequently attacks the shepherd's flock4--7pp4 #ij1 #ia47 ,we eke out the illustration here with a counterpart instance1 viz41 the remark of ,dr4 ,bachman that the deer that reside permanently in the swamps of ,carolina are taller and longer-legged than those in the higher grounds4 ,i-#aj ,the limits allotted to this article are nearly reached1 yet only four of the fourteen chapters of the volume have been touched4 ,these1 however1 contain the fundamental principles of the theory1 and most of those applications of it which are capable of something like verification1 relating as they do to the phenomena now occurring4 ,some of our extracts also show how these principles are thought to have operated through the long lapse of the ages4 ,the chapters from the sixth to the ninth inclusive are designed to obviate difficulties and objections1 some of them so grave that to this day1 the author frankly says1 he can never reflect on them without being staggered4 ,we do not wonder at it4 ,after drawing what comfort he can from the imperfection of the geological record 7,chapter ,,ix71 which we suspect is scarcely exaggerated1 the author considers the geological succession of organic beings 7,chapter ,x71 to see whether they better accord with the common view of the immutability of species1 or with that of their slow and gradual modification4 ,geologists must settle that question4 ,then follow two most interesting and able chapters on the geographical distribution of plants and animals1 the summary of which we should be glad to cite2 then a fitting chapter upon classification1 morphology1 embryology1 etc41 as viewed in the light of this theory1 closes the argument2 the fourteenth chapter being a recapitulation4 ,the interest for the general reader heightens as the author advances on his perilous way and grapples manfully with the most formidable difficulties4 ,to account1 upon these principles1 for the gradual elimination and segregation of nearly allied forms--such as varieties1 sub-species1 and closely-related or representative species--also in a general way for their geographical association and present range1 is comparatively easy1 is apparently within the bounds of possibility4 ,could we stop here we should be fairly contented4 ,but1 to complete the system1 to carry out the principles to their ultimate conclusion1 and to explain by them many facts in geographical distribution which would still remain anomalous1 ,mr4 ,darwin is equally bound to account for the formation of genera1 families1 orders1 and even classes1 by natural selection4 ,he does not doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class1 and he concedes that analogy would press the conclusion still further2 while he admits that the more distinct the forms are1 the more the arguments fall away in force4 ,to command assent we naturally require decreasing probability to be overbalanced by an increased weight of evidence4 ,an opponent might plausibly1 and perhaps quite fairly1 urge that the links in the chain of argument are weakest just where the greatest stress falls upon them4 ,to which ,mr4 ,darwin's answer is1 that the best parts of the testimony have been lost4 ,he is confident that intermediate forms must have existed2 that in the olden times when the genera1 the families1 and the orders1 diverged from their parent stocks1 gradations existed as fine as those which now connect closely related species with varieties4 ,but they have passed and left no sign4 ,the geological record1 even if all displayed to view1 is a book from which not only many pages1 but even whole alternate chapters1 have been lost out1 or rather which were never printed from the autographs of ,nature4 ,the record was actually made in fossil lithography only at certain times and under certain conditions 7i4e41 at periods of slow subsidence and places of abundant sediment72 and of these records all but the last volume is out of print2 and of its pages only local glimpses have been obtained4 ,geologists1 except ,lyell1 will object to this--some of them moderately1 others with vehemence4 ,mr4 ,darwin himself admits1 with a candor rarely displayed on such occasions1 that he should have expected more geological evidence of transition than he finds1 and that all the most eminent paleontologists maintain the immutability of species4 ,the general fact1 however1 that the fossil fauna of each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the preceding and the succeeding faunas1 is much relied on4 ,we are brought one step nearer to the desired inference by the similar fact1 insisted on by all paleontologists1 that fossils from two consecutive formations are far more closely related to each other than are the fossils of two remote formations4 ,pictet gives a well-known instance--the general resemblance of the organic remains from the several stages of the chalk formation1 though the species are distinct at each stage4 ,this fact alone1 from its generality1 seems to have shaken ,prof4 ,pictet in his firm belief in the immutability of species 7p4 #cce74 ,what ,mr4 ,darwin now particularly wants to complete his inferential evidence is a proof that the same gradation may be traced in later periods1 say in the ,tertiary1 and between that period and the present2 also that the later gradations are finer1 so as to leave it doubtful whether the succession is one of species--believed on the one theory to be independent1 on the other1 derivative--or of varieties1 which are confessedly derivative4 ,the proof of the finer gradation appears to be forthcoming4 ,des ,hayes and ,lyell have concluded that many of the middle ,tertiary and a large proportion of the later ,tertiary mollusca are specifically identical with living species2 and this is still the almost universally prevalent view4 ,but ,mr4 ,agassiz states that1 in every instance where he had sufficient materials1 he had found that the species of the two epochs supposed to be identical by ,des ,hayes and ,lyell were in reality distinct1 although closely allied species4,i-#aa ,moreover1 he is now satisfied1 as we understand1 that the same gradation is traceable not merely in each great division of the ,tertiary1 but in particular deposits or successive beds1 each answering to a great number of years2 where what have passed unquestioned as members of one species1 upon closer examination of numerous specimens exhibit differences which in his opinion entitle them to be distinguished into two1 three1 or more species4 ,it is plain1 therefore1 that whatever conclusions can be fairly drawn from the present animal and vegetable kingdoms in favor of a gradation of varieties into species1 or into what may be regarded as such1 the same may be extended to the ,tertiary period4 ,in both cases1 what some call species others call varieties2 and in the later ,tertiary shells this difference in judgment affects almost half of the species6 ,we pass to a second difficulty in the way of ,mr4 ,darwin's theory2 to a case where we are perhaps entitled to demand of him evidence of gradation like that which connects the present with the ,tertiary mollusca4 ,wide1 very wide is the gap1 anatomically and physiologically 7we do not speak of the intellectual7 between the highest quadrumana and man2 and comparatively recent1 if ever1 must the line have bifurcated4 ,but where is there the slightest evidence of a common progenitor8 ,perhaps ,mr4 ,darwin would reply by another question3 where are the fossil remains of the men who made the flint knives and arrowheads of the ,somme ,valley8 ,we have a third objection1 one1 fortunately1 which has nothing to do with geology4 ,we can only state it here in brief terms4 ,the chapter on hybridism is most ingenious1 able1 and instructive4 ,if sterility of crosses is a special original arrangement to prevent the confusion of species by mingling1 as is generally assumed1 then1 since varieties cross readily and their offspring is fertile inter se1 there is a fundamental distinction between varieties and species4 ,mr4 ,darwin therefore labors to show that it is not a special endowment1 but an incidental acquirement4 ,he does show that the sterility of crosses is of all degrees2 upon which we have only to say1 ,natura non facit saltum1 here any more than elsewhere4 ,but1 upon his theory he is bound to show how sterility might be acquired1 through natural selection or through something else4 ,and the difficulty is1 that1 whereas individuals of the very same blood tend to be sterile1 and somewhat remoter unions diminish this tendency1 and when they have diverged into two varieties the cross-breeds between the two are more fertile than either pure stock--yet when they have diverged only one degree more the whole tendency is reversed1 and the mongrel is sterile1 either absolutely or relatively4 ,he who explains the genesis of species through purely natural agencies should assign a natural cause for this remarkable result2 and this ,mr4 ,darwin has not done4 ,whether original or derived1 however1 this arrangement to keep apart those forms which have1 or have acquired 7as the case may be71 a certain moderate amount of difference1 looks to us as much designed for the purpose1 as does a rachet to prevent reverse motion in a wheel4 ,if species have originated by divergence1 this keeps them apart4 ,here let us suggest a possibly attainable test of the theory of derivation1 a kind of instance which ,mr4 ,darwin may be fairly asked to produce--viz41 an instance of two varieties1 or what may be assumed as such1 which have diverged enough to reverse the movement1 to bring out some sterility in the crosses4 ,the best marked human races might offer the most likely case4 ,if mulattoes are sterile or tend to sterility1 as some naturalists confidently assert1 they afford ,mr4 ,darwin a case in point4 ,if1 as others think1 no such tendency is made out1 the required evidence is wanting4 ,a fourth and the most formidable difficulty is that of the production and specialization of organs4 ,it is well said that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws3 unity of type1 and adaptation to the conditions of existence4,i-#ab ,the special teleologists1 such as ,paley1 occupy themselves with the latter only2 they refer particular facts to special design1 but leave an overwhelming array of the widest facts inexplicable4 ,the morphologists build on unity of type1 or that fundamental agreement in the structure of each great class of beings which is quite independent of their habits or conditions of life2 which requires each individual to go through a certain formality1 and to accept1 at least for a time1 certain organs1 whether they are of any use to him or not4 ,philosophical minds form various conceptions for harmonizing the two views theoretically4 ,mr4 ,darwin harmonizes and explains them naturally4 ,adaptation to the conditions of existence is the result of natural selection2 unity of type1 of unity of descent4 ,accordingly1 as he puts his theory1 he is bound to account for the origination of new organs1 and for their diversity in each great type1 for their specialization1 and every adaptation of organ to function and of structure to condition1 through natural agencies4 ,whenever he attempts this he reminds us of ,lamarck1 and shows us how little light the science of a century devoted to structural investigation has thrown upon the mystery of organization4 ,here purely natural explanations fail4 ,the organs being given1 natural selection may account for some improvement2 if given of a variety of sorts or grades1 natural selection might determine which should survive and where it should prevail4 ,on all this ground the only line for the theory to take is to make the most of gradation and adherence to type as suggestive of derivation1 and unaccountable upon any other scientific view--deferring all attempts to explain how such a metamorphosis was effected1 until naturalists have explained how the tadpole is metamorphosed into a frog1 or one sort of polyp into another4 ,as to why it is so1 the philosophy of efficient cause1 and even the whole argument from design1 would stand1 upon the admission of such a theory of derivation1 precisely where they stand without it4 ,at least there is1 or need be1 no ground of difference here between ,darwin and ,agassiz4 ,the latter will admit1 with ,owen and every morphologist1 that hopeless is the attempt to explain the similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes4 ,on the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being1 we can only say that so it is1 that it has so pleased the ,creator to construct each animal and plant4 ,mr4 ,darwin1 in proposing a theory which suggests a how that harmonizes these facts into a system1 we trust implies that all was done wisely1 in the largest sense designedly1 and by an intelligent first cause4 ,the contemplation of the subject on the intellectual side1 the amplest exposition of the unity of plan in creation1 considered irrespective of natural agencies1 leads to no other conclusion4 ,we are thus1 at last1 brought to the question1 ,what would happen if the derivation of species were to be substantiated1 either as a true physical theory1 or as a sufficient hypothesis8 ,what would come of it8 ,the inquiry is a pertinent one1 just now4 ,for1 of those who agree with us in thinking that ,darwin has not established his theory of derivation many will admit with us that he has rendered a theory of derivation much less improbable than before2 that such a theory chimes in with the established doctrines of physical science1 and is not unlikely to be largely accepted long before it can be proved4 ,moreover1 the various notions that prevail--equally among the most and the least religious--as to the relations between natural agencies or phenomena and efficient cause1 are seemingly more crude1 obscure1 and discordant1 than they need be4 ,it is not surprising that the doctrine of the book should be denounced as atheistical4 ,what does surprise and concern us is1 that it should be so denounced by a scientific man1 on the broad assumption that a material connection between the members of a series of organized beings is inconsistent with the idea of their being intellectually connected with one another through the ,deity1 i4e41 as products of one mind1 as indicating and realizing a preconceived plan4 ,an assumption the rebound of which is somewhat fearful to contemplate1 but fortunately one which every natural birth protests against4 ,it would be more correct to say that the theory in itself is perfectly compatible with an atheistic view of the universe4 ,that is true2 but it is equally true of physical theories generally4 ,indeed1 it is more true of the theory of gravitation1 and of the nebular hypothesis1 than of the hypothesis in question4 ,the latter merely takes up a particular1 proximate cause1 or set of such causes1 from which1 it is argued1 the present diversity of species has or may have contingently resulted4 ,the author does not say necessarily resulted2 that the actual results in mode and measure1 and none other1 must have taken place4 ,on the other hand1 the theory of gravitation and its extension in the nebular hypothesis assume a universal and ultimate physical cause1 from which the effects in ,nature must necessarily have resulted4 ,now1 it is not thought1 at least at the present day1 that the establishment of the ,newtonian theory was a step toward atheism or pantheism4 ,yet the great achievement of ,newton consisted in proving that certain forces 7blind forces1 so far as the theory is concerned71 acting upon matter in certain directions1 must necessarily produce planetary orbits of the exact measure and form in which observation shows them to exist--a view which is just as consistent with eternal necessity1 either in the atheistic or the pantheistic form1 as it is with theism4 ,nor is the theory of derivation particularly exposed to the charge of the atheism of fortuity2 since it undertakes to assign real causes for harmonious and systematic results4 ,but1 of this1 a word at the close4 ,the value of such objections to the theory of derivation may be tested by one or two analogous cases4 ,the common scientific as well as popular belief is that of the original1 independent creation of oxygen and hydrogen1 iron1 gold1 and the like4 ,is the speculative opinion now increasingly held1 that some or all of the supposed elementary bodies are derivative or compound1 developed from some preceding forms of matter1 irreligious8 ,were the old alchemists atheists as well as dreamers in their attempts to transmute earth into gold8 ,or1 to take an instance from force 7power7--which stands one step nearer to efficient cause than form--was the attempt to prove that heat1 light1 electricity1 magnetism1 and even mechanical power1 are variations or transmutations of one force1 atheistical in its tendency8 ,the supposed establishment of this view is reckoned as one of the greatest scientific triumphs of this century4 ,perhaps1 however1 the objection is brought1 not so much against the speculation itself1 as against the attempt to show how derivation might have been brought about4 ,then the same objection applies to a recent ingenious hypothesis made to account for the genesis of the chemical elements out of the ethereal medium1 and to explain their several atomic weights and some other characteristics by their successive complexity--hydrogen consisting of so many atoms of ethereal substance united in a particular order1 and so on4 ,the speculation interested the philosophers of the ,british ,association1 and was thought innocent1 but unsupported by facts4 ,surely ,mr4 ,darwin's theory is none the worse1 morally1 for having some foundation in fact4 ,in our opinion1 then1 it is far easier to vindicate a theistic character for the derivative theory1 than to establish the theory itself upon adequate scientific evidence4 ,perhaps scarcely any philosophical objection can be urged against the former to which the nebular hypothesis is not equally exposed4 ,yet the nebular hypothesis finds general scientific acceptance1 and is adopted as the basis of an extended and recondite illustration in ,mr4 ,agassiz's great work4,i-#ac ,how the author of this book harmonizes his scientific theory with his philosophy and theology1 he has not informed us4 ,paley in his celebrated analogy with the watch1 insists that if the timepiece were so constructed as to produce other similar watches1 after a manner of generation in animals1 the argument from design would be all the stronger4 ,what is to hinder ,mr4 ,darwin from giving ,paley's argument a further a-fortiori extension to the supposed case of a watch which sometimes produces better watches1 and contrivances adapted to successive conditions1 and so at length turns out a chronometer1 a town clock1 or a series of organisms of the same type8 ,from certain incidental expressions at the close of the volume1 taken in connection with the motto adopted from ,whewell1 we judge it probable that our author regards the whole system of ,nature as one which had received at its first formation the impress of the will of its ,author1 foreseeing the varied yet necessary laws of its action throughout the whole of its existence1 ordaining when and bow each particular of the stupendous plan should be realized in effect1 and--with ,him to whom to will is to do--in ordaining doing it1 ,whether profoundly philosophical or not1 a view maintained by eminent philosophical physicists and theologians1 such as ,babbage on the one hand and ,jowett on the other1 will hardly be denounced as atheism4 ,perhaps ,mr4 ,darwin would prefer to express his idea in a more general way1 by adopting the thoughtful words of one of the most eminent naturalists of this or any age1 substituting the word action for thought1 since it is the former 7from which alone the latter can be inferred7 that he has been considering4 ,taking ,nature as exhibiting thought for my guide1 it appears to me that while human thought is consecutive1 ,divine thought is simultaneous1 embracing at the same time and forever1 in the past1 the present and the future1 the most diversified relations among hundreds of thousands of organized beings1 each of which may present complications again1 which to study and understand even imperfectly--as for instance man himself-- mankind has already spent thousands of years4,i-#ad ,in thus conceiving of the ,divine ,power in act as coetaneous with ,divine ,thought1 and of both as far as may be apart from the human element of time1 our author may regard the intervention of the ,creator either as1 humanly speaking1 done from all time1 or else as doing through all time4 ,in the ultimate analysis we suppose that every philosophical theist must adopt one or the other conception4 ,a perversion of the first view leads toward atheism1 the notion of an eternal sequence of cause and effect1 for which there is no first cause--a view which few sane persons can long rest in4 ,the danger which may threaten the second view is pantheism4 ,we feel safe from either error1 in our profound conviction that there is order in the universe2 that order presupposes mind2 design1 will2 and mind or will1 personality4 ,thus guarded1 we much prefer the second of the two conceptions of causation1 as the more philosophical as well as ,christian view--a view which leaves us with the same difficulties and the same mysteries in ,nature as in ,providence1 and no other4 ,natural law1 upon this view1 is the human conception of continued and orderly ,divine action4 ,we do not suppose that less power1 or other power1 is required to sustain the universe and carry on its operations1 than to bring it into being4 ,so1 while conceiving no improbability of interventions of ,creative mind in ,nature1 if by such is meant the bringing to pass of new and fitting events at fitting times1 we leave it for profounder minds to establish1 if they can1 a rational distinction in kind between his working in ,nature carrying on operations1 and in initiating those operations4 ,we wished1 under the light of such views1 to examine more critically the doctrine of this book1 especially of some questionable parts2 for instance1 its explanation of the natural development of organs1 and its implication of a necessary acquirement of mental power in the ascending scale of gradation4 ,but there is room only for the general declaration that we cannot think the ,cosmos a series which began with chaos and ends with mind1 or of which mind is a result3 that1 if1 by the successive origination of species and organs through natural agencies1 the author means a series of events which succeed each other irrespective of a continued directing intelligence--events which mind does not order and shape to destined ends--then he has not established that doctrine1 nor advanced toward its establishment1 but has accumulated improbabilities beyond all belief4 ,take the formation and the origination of the successive degrees of complexity of eyes as a specimen4 ,the treatment of this subject 7pp4 i#hh1 #ahi71 upon one interpretation1 is open to all the objections referred to2 but1 if1 on the other hand1 we may rightly compare the eye to a telescope1 perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects1 we could carry out the analogy1 and draw satisfactory illustrations and inferences from it4 ,the essential1 the directly intellectual thing is the making of the improvements in the telescope or the steam-engine4 ,whether the successive improvements1 being small at each step1 and consistent with the general type of the instrument1 are applied to some of the individual machines1 or entire new machines are constructed for each1 is a minor matter4 ,though1 if machines could engender1 the adaptive method would be most economical2 and economy is said to be a paramount law in ,nature4 ,the origination of the improvements1 and the successive adaptations to meet new conditions or subserve other ends1 are what answer to the supernatural1 and therefore remain inexplicable4 ,as to bringing them into use1 though wisdom foresees the result1 the circumstances and the natural competition will take care of that1 in the long-run4 ,the old ones will go out of use fast enough1 except where an old and simple machine remains still best adapted to a particular purpose or condition--as1 for instance1 the old ,newcomen engine for pumping out coal-pits4 ,if there's a ,divinity that shapes these ends1 the whole is intelligible and reasonable2 otherwise1 not4 ,we regret that the necessity of discussing philosophical questions has prevented a fuller examination of the theory itself1 and of the interesting scientific points which are brought to bear in its favor4 ,one of its neatest points1 certainly a very strong one for the local origination of species1 and their gradual diffusion under natural agencies1 we must reserve for some other convenient opportunity4 ,the work is a scientific one1 rigidly restricted to its direct object2 and by its science it must stand or fall4 ,its aim is1 probably1 not to deny creative intervention in ,nature--for the admission of the independent origination of certain types does away with all antecedent improbability of as much intervention as may be required--but to maintain that ,natural ,selection1 in explaining the facts1 explains also many classes of facts which thousand-fold repeated independent acts of creation do not explain1 but leave more mysterious than ever4 ,how far the author has succeeded1 the scientific world will in due time be able to pronounce4 ,as these sheets are passing through the press1 a copy of the second edition has reached us4 ,we notice with pleasure the insertion of an additional motto on the reverse of the title page1 directly claiming the theistic view which we have vindicated for the doctrine4 ,indeed1 these pertinent words of the eminently wise ,bishop ,butler comprise1 in their simplest expression1 the whole substance of our later pages3 ,the only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated1 fixed1 or settled2 since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent mind to render it so1 i4e41 to effect it continually or at stated times1 as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once4 ,,ii ,,design ,,versus ,,necessity ,,discussion ,,between ,,two ,,readers ,,of ,,darwin',s ,,treatise ,,on ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,species1 ,,upon ,,its ,,natural ,,theology 7,american ,journal of ,science and ,arts1 ,september1 #ahfj7 ,d4,t4--,is ,darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic8 or1 does it tend to atheism or pantheism8 ,before attempting any solution of this question1 permit me to say a few words tending to obtain a definite conception of necessity and design1 as the sources from which events may originate1 each independent of the other2 and we shall1 perhaps1 best attain a clear understanding of each1 by the illustration of an example in which simple human designers act upon the physical powers of common matter4 ,suppose1 then1 a square billiard-table to be placed with its corners directed to the four cardinal points4 ,suppose a player1 standing at the north corner1 to strike a red ball directly to the south1 his design being to lodge the ball in the south pocket2 which design1 if not interfered with1 must1 of course be accomplished4 ,then suppose another player1 standing at the east corner1 to direct a white ball to the west corner4 ,this design also1 if not interfered with1 must be accomplished4 ,next suppose both players to strike their balls at the same instant1 with like forces1 in the directions before given4 ,in this case the balls would not pass as before1 namely1 the red ball to the south1 and the white ball to the west1 but they must both meet and strike each other in the centre of the table1 and1 being perfectly elastic1 the red ball must pass to the west pocket1 and the white ball to the south pocket4 ,we may suppose that the players acted wholly without concert with each other1 indeed1 they may be ignorant of each other' s design1 or even of each other's existence2 still we know that the events must happen as herein described4 ,now1 the first half of the course of these two balls is from an impulse1 or proceeds from a power1 acting from design4 ,each player has the design of driving his ball across the table in a diagonal line to accomplish its lodgment at the opposite corner of the table4 ,neither designed that his ball should be deflected from that course and pass to another corner of the table4 ,the direction of this second part of the motion must be referred entirely to necessity1 which directly interferes with the purpose of him who designed the rectilinear direction4 ,we are not1 in this case1 to go back to find design in the creation of the powers or laws of inertia and elasticity1 after the order of which the deflection1 at the instant of collision1 necessarily takes place4 ,we know that these powers were inherent in the balls1 and were not created to answer this special deflection4 ,we are required1 by the hypothesis1 to confine attention in point of time1 from the instant preceding the impact of the balls1 to the time of their arrival at the opposite corners of the table4 ,the cues aremoved by design4 ,the impacts are acts from design4 ,the first half of the motion of each ball is under the direction of design4 ,we mean by this the particular design of each player4 ,but1 at the instant of the collision of the balls upon each other1 direction from design ceases1 and the balls no longer obey the particular designs of the players1 the ends or purposes intended by them are not accomplished1 but frustrated1 by necessity1 or by the necessary action of the powers of inertia and elasticity1 which are inherent in matter1 and are not made by any design of a ,creator for this special action1 or to serve this special purpose1 but would have existed in the materials of which the balls were made1 although the players had never been born4 ,i have thus stated1 by a simple example in physical action1 what is meant by design and what by necessity2 and that the latter may exist without any dependence upon the former4 ,if ,i have given the statement with what may be thought1 by some1 unnecessary prolixity1 ,i have only to say that ,i have found many minds to have a great difficulty in conceiving of necessity as acting altogether independent of design4 ,let me now trace these principles as sources of action in ,darwin's work or theory4 ,let us see how much there is of design acting to produce a foreseen end1 and thus proving a reasoning and self-conscious ,creator2 and how much of mere blind power acting without rational design1 or without a specific purpose or conscious foresight4 ,mr4 ,darwin has specified in a most clear and unmistakable manner the operation of his three great powers1 or rather1 the three great laws by which the organic power of life acts in the formation of an eye4 7,see p4 #afi47 ,following the method he has pointed out1 we will take a number of animals of the same species1 in which the eye is not developed4 ,they may have all the other senses1 with the organs of nutrition1 circulation1 respiration1 and locomotion4 ,they all have a brain and nerves1 and some of these nerves may be sensitive to light2 but have no combination of retina1 membranes1 humors1 etc41 by which the distinct image of an object may be formed and conveyed by the optic nerve to the cognizance of the internal perception1 or the mind4 ,the animal in this case would be merely sensible of the difference between light and darkness4 ,he would have no power of discriminating form1 size1 shape1 or color1 the difference of objects1 and to gain from these a knowledge of their being useful or hurtful1 friends or enemies4 ,up to this point there is no appearance of necessity upon the scene4 ,the billiard-balls have not yet struck together1 and we will suppose that none of the arguments that may be used to prove1 from this organism1 thus existing1 that it could not have come into form and being without a creator acting to this end with intelligence and design1 are opposed by anything that can be found in ,darwin's theory2 for1 so far1 ,darwin's laws are supposed not to have come into operation4 ,give the animals1 thus organized1 food and room1 and they may go on1 from generation to generation1 upon the same organic level4 ,those individuals that1 from natural variation1 are born with light-nerves a little more sensitive to light than their parents1 will cross or interbreed with those who have the same organs a little less sensitive1 and thus the mean standard will be kept up without any advancement4 ,if our billiard-table were sufficiently extensive1 i4 e41 infinite1 the balls rolled from the corners would never meet1 and the necessity which we have supposed to deflect them would never act4 ,the moment1 however1 that the want of space or food commences natural selection begins4 ,here the balls meet1 and all future action is governed by necessity4 ,the best forms1 or those nerves most sensitive to light1 connected with incipient membranes and humors for corneas and lenses1 are picked out and preserved by natural selection1 of necessity4 ,all cannot live and propagate1 and it is a necessity1 obvious to all1 that the weaker must perish1 if the theory be true4 ,working on1 in this way1 through countless generations1 the eye is at last #ee formed in all its beauty and excellence4 ,it must 7always assuming that this theory is true7 result from this combined action of natural variation1 the struggle for life1 and natural selection1 with as much certainty as the balls1 after collision1 must pass to corners of the table different from those to which they were directed1 and so far forth as the eye is formed by these laws1 acting upward from the nerve merely sensitive to light1 we can no more infer design1 and from design a designer1 than we can infer design in the direction of the billiard-balls after the collision4 ,both are sufficiently accounted for by blind powers acting under a blind necessity4 ,take away the struggle for life from the one1 and the collision of the balls from the other--and neither of these was designed--and the animal would have gone on without eyes4 ,the balls would have found the corners of the table to which they were first directed4 ,while1 therefore1 it seems to me clear that one who can find no proof of the existence of an intelligent ,creator except through the evidence of design in the organic world1 can find no evidence of such design in the construction of the eye1 if it were constructed under the operation of ,darwin's laws1 ,i shall not for one moment contend that these laws are incompatible with design and a self-conscious1 intelligent ,creator4 ,such design might1 indeed1 have coexisted with the necessity or natural selection2 and so the billiard-players might have designed the collision of their balls2 but neither the formation of the eye1 nor the path of the balls after collision1 furnishes any sufficient proof of such design in either case4 ,one1 indeed1 who believes1 from revelation or any other cause1 in the existence of such a ,creator1 the fountain and ,source of all things in heaven above and in the earth beneath1 will see in natural variation1 the struggle for life1 and natural selection1 only the order or mode in which this ,creator1 in his own perfect wisdom1 sees fit to act4 ,happy is he who can thus see and adore4 ,but how many are there who have no such #ef belief from intuition1 or faith in revelation2 but who have by careful and elaborate search in the physical1 and more especially in the organic world1 inferred1 by induction1 the existence of ,god from what has seemed to them the wonderful adaptation of the different organs and parts of the animal body to its1 apparently1 designed ends6 ,imagine a mind of this skeptical character1 in all honesty and under its best reason1 after finding itself obliged to reject the evidence of revelation1 to commence a search after the ,creator1 in the light of natural theology4 ,he goes through the proof for final cause and design1 as given in a summary though clear1 plain1 and convincing form1 in the pages of ,paley and the ,bridgewater ,treatises4 ,the eye and the hand1 those perfect instruments of optical and mechanical contrivance and adaptation1 without the least waste or surplusage--these1 say ,paley and ,bell1 certainly prove a designing maker as much as the palace or the watch proves an architect or a watchmaker4 ,let this mind1 in this state1 cross ,darwin's work1 and find that1 after a sensitive nerve or a rudimentary hoof or claw1 no design is to be found4 ,from this point upward the development is the mere necessary result of natural selection2 and let him receive this law of natural selection as true1 and where does he find himself8 ,before1 he could refer the existence of the eye1 for example1 only to design1 or chance4 ,there was no other alternative4 ,he rejected chance1 as impossible4 ,it must then be a design4 ,but ,darwin brings up another power1 namely1 natural selection1 in place of this impossible chance4 ,this not only may1 but1 according to ,darwin1 must of necessity produce an eye4 ,it may indeed coexist with design1 but it must exist and act and produce its results1 even without design4 ,will such a mind1 under such circumstances1 infer the existence of the designer--,god--when he can1 at the same time1 satisfactorily account for the thing produced1 by the operation of this natural selection8 ,it seems to me1 therefore1 perfectly evident #eg that the substitution of natural selection1 by necessity1 for design in the formation of the organic world1 is a step decidedly atheistical4 ,it is in vain to say that ,darwin takes the creation of organic life1 in its simplest forms1 to have been the work of the ,deity4 ,in giving up design in these highest and most complex forms of organization1 which have always been relied upon as the crowning proof of the existence of an intelligent ,creator1 without whose intellectual power they could not have been brought into being1 he takes a most decided step to banish a belief in the intelligent action of ,god from the organic world4 ,the lower organisms will go next4 ,the atheist will say1 ,wait a little4 ,some future ,darwin will show how the simple forms came necessarily from inorganic matter4 ,this is but another step by which1 according to ,laplace1 the discoveries of science throw final causes further back4 ,a4,g4--,it is conceded that1 if the two players in the supposed case were ignorant of each other's presence1 the designs of both were frustrated1 and from necessity4 ,thus far it is not needful to inquire whether this necessary consequence is an unconditional or a conditioned necessity1 nor to require a more definite statement of the meaning attached to the word necessity as a supposed third alternative4 ,but1 if the players knew of each other's presence1 we could not infer from the result that the design of both or of either was frustrated4 ,one of them may have intended to frustrate the other's design1 and to effect his own4 ,or both may have been equally conversant with the properties of the matter and the relation of the forces concerned 7whatever the cause1 origin1 or nature1 of these forces and properties71 and the result may have been according to the designs of both4 ,as you admit that they might or might not have designed the collision of their balls and its consequences the question arises whether there is any way of ascertaining which of the two conceptions we may form about it is the true one4 ,now1 let it be remarked that design can never be demonstrated4 ,witnessing the act does not make known the design1 as we have seen in the case assumed for the basis of the argument4 ,the word of the actor is not proof2 and that source of evidence is excluded from the cases in question4 ,the only way left1 and the only possible way in cases where testimony is out of the question1 is to infer the design from the result1 or from arrangements which strike us as adapted or intended to produce a certain result1 which affords a presumption of design4 ,the strength of this presumption may be zero1 or an even chance1 as perhaps it is in the assumed case2 but the probability of design will increase with the particularity of the act1 the specialty of the arrangement or machinery1 and with the number of identical or yet more of similar and analogous instances1 until it rises to a moral certainty--i4 e41 to a conviction which practically we are as unable to resist as we are to deny the cogency of a mathematical demonstration4 ,a single instance1 or set of instances1 of a comparatively simple arrangement might suffice4 ,for instance1 we should not doubt that a pump was designed to raise water by the moving of the handle4 ,of course1 the conviction is the stronger1 or at least the sooner arrived at1 where we can imitate the arrangement1 and ourselves produce the result at will1 as we could with a pump1 and also with the billiard-balls4 ,and here ,i would suggest that your billiard-table1 with the case of collision1 answers well to a machine4 ,in both a result is produced by indirection--by applying a force out of line of the ultimate direction4 ,and1 as ,i should feel as confident that a man intended to raise water who was working a pumphandle1 as if he were bringing it up in pailfuls from below by means of a ladder1 so1 after due examination of the billiard-table and its appurtenances1 ,i should probably think it likely that the effect of the rebound was expected and intended no less than that of the immediate impulse4 ,and a similar inspection of arrangements and results in ,nature would raise at least an equal presumption of design4 ,you allow that the rebound might have been intended1 but you require proof that it was4 ,we agree that a single such instance affords no evidence either way4 ,but how would it be if you saw the men doing the same thing over and over8 and if they varied it by other arrangements of the balls or of the blow1 and these were followed by analogous results8 ,how if you at length discovered a profitable end of the operation1 say the winning of a wager8 ,so in the counterpart case of natural selection3 must we not infer intention from the arrangements and the results8 ,but ,i will take another case of the very same sort1 though simpler1 and better adapted to illustrate natural selection2 because the change of direction--your necessity--acts gradually or successively1 instead of abruptly4 ,suppose ,i hit a man standing obliquely in my rear1 by throwing forward a crooked stick1 called a boomerang4 ,how could he know whether the blow was intentional or not8 ,but suppose ,i had been known to throw boomerangs before2 suppose that1 on different occasions1 ,i had before wounded persons by the same1 or other indirect and apparently aimless actions2 and suppose that an object appeared to be gained in the result--that definite ends were attained--would it not at length be inferred that my assault1 though indirect1 or apparently indirect1 was designed8 ,to make the case more nearly parallel with those it is brought to illustrate1 you have only to suppose that1 although the boomerang thrown by me went forward to a definite place1 and at least appeared to subserve a purpose1 and the bystanders1 after a while1 could get traces of the mode or the empirical law of its flight1 yet they could not themselves do anything with it4 ,it was quite beyond their power to use it4 ,would they doubt1 or deny my intention1 on that account8 ,no3 they would insist that design on my part must be presumed from the nature of the results2 that1 though design may have been wanting in any one case1 yet the repetition of the result1 and from different positions and under varied circumstances1 showed that there must have been design4 ,moreover1 in the way your case is stated1 it seems to concede the most important half of the question1 and so affords a presumption for the rest1 on the side of design4 ,for you seem to assume an actor1 a designer1 accomplishing his design in the first instance4 ,you--a bystander--infer that the player effected his design in sending the first ball to the pocket before him4 ,you infer this from observation alone4 ,must you not from a continuance of the same observation equally infer a common design of the two players in the complex result1 or a design of one of them to frustrate the design of the other8 ,if you grant a designing actor1 the presumption of design is as strong1 or upon continued observation of instances soon becomes as strong1 in regard to the deflection of the balls1 or variation of the species1 as it was for the result of the first impulse or for the production of the original animal1 etc4 ,but1 in the case to be illustrated1 we do not see the player4 ,we see only the movement of the balls4 ,now1 if the contrivances and adaptations referred to really do prove a designer as much as the palace or the watch proves an architect or a watchmaker--as ,paley and ,bell argue1 and as your skeptic admits1 while the alternative is between design and chance--then they prove it with all the proof the case is susceptible of1 and with complete conviction4 ,for we cannot doubt that the watch had a watchmaker4 ,and if they prove it on the supposition that the unseen operator acted immediately--i4e41 that the player directly impelled the balls in the directions we see them moving1 ,i insist that this proof is not impaired by our ascertaining that he acted mediately--i4e41 that the present state or form of the plants or animals1 like the present position of the billiard-balls1 resulted from the collision of the individuals with one another1 or with the surroundings4 ,the original impulse1 which we once supposed was in the line of the observed movement1 only proves to have been in a different direction2 but the series of movements took place with a series of results1 each and all of them none the less determined1 none the less designed4 ,wherefore1 when1 at the close1 you quote ,laplace1 that the discoveries of science throw final causes farther back1 the most you can mean is1 that they constrain us to look farther back for the impulse4 ,they do not at all throw the argument for design farther back1 in the sense of furnishing evidence or presumption that only the primary impulse was designed1 and that all the rest followed from chance or necessity4 ,evidence of design1 ,i think you will allow1 everywhere is drawn from the observation of adaptations and of results1 and has really nothing to do with anything else1 except where you can take the word for the will4 ,and in that case you have not argument for design1 but testimony4 ,in ,nature we have no testimony2 but the argument is overwhelming4 ,now1 note that the argument of the olden time--that of ,paley1 etc41 which your skeptic found so convincing--was always the argument for design in the movement of the balls after deflection4 ,for it was drawn from animals produced by generation1 not by creation1 and through a long succession of generations or deflections4 ,wherefore1 if the argument for design is perfect in the case of an animal derived from a long succession of individuals as nearly alike as offspring is generally like parents and grandparents1 and if this argument is not weakened when a variation1 or series of variations1 has occurred in the course1 as great as any variations we know of among domestic cattle1 how then is it weakened by the supposition1 or by the likelihood1 that the variations have been twice or thrice as great as we formerly supposed1 or because the variations have been picked out1 and a few of them pre served as breeders of still other variations1 by natural selection8 ,finally let it be noted that your element of necessity has to do1 so far as we know1 only with the picking out and preserving of certain changing forms1 i4 e41 with the natural selection4 ,this selection1 you may say1 must happen under the circumstances4 ,this is a necessary result of the collision of the balls2 and these results can be predicted4 ,if the balls strike so and so1 they will be deflected so and so4 ,but the variation itself is of the nature of an origination4 ,it answers well to the original impulse of the balls1 or to a series of such impulses4 ,we cannot predict what particular new variation will occur from any observation of the past4 ,just as the first impulse was given to the balls at a point out of sight1 so the impulse which resulted in the variety or new form was given at a point beyond observation1 and is equally mysterious or unaccountable1 except on the supposition of an ordaining will4 ,the parent had not the peculiarity of the variety1 the progeny has4 ,between the two is the dim or obscure region of the formation of a new individual1 in some unknown part of which1 and in some wholly unknown way1 the difference is intercalated4 ,to introduce necessity here is gratuitous and unscientific2 but here you must have it to make your argument valid4 ,i agree that1 judging from the past1 it is not improbable that variation itself may be hereafter shown to result from physical causes4 ,when it is so shown1 you may extend your necessity into this region1 but not till then4 ,but the whole course of scientific discovery goes to assure us that the discovery of the cause of variation will be only a resolution of variation into two factors3 one1 the immediate secondary cause of the changes1 which so far explains them2 the other an unresolved or unexplained phenomenon1 which will then stand just where the product1 variation1 stands now1 only that it will be one step nearer to the efficient cause4 ,this line of argument appears to me so convincing1 that ,i am bound to suppose that it does not meet your case4 ,although you introduced players to illustrate what design is1 it is probable that you did not intend1 and would not accept1 the parallel which your supposed case suggested4 ,when you declare that the proof of design in the eye and the hand1 as given by ,paley and ,bell1 was convincing1 you mean1 of course1 that it was convincing1 so long as the question was between design and chance1 but that now another alternative is offered1 one which obviates the force of those arguments1 and may account for the actual results without design4 ,i do not clearly apprehend this third alternative4 ,will you be so good1 then1 as to state the grounds upon which you conclude that the supposed proof of design from the eye1 or the hand1 as it stood before ,darwin's theory was promulgated1 would be invalidated by the admission of this new theory8 ,d4,t4--,as ,i have ever found you1 in controversy1 meeting the array of your opponent fairly and directly1 without any attempt to strike the body of his argument through an unguarded joint in the phraseology1 ,i was somewhat surprised at the course taken in your answer to my statement on ,darwin's theory4 ,you there seem to suppose that ,i instanced the action of the billiard balls and players as a parallel1 throughout1 to the formation of the organic world4 ,had it occurred to me that such an application might be supposed to follow legitimately from my introduction of this action1 ,i should certainly have stated that ,i did not intend1 and should by no means accede to1 that construction4 ,my purpose in bringing the billiard-table upon the scene was to illustrate1 by example1 design and necessity1 as different and independent sources from which results1 it might indeed be identical results1 may be derived ,all the conclusions1 therefore1 that you have arrived at through this misconception or misapplication of my illustration1 ,i cannot take as an answer to the matter stated or intended to be stated by me4 ,again1 following this misconception1 you suppose the skeptic 7instanced by me as revealing through the evidence of design1 exhibited in the structure of the eye1 for its designer1 ,god7 as bringing to the examination a belief in the existence of design in the construction of the animals as they existed up to the moment when the eye was1 according to my supposition1 added to the heart1 stomach1 brain1 etc4 ,by skeptic ,i1 of course1 intended one who doubted the existence of design in every organic structure1 or at least required proof of such design4 ,now1 as the watch may be instanced as a more complete exhibition of design than a flint knife or an hour-glass1 ,i selected1 after the example of ,paley1 the eye1 as exhibiting by its complex but harmonious arrangements a higher evidence of design and a designer than is to be found in a nerve sensitive to light1 or any mere rudimentary part or organ4 ,i could not mean by skeptic one who believed in design so far as a claw1 or a nerve sensitive to light1 was concerned1 but doubted all above4 ,for one who believes in design at all will not fail to recognize it in a hand or an eye4 ,but ,i need not extend these remarks1 as you acknowledge in the sequel to your argument that you may not have suited it to the case as ,i have stated it4 ,you now request me to state the grounds upon which ,i conclude that the supposed proof of design from the eye and the hand1 as it stood before ,darwin's theory was promulgated1 is invalidated by the admission of that theory4 ,it seems to me that a sufficient answer to this question has already been made in the last part of my former paper2 but1 as you request it1 ,i will go over the leading points as there given1 with more minuteness of detail4 ,let us1 then1 suppose a skeptic1 one who is yet considering and doubting of the existence of ,god1 having already concluded that the testimony from any and all revelation is insufficient1 and having rejected what is called the a priori arguments brought forward in natural theology1 and pertinaciously insisted upon by ,dr4 ,clark and others1 turning as a last resource to the argument from design in the organic world4 ,voltaire tells him that a palace could not exist without an architect to design it4 ,dr4 ,paley tells him that a watch proves the design of a watchmaker4 ,he thinks this very reasonable1 and1 although he sees a difference between the works of ,nature and those of mere human art1 yet if he can find in any organic body1 or part of a body1 the same adaptation to its use that he finds in a watch1 this truth will go very far toward proving1 if it is not entirely conclusive1 that1 in making it1 the powers of life by which it grew were directed by an intelligent1 reasoning master4 ,under the guidance of ,paley he takes an eye1 which1 although an optical1 and not a mechanical instrument like the watch1 is as well adapted to testify to design4 ,he sees1 first1 that the eye is transparent when every other part of the body is opaque4 ,was this the result of a mere ,epicurean or ,lucretian fortuitous concourse of living atoms8 ,he is not yet certain it might not be so4 ,next he sees that it is spherical1 and that this convex form alone is capable of changing the direction of the light which proceeds from a distant body1 and of collecting it so as to form a distinct image within its globe4 ,next he sees at the exact place where this image must be formed a curtain of nerve-work1 ready to receive and convey it1 or excite from it1 in its own mysterious way1 an idea of it in the mind4 ,last of all1 he comes to the crystalline lens4 ,now1 he has before learned that without this lens an eye would by the aqueous and ,vitreous humors alone form an image upon the retina1 but this image would be indistinct from the light not being sufficiently refracted1 and likewise from having a colored fringe round its edges4 ,this last effect is attributable to the refrangibility of light1 that is1 to some of the colors being more refracted than others4 ,he likewise knows that more than a hundred years ago ,mr4 ,dollond having found out1 after many experiments1 that some kinds of glass have the power of dispersing light1 for each degree of its refraction1 much more than other kinds1 and that on the discovery of this fact he contrived to make telescopes in which he passed the light through two object-glasses successively1 one of which he made of crown and one of flint glass1 so ground and adapted to each other that the greater dispersion produced by the substance of one should be corrected by the smaller dispersion of the other4 ,this contrivance corrected entirely the colored images which had rendered all previous telescopes very imperfect4 ,he finds in this invention all the elements of design1 as it appeared in the thought and action of a human designer4 ,first1 conjecture of certain laws or facts in optics4 ,then1 experiment proving these laws or facts4 ,then1 the contrivance and formation of an instrument by which those laws or facts must produce a certain sought result4 ,thus enlightened1 our skeptic turns to his crystalline lens to see if he can discover the work of a ,dollond in this4 ,here he finds that an eye1 having a crystalline lens placed between the humors1 not only refracts the light more than it would be refracted by the humors alone1 but that1 in this combination of humors and lens1 the colors are as completely corrected as in the combination of ,dollond's telescope4 ,can it be that there was no design1 no designer1 directing the powers of life in the formation of this wonderful organ8 ,our skeptic is aware that1 in the arts of man1 great aid has been1 sometimes1 given by chance1 that is1 by the artist or workman observing some fortuitous combination1 form1 or action1 around him4 ,he has heard it said that the chance arrangement of two pairs of spectacles1 in the shop of a ,dutch optician1 gave the direction #fg for constructing the first telescope4 ,possibly1 in time1 say a few geological ages1 it might in some optician's shop have brought about a combination of flint and crown glass which1 together1 should have been achromatic4 ,but the space between the humors of the eye is not an optician' s shop where object-glasses of all kinds1 shapes1 and sizes1 are placed by chance1 in all manner of relations and positions4 ,on the hypothesis under which our skeptic is making his examination--the eye having been completed in all but the formation of the lens--the place which the lens occupies when completed was filled with parts of the humors and plane membrane1 homogeneous in texture and surface1 presenting1 therefore1 neither the variety of the materials nor forms which are contained in the optician's shop for chance to make its combinations with4 ,how1 then1 could it be cast of a combination not before used1 and fashioned to a shape different from that before known1 and placed in exact combination with all the parts before enumerated1 with many others not even mentioned8 ,he sees no parallelism of condition1 then1 by which chance could act in forming a crystalline lens1 which answers to the condition of an optician's shop1 where it might be possible in many ages for chance to combine existing forms into an achromatic object-glass4 ,considering1 therefore1 the eye thus completed and placed in its bony case and provided with its muscles1 its lids1 its tear-ducts1 and all its other elaborate and curious appendages1 and1 a thousand times more wonderful still1 without being encumbered with a single superfluous or useless part1 can he say that this could be the work of chance8 ,the improbability of this is so great1 and consequently the evidence of design is so strong1 that he is about to seal his verdict in favor of design1 when he opens ,mr4 ,darwin's book4 ,there he finds that an eye is no more than a vital aggregation or growth1 directed1 not by design nor chance1 but moulded by natural variation and natural selection1 through which it must1 necessarily1 have been developed and formed4 ,particles or atoms being aggregated by the blind powers of life1 must become under the given conditions1 by natural variation and natural selection1 eyes1 without design1 as certainly as the red billiard-ball went to the west pocket1 by the powers of inertia and elasticity1 without the design of the hand that put it in motion4 7,see ,darwin1 p4 #afi47 ,let us lay before our skeptic the way in which we may suppose that ,darwin would trace the operation of life1 or the vital force conforming to these laws4 ,in doing this we need not go through with the formation of the several membranes1 humors1 etc41 but take the crystalline lens as the most curious and nicely arranged and adapted of all the parts1 and as giving1 moreover1 a close parallel1 in the end produced1 to that produced by design1 by a human designer1 ,dollond1 in forming his achromatic object-glass4 ,if it can be shown that natural variation and natural selection were capable of forming the crystalline lens1 it will not be denied that they were capable of forming the iris1 the sclerotica1 the aqueous humors1 or any and all the other parts4 ,suppose1 then1 that we have a number of animals1 with eyes yet wanting the crystalline4 ,in this state the animals can see1 but dimly and imperfectly1 as a man sees after having been couched4 ,some of the offspring of these animals have1 by natural variation1 merely a portion of the membrane which separates the aqueous from the vitreous humor a little thickened in its middle part1 a little swelled out4 ,this refracts the light a little more than it would be refracted by a membrane in which no such swelling existed1 and not only so1 but1 in combination with the humors1 it corrects the errors of dispersion and makes the image somewhat more colorless4 ,all the young animals that have this swelled membrane see more distinctly than their parents or brethren4 ,they1 therefore1 have an advantage over them in the struggle for life4 ,they can obtain food more easily2 can find their prey1 and escape from their enemies with greater facility than their kindred4 ,this thickening and rounding of the membrane goes on from generation to generation by natural variation2 natural selection all the while picking out with unerring skill all the improvements1 through countless generations1 until at length it is found that the membrane has become a perfect crystalline lens4 ,now1 where is the design in all this8 ,the membrane was not thickened and rounded to the end that the image should be more distinct and colorless2 but1 being thickened and rounded by the operation of natural variation1 inherent in generation1 natural selection of necessity produced the result that we have seen4 ,the same result was thus produced of necessity1 in the eye1 that ,dollond came at1 in the telescope1 with design1 through painful guessing1 reasoning1 experimenting1 and forming4 ,suppose our skeptic to believe in all this power of natural selection2 will he now seal up his verdict for design1 with the same confidence that he would before he heard of ,darwin8 ,if not1 then the supposed proof from design is invalidated by ,darwin's theory4 ,a4,g4--,waiving incidental points and looking only to the gist of the question1 ,i remark that the argument for design as against chance1 in the formation of the eye1 is most convincingly stated in your argument4 ,upon this and upon numerous similar arguments the whole question we are discussing turns4 ,so1 if the skeptic was about to seal his verdict in favor of design1 and a designer1 when ,darwin's book appeared1 why should his verdict now be changed or withheld8 ,all the facts about the eye1 which convinced him that the organ was designed1 remain just as they were4 ,his conviction was not produced through testimony or eyewitness1 but design was irresistibly inferred from the evidence of contrivance in the eye itself4 ,now1 if the eye as it is1 or has become1 so convincingly argued design why not each particular step or part of this result8 ,if the production of a perfect crystalline lens in the eye--you know not how--as much indicated design as did the production of a ,dollond achromatic lens--you understand how--then why does not the swelling out of a particular portion of the membrane behind the iris--caused you know not how--which1 by correcting the errors of dispersion and making the image somewhat more colorless1 enabled the young animals to see more distinctly than their parents or brethren1 equally indicate design--if not as much as a perfect crystalline1 or a ,dollond compound lens1 yet as much as a common spectacle-glass8 ,darwin only assures you that what you may have thought was done directly and at once was done indirectly and successively4 ,but you freely admit that indirection and succession do not invalidate design1 and also that ,paley and all the natural theologians drew the arguments which convinced your skeptic wholly from eyes indirectly or naturally produced4 ,recall a woman of a past generation and show her a web of cloth2 ask her how it was made1 and she will say that the wool or cotton was carded1 spun1 and woven by hand4 ,when you tell her it was not made by manual labor1 that probably no hand has touched the materials throughout the process1 it is possible that she might at first regard your statement as tantamount to the assertion that the cloth was made without design4 ,if she did1 she would not credit your statement4 ,if you patiently explained to her the theory of carding-machines1 spinning-jennies1 and power-looms1 would her reception of your explanation weaken her conviction that the cloth was the result of design8 ,it is certain that she would believe in design as firmly as before1 and that this belief would be attended by a higher conception and reverent admiration of a wisdom1 skill1 and power greatly beyond anything she had previously conceived possible4 ,wherefore1 we may insist that1 for all that yet appears1 the argument for design1 as presented by the natural theologians1 is just as good now1 if we accept ,darwin's theory1 as it was before that theory was promulgated2 and that the skeptical juryman1 who was about to join the other eleven in a unanimous verdict in favor of design1 finds no good excuse for keeping the court longer waiting4,,ii-#a ,,iii ,,natural ,,selection ,,not ,,inconsistent ,,with ,,natural ,,theology 7,atlantic ,monthly for ,july1 ,august1 and ,october1 #ahfj1 reprinted in #ahfa7 ,i ,novelties are enticing to most people2 to us they are simply annoying4 ,we cling to a long-accepted theory1 just as we cling to an old suit of clothes4 ,a new theory1 like a new pair of breeches 7the ,atlantic still affects the older type of nether garment71 is sure to have hard-fitting places2 or1 even when no particular fault can be found with the article1 it oppresses with a sense of general discomfort4 ,new notions and new styles worry us1 till we get well used to them1 which is only by slow degrees4 ,wherefore1 in ,galileo's time1 we might have helped to proscribe1 or to burn--had he been stubborn enough to warrant cremation--even the great pioneer of inductive research2 although1 when we had fairly recovered our composure1 and bad leisurely excogitated the matter1 we might have come to conclude that the new doctrine was better than the old one1 after all1 at least for those who had nothing to unlearn4 ,such being our habitual state of mind1 it may well be believed that the perusal of the new book ,on the ,origin of ,species by ,means of ,natural ,selection left an uncomfortable impression1 in spite of its plausible and winning ways4 ,we were not wholly unprepared for it1 as many of our contemporaries seem to have been4 ,the scientific reading in which we indulge as a relaxation from severer studies had raised dim forebodings4 ,investigations about the succession of species in time1 and their actual geographical distribution over the earth's surface1 were leading up from all sides and in various ways to the question of their origin4 ,now and then we encountered a sentence1 like ,prof4 ,owen's axiom of the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things1 which haunted us like an apparition4 ,for1 dim as our conception must needs be as to what such oracular and grandiloquent phrases might really mean1 we felt confident that they presaged no good to old beliefs4 ,foreseeing1 yet deprecating1 the coming time of trouble1 we still hoped that1 with some repairs and makeshifts1 the old views might last out our days4 ,apres nous le deluge4 ,still1 not to lag behind the rest of the world1 we read the book in which the new theory is promulgated4 ,we took it up1 like our neighbors1 and1 as was natural1 in a somewhat captious frame of mind4 ,well1 we found no cause of quarrel with the first chapter4 ,here the author takes us directly to the barn-yard and the kitchen-garden4 ,like an honorable rural member of our ,general ,court1 who sat silent until1 near the close of a long session1 a bill requiring all swine at large to wear pokes was introduced1 when he claimed the privilege of addressing the house1 on the proper ground that he had been brought up among the pigs1 and knew all about them--so we were brought up among cows and cabbages2 and the lowing of cattle1 the cackle of hens1 and the cooing of pigeons1 were sounds native and pleasant to our ears4 ,so ,variation under ,domestication dealt with familiar subjects in a natural way1 and gently introduced ,variation under ,nature1 which seemed likely enough4 ,then follows ,struggle for ,existence--a principle which we experimentally know to be true and cogent--bringing the comfortable assurance1 that man1 even upon ,leviathan ,hobbes's theory of society1 is no worse than the rest of creation1 since all ,nature is at war1 one species with another1 and the nearer kindred the more internecine--bringing in thousandfold confirmation and extension of the ,malthusian doctrine that population tends far to outrun means of subsistence throughout the animal and vegetable world1 and has to be kept down by sharp preventive checks2 so that not more than one of a hundred or a thousand of the individuals whose existence is so wonderfully and so sedulously provided for ever comes to anything1 under ordinary circumstances2 so the lucky and the strong must prevail1 and the weaker and ill-favored must perish2 and then follows1 as naturally as one sheep follows another1 the chapter on ,natural ,selection1 ,darwin's cheval de bataille1 which is very much the ,napoleonic doctrine that ,providence favors the strongest battalions--that1 since many more individuals are born than can possibly survive1 those individuals and those variations which possess any advantage1 however slight1 over the rest1 are in the long-run sure to survive1 to propagate1 and to occupy the limited field1 to the exclusion or destruction of the weaker brethren4 ,all this we pondered1 and could not much object to4 ,in fact1 we began to contract a liking for a system which at the outset illustrates the advantages of good breeding1 and which makes the most of every creature's best4 ,could we let by-gones be by-gones1 and1 beginning now1 go on improving and diversifying for the future by natural selection1 could we even take up the theory at the introduction of the actually existing species1 we should be well content2 and so1 perhaps1 would most naturalists be4 ,it is by no means difficult to believe that varieties are incipient or possible species1 when we see what trouble naturalists1 especially botanists1 have to distinguish between them--one regarding as a true species what another regards as a variety2 when the progress of knowledge continually increases1 rather than diminishes1 the number of doubtful instances2 and when there is less agreement than ever among naturalists as to what is the basis in ,nature upon which our idea of species reposes1 or how the word is to be defined4 ,indeed1 when we consider the endless disputes of naturalists and ethnologists over the human races1 as to whether they belong to one species or to more1 and1 if to more1 whether to three1 or five1 or fifty1 we can hardly help fancying that both may be right--or rather1 that the uni-humanitarians would have been right many thousand years ago1 and the multi-humanitarians will be several thousand years later2 while at present the safe thing to say is1 that probably there is some truth on both sides4 ,natural selection1 ,darwin remarks1 leads to divergence of character2 for the more living beings can be supported on the same area1 the more they diverge in structure1 habits1 and constitution 7a principle which1 by-the-way1 is paralleled and illustrated by the diversification of human labor72 and also leads to much extinction of intermediate or unimproved forms4 ,now1 though this divergence may steadily tend to increase1 yet this is evidently a slow process in ,nature1 and liable to much counteraction wherever man does not interpose1 and so not likely to work much harm for the future4 ,and if natural selection1 with artificial to help it1 will produce better animals and better men than the present1 and fit them better to the conditions of existence1 why1 let it work1 say we1 to the top of its bent ,there is still room enough for improvement4 ,only let us hope that it always works for good3 if not1 the divergent lines on ,darwin's lithographic diagram of ,transmutation made ,easy1 ominously show what small deviations from the straight path may come to in the end4 ,the prospect of the future1 accordingly1 is on the whole pleasant and encouraging4 ,it is only the backward glance1 the gaze up the long vista of the past1 that reveals anything alarming4 ,here the lines converge as they recede into the geological ages1 and point to conclusions which1 upon the theory1 are inevitable1 but hardly welcome4 ,the very first step backward makes the negro and the ,hottentot our blood-relations--not that reason or ,scripture objects to that1 though pride may4 ,the next suggests a closer association of our ancestors of the olden time with our poor relations of the quadrumanous family than we like to acknowledge4 ,fortunately1 however--even if we must account for him scientifically --man with his two feet stands upon a foundation of his own4 ,intermediate links between the ,bimana and the ,quadrumana are lacking altogether2 so that1 put the genealogy of the brutes upon what footing you will1 the four-handed races will not serve for our forerunners--at least1 not until some monkey1 live or fossil1 is producible with great-toes1 instead of thumbs1 upon his nether extremities2 or until some lucky geologist turns up the bones of his ancestor and prototype in ,france or ,england1 who was so busy napping the chuckie-stanes and chipping out flint knives and arrow-heads in the time of the drift1 very many ages ago--before the ,british ,channel existed1 says ,lyell ,,iii-#a--;and until these men of the olden time are shown to have worn their great-toes in the divergent and thumblike fashion4 ,that would be evidence indeed3 but1 until some testimony of the sort is produced1 we must needs believe in the separate and special creation of man1 however it may have been with the lower animals and with plants4 ,no doubt1 the full development and symmetry of ,darwin's hypothesis strongly suggest the evolution of the human no less than the lower animal races out of some simple primordial animal--that all are equally lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the ,silurian system was deposited4 ,but1 as the author speaks disrespectfully of spontaneous generation1 and accepts a supernatural beginning of life on earth1 in some form or forms of being which included potentially all that have since existed and are yet to be1 he is thereby not warranted to extend his inferences beyond the evidence or the fair probability4 ,there seems as great likelihood that one special origination should be followed by another upon fitting occasion 7such as the introduction of man71 as that one form should be transmuted into another upon fitting occasion1 as1 for instance1 in the succession of species which differ from each other only in some details4 ,to compare small things with great in a homely illustration3 man alters from time to time his instruments or machines1 as new circumstances or conditions may require and his wit suggest4 ,minor alterations and improvements he adds to the machine he possesses2 he adapts a new rig or a new rudder to an old boat3 this answers to ,variation4 ,like begets like1 being the great rule in ,nature1 if boats could engender1 the variations would doubtless be propagated1 like those of domestic cattle4 ,in course of time the old ones would be worn out or wrecked2 the best sorts would be chosen for each particular use1 and further improved upon2 and so the primordial boat be developed into the scow1 the skiff1 the sloop1 and other species of water-craft--the very diversification1 as well as the successive improvements1 entailing the disappearance of intermediate forms1 less adapted to any one particular purpose2 wherefore these go slowly out of use1 and become extinct species3 this is ,natural ,selection4 ,now1 let a great and important advance be made1 like that of steam navigation3 here1 though the engine might be added to the old vessel1 yet the wiser and therefore the actual way is to make a new vessel on a modified plan3 this may answer to ,specific ,creation4 ,anyhow1 the one does not necessarily exclude the other4 ,variation and natural selection may play their part1 and so may specific creation also4 ,why not8 ,this leads us to ask for the reasons which call for this new theory of transmutation4 ,the beginning of things must needs lie in obscurity1 beyond the bounds of proof1 though within those of conjecture or of analogical inference4 ,why not hold fast to the customary view1 that all species were directly1 instead of indirectly1 created after their respective kinds1 as we now behold them--and that in a manner which1 passing our comprehension1 we intuitively refer to the supernatural8 ,why this continual striving after the unattained and dim8 why these anxious endeavors1 especially of late years1 by naturalists and philosophers of various schools and different tendencies1 to penetrate what one of them calls that mystery of mysteries1 the origin of species8 ,to this1 in general1 sufficient answer may be found in the activity of the human intellect1 the delirious yet divine desire to know1 stimulated as it has been by its own success in unveiling the laws and processes of inorganic ,nature2 in the fact that the principal triumphs of our age in physical science have consisted in tracing connections where none were known before1 in reducing heterogeneous phenomena to a common cause or origin1 in a manner quite analogous to that of the reduction of supposed independently originated species to a common ultimate origin--thus1 and in various other ways1 largely and legitimately extending the domain of secondary causes4 ,surely the scientific mind of an age which contemplates the solar system as evolved from a common revolving fluid mass--which1 through experimental research1 has come to regard light1 heat1 electricity1 magnetism1 chemical affinity1 and mechanical power as varieties or derivative and convertible forms of one force1 instead of independent species--which has brought the so-called elementary kinds of matter1 such as the metals1 into kindred groups1 and pertinently raised the question1 whether the members of each group may not be mere varieties of one species--and which speculates steadily in the direction of the ultimate unity of matter1 of a sort of prototype or simple element which may be to the ordinary species of matter what the ,protozoa or what the component cells of an organism are to the higher sorts of animals and plants--the mind of such an age cannot be expected to let the old belief about species pass unquestioned4 ,it will raise the question1 how the diverse sorts of plants and animals came to be as they are and where they are and will allow that the whole inquiry transcends its powers only when all endeavors have failed ,granting the origin to be super natural or miraculous even1 will not arrest the inquiry ,all real origination the philosophers will say1 is supernatural1 their very question is1 whether we have yet gone back to the origin and can affirm that the present forms of plants and animals are the primordial1 the miraculously created ones4 ,and1 even if they admit that1 they will still inquire into the order of the phenomena1 into the form of the miracle ,you might as well expect the child to grow up content with what it is told about the advent of its infant brother ,indeed1 to learn that the new comer is the gift of ,god1 far from lulling inquiry1 only stimulates speculation as to how the precious gift was bestowed ,that questioning child is father to the man--is philosopher in short-clothes4 ,since1 then questions about the origin of species will be raised1 and have been raised--and since the theorizings1 however different in particulars1 all proceed upon the notion that one species of plant or animal is somehow derived from another1 that the different sorts which now flourish are lineal 7or unlineal7 descendants of other and earlier sorts--it now concerns us to ask1 ,what are the grounds in ,nature1 the admitted facts1 which suggest hypotheses of derivation in some 3shape or other8 ,reasons there must be1 and plausible ones1 for the persistent recurrence of theories upon this genetic basis4 ,a study of ,darwin's book1 and a general glance at the present state of the natural sciences1 enable us to gather the following as among the most suggestive and influential4 ,we can only enumerate them here1 without much indication of their particular bearing4 ,there is-- #a4 ,the general fact of variability1 and the general tendency of the variety to propagate its like--the patent facts that all species vary more or less2 that domesticated plants and animals1 being in conditions favorable to the production and preservation of varieties1 are apt to vary widely2 and that1 by interbreeding1 any variety may be fixed into a race1 that is1 into a variety which comes true from seed4 ,many such races1 it is allowed1 differ from each other in structure and appearance as widely as do many admitted species2 and it is practically very difficult1 even impossible1 to draw a clear line between races and species4 ,witness the human races1 for instance4 ,wild species also vary1 perhaps about as widely as those of domestication1 though in different ways4 ,some of them apparently vary little1 others moderately1 others immoderately1 to the great bewilderment of systematic botanists and zoologists1 and increasing disagreement as to whether various forms shall be held to be original species or strong varieties4 ,moreover1 the degree to which the descendants of the same stock1 varying in different directions1 may at length diverge1 is unknown4 ,all we know is1 that varieties are themselves variable1 and that very diverse forms have been educed from one stock4 #b4 ,species of the same genus are not distinguished from each other by equal amounts of difference4 ,there is diversity in this respect analogous to that of the varieties of a polymorphous species1 some of them slight1 others extreme4 ,and in large genera the unequal resemblance shows itself in the clustering of the species around several types or central species1 like satellites around their respective planets4 ,obviously suggestive this of the hypothesis that they were satellites1 not thrown off by revolution1 like the moons of ,jupiter1 ,saturn1 and our own solitary moon1 but gradually and peacefully detached by divergent variation4 ,that such closely-related species may be only varieties of higher grade1 earlier origin1 or more favored evolution1 is not a very violent supposition4 ,anyhow1 it was a supposition sure to be made4 #c4 ,the actual geographical distribution of species upon the earth's surface tends to suggest the same notion4 ,for1 as a general thing1 all or most of the species of a peculiar genus or other type are grouped in the same country1 or occupy continuous1 proximate1 or accessible areas4 ,so well does this rule hold1 so general is the implication that kindred species are or were associated geographically1 that most trustworthy naturalists1 quite free from hypotheses of transmutation1 are constantly inferring former geographical continuity between parts of the world now widely disjoined1 in order to account thereby for certain generic similarities among their inhabitants2 just as philologists infer former connection of races1 and a parent language1 to account for generic similarities among existing languages4 ,yet no scientific explanation has been offered to account for the geographical association of kindred species1 except the hypothesis of a common origin4 #d4 ,here the fact of the antiquity of creation1 and in particular of the present kinds of the earth's inhabitants1 or of a large part of them1 comes in to rebut the objection that there has not been time enough for any marked diversification of living things through divergent variation--not time enough for varieties to have diverged into what we call species4 ,so long as the existing species of plants and animals were thought to have originated a few thousand years ago1 and without predecessors1 there was no room for a theory of derivation of one sort from another1 nor time enough even to account for the establishment of the races which are generally believed to have diverged from a common stock4 ,not so much that five or six thousand years was a short allowance for this2 but because some of our familiar domesticated varieties of grain1 of fowls1 and of other animals1 were pictured and mummified by the old ,egyptians more than half that number of years ago1 if not earlier4 ,indeed1 perhaps the strongest argument for the original plurality of human species was drawn from the identification of some of the present races of men upon these early historical monuments and records4 ,but this very extension of the current chronology1 if we may rely upon the archaeologists1 removes the difficulty by opening up a longer vista4 ,so does the discovery in ,europe of remains and implements of prehistoric races of men1 to whom the use of metals was unknown--men of the stone age1 as the ,scandinavian archaeologists designate them4 ,and now1 axes and knives of flint1 evidently wrought by human skill1 are found in beds of the drift at ,amiens 7also in other places1 both in ,france and ,england71 associated with the bones of extinct species of animals4 ,these implements1 indeed1 were noticed twenty years ago2 at a place in ,suffolk they have been exhumed from time to time for more than a century2 but the full confirmation1 the recognition of the age of the deposit in which the implements occur1 their abundance1 and the appreciation of their bearings upon most interesting questions1 belong to the present time4 ,to complete the connection of these primitive people with the fossil ages1 the ,french geologists1 we are told1 have now found these axes in ,picardy associated with remains of ,elephas primigenius1 ,rhinoceros tichorhinus1 ,equus fossilis1 and an extinct species of ,bos4,,iii-#b ,in plain language1 these workers in flint lived in the time of the mammoth1 of a rhinoceros now extinct1 and along with horses and cattle unlike any now existing--specifically different1 as naturalists say1 from those with which man is now associated4 ,their connection with existing human races may perhaps be traced through the intervening people of the stone age1 who were succeeded by the people of the bronze age1 and these by workers in iron4,,iii-#c ,now1 various evidence carries back the existence of many of the present lower species of animals1 and probably of a larger number of plants1 to the same drift period4 ,all agree that this was very many thousand years ago4 ,agassiz tells us that the same species of polyps which are now building coral walls around the present peninsula of ,florida actually made that peninsula1 and have been building there for many thousand centuries4 #e4 ,the overlapping of existing and extinct species1 and the seemingly gradual transition of the life of the drift period into that of the present1 may be turned to the same account4 ,mammoths1 mastodons1 and ,irish elks1 now extinct1 must have lived down to human1 if not almost to historic times4 ,perhaps the last dodo did not long outlive his huge ,new ,zealand kindred4 ,the aurochs1 once the companion of mammoths1 still survives1 but owes his present and precarious existence to man's care4 ,now1 nothing that we know of forbids the hypothesis that some new species have been independently and supernaturally created within the period which other species have survived4 ,some may even believe that man was created in the days of the mammoth1 became extinct1 and was recreated at a later date4 ,but why not say the same of the aurochs1 contemporary both of the old man and of the new8 ,still it is more natural1 if not inevitable1 to infer that1 if the aurochs of that olden time were the ancestors of the aurochs of the ,lithuanian forests1 so likewise were the men of that age the ancestors of the present human races4 ,then1 whoever concludes that these primitive makers of rude flint axes and knives were the ancestors of the better workmen of the succeeding stone age1 and these again of the succeeding artificers in brass and iron1 will also be likely to suppose that the ,equus and ,bos of that time1 different though they be1 were the remote progenitors of our own horses and cattle4 ,in all candor we must at least concede that such considerations suggest a genetic descent from the drift period down to the present1 and allow time enough--if time is of any account-- for variation and natural selection to work out some appreciable results in the way of divergence into races1 or even into so-called species4 ,whatever might have been thought1 when geological time was supposed to be separated from the present era by a clear line1 it is now certain that a gradual replacement of old forms by new ones is strongly suggestive of some mode of origination which may still be operative4 ,when species1 like individuals1 were found to die out one by one1 and apparently to come in one by one1 a theory for what ,owen sonorously calls the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things could not be far off4 ,that all such theories should take the form of a derivation of the new from the old seems to be inevitable1 perhaps from our inability to conceive of any other line of secondary causes in this connection4 ,owen himself is apparently in travail with some transmutation theory of his own conceiving1 which may yet see the light1 although ,darwin's came first to the birth4 ,different as the two theories will probably be1 they cannot fail to exhibit that fundamental resemblance in this respect which betokens a community of origin1 a common foundation on the general facts and the obvious suggestions of modern science4 ,indeed--to turn the point of a pungent simile directed against ,darwin--the difference between the ,darwinian and the ,owenian hypotheses may1 after all1 be only that between homoeopathic and heroic doses of the same drug4 ,if theories of derivation could only stop here1 content with explaining the diversification and succession of species between the teritiary period and the present time1 through natural agencies or secondary causes still in operation1 we fancy they would not be generally or violently objected to by the savants of the present day4 ,but it is hard1 if not impossible1 to find a stopping-place4 ,some of the facts or accepted conclusions already referred to1 and several others1 of a more general character1 which must be taken into the account1 impel the theory onward with accumulated force4 ,vires 7not to say virus7 acquirit eundo4 ,the theory hitches on wonderfully well to ,lyell's uniformitarian theory in geology--that the thing that has been is the thing that is and shall be--that the natural operations now going on will account for all geological changes in a quiet and easy way1 only give them time enough1 so connecting the present and the proximate with the farthest past by almost imperceptible gradations--a view which finds large and increasing1 if not general1 acceptance in physical geology1 and of which ,darwin's theory is the natural complement4 ,so the ,darwinian theory1 once getting a foothold1 marches2 boldly on1 follows the supposed near ancestors of our present species farther and yet farther back into the dim past1 and ends with an analogical inference which makes the whole world kin4 ,as we said at the beginning1 this upshot discomposes us4 ,several features of the theory have an uncanny look4 ,they may prove to be innocent3 but their first aspect is suspicious1 and high authorities pronounce the whole thing to be positively mischievous4 ,in this dilemma we are going to take advice4 ,following the bent of our prejudices1 and hoping to fortify these by new and strong arguments1 we are going now to read the principal reviews which undertake to demolish the theory--with what result our readers shall be duly informed4 ,,ii ,i can entertain no doubt1 after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which ,i am capable1 that the view which most naturalists entertain1 and which ,i formerly entertained1 namely1 that each species has been independently created1 is erroneous4 ,i am fully convinced that species are not immutable2 but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species1 in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species4 ,furthermore1 ,i am convinced that ,natural ,selection has been the main1 but not exclusive1 means of modification4 ,this is the kernel of the new theory1 the ,darwinian creed1 as recited at the close of the introduction to the remarkable book under consideration4 ,the questions1 ,what will he do with it8 and ,how far will he carry it8 the author answers at the close of the volume3 ,i cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class4 ,furthermore1 ,i believe that all animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors1 and plants from an equal or lesser number4 ,seeing that analogy as strongly suggests a further step in the same direction1 while he protests that analogy may be a deceitful guide1 yet he follows its inexorable leading to the inference that-- ,probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this ear have descended from some one primordial form1 into which life was first breathed4,,iii-#d ,in the first extract we have the thin end of the wedge driven a little way2 in the last1 the wedge driven home4 ,we have already sketched some of the reasons suggestive of such a theory of derivation of species1 reasons which gave it plausibility1 and even no small probability1 as applied to our actual world and to changes occurring since the latest tertiary period4 ,we are well pleased at this moment to find that the conclusions we were arriving at in this respect are sustained by the very high authority and impartial judgment of ,pictet1 the ,swiss paleontologist4 ,in his review of ,darwin's book,,iii-#e -- the fairest and most admirable opposing one that has appeared--he freely accepts that ensemble of natural operations which ,darwin impersonates under the now familiar name of ,natural ,selection1 allows that the exposition throughout the first chapters seems a la fois prudent et fort1 and is disposed to accept the whole argument in its foundations1 that is1 so far as it relates to what is now going on1 or has taken place in the present geological period--which period he carries back through the diluvial epoch to the borders of the tertiary4,,iii-#f ,pictet accordingly admits that the theory will very well account for the origination by divergence of nearly-related species1 whether within the present period or in remoter geological times2 a very natural view for him to take1 since he appears to have reached and published1 several years ago1 the pregnant conclusion that there most probably was some material connection between the closely-related species of two successive faunas1 and that the numerous close species1 whose limits are so difficult to determine1 were not all created distinct and independent4 ,but while thus accepting1 or ready to accept1 the basis of ,darwin's theory1 and all its legitimate direct inferences1 he rejects the ultimate conclusions1 brings some weighty arguments to bear against them1 and is evidently convinced that he can draw a clear line between the sound inferences1 which he favors1 and the unsound or unwarranted theoretical deductions1 which he rejects4 ,we hope he can4 ,this raises the question1 ,why does ,darwin press his theory to these extreme conclusions8 ,why do all hypotheses of derivation converge so inevitably to one ultimate point8 ,having already considered some of the reasons which suggest or support the theory at its outset--which may carry it as far as such sound and experienced naturalists as ,pictet allow that it may be true--perhaps as far as ,darwin himself unfolds it in the introductory proposition cited at the beginning of this article--we may now inquire after the motives which impel the theorist so much farther4 ,here proofs1 in the proper sense of the word1 are not to be had4 ,we are beyond the region of demonstration1 and have only probabilities to consider4 ,what are these probabilities8 ,what work will this hypothesis do to establish a claim to be adopted in its completeness8 ,why should a theory which may plausibly enough account for the diversification of the species of each special type or genus be expanded into a general system for the origination or successive diversification of all species1 and all special types or forms1 from four or five remote primordial forms1 or perhaps from one8 ,we accept the theory of gravitation because it explains all the facts we know1 and bears all the tests that we can put it to4 ,we incline to accept the nebular hypothesis1 for similar reasons2 not because it is proved--thus far it is incapable of proof--but because it is a natural theoretical deduction from accepted physical laws1 is thoroughly congruous with the facts1 and because its assumption serves to connect and harmonize these into one probable and consistent whole4 ,can the derivative hypothesis be maintained and carried out into a system on similar grounds8 ,if so1 however unproved1 it would appear to be a tenable hypothesis1 which is all that its author ought now to claim4 ,such hypotheses as1 from the conditions of the case1 can neither be proved nor disproved by direct evidence or experiment1 are to be tested only indirectly1 and therefore imperfectly1 by trying their power to harmonize the known facts1 and to account for what is otherwise unaccountable4 ,so the question comes to this3 ,what will an hypothesis of the derivation of species explain which the opposing view leaves unexplained8 ,questions these which ought to be entertained before we take up the arguments which have been advanced against this theory4 ,we can barely glance at some of the considerations which ,darwin adduces1 or will be sure to adduce in the future and fuller exposition which is promised4 ,to display them in such wise as to indoctrinate the unscientific reader would require a volume4 ,merely to refer to them in the most general terms would suffice for those familiar with scientific matters1 but would scarcely enlighten those who are not4 ,wherefore let these trust the impartial ,pictet1 who freely admits that1 in the absence of sufficient direct proofs to justify the possibility of his hypothesis1 ,mr4 ,darwin relies upon indirect proofs1 the bearing of which is real and incontestable2 who concedes that his theory accords very well with the great facts of comparative anatomy and zoology--comes in admirably to explain unity of composition of organisms1 also to explain rudimentary and representative organs1 and the natural series of genera and species--equally corresponds with many paleontological data--agrees well with the specific resemblances which exist between two successive faunas1 with the parallelism which is sometimes observed between the series of paleontological succession and of embryonal development1 etc42 and finally1 although he does not accept the theory in these results1 he allows that it appears to offer the best means of explaining the manner in which organized beings were produced in epochs anterior to our own4 ,what more than this could be said for such an hypothesis8 ,here1 probably1 is its charm1 and its strong hold upon the speculative mind4 ,unproven though it be1 and cumbered prima facie with cumulative improbabilities as it proceeds1 yet it singularly accords with great classes of facts otherwise insulated and enigmatic1 and explains many things which are thus far utterly inexplicable upon any other scientific assumption4 ,we have said that ,darwin's hypothesis is the natural complement to ,lyell's uniformitarian theory in physical geology4 ,it is for the organic world what that is for the inorganic2 and the accepters of the latter stand in a position from which to regard the former in the most favorable light4 ,wherefore the rumor that the cautious ,lyell himself has adopted the ,darwinian hypothesis need not surprise us4 ,the two views are made for each other1 and1 like the two counterpart pictures for the stereoscope1 when brought together1 combine into one apparently solid whole4 ,if we allow1 with ,pictet1 that ,darwin's theory will very well serve for all that concerns the present epoch of the world's history--an epoch in which this renowned paleontologist includes the diluvial or quaternary period--then ,darwin's first and foremost need in his onward course is a practicable road from this into and through the tertiary period1 the intervening region between the comparatively near and the far remote past4 ,here ,lyell's doctrine paves the way1 by showing that in the physical geology there is no general or absolute break between the two1 probably no greater between the latest tertiary and the quaternary period than between the latter and the present time4 ,so far1 the ,lyellian view is1 we suppose1 generally concurred in4 ,it is largely admitted that numerous tertiary species have continued down into the quaternary1 and many of them to the present time4 ,a goodly percentage of the earlier and nearly half of the later tertiary mollusca1 according to ,des ,hayes1 ,lye661 and1 if we mistake not1 ,bronn1 still live4 ,this identification1 however1 is now questioned by a naturalist of the very highest authority4 ,but1 in its bearings on the new theory1 the point here turns not upon absolute identity so much as upon close resemblance4 ,for those who1 with ,agassiz1 doubt the specific identity in any of these cases1 and those who say1 with ,pictet1 that the later tertiary deposits contain in general the debris of species very nearly related to those which still exist1 belonging to the same genera1 but specifically different1 may also agree with ,pictet1 that the nearly-related species of successive faunas must or may have had a material connection4 ,but the only material connection that we have an idea of in such a case is a genealogical one4 ,and the supposition of a genealogical connection is surely not unnatural in such cases--is demonstrably the natural one as respects all those tertiary species which experienced naturalists have pronounced to be identical with existing ones1 but which others now deem distinct ,for to identify the two is the same thing as to conclude the one to be the ancestor of the other ,no doubt there are differences between the tertiary and the present individuals1 differences equally noticed by both classes of naturalists1 but differently estimated ,by the one these are deemed quite compatible1 by the other incompatible1 with community of origin ,but who can tell us what amount of difference is compatible with community of origin8 ,this is the very question at issue1 and one to be settled by observation alone ,who would have thought that the peach and the nectarine came from one stock8 ,but1 this being proved is it now very improbable that both were derived from the almond1 or from some common amygdaline progenitor8 ,who would have thought that the cabbage1 cauliflower1 broccoli kale1 and kohlrabi are derivatives of one species1 and rape or colza1 turnip1 and probably ruta-baga1 of another species8 ,and who that is convinced of this can long undoubtingly hold the original distinctness of turnips from cabbages as an article of faith8 ,on scientific grounds may not a primordial cabbage or rape be assumed as the ancestor of all the cabbage races1 on much the same ground that we assume a common ancestry for the diversified human races8 ,if all ,our breeds of cattle came from one stock why not this stock from the auroch1 which has had all the time between the diluvial and the historic periods in which to set off a variation perhaps no greater than the difference between some sorts of domestic cattle8 ,that considerable differences are often discernible between tertiary individuals and their supposed descendants of the present day affords no argument against ,darwin's theory1 as has been rashly thought1 but is decidedly in its favor4 ,if the identification were so perfect that no more differences were observable between the tertiary and the recent shells than between various individuals of either1 then ,darwin's opponents1 who argue the immutability of species from the ibises and cats preserved by the ancient ,egyptians being just like those of the present day1 could triumphantly add a few hundred thousand years more to the length of the experiment and to the force of their argument4 ,as the facts stand1 it appears that1 while some tertiary forms are essentially undistinguishable from existing ones1 others are the same with a difference1 which is judged not to be specific or aboriginal2 and yet others show somewhat greater differences1 such as are scientifically expressed by calling them marked varieties1 or else doubtful species2 while others1 differing a little more1 are confidently termed distinct1 but nearly-related species4 ,now1 is not all this a question of degree1 of mere gradation of difference8 ,and is it at all likely that these several gradations came to be established in two totally different ways--some of them 7though naturalists can't agree which7 through natural variation1 or other secondary cause1 and some by original creation1 without secondary cause8 ,we have seen that the judicious ,pictet answers such questions as ,darwin would have him do1 in affirming that1 in all probability1 the nearly-related species of two successive faunas were materially connected1 and that contemporaneous species1 similarly resembling each other1 were not all created so1 but have become so4 ,this is equivalent to saying that species 7using the term as all naturalists do1 and must continue to employ the word7 have only a relative1 not an absolute fixity2 that differences fully equivalent to what are held to be specific may arise in the course of time1 so that one species may at length be naturally replaced by another species a good deal like it1 or may be diversified into two1 three1 or more species1 or forms as different as species4 ,this concedes all that ,darwin has a right to ask1 all that he can directly infer from evidence4 ,we must add that it affords a locus standi1 more or less tenable1 for inferring more4 ,here another geological consideration comes in to help on this inference4 ,the species of the later tertiary period for the most part not only resembled those of our days--many of them so closely as to suggest an absolute continuity--but also occupied in general the same regions that their relatives occupy now4 ,the same may be said1 though less specially1 of the earlier tertiary and of the later secondary2 but there is less and less localization of forms as we recede1 yet some localization even in palaeozoic times4 ,while in the secondary period one is struck with the similarity of forms and the identity of many of the species which flourished apparently at the same time in all or in the most widely-separated parts of the world1 in the tertiary epoch1 on the contrary1 along with the increasing specialization of climates and their approximation to the present state1 we find abundant evidence of increasing localization of orders1 genera and species1 and this localization strikingly accords with the present geographical distribution of the same groups of species ,where the imputed forefathers lived their relatives and supposed descendants now flourish ,all the actual classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms were represented in the tertiary faunas and floras and in nearly the same proportions and the same diversities as at present ,the faunas of what is now ,europe1 ,asia ,america and ,australia1 differed from each other much as they now differ3 in fact--according to ,adolphe ,brongniart1 whose statements we here condense,,iii-#g--the inhabitants of these different regions appear for the most part to have acquired1 before the close of the tertiary period1 the characters which essentially distinguish their existing faunas4 ,the ,eastern ,continent had then1 as now1 its great pachyderms1 elephants1 rhinoceros1 hippopotamus2 ,south ,america1 its armadillos1 sloths1 and anteaters2 ,australia1 a crowd of marsupials2 and the very strange birds of ,new ,zealand had predecessors of similar strangeness4 ,everywhere the same geographical distribution as now1 with a difference in the particular area1 as respects the northern portion of the continents1 answering to a warmer climate then than ours1 such as allowed species of hippopotamus1 rhinoceros1 and elephant1 to range even to the regions now inhabited by the reindeer and the musk-ox1 and with the serious disturbing intervention of the glacial period within a comparatively recent time4 ,let it be noted also that those tertiary species which have continued with little change down to our days are the marine animals of the lower grades1 especially mollusca4 ,their low organization1 moderate sensibility1 and the simple conditions of an existence in a medium like the ocean1 not subject to great variation and incapable of sudden change1 may well account for their continuance2 while1 on the other hand1 the more intense1 however gradual1 climatic vicissitudes on land1 which have driven all tropical and subtropical forms out of the higher latitudes and assigned to them their actual limits1 would be almost sure to extinguish such huge and unwieldy animals as mastodons1 mammoths1 and the like1 whose power of enduring altered circumstances must have been small4 ,this general replacement of the tertiary species of a country by others so much like them is a noteworthy fact4 ,the hypothesis of the independent creation of all species1 irrespective of their antecedents1 leaves this fact just as mysterious as is creation itself2 that of derivation undertakes to account for it4 ,whether it satisfactorily does so or not1 it must be allowed that the facts well accord with that hypothesis4 ,the same may be said of another conclusion1 namely1 that the geological succession of animals and plants appears to correspond in a general way with their relative standing or rank in a natural system of classification4 ,it seems clear that1 though no one of the grand types of the animal kingdom can be traced back farther than the rest1 yet the lower classes long preceded the higher2 that there has been on the whole a steady progression within each class and order2 and that the highest plants and animals have appeared only in relatively modern times4 ,it is only1 however1 in a broad sense that this generalization is now thought to hold good4 ,it encounters many apparent exceptions1 and sundry real ones4 ,so far as the rule holds1 all is as it should be upon an hypothesis of derivation4 ,the rule has its exceptions4 ,but1 curiously enough1 the most striking class of exceptions1 if such they be1 seems to us even more favorable to the doctrine of derivation than is the general rule of a pure and simple ascending gradation4 ,we refer to what ,agassiz calls prophetic and synthetic types2 for which the former name may suffice1 as the difference between the two is evanescent4 ,it has been noticed1 writes our great zoologist1 that certain types1 which are frequently prominent among the representatives of past ages1 combine in their structure peculiarities which at later periods are only observed separately in different1 distinct types4 ,sauroid fishes before reptiles1 ,pterodactyles before birds1 ,ichthyosauri before dolphins1 etc4 ,there are entire families1 of nearly every class of animals1 which in the state of their perfect development exemplify such prophetic relations4 ,the sauroid fishes of the past geological ages are an example of this kind ,these fishes which preceded the appearance of reptiles present a combination of ichthyic and reptilian characters not to be found in the true members of this class1 which form its bulk at present4 ,the ,pterodactyles1 which preceded the class of birds1 and the ,ichthyosauri1 which preceded the ,cetacea1 are other examples of such prophetic types4--7,agassiz1 ,contributions1 ,essay on ,classification1 p4 #aag47 ,now1 these reptile-like fishes1 of which gar-pikes are the living representatives1 though of earlier appearance1 are admittedly of higher rank than common fishes4 ,they dominated until reptiles appeared1 when they mostly gave place to 7or1 as the derivationists will insist1 were resolved by divergent variation and natural selection into7 common fishes1 destitute of reptilian characters1 and saurian reptiles--the intermediate grades1 which1 according to a familiar piscine saying1 are neither fish1 flesh1 nor good red-herring1 being eliminated and extinguished by natural consequence of the struggle for existence which ,darwin so aptly portrays4 ,and so1 perhaps1 of the other prophetic types4 ,here type and antitype correspond4 ,if these are true prophecies1 we need not wonder that some who read them in ,agassiz's book will read their fulfillment in ,darwin's4 ,note also1 in this connection1 that along with a wonderful persistence of type1 with change of species1 genera1 orders1 etc41 from formation to formation1 no species and no higher group which has once unequivocally died out ever afterward reappears4 ,why is this1 but that the link of generation has been sundered8 ,why1 on the hypothesis of independent originations1 were not failing species recreated1 either identically or with a difference1 in regions eminently adapted to their well-being8 ,to take a striking case4 ,that no part of the world now offers more suitable conditions for wild horses and cattle than the pampas and other plains of ,south ,america1 is shown by the facility with which they have there run wild and enormously multiplied1 since introduced from the ,old ,world not long ago4 ,there was no wild ,american stock4 ,yet in the times of the mastodon and megatherium1 at the dawn of the present period1 wild-horses--certainly very much like the existing horse--roamed over those plains in abundance4 ,on the principle of original and direct created adaptation of species to climate and other conditions1 why were they not reproduced1 when1 after the colder intervening era1 those regions became again eminently adapted to such animals8 ,why1 but because1 by their complete extinction in ,south ,america1 the line of descent was there utterly broken8 ,upon the ordinary hypothesis1 there is no scientific explanation possible of this series of facts1 and of many others like them4 ,upon the new hypothesis1 the succession of the same types of structure within the same areas during the later geological periods ceases to be mysterious1 and is simply explained by inheritance4 ,their cessation is failure of issue4 ,along with these considerations the fact 7alluded to on page #ih7 should be remembered that1 as a general thing1 related species of the present age are geographically associated4 ,the larger part of the plants1 and still more of the animals1 of each separate country are peculiar to it2 and1 as most species now flourish over the graves of their by-gone relatives of former ages1 so they now dwell among or accessibly near their kindred species4 ,here also comes in that general parallelism between the order of succession of animals and plants in geological times1 and the gradation among their living representatives from low to highly organized1 from simple and general to complex and specialized forms2 also the parallelism between the order of succession of animals in geological times and the changes their living representatives undergo during their embryological growth1 as if the world were one prolonged gestation4 ,modern science has much insisted on this parallelism1 and to a certain extent is allowed to have made it out4 ,all these things1 which conspire to prove that the ancient and the recent forms of life are somehow intimately connected together in one grand system1 equally conspire to suggest that the connection is one similar or analogous to generation4 ,surely no naturalist can be blamed for entering somewhat confidently upon a field of speculative inquiry which here opens so invitingly2 nor need former premature endeavors and failures utterly dishearten him4 ,all these things1 it may naturally be said1 go to explain the order1 not the mode1 of the incoming of species4 ,but they all do tend to bring out the generalization expressed by ,mr4 ,wallace in the formula that every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with preexisting closely-allied species4 ,not1 however1 that this is proved even of existing species as a matter of general fact4 ,it is obviously impossible to prove anything of the kind4 ,but we must concede that the known facts strongly suggest such an inference4 ,and--since species are only congeries of individuals1 since every individual came into existence in consequence of preexisting individuals of the same sort1 so leading up to the individuals with which the species began1 and since the only material sequence we know of among plants and animals is that from parent to progeny--the presumption becomes exceedingly strong that the connection of the incoming with the preexisting species is a genealogical one4 ,here1 however1 all depends upon the probability that ,mr4 ,wallace's inference is really true4 ,certainly it is not yet generally accepted2 but a strong current is setting toward its acceptance4 ,so long as universal cataclysms were in vogue1 and all life upon the earth was thought to have been suddenly destroyed and renewed many times in succession1 such a view could not be thought of4 ,so the equivalent view maintained by ,agassiz1 and formerly1 we believe1 by ,d',orbigny1 that irrespectively of general and sudden catastrophes1 or any known adequate physical cause1 there has been a total depopulation at the close of each geological period or formation1 say forty or fifty times or more1 followed by as many independent great acts of creation1 at which alone have species been originated1 and at each of which a vegetable and an animal kingdom were produced entire and complete1 full-fledged1 as flourishing1 as wide-spread1 and populous1 as varied and mutually adapted from the beginning as ever afterward--such a view1 of course1 supersedes all material connection between successive species1 and removes even the association and geographical range of species entirely out of the domain of physical causes and of natural science4 ,this is the extreme opposite of ,wallace's and ,darwin's view1 and is quite as hypothetical4 ,the nearly universal opinion1 if we rightly gather it1 manifestly is1 that the replacement of the species of successive formations was not complete and simultaneous1 but partial and successive2 and that along the course of each epoch some species probably were introduced1 and some1 doubtless1 became extinct4 ,if all since the tertiary belongs to our present epoch1 this is certainly true of it3 if to two or more epochs1 then the hypothesis of a total change is not true of them4 ,geology makes huge demands upon time2 and we regret to find that it has exhausted ours--that what we meant for the briefest and most general sketch of some geological considerations in favor of ,darwin's hypothesis has so extended as to leave no room for considering the great facts of comparative anatomy and zoology with which ,darwin's theory very well accords1 nor for indicating how it admirably serves for explaining the unity of composition of all organisms1 the existence of representative and rudimentary organs1 and the natural series which genera and species compose4 ,suffice it to say that these are the real strongholds of the new system on its theoretical side2 that it goes far toward explaining both the physiological and the structural gradations and relations between the two kingdoms1 and the arrangement of all their forms in groups subordinate to groups1 all within a few great types2 that it reads the riddle of abortive organs and of morphological conformity1 of which no other theory has ever offered a scientific explanation1 and supplies a ground for harmonizing the two fundamental ideas which naturalists and philosophers conceive to have ruled the organic world1 though they could not reconcile them2 namely1 ,adaptation to ,purpose and ,conditions of ,existence1 and ,unity of ,type4 ,to reconcile these two undeniable principles is the capital problem in the philosophy of natural history2 and the hypothesis which consistently does so thereby secures a great advantage4 ,we all know that the arm and hand of a monkey1 the foreleg and foot of a dog and of a horse1 the wing of a bat1 and the fin of a porpoise1 are fundamentally identical2 that the long neck of the giraffe has the same and no more bones than the short one of the elephant2 that the eggs of ,surinam frogs hatch into tadpoles with as good tails for swimming as any of their kindred1 although as tadpoles they never enter the water2 that the ,guinea-pig is furnished with incisor teeth which it never uses1 as it sheds them before birth2 that embryos of mammals and birds have branchial slits and arteries running in loops1 in imitation or reminiscence of the arrangement which is permanent in fishes2 and that thousands of animals and plants have rudimentary organs which1 at least in numerous cases1 are wholly useless to their possessors1 etc41 etc4 ,upon a derivative theory this morphological conformity is explained by community of descent2 and it has not been explained in any other way4 ,naturalists are constantly speaking of related species1 of the affinity of a genus or other group1 and of family resemblance--vaguely conscious that these terms of kinship are something more than mere metaphors1 but unaware of the grounds of their aptness4 ,mr4 ,darwin assures them that they have been talking derivative doctrine all their lives--as ,m4 ,jourdain talked prose--without knowing it4 ,if it is difficult and in many cases practically impossible to fix the limits of species1 it is still more so to fix those of genera2 and those of tribes and families are still less susceptible of exact natural circumscription4 ,intermediate forms occur1 connecting one group with another in a manner sadly perplexing to systematists1 except to those who have ceased to expect absolute limitations in ,nature4 ,all this blending could hardly fail to suggest a former material connection among allied forms1 such as that which the hypothesis of derivation demands4 ,here it would not be amiss to consider the general principle of gradation throughout organic ,nature--a principle which answers in a general way to the ,law of ,continuity in the inorganic world1 or rather is so analogous to it that both may fairly be expressed by the ,leibnitzian axiom1 ,natura non agit saltatim4 ,as an axiom or philosophical principle1 used to test modal laws or hypotheses1 this in strictness belongs only to physics4 ,in the investigation of ,nature at large1 at least in the organic world1 nobody would undertake to apply this principle as a test of the validity of any theory or supposed law4 ,but naturalists of enlarged views will not fail to infer the principle from the phenomena they investigate--to perceive that the rule holds1 under due qualifications and altered forms1 throughout the realm of ,nature2 although we do not suppose that ,nature in the organic world makes no distinct steps1 but only short and serial steps--not infinitely fine gradations1 but no long leaps1 or few of them4 ,to glance at a few illustrations out of many that present themselves4 ,it would be thought that the distinction between the two organic kingdoms was broad and absolute4 ,plants and animals belong to two very different categories1 fulfill opposite offices and1 as to the mass of them are so unlike that the difficulty of the ordinary observer would be to find points of comparison ,without entering into details which would fill an article1 we may safely say that the difficulty with the naturalist is all the other way--that all these broad differences vanish one by one as we approach the lower confines of the two kingdoms1 and that no absolute distinction whatever is now known between them4 ,it is quite possible that the same organism may be both vegetable and animal1 or may be first the one and then the other4 ,if some organisms may be said to be at first vegetables and then animals1 others1 like the spores and other reproductive bodies of many of the lower ,algae1 may equally claim to have first a characteristically animal1 and then an unequivocally vegetable existence4 ,nor is the gradation restricted to these simple organisms4 ,it appears in general functions1 as in that of reproduction1 which is reducible to the same formula in both kingdoms1 while it exhibits close approximations in the lower forms2 also in a common or similar ground of sensibility in the lowest forms of both1 a common faculty of effecting movements tending to a determinate end1 traces of which pervade the vegetable kingdom--while1 on the other hand1 this indefinable principle1 this vegetable ,animula vagula1 blandula1 ,hospes comesque corporis1 graduates into the higher sensitiveness of the lower class of animals4 ,nor need we hesitate to recognize the fine gradations from simple sensitiveness and volition to the higher instinctive and to the other psychical manifestations of the higher brute animals4 ,the gradation is undoubted1 however we may explain it4 ,again1 propagation is of one mode in the higher animals1 of two in all plants2 but vegetative propagation1 by budding or offshoots1 extends through the lower grades of animals4 ,in both kingdoms there may be separation of the offshoots1 or indifference in this respect1 or continued and organic union with the parent stock2 and this either with essential independence of the offshoots1 or with a subordination of these to a common whole2 or finally with such subordination and amalgamation1 along with specialization of function1 that the same parts1 which in other cases can be regarded only as progeny1 in these become only members of an individual4 ,this leads to the question of individuality1 a subject quite too large and too recondite for present discussion4 ,the conclusion of the whole matter1 however1 is1 that individuality--that very ground of being as distinguished from thing--is not attained in ,nature at one leap4 ,if anywhere truly exemplified in plants1 it is only in the lowest and simplest1 where the being is a structural unit1 a single cell1 member-less and organless1 though organic--the same thing as those cells of which all the more complex plants are built up1 and with which every plant and 7structurally7 every animal began its development4 ,in the ascending gradation of the vegetable kingdom individuality is1 so to say1 striven after1 but never attained2 in the lower animals it is striven after with greater though incomplete success2 it is realized only in animals of so high a rank that vegetative multiplication or offshoots are out of the question1 where all parts are strictly members and nothing else1 and all subordinated to a common nervous centre--is fully realized only in a conscious person4 ,so1 also1 the broad distinction between reproduction by seeds or ova and propagation by buds1 though perfect in some of the lowest forms of life1 becomes evanescent in others2 and even the most absolute law we know in the physiology of genuine reproduction--that of sexual cooperation--has its exceptions in both kingdoms in parthenogenesis1 to which in the vegetable kingdom a most curious and intimate series of gradations leads4 ,in plants1 likewise1 a long and finely graduated series of transitions leads from bisexual to unisexual blossoms2 and so in various other respects4 ,everywhere we may perceive that ,nature secures her ends1 and makes her distinctions on the whole manifest and real but everywhere without abrupt breaks ,we need not wonder therefore that gradations between species and varieties should occur2 the more so1 since genera1 tribes1 and other groups into which the naturalist collocates species1 are far from being always absolutely limited in ,nature1 though they are necessarily represented to be so in systems4 ,from the necessity of the case1 the classifications of the naturalist abruptly define where ,nature more or less blends4 ,our systems are nothing1 if not definite4 ,they express differences1 and some of the coarser gradations4 ,but this evinces not their perfection1 but their imperfection4 ,even the best of them are to the system of ,nature what consecutive patches of the seven colors are to the rainbow4 ,now the principle of gradation throughout organic ,nature may1 of course1 be interpreted upon other assumptions than those of ,darwin's hypothesis--certainly upon quite other than those of a materialistic philosophy1 with which we ourselves have no sympathy4 ,still we conceive it not only possible1 but probable1 that this gradation1 as it has its natural ground1 may yet have its scientific explanation4 ,in any case1 there is no need to deny that the general facts correspond well with an hypothesis like ,darwin's1 which is built upon fine gradations4 ,we have contemplated quite long enough the general presumptions in favor of an hypothesis of the derivation of species4 ,we cannot forget1 however1 while for the moment we overlook1 the formidable difficulties which all hypotheses of this class have to encounter1 and the serious implications which they seem to involve4 ,we feel1 moreover1 that ,darwin's particular hypothesis is exposed to some special objections4 ,it requires no small strength of nerve steadily to conceive1 not only of the diversification1 but of the formation of the organs of an animal through cumulative variation and natural selection4 ,think of such an organ as the eye1 that most perfect of optical instruments1 as so produced in the lower animals and perfected in the higher6 ,a friend of ours1 who accepts the new doctrine1 confesses that for a long while a cold chill came over him whenever he thought of the eye4 ,he has at length got over that stage of the complaint1 and is now in the fever of belief1 perchance to be succeeded by the sweating stage1 during which sundry peccant humors may be eliminated from the system4 ,for ourselves1 we dread the chill1 and have some misgivings about the consequences of the reaction4 ,we find ourselves in the singular position acknowledged by ,pictet--that is1 confronted with a theory which1 although it can really explain much1 seems inadequate to the heavy task it so boldly assumes1 but which1 nevertheless1 appears better fitted than any other that has been broached to explain1 if it be possible to explain1 somewhat of the manner in which organized beings may have arisen and succeeded each other4 ,in this dilemma we might take advantage of ,mr4 ,darwin's candid admission1 that he by no means expects to convince old and experienced people1 whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all regarded during a long course of years from the old point of view4 ,this is nearly our case4 ,so1 owning no call to a larger faith than is expected of us1 but not prepared to pronounce the whole hypothesis untenable1 under such construction as we should put upon it1 we naturally sought to attain a settled conviction through a perusal of several proffered refutations of the theory4 ,at least1 this course seemed to offer the readiest way of bringing to a head the various objections to which the theory is exposed4 ,on several accounts some of these opposed reviews especially invite examination4 ,we propose1 accordingly1 to conclude our task with an article upon ,darwin and his ,reviewers4 ,,iii ,the origin of species1 like all origination1 like the institution of any other natural state or order1 is beyond our immediate ken4 ,we see or may learn how things go on2 we can only frame hypotheses as to how they began4 ,two hypotheses divide the scientific world1 very unequally1 upon the origin of the existing diversity of the plants and animals which surround us4 ,one assumes that the actual kinds are primordial2 the other1 that they are derivative4 ,one1 that all kinds originated supernaturally and directly as such1 and have continued unchanged in the order of ,nature2 the other1 that the present kinds appeared in some sort of genealogical connection with other and earlier kinds1 that they became what they now are in the course of time and in the order of ,nature4 ,or1 bringing in the word species1 which is well defined as the perennial succession of individuals1 commonly of very like individuals--as a close corporation of individuals perpetuated by generation1 instead of election--and reducing the question to mathematical simplicity of statement3 species are lines of individuals coming down from the past and running on to the future2 lines receding1 therefore1 from our view in either direction4 ,within our limited observation they appear to be parallel lines1 as a general thing neither approaching to nor diverging from each other4 ,the first hypothesis assumes that they were parallel from the unknown beginning and will be to the unknown end4 ,the second hypothesis assumes that the apparent parallelism is not real and complete1 at least aboriginally1 but approximate or temporary2 that we should find the lines convergent in the past1 if we could trace them far enough2 that some of them1 if produced back1 would fall into certain fragments of lines1 which have left traces in the past1 lying not exactly in the same direction1 and these farther back into others to which they are equally unparallel4 ,it will also claim that the present lines1 whether on the whole really or only approximately parallel1 sometimes fork or send off branches on one side or the other1 producing new lines 7varieties71 which run for a while1 and for aught we know indefinitely when not interfered with1 near and approximately parallel to the parent line4 ,this claim it can establish2 and it may also show that these close subsidiary lines may branch or vary again1 and that those branches or varieties which are best adapted to the existing conditions may be continued1 while others stop or die out4 ,and so we may have the basis of a real theory of the diversification of species and here indeed1 there is a real1 though a narrow1 established ground to build upon ,but as systems of organic ,nature1 both doctrines are equally hypotheses1 are suppositions of what there is no proof of from experience1 assumed in order to account for the observed phenomena1 and supported by such indirect evidence as can be had4 ,even when the upholders of the former and more popular system mix up revelation with scientific discussion--which we decline to do--they by no means thereby render their view other than hypothetical4 ,agreeing that plants and animals were produced by ,omnipotent fiat does not exclude the idea of natural order and what we call secondary causes4 ,the record of the fiat--,let the earth bring forth grass1 the herb yielding seed1 etc41 and it was so2 let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind1 cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind1 and it was so--seems even to imply them4 ,agreeing that they were formed of the dust of the ground1 and of thin air1 only leads to the conclusion that the pristine individuals were corporeally constituted like existing individuals1 produced through natural agencies4 ,to agree that they were created after their kinds determines nothing as to what were the original kinds1 nor in what mode1 during what time1 and in what connections it pleased the ,almighty to introduce the first individuals of each sort upon the earth4 ,scientifically considered1 the two opposing doctrines are equally hypothetical4 ,the two views very unequally divide the scientific world2 so that believers in the divine right of majorities need not hesitate which side to take1 at least for the present4 ,up to a time quite within the memory of a generation still on the stage1 two hypotheses about the nature of light very unequally divided the scientific world4 ,but the small minority has already prevailed3 the emission theory has gone out2 the undulatory or wave theory1 after some fluctuation1 has reached high tide1 and is now the pervading1 the fully-established system4 ,there was an intervening time during which most physicists held their opinions in suspense4 ,the adoption of the undulatory theory of light called for the extension of the same theory to heat1 and this promptly suggested the hypothesis of a correlation1 material connection1 and transmutability of heat1 light1 electricity1 magnetism1 etc42 which hypothesis the physicists held in absolute suspense until very lately1 but are now generally adopting4 ,if not already established as a system1 it promises soon to become so4 ,at least1 it is generally received as a tenable and probably true hypothesis4 ,parallel to this1 however less cogent the reasons1 ,darwin and others1 having shown it likely that some varieties of plants or animals have diverged in time into cognate species1 or into forms as different as species1 are led to infer that all species of a genus may have thus diverged from a common stock1 and thence to suppose a higher community of origin in ages still farther back1 and so on4 ,following the safe example of the physicists1 and acknowledging the fact of the diversification of a once homogeneous species into varieties1 we may receive the theory of the evolution of these into species1 even while for the present we hold the hypothesis of a further evolution in cool suspense or in grave suspicion4 ,in respect to very many questions a wise man's mind rests long in a state neither of belief nor unbelief4 ,but your intellectually short-sighted people are apt to be preternaturally clear-sighted1 and to find their way very plain to positive conclusions upon one side or the other of every mooted question4 ,in fact1 most people1 and some philosophers1 refuse to hold questions in abeyance1 however incompetent they may be to decide them4 ,and1 curiously enough1 the more difficult1 recondite1 and perplexing1 the questions or hypotheses are--such1 for instance1 as those about organic ,nature--the more impatient they are of suspense4 ,sometimes1 and evidently in the present case1 this impatience grows out of a fear that a new hypothesis may endanger cherished and most important beliefs4 ,impatience under such circumstances is not unnatural1 though perhaps needless1 and1 if so1 unwise4 ,to us the present revival of the derivative hypothesis1 in a more winning shape than it ever before had1 was not unexpected4 ,we wonder that any thoughtful observer of the course of investigation and of speculation in science should not have foreseen it1 and have learned at length to take its inevitable coming patiently2 the more so1 as in ,darwin's treatise it comes in a purely scientific form1 addressed only to scientific men4 ,the notoriety and wide popular perusal of this treatise appear to have astonished the author even more than the book itself has astonished the reading world ,coming as the new presentation does from a naturalist of acknowledged character and ability and marked by a conscientiousness and candor which have not always been reciprocated we have thought it simply right to set forth the doctrine as fairly and as favorably as we could ,there are plenty to decry it and the whole theory is widely exposed to attack ,for the arguments on the other side we may look to the numerous adverse publications which ,darwin s volume has already called out and especially to those reviews which propose directly to refute it4 ,taking various lines and reflecting very diverse modes of thought1 these hostile critics may be expected to concentrate and enforce the principal objections which can be brought to bear against the derivative hypothesis in general1 and ,darwin's new exposition of it in particular4 ,upon the opposing side of the question we have read with attention--#a4 ,an article in the ,north ,american ,review for ,april last2 #b4 ,one in the ,christian ,examiner1 ,boston1 for ,may2 #c4 ,m4 ,pictet's article in the ,bibliotheque ,universelle1 which we have already made considerable use of1 which seems throughout most able and correct1 and which in tone and fairness is admirably in contrast with--#d4 ,the article in the ,edinburgh ,review for ,may1 attributed--although against a large amount of internal presumptive evidence--to the most distinguished ,british comparative anatomist2 #e4 ,an article in the ,north ,british ,review for ,may2 #f4 ,prof4 ,agassiz has afforded an early opportunity to peruse the criticisms he makes in the forthcoming third volume of his great work1 by a publication of them in advance in the ,american ,journal of ,science for ,july4 ,in our survey of the lively discussion which has been raised1 it matters little how our own particular opinions may incline4 ,but we may confess to an impression1 thus far1 that the doctrine of the permanent and complete immutability of species has not been established1 and may fairly be doubted4 ,we believe that species vary1 and that ,natural ,selection works2 but we suspect that its operation1 like every analogous natural operation1 may be limited by something else4 ,just as every species by its natural rate of reproduction would soon completely fill any country it could live in1 but does not1 being checked by some other species or some other condition--so it may be surmised that variation and natural selection have their struggle and consequent check1 or are limited by something inherent in the constitution of organic beings4 ,we are disposed to rank the derivative hypothesis in its fullness with the nebular hypothesis1 and to regard both as allowable1 as not unlikely to prove tenable in spite of some strong objections1 but as not therefore demonstrably true4 ,those1 if any there be1 who regard the derivative hypothesis as satisfactorily proved1 must have loose notions as to what proof is4 ,those who imagine it can be easily refuted and cast aside1 must1 we think1 have imperfect or very prejudiced conceptions of the facts concerned and of the questions at issue4 ,we are not disposed nor prepared to take sides for or against the new hypothesis1 and so1 perhaps1 occupy a good position from which to watch the discussion and criticise those objections which are seemingly inconclusive4 ,on surveying the arguments urged by those who have undertaken to demolish the theory1 we have been most impressed with a sense of their great inequality4 ,some strike us as excellent and perhaps unanswerable2 some1 as incongruous with other views of the same writers2 others1 when carried out1 as incompatible with general experience or general beliefs1 and therefore as proving too much2 still others1 as proving nothing at all2 so that1 on the whole1 the effect is rather confusing and disappointing4 ,we certainly expected a stronger adverse case than any which the thoroughgoing opposers of ,darwin appear to have made out4 ,wherefore1 if it be found that the new hypothesis has grown upon our favor as we proceeded1 this must be attributed not so much to the force of the arguments of the book itself as to the want of force of several of those by which it has been assailed4 ,darwin's arguments we might resist or adjourn2 but some of the refutations of it give us more concern than the book itself did4 ,these remarks apply mainly to the philosophical and theological objections which have been elaborately urged1 almost exclusively by the ,american reviewers4 ,the ,north ,british reviewer1 indeed1 roundly denounces the book as atheistical1 but evidently deems the case too clear for argument4 ,the ,edinburgh reviewer1 on the contrary1 scouts all such objections--as well he may1 since he records his belief in a continuous creative operation1 a constantly operating secondary creational law1 through which species are successively produced2 and he emits faint1 but not indistinct1 glimmerings of a transmutation theory of his own2,,iii-#h so that he is equally exposed to all the philosophical objections advanced by ,agassiz1 and to most of those urged by the other ,american critics1 against ,darwin himself4 ,proposing now to criticise the critics1 so far as to see what their most general and comprehensive objections amount to1 we must needs begin with the ,american reviewers1 and with their arguments adduced to prove that a derivative hypothesis ought not to be true1 or is not possible1 philosophical1 or theistic4 ,it must not be forgotten that on former occasions very confident judgments have been pronounced by very competent persons1 which have not been finally ratified4 ,of the two great minds of the seventeenth century1 ,newton and ,leibnitz1 both profoundly religious as well as philosophical1 one produced the theory of gravitation1 the other objected to that theory that it was subversive of natural religion4 ,the nebular hypothesis--a natural consequence of the theory of gravitation and of the subsequent progress of physical and astronomical discovery--has been denounced as atheistical even down to our own day4 ,but it is now largely adopted by the most theistical natural philosophers as a tenable and perhaps sufficient hypothesis1 and where not accepted is no longer objected to1 so far as we know1 on philosophical or religious grounds4 ,the gist of the philosophical objections urged by the two ,boston reviewers against an hypothesis of the derivation of species--or at least against ,darwin's particular hypothesis-- is1 that it is incompatible with the idea of any manifestation of design in the universe1 that it denies final causes4 ,a serious objection this1 and one that demands very serious attention4 ,the proposition1 that things and events in ,nature were not designed to be so1 if logically carried out1 is doubtless tantamount to atheism4 ,yet most people believe that some were designed and others were not1 although they fall into a hopeless maze whenever they undertake to define their position4 ,so we should not like to stigmatize as atheistically disposed a person who regards certain things and events as being what they are through designed laws 7whatever that expression means71 but as not themselves specially ordained1 or who1 in another connection1 believes in general1 but not in particular ,providence4 ,we could sadly puzzle him with questions2 but in return he might equally puzzle us4 ,then1 to deny that anything was specially designed to be what it is1 is one proposition2 while to deny that the ,designer supernaturally or immediately made it so1 is another3 though the reviewers appear not to recognize the distinction4 ,also1 scornfully to repudiate or to sneer at the idea of any manifestation of design in the material universe1,,iii-#i is one thing2 while to consider1 and perhaps to exaggerate1 the difficulties which attend the practical application of the doctrine of final causes to certain instances1 is quite another thing3 yet the ,boston reviewers1 we regret to say1 have not been duly regardful of the difference4 ,whatever be thought of ,darwin's doctrine1 we are surprised that he should be charged with scorning or sneering at the opinions of others1 upon such a subject4 ,perhaps ,darwin' s view is incompatible with final causes--we will consider that question presently-- but as to the ,examiner's charge1 that he sneers at the idea of any manifestation of design in the material universe1 though we are confident that no misrepresentation was intended1 we are equally confident that it is not at all warranted by the two passages cited in support of it4 ,here are the passages3 ,if green woodpeckers alone had existed1 or we did not know that there were many black and pied kinds1 ,i dare say that we should have thought that the green color was a beautiful adaptation to hide this tree-frequenting bird from its enemies4 ,if our reason leads us to admire with enthusiasm a multitude of inimitable contrivances in ,nature1 this same reason tells us1 though we may easily err on both sides1 that some contrivances are less perfect4 ,can we consider the sting of the wasp or of the bee as perfect1 which1 when used against many attacking animals1 cannot be withdrawn1 owing to the backward serratures1 and so inevitably causes the death of the insect by tearing out its viscera8 ,if the sneer here escapes ordinary vision in the detached extracts 7one of them wanting the end of the sentence71 it is1 if possible1 more imperceptible when read with the context4 ,moreover1 this perusal inclines us to think that the ,examiner has misapprehended the particular argument or object1 as well as the spirit1 of the author in these passages4 ,the whole reads more naturally as a caution against the inconsiderate use of final causes in science1 and an illustration of some of the manifold errors and absurdities which their hasty assumption is apt to involve--considerations probably equivalent to those which induced ,lord ,bacon to liken final causes to vestal virgins4 ,so1 if any one1 it is here ,bacon that sitteth in the seat of the scornful4 ,as to ,darwin1 in the section from which the extracts were made1 he is considering a subsidiary question1 and trying to obviate a particular difficulty1 but1 we suppose1 is wholly unconscious of denying any manifestation of design in the material universe4 ,he concludes the first sentence3 --and consequently that it was a character of importance1 and might have been acquired through natural selection2 as it is1 ,i have no doubt that the color is due to some quite distinct cause1 probably to sexual selection4 ,after an illustration from the vegetable creation1 ,darwin adds3 ,the naked skin on the head of a vulture is generally looked at as a direct adaptation for wallowing in putridity2 and so it may be1 or it may possibly be due to the direct action of putrid matter2 but we should be very cautious in drawing any such inference1 when we see that the skin on the head of the clean-feeding male turkey is likewise naked4 ,the sutures in the skulls of young mammals have been advanced as a beautiful adaptation for aiding parturition1 and no doubt they facilitate or may be indispensable for this act2 but as sutures occur in the skulls of young birds and reptiles1 which have only to escape from a broken egg1 we may infer that this structure has arisen from the laws of growth1 and has been taken advantage of in the parturition of the higher animals4 ,all this1 simply taken1 is beyond cavil1 unless the attempt to explain scientifically how any designed result is accomplished savors of impropriety4 ,in the other place1 ,darwin is contemplating the patent fact that perfection here below is relative1 not absolute--and illustrating this by the circumstance that ,european animals1 and especially plants1 are now proving to be better adapted for ,new ,zealand than many of the indigenous ones--that the correction for the aberration of light is said1 on high authority1 not to be quite perfect even in that most perfect organ1 the eye4 ,and then follows the second extract of the reviewer4 ,but what is the position of the reviewer upon his own interpretation of these passages8 ,if he insists that green woodpeckers were specifically created so in order that they might be less liable to capture1 must he not equally hold that the black and pied ones were specifically made of these colors in order that they might be more liable to be caught8 ,and would an explanation of the mode in which those woodpeckers came to be green1 however complete1 convince him that the color was undesigned8 ,as to the other illustration1 is the reviewer so complete an optimist as to insist that the arrangement and the weapon are wholly perfect 7quoad the insect7 the normal use of which often causes the animal fatally to injure or to disembowel itself8 ,either way it seems to us that the argument here1 as well as the insect1 performs hari-kari4 ,the ,examiner adds3 ,we should in like manner object to the word favorable1 as implying that some species are placed by the ,creator under unfavorable circumstances1 at least under such as might be advantageously modified4 ,but are not many individuals and some races of men placed by the ,creator under unfavorable circumstances1 at least under such as might be advantageously modified8 ,surely these reviewers must be living in an ideal world1 surrounded by the faultless monsters which our world ne'er saw1 in some elysium where imperfection and distress were never heard of6 ,such arguments resemble some which we often hear against the ,bible1 holding that book responsible as if it originated certain facts on the shady side of human nature or the apparently darker lines of ,providential dealing1 though the facts are facts of common observation and have to be confronted upon any theory4 ,the ,north ,american reviewer also has a world of his own--just such a one as an idealizing philosopher would be apt to devise--that is1 full of sharp and absolute distinctions3 such1 for instance1 as the absolute invariableness of instinct2 an absolute want of intelligence in any brute animal2 and a complete monopoly of instinct by the brute animals1 so that this instinct is a great matter for them only1 since it sharply and perfectly distinguishes this portion of organic ,nature from the vegetable kingdom on the one hand and from man on the other3 most convenient views for argumentative purposes1 but we suppose not borne out in fact4 ,in their scientific objections the two reviewers take somewhat different lines2 but their philosophical and theological arguments strikingly coincide4 ,they agree in emphatically asserting that ,darwin's hypothesis of the origination of species through variation and natural selection repudiates the whole doctrine of final causes1 and all indication of design or purpose in the organic world 4 4 4 is neither more nor less than a formal denial of any agency beyond that of a blind chance in the developing or perfecting of the organs or instincts of created beings4 4 4 4 ,it is in vain that the apologists of this hypothesis might say that it merely attributes a different mode and time to the ,divine agency--that all the qualities subsequently appearing in their descendants must have been implanted1 and have remained latent in the original pair4 ,such a view1 the ,examiner declares1 is nowhere stated in this book1 and would be1 we are sure1 disclaimed by the author4 ,we should like to be informed of the grounds of this sureness4 ,the marked rejection of spontaneous generation--the statement of a belief that all animals have descended from four or five progenitors1 and plants from an equal or lesser number1 or1 perhaps1 if constrained to it by analogy1 from some one primordial form into which life was first breathed--coupled with the expression1 ,to my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the ,creator1 that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes1 than that each species has been independently created--these and similar expressions lead us to suppose that the author probably does accept the kind of view which the ,examiner is sure he would disclaim4 ,at least1 we charitably see nothing in his scientific theory to hinder his adoption of ,lord ,bacon's ,confession of ,faith in this regard-- ,that1 notwithstanding ,god hath rested and ceased from creating1 yet1 nevertheless1 he doth accomplish and fulfill his divine will in all things1 great and small1 singular and general1 as fully and exactly by providence as he could by miracle and new creation1 though his working be not immediate and direct1 but by compass2 not violating ,nature1 which is his own law upon the creature4 ,however that may be1 it is undeniable that ,mr4 ,darwin has purposely been silent upon the philosophical and theological applications of his theory4 ,this reticence1 under the circumstances1 argues design1 and raises inquiry as to the final cause or reason why4 ,here1 as in higher instances1 confident as we are that there is a final cause1 we must not be overconfident that we can infer the particular or true one4 ,perhaps the author is more familiar with natural-historical than with philosophical inquiries1 and1 not having decided which particular theory about efficient cause is best founded1 he meanwhile argues the scientific questions concerned--all that relates to secondary causes--upon purely scientific grounds1 as he must do in any case4 ,perhaps1 confident1 as he evidently is1 that his view will finally be adopted1 he may enjoy a sort of satisfaction in hearing it denounced as sheer atheism by the inconsiderate1 and afterward1 when it takes its place with the nebular hypothesis and the like1 see this judgment reversed1 as we suppose it would be in such event4 ,whatever ,mr4 ,darwin's philosophy may be1 or whether he has any1 is a matter of no consequence at all1 compared with the important questions1 whether a theory to account for the origination and diversification of animal and vegetable forms through the operation of secondary causes does or does not exclude design2 and whether the establishment by adequate evidence of ,darwin's particular theory of diversification through variation and natural selection would essentially alter the present scientific and philosophical grounds for theistic views of ,nature4 ,the unqualified affirmative judgment rendered by the two ,boston reviewers1 evidently able and practised reasoners1 must give us pause4 ,we hesitate to advance our conclusions in opposition to theirs4 ,but1 after full and serious consideration1 we are constrained to say that1 in our opinion1 the adoption of a derivative hypothesis1 and of ,darwin's particular hypothesis1 if we understand it1 would leave the doctrines of final causes1 utility1 and special design1 just where they were before4 ,we do not pretend that the subject is not environed with difficulties4 ,every view is so environed2 and every shifting of the view is likely1 if it removes some difficulties1 to bring others into prominence4 ,but we cannot perceive that ,darwin's theory brings in any new kind of scientific difficulty1 that is1 any with which philosophical naturalists were not already familiar4 ,since natural science deals only with secondary or natural causes1 the scientific terms of a theory of derivation of species--no less than of a theory of dynamics--must needs be the same to the theist as to the atheist4 ,the difference appears only when the inquiry is carried up to the question of primary cause--a question which belongs to philosophy4 ,wherefore1 ,darwin 's reticence about efficient cause does not disturb us4 ,he considers only the scientific questions4 ,as already stated1 we think that a theistic view of ,nature is implied in his book1 and we must charitably refrain from suggesting the contrary until the contrary is logically deduced from his premises4 ,if1 however1 he anywhere maintains that the natural causes through which species are diversified operate without an ordaining and directing intelligence1 and that the orderly arrangements and admirable adaptations we see all around us are fortuitous or blind1 undesigned results--that the eye1 though it came to see1 was not designed for seeing1 nor the hand for handling--then1 we suppose1 he is justly chargeable with denying1 and very needlessly denying1 all design in organic ,nature2 otherwise1 we suppose not4 ,why1 if ,darwin's well-known passage about the eye,,iii-#aj equivocal though some of the language be--does not imply ordaining and directing intelligence1 then he refutes his own theory as effectually as any of his opponents are likely to do4 ,he asks3 ,may we not believe that under variation proceeding long enough1 generation multiplying the better variations times enough1 and natural selection securing the improvements a living optical instrument might be thus formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the ,creator are to those of man8 ,this must mean one of two things3 either that the living instrument was made and perfected under 7which is the same thing as by7 an intelligent ,first ,cause1 or that it was not4 ,if it was1 then theism is asserted2 and as to the mode of operation1 how do we know1 and why must we believe1 that1 fitting precedent forms being in existence1 a living instrument 7so different from a lifeless manufacture7 would be originated and perfected in any other way1 or that this is not the fitting way8 ,if it means that it was not1 if he so misuses words that by the ,creator he intends an unintelligent power1 undirected force1 or necessity1 then he has put his case so as to invite disbelief in it4 ,for then blind forces have produced not only manifest adaptions of means to specific ends--which is absurd enough--but better adjusted and more perfect instruments or machines than intellect 7that is1 human intellect7 can contrive and human skill execute--which no sane person will believe4 ,on the other hand1 if ,darwin even admits--we will not say adopts--the theistic view1 he may save himself much needless trouble in the endeavor to account for the absence of every sort of intermediate form4 ,those in the line between one species and another supposed to be derived from it he may be bound to provide2 but as to an infinite number of other varieties not intermediate1 gross1 rude1 and purposeless1 the unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause1 born only to perish1 which a relentless reviewer has imposed upon his theory--rightly enough upon the atheistic alternative--the theistic view rids him at once of this scum of creation4 ,for1 as species do not now vary at all times and places and in all directions1 nor produce crude1 vague1 imperfect1 and useless forms1 there is no reason for supposing that they ever did4 ,good-for-nothing monstrosities1 failures of purpose rather than purposeless1 indeed1 sometimes occur2 but these are just as anomalous and unlikely upon ,darwin's theory as upon any other4 ,for his particular theory is based1 and even over-strictly insists1 upon the most universal of physiological laws1 namely1 that successive generations shall differ only slightly1 if at all1 from their parents2 and this effectively excludes crude and impotent forms4 ,wherefore1 if we believe that the species were designed1 and that natural propagation was designed1 how can we say that the actual varieties of the species were not equally designed8 ,have we not similar grounds for inferring design in the supposed varieties of species1 that we have in the case of the supposed species of a genus8 ,when a naturalist comes to regard as three closely related species what he before took to be so many varieties of one species how has he thereby strengthened our conviction that the three forms are designed to have the differences which they actually exhibit8 ,wherefore so long as gradatory1 orderly1 and adapted forms in ,nature argue design1 and at least while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious1 we should advise ,mr4 ,darwin to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines4 ,streams flowing over a sloping plain by gravitation 7here the counterpart of natural selection7 may have worn their actual channels as they flowed2 yet their particular courses may have been assigned2 and where we see them forming definite and useful lines of irrigation1 after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and dynamics1 we should believe that the distribution was designed4 ,to insist1 therefore1 that the new hypothesis of the derivative origin of the actual species is incompatible with final causes and design1 is to take a position which we must consider philosophically untenable4 ,we must also regard it as highly unwise and dangerous1 in the present state and present prospects of physical and physiological science4 ,we should expect the philosophical atheist or skeptic to take this ground2 also1 until better informed1 the unlearned and unphilosophical believer2 but we should think that the thoughtful theistic philosopher would take the other side4 ,not to do so seems to concede that only supernatural events can be shown to be designed1 which no theist can admit--seems also to misconceive the scope and meaning of all ordinary arguments for design in ,nature4 ,this misconception is shared both by the reviewers and the reviewed4 ,at least1 ,mr4 ,darwin uses expressions which imply that the natural forms which surround us1 because they have a history or natural sequence1 could have been only generally1 but not particularly designed--a view at once superficial and contradictory2 whereas his true line should be1 that his hypothesis concerns the order and not the cause1 the how and not the why of the phenomena1 and so leaves the question of design just where it was before4 ,to illustrate this from the theist's point of view3 ,transfer the question for a moment from the origination of species to the origination of individuals1 which occurs1 as we say1 naturally4 ,because natural1 that is1 stated1 fixed1 or settled1 is it any the less designed on that account8 ,we acknowledge that ,god is our maker--not merely the originator of the race1 but our maker as individuals--and none the less so because it pleased him to make us in the way of ordinary generation4 ,if any of us were born unlike our parents and grandparents1 in a slight degree1 or in whatever degree1 would the case be altered in this regard8 ,the whole argument in natural theology proceeds upon the ground that the inference for a final cause of the structure of the hand and of the valves in the veins is just as valid now1 in individuals produced through natural generation1 as it would have been in the case of the first man1 supernaturally created4 ,why not1 then1 just as good even on the supposition of the descent of men from chimpanzees and gorillas1 since those animals possess these same contrivances8 ,or1 to take a more supposable case3 ,if the argument from structure to design is convincing when drawn from a particular animal1 say a ,newfoundland dog1 and is not weakened by the knowledge that this dog came from similar parents1 would it be at all weakened if1 in tracing his genealogy1 it were ascertained that he was a remote descendant of the mastiff or some other breed1 or that both these and other breeds came 7as is suspected7 from some wolf8 ,if not1 how is the argument for design in the structure of our particular dog affected by the supposition that his wolfish progenitor came from a post-tertiary wolf1 perhaps less unlike an existing one than the dog in question is to some other of the numerous existing races of dogs1 and that this post-tertiary came from an equally or more different tertiary wolf8 ,and if the argument from structure to design is not invalidated by our present knowledge that our individual dog was developed from a single organic cell1 how is it invalidated by the supposition of an analogous natural descent1 through a long line of connected forms1 from such a cell1 or from some simple animal1 existing ages before there were any dogs8 ,again1 suppose we have two well-known and apparently most decidedly different animals or plants1 ,a and ,d1 both presenting1 in their structure and in their adaptations to the conditions of existence1 as valid and clear evidence of design as any animal or plant ever presented3 suppose we have now discovered two intermediate species1 ,b and ,c1 which make up a series with equable differences from ,a to ,d4 ,is the proof of design or final cause in ,a and ,d1 whatever it amounted to1 at all weakened by the discovery of the intermediate forms8 ,rather does not the proof extend to the intermediate species1 and go to show that all four were equally designed8 ,suppose1 now1 the number of intermediate forms to be much increased1 and therefore the gradations to be closer yet--as close as those between the various sorts of dogs1 or races of men1 or of horned cattle3 would the evidence of design1 as shown in the structure of any of the members of the series1 be any weaker than it was in the case of ,a and ,d8 ,whoever contends that it would be1 should likewise maintain that the origination of individuals by generation is incompatible with design1 or an impossibility in ,nature4 ,we might all have confidently thought the latter1 antecedently to experience of the fact of reproduction4 ,let our experience teach us wisdom4 ,these illustrations make it clear that the evidence of design from structure and adaptation is furnished complete by the individual animal or plant itself1 and that our knowledge or our ignorance of the history of its formation or mode of production adds nothing to it and takes nothing away4 ,we infer design from certain arrangements and results2 and we have no other way of ascertaining it4 ,testimony1 unless infallible1 cannot prove it1 and is out of the question here4 ,testimony is not the appropriate proof of design3 adaptation to purpose is4 ,some arrangements in ,nature appear to be contrivances1 but may leave us in doubt4 ,many others1 of which the eye and the hand are notable examples1 compel belief with a force not appreciably short of demonstration4 ,clearly to settle that such as these must have been designed goes far toward proving that other organs and other seemingly less explicit adaptations in ,nature must also have been designed1 and clinches our belief1 from manifold considerations1 that all ,nature is a preconcerted arrangement1 a manifested design4 ,a strange contradiction would it be to insist that the shape and markings of certain rude pieces of flint1 lately found in drift-deposits1 prove design1 but that nicer and thousand-fold more complex adaptations to use in animals and vegetables do not a fortiori argue design4 ,we could not affirm that the arguments for design in ,nature are conclusive to all minds4 ,but we may insist1 upon grounds already intimated1 that1 whatever they were good for before ,darwin's book appeared1 they are good for now4 ,to our minds the argument from design always appeared conclusive of the being and continued operation of an intelligent ,first ,cause1 the ,ordainer of ,nature2 and we do not see that the grounds of such belief would be disturbed or shifted by the adoption of ,darwin's hypothesis4 ,we are not blind to the philosophical difficulties which the thoroughgoing implication of design in ,nature has to encounter1 nor is it our vocation to obviate them ,it suffices us to know that they are not new nor peculiar difficulties--that1 as ,darwin's theory and our reasonings upon it did not raise these perturbing spirits1 they are not bound to lay them4 ,meanwhile1 that the doctrine of design encounters the very same difficulties in the material that it does in the moral world is ,just what ought to be expected4 ,so the issue between the skeptic and the theist is only the old one1 long ago argued out--namely1 whether organic ,nature is a result of design or of chance4 ,variation and natural selection open no third alternative2 they concern only the question how the results1 whether fortuitous or designed1 may have been brought about4 ,organic ,nature abounds with unmistakable and irresistible indications of design1 and1 being a connected and consistent system1 this evidence carries the implication of design throughout the whole4 ,on the other hand1 chance carries no probabilities with it1 can never be developed into a consistent system1 but1 when applied to the explanation of orderly or beneficial results1 heaps up improbabilities at every step beyond all computation4 ,to us1 a fortuitous ,cosmos is simply inconceivable4 ,the alternative is a designed ,cosmos4 ,it is very easy to assume that1 because events in ,nature are in one sense accidental1 and the operative forces which bring them to pass are themselves blind and unintelligent 7physically considered1 all forces are71 therefore they are undirected1 or that he who describes these events as the results of such forces thereby assumes that they are undirected4 ,this is the assumption of the ,boston reviewers1 and of ,mr4 ,agassiz1 who insists that the only alternative to the doctrine1 that all organized beings were supernaturally created just as they are1 is1 that they have arisen spontaneously through the omnipotence of matter4,,iii-#aa ,as to all this1 nothing is easier than to bring out in the conclusion what you introduce in the premises4 ,if you import atheism into your conception of variation and natural selection1 you can readily exhibit it in the result4 ,if you do not put it in1 perhaps there need be none to come out4 ,while the mechanician is considering a steamboat or locomotive-engine as a material organism1 and contemplating the fuel1 water1 and steam1 the source of the mechanical forces1 and how they operate1 he may not have occasion to mention the engineer4 ,but1 the orderly and special results accomplished1 the why the movements are in this or that particular direction1 etc41 is inexplicable without him4 ,if ,mr4 ,darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold were undirected and undesigned1 or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected1 no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheism4 ,but the admission of the phenomena and of these natural processes and forces does not necessitate any such belief1 nor even render it one whit less improbable than before4 ,surely1 too1 the accidental element may play its part in ,nature without negativing design in the theist's view4 ,he believes that the earth's surface has been very gradually prepared for man and the existing animal races1 that vegetable matter has through a long series of generations imparted fertility to the soil in order that it may support its present occupants1 that even beds of coal have been stored up for man's benefit ,yet what is more accidental1 and more simply the consequence of physical agencies than the accumulation of vegetable matter in a peat bog and its transformation into coal8 ,no scientific person at this day doubts that our solar system is a progressive development1 whether in his conception he begins with molten masses1 or aeriform or nebulous masses1 or with a fluid revolving mass of vast extent1 from which the specific existing worlds have been developed one by one ,what theist doubts that the actual results of the development in the inorganic worlds are not merely compatible with design but are in the truest sense designed re suits8 ,not ,mr4 ,agassiz1 certainly1 who adopts a remarkable illustration of design directly founded on the nebular hypothesis drawing from the position and times of the revolution of the world1 so originated direct evidence that the physical world has been ordained in conformity with laws which obtain also among living beings ,but the reader of the interesting exposition,,iii-#ab will notice that the designed result has been brought to pass through what1 speaking after the manner of men1 might be called a chapter of accidents4 ,a natural corollary of this demonstration would seem to be1 that a material connection between a series of created things--such as the development of one of them from another1 or of all from a common stock--is highly compatible with their intellectual connection1 namely1 with their being designed and directed by one mind4 ,yet upon some ground which is not explained1 and which we are unable to conjecture1 ,mr4 ,agassiz concludes to the contrary in the organic kingdoms1 and insists that1 because the members of such a series have an intellectual connection1 they cannot be the result of a material differentiation of the objects themselves1,,iii-#ac that is1 they cannot have had a genealogical connection4 ,but is there not as much intellectual connection between the successive generations of any species as there is between the several species of a genus1 or the several genera of an order8 ,as the intellectual connection here is realized through the material connection1 why may it not be so in the case of species and genera8 ,on all sides1 therefore1 the implication seems to be quite the other way4 ,returning to the accidental element1 it is evident that the strongest point against the compatibility of ,darwin's hypothesis with design in ,nature is made when natural selection is referred to as picking out those variations which are improvements from a vast number which are not improvements1 but perhaps the contrary1 and therefore useless or purposeless1 and born to perish4 ,but even here the difficulty is not peculiar2 for ,nature abounds with analogous instances4 ,some of our race are useless1 or worse1 as regards the improvement of mankind2 yet the race may be designed to improve1 and may be actually improving4 ,or1 to avoid the complication with free agency--the whole animate life of a country depends absolutely upon the vegetation1 the vegetation upon the rain4 ,the moisture is furnished by the ocean1 is raised by the sun's heat from the ocean's surface1 and is wafted inland by the winds4 ,but what multitudes of raindrops fall back into the ocean--are as much without a final cause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing6 ,does it therefore follow that the rains which are bestowed upon the soil with such rule and average regularity were not designed to support vegetable and animal life8 ,consider1 likewise1 the vast proportion of seeds and pollen1 of ova and young--a thousand or more to one--which come to nothing1 and are therefore purposeless in the same sense1 and only in the same sense1 as are ,darwin's unimproved and unused slight variations4 ,the world is full of such cases2 and these must answer the argument--for we cannot1 except by thus showing that it proves too much4 ,finally1 it is worth noticing that1 though natural selection is scientifically explicable1 variation is not4 ,thus far the cause of variation1 or the reason why the offspring is sometimes unlike the parents1 is just as mysterious as the reason why it is generally like the parents4 ,it is now as inexplicable as any other origination2 and1 if ever explained1 the explanation will only carry up the sequence of secondary causes one step farther1 and bring us in face of a somewhat different problem1 but which will have the same element of mystery that the problem of variation has now4 ,circumstances may preserve or may destroy the variations man may use or direct them but selection whether artificial or natural no more originates them than man originates the power which turns a wheel when he dams a stream and lets the water fall upon it ,the origination of this power is a question about efficient cause4 ,the tendency of science in respect to this obviously is not toward the omnipotence of matter1 as some suppose1 but to ward the omnipotence of spirit4 ,so the real question we come to is as to the way in which we are to conceive intelligent and efficient cause to be exerted1 and upon what exerted4 ,are we bound to suppose efficient cause in all cases exerted upon nothing to evoke something into existence--and this thousands of times repeated1 when a slight change in the details would make all the difference between successive species8 ,why may not the new species1 or some of them1 be designed diversifications of the old8 ,there are1 perhaps1 only three views of efficient cause which may claim to be both philosophical and theistic3 #a4 ,the view of its exertion at the beginning of time1 endowing matter and created things with forces which do the work and produce the phenomena4 #b4 ,this same view1 with the theory of insulated interpositions1 or occasional direct action1 engrafted upon it--the view that events and operations in general go on in virtue simply of forces communicated at the first1 but that now and then1 and only now and then1 the ,deity puts his hand directly to the work4 #c4 ,the theory of the immediate1 orderly1 and constant1 however infinitely diversified1 action of the intelligent efficient ,cause4 ,it must be allowed that1 while the third is preeminently the ,christian view1 all three are philosophically compatible with design in ,nature4 ,the second is probably the popular conception4 ,perhaps most thoughtful people oscillate from the middle view toward the first or the third--adopting the first on some occasions1 the third on others4 ,those philosophers who like and expect to settle all mooted questions will take one or the other extreme4 ,the ,examiner inclines toward1 the ,north ,american reviewer fully adopts1 the third view1 to the logical extent of maintaining that the origin of an individual1 as well as the origin of a species or a genus1 can be explained only by the direct action of an intelligent creative cause4 ,to silence his critics1 this is the line for ,mr4 ,darwin to take2 for it at once and completely relieves his scientific theory from every theological objection which his reviewers have urged against it4 ,at present we suspect that our author prefers the first conception1 though he might contend that his hypothesis is compatible with either of the three4 ,that it is also compatible with an atheistic or pantheistic conception of the universe1 is an objection which1 being shared by all physical1 and some ethical or moral science1 cannot specially be urged against ,darwin's system4 ,as he rejects spontaneous generation1 and admits of intervention at the beginning of organic life1 and probably in more than one instance1 he is not wholly excluded from adopting the middle view1 although the interventions he would allow are few and far back4 ,yet one interposition admits the principle as well as more4 ,interposition presupposes particular necessity or reason for it1 and raises the question1 when and how often it may have been necessary4 ,it might be the natural supposition1 if we had only one set of species to account for1 or if the successive inhabitants of the earth had no other connections or resemblances than those which adaptation to similar conditions1 which final causes in the narrower sense1 might explain4 ,but if this explanation of organic ,nature requires one to believe that1 at innumerable periods in the earth's history1 certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues1 and this when the results are seen to be strictly connected and systematic1 we cannot wonder that such interventions should at length be considered1 not as interpositions or interferences1 but rather--to use the reviewer's own language--as exertions so frequent and beneficent that we come to regard them as the ordinary action of ,him who laid the foundation of the earth1 and without whom not a sparrow falleth to the ground4,,iii-#ad ,what does the difference between ,mr4 ,darwin and his reviewer now amount to8 ,if we say that according to one view the origination of species is natural1 according to the other miraculous1 ,mr4 ,darwin agrees that what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent mind to render it so-- that is1 to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural does to effect it for once4,,iii-#ae ,he merely inquires into the form of the miracle1 may remind us that all recorded miracles 7except the primal creation of matter7 were transformations or actions in and upon natural things1 and will ask how many times and how frequently may the origination of successive species be repeated before the supernatural merges in the natural4 ,in short1 ,darwin maintains that the origination of a species1 no less than that of an individual1 is natural2 the reviewer1 that the natural origination of an individual1 no less than the origination of a species1 requires and presupposes ,divine power4 ,a fortiori1 then1 the origination of a variety requires and presupposes ,divine power4 ,and so between the scientific hypothesis of the one and the philosophical conception of the other no contrariety remains4 ,and so1 concludes the ,north ,american reviewer1 a proper view of the nature of causation places the vital doctrine of the being and the providence of a ,god on ground that can never be shaken4,,iii-#af ,a worthy conclusion1 and a sufficient answer to the denunciations and arguments of the rest of the article1 so far as philosophy and natural theology are concerned4 ,if a writer must needs use his own favorite dogma as a weapon with which to give coup de grace to a pernicious theory1 he should be careful to seize his edge-tool by the handle1 and not by the blade4 ,we can barely glance at a subsidiary philosophical objection of the ,north ,american reviewer1 which the ,examiner also raises1 though less explicitly4 ,like all geologists1 ,mr4 ,darwin draws upon time in the most unlimited manner4 ,he is not peculiar in this regard4 ,mr4 ,agassiz tells us that the conviction is now universal1 among well-informed naturalists1 that this globe has been in existence for innumerable ages1 and that the length of time elapsed since it first became inhabited cannot be counted in years2 ,pictet1 that the imagination refuses to calculate the immense number of years and of ages during which the faunas of thirty or more epochs have succeeded one another1 and developed their long succession of generations4 ,now1 the reviewer declares that such indefinite succession of ages is virtually infinite1 lacks no characteristic of eternity except its name1 at least1 that the difference between such a conception and that of the strictly infinite1 if any1 is not appreciable4 ,but infinity belongs to metaphysics4 ,therefore1 he concludes1 ,darwin supports his theory1 not by scientific but by metaphysical evidence2 his theory is essentially and completely metaphysical in character1 resting altogether upon that idea of 'the infinite' which the human mind can neither put aside nor comprehend4,,iii-#ag ,and so a theory which will be generally regarded as much too physical is transferred by a single syllogism to metaphysics4 ,well1 physical geology must go with it3 for1 even on the soberest view1 it demands an indefinitely long time antecedent to the introduction of organic life upon our earth4 ,a fortiori is physical astronomy a branch of metaphysics1 demanding1 as it does1 still larger instalments of infinity1 as the reviewer calls them1 both as to time and number4 ,moreover1 far the greater part of physical inquiries now relate to molecular actions1 which1 a distinguished natural philosopher informs us1 we have to regard as the results of an infinite number of in finitely small material particles1 acting on each other at infinitely small distances--a triad of infinities--and so physics becomes the most metaphysical of sciences4 ,verily1 if this style of reasoning is to prevail-- ,thinking is but an idle waste of thought1 ,and naught is everything1 and everything is naught4 ,the leading objection of ,mr4 ,agassiz is likewise of a philosophical character4 ,it is1 that species exist only as categories of thought--that1 having no material existence1 they can have had no material variation1 and no material community of origin4 ,here the predication is of species in the subjective sense1 the inference in the objective sense4 ,reduced to plain terms1 the argument seems to be3 ,species are ideas2 therefore the objects from which the idea is derived cannot vary or blend1 and cannot have had a genealogical connection4 ,the common view of species is1 that1 although they are generalizations1 yet they have a direct objective ground in ,nature1 which genera1 orders1 etc41 have not4 ,according to the succinct definition of ,jussieu--and that of ,linnaeus is identical in meaning--a species is the perennial succession of similar individuals in continued generations4 ,the species is the chain of which the individuals are the links4 ,the sum of the genealogically-connected similar individuals constitutes the species1 which thus has an actuality and ground of distinction not shared by genera and other groups which were not supposed to be genealogically connected4 ,how a derivative hypothesis would modify this view1 in assigning to species only a temporary fixity1 is obvious4 ,yet1 if naturalists adopt that hypothesis1 they will still retain ,jussieu's definition1 which leaves untouched the question as to how and when the perennial successions were established4 ,the practical question will only be1 ,how much difference between two sets of individuals entitles them to rank under distinct species8 and that is the practical question now1 on whatever theory4 ,the theoretical question is--as stated at the beginning of this article--whether these specific lines were always as distinct as now4 ,mr4 ,agassiz has lost no opportunity of urging the idea that1 while species have no material existence1 they yet exist as categories of thought in the same way and only in the same way as genera1 families1 orders1 classes1 etc4 ,he has taken the ground that all the natural divisions in the animal kingdom are primarily distinct1 founded upon different categories of characters1 and that all exist in the same way1 that is1 as categories of thought1 embodied in individual living forms4 ,i have attempted to show that branches in the animal kingdom are founded upon different plans of structure1 and for that very reason have embraced from the beginning representatives between which there could be no community of origin2 that classes are founded upon different modes of execution of these plans1 and therefore they also embrace representatives which could have no community of origin2 that orders represent the different degrees of complication in the mode of execution of each class1 and therefore embrace representatives which could not have a community of origin any more than the members of different classes or branches2 that families are founded upon different patterns of form1 and embrace1 representatives equally independent in their origin2 that genera are founded upon ultimate peculiarities of structure1 embracing representatives which1 from the very nature of their peculiarities1 could have no community of origin2 and that1 finally1 species are based upon relations--and proportions that exclude1 as much as all the preceding distinctions1 the idea of a common descent4 ,as the community of characters among the beings belonging to these different categories arises from the intellectual connection which shows them to be categories of thought1 they cannot be the result of a gradual material differentiation of the objects themselves4 ,the argument on which these views are founded may be summed up in the following few words3 ,species1 genera1 families1 etc41 exist as thoughts1 individuals as facts4,,iii-#ah ,an ingenious dilemma caps the argument3 ,it seems to me that there is much confusion of ideas in the general statement of the variability of species so often repeated lately4 ,if species do not exist at all1 as the supporters of the transmutation theory maintain1 how can they vary8 ,and if individuals alone exist1 how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of species8 ,now1 we imagine that ,mr4 ,darwin need not be dangerously gored by either horn of this curious dilemma4 ,although we ourselves cherish old-fashioned prejudices in favor of the probable permanence1 and therefore of a more stable objective ground of species1 yet we agree--and ,mr4 ,darwin will agree fully with ,mr4 ,agassiz--that species1 and he will add varieties1 exist as categories of thought1 that is1 as cognizable distinctions--which is all that we can make of the phrase here1 whatever it may mean in the ,aristotelian metaphysics4 ,admitting that species are only categories of thought1 and not facts or things1 how does this prevent the individuals1 which are material things1 from having varied in the course of time1 so as to exemplify the present almost innumerable categories of thought1 or embodiments of ,divine thought in material forms1 or--viewed on the human side--in forms marked with such orderly and graduated resemblances and differences as to suggest to our minds the idea of species1 genera1 orders1 etc41 and to our reason the inference of a ,divine ,original8 ,we have no clear idea how ,mr4 ,agassiz intends to answer this question1 in saying that branches are founded upon different plans of structure1 classes upon different mode of execution of these plans1 orders on different degrees of complication in the mode of execution1 families upon different patterns of form1 genera upon ultimate peculiarities of structure1 and species upon relations and proportions4 ,that is1 we do not perceive how these several categories of thought exclude the possibility or the probability that the individuals which manifest or suggest the thoughts had an ultimate community of origin4 ,moreover1 ,mr4 ,darwin might insinuate that the particular philosophy of classification upon which this whole argument reposes is as purely hypothetical and as little accepted as is his own doctrine4 ,if both are pure hypotheses1 it is hardly fair or satisfactory to extinguish the one by the other4 ,if there is no real contradiction between them1 nothing is gained by the attempt4 ,as to the dilemma propounded1 suppose we try it upon that category of thought which we call chair4 ,this is a genus1 comprising a common chair 7,sella vulgaris71 arm or easy chair 7,s4 cathedra71 the rocking-chair 7,s4 oscillans7--widely distributed in the ,united ,states--and some others1 each of which has sported1 as the gardeners say1 into many varieties4 ,but now1 as the genus and the species have no material existence1 how can they vary8 ,if only individual chairs exist1 how can the differences which may be observed among them prove the variability of the species8 ,to which we reply by asking1 ,which does the question refer to1 the category of thought1 or the individual embodiment8 ,if the former1 then we would remark that our categories of thought vary from time to time in the readiest manner4 ,and1 although the ,divine thoughts are eternal1 yet they are manifested to us in time and succession1 and by their manifestation only can we know them1 how imperfectly6 ,allowing that what has no material existence can have had no material connection or variation1 we should yet infer that what has intellectual existence and connection might have intellectual variation2 and1 turning to the individuals1 which represent the species1 we do not see how all this shows that they may not vary4 ,observation shows us that they do4 ,wherefore1 taught by fact that successive individuals do vary1 we safely infer that the idea must have varied1 and that this variation of the individual representatives proves the variability of the species1 whether objectively or subjectively regarded4 ,each species or sort of chair1 as we have said1 has its varieties1 and one species shades off by gradations into another4 ,and--note it well--these numerous and successively slight variations and gradations1 far from suggesting an accidental origin to chairs and to their forms1 are very proofs of design4 ,again1 edifice is a generic category of thought4 ,egyptian1 ,grecian1 ,byzantine1 and ,gothic buildings are well-marked species1 of which each individual building of the sort is a material embodiment4 ,now1 the question is1 whether these categories or ideas may not have been evolved1 one from another in succession1 or from some primal1 less specialized1 edificial category4 ,what better evidence for such hypothesis could we have than the variations and grades which connect these species with each other8 ,we might extend the parallel1 and get some good illustrations of natural selection from the history of architecture1 and the origin of the different styles under different climates and conditions4 ,two considerations may qualify or limit the comparison4 ,one1 that houses do not propagate1 so as to produce continuing lines of each sort and variety2 but this is of small moment on ,agassiz's view1 he holding that genealogical connection is not of the essence of a species at all4 ,the other1 that the formation and development of the ideas upon which human works proceed are gradual2 or1 as the same great naturalist well states it1 while human thought is consecutive1 ,divine thought is simultaneous4 ,but we have no right to affirm this of ,divine action4 ,we must close here4 ,we meant to review some of the more general scientific objections which we thought not altogether tenable4 ,but1 after all1 we are not so anxious just now to know whether the new theory is well founded on facts1 as whether it would be harmless if it were4 ,besides1 we feel quite unable to answer some of these objections1 and it is pleasanter to take up those which one thinks he can4 ,among the unanswerable1 perhaps the weightiest of the objections1 is that of the absence1 in geological deposits1 of vestiges of the intermediate forms which the theory requires to have existed4 ,here all that ,mr4 ,darwin can do is to insist upon the extreme imperfection of the geological record and the uncertainty of negative evidence4 ,but1 withal1 he allows the force of the objection almost as much as his opponents urge it--so much so1 indeed1 that two of his ,english critics turn the concession unfairly upon him1 and charge him with actually basing his hypothesis upon these and similar difficulties--as if he held it because of the difficulties1 and not in spite of them2 a handsome return for his candor6 ,as to this imperfection of the geological record1 perhaps we should get a fair and intelligible illustration of it by imagining the existing animals and plants of ,new ,england1 with all their remains and products since the arrival of the ,mayflower1 to be annihilated2 and that1 in the coming time1 the geologists of a new colony1 dropped by the ,new ,zealand fleet on its way to explore the ruins of ,london1 undertake1 after fifty years of examination1 to reconstruct in a catalogue the flora and fauna of our day1 that is1 from the close of the glacial period to the present time4 ,with all the advantages of a surface exploration1 what a beggarly account it would be6 ,how many of the land animals and plants which are enumerated in the ,massachusetts official reports would it be likely to contain8 ,another unanswerable question asked by the ,boston reviewers is1 ,why1 when structure and instinct or habit vary-- as they must have varied1 on ,darwin's hypothesis--they vary together and harmoniously1 instead of vaguely8 ,we cannot tell1 because we cannot tell why either varies at all4 ,yet1 as they both do vary in successive generations--as is seen under domestication--and are correlated1 we can only adduce the fact4 ,darwin may be precluded from our answer1 but we may say that they vary together because designed to do so4 ,a reviewer says that the chance of their varying together is inconceivably small2 yet1 if they do not1 the variant individuals must all perish4 ,then it is well that it is not left to chance4 ,to refer to a parallel case3 before we were born1 nourishment and the equivalent to respiration took place in a certain way4 ,but the moment we were ushered into this breathing world1 our actions promptly conformed1 both as to respiration and nourishment1 to the before unused structure and to the new surroundings4 ,now1 says the ,examiner1 suppose1 for instance1 the gills of an aquatic animal converted into lungs1 while instinct still compelled a continuance under water1 would not drowning ensue8 ,no doubt4 ,but--simply contemplating the facts1 instead of theorizing--we notice that young frogs do not keep their heads under water after ceasing to be tadpoles4 ,the instinct promptly changes with the structure1 without supernatural interposition--just as ,darwin would have it1 if the development of a variety or incipient species1 though rare1 were as natural as a metamorphosis4 ,or if a quadruped1 not yet furnished with wings1 were suddenly inspired with the instinct of a bird1 and precipitated itself from a cliff1 would not the descent be hazardously rapid8 ,doubtless the animal would be no better supported than the objection4 ,but ,darwin makes very little indeed of voluntary efforts as a cause of change1 and even poor ,lamarck need not be caricatured4 ,he never supposed that an elephant would take such a notion into his wise head1 or that a squirrel would begin with other than short and easy leaps2 yet might not the length of the leap be increased by practice8 ,the ,north ,american reviewer's position1 that the higher brute animals have comparatively little instinct and no intelligence1 is a heavy blow and great discouragement to dogs1 horses1 elephants1 and monkeys4 ,thus stripped of their all1 and left to shift for themselves as they may in this hard world1 their pursuit and seeming attainment of knowledge under such peculiar difficulties are interesting to contemplate4 ,however1 we are not so sure as is the critic that instinct regularly increases downward and decreases upward in the scale of being4 ,now that the case of the bee is reduced to moderate proportions1,,iii-#ai we know of nothing in instinct surpassing that of an animal so high as a bird1 the talegal1 the male of which plumes himself upon making a hot-bed in which to batch his partner's eggs--which he tends and regulates the beat of about as carefully and skillfully as the unplumed biped does an eccaleobion4,,iii-#bj ,as to the real intelligence of the higher brutes1 it has been ably defended by a far more competent observer1 ,mr4 ,agassiz1 to whose conclusions we yield a general assent1 although we cannot quite place the best of dogs in that respect upon a level with a considerable proportion of poor humanity1 nor indulge the hope1 or indeed the desire1 of a renewed acquaintance with the whole animal kingdom in a future life4 ,the assertion that acquired habitudes or instincts1 and acquired structures1 are not heritable1 any breeder or good observer can refute4 ,that the human mind has become what it is out of a developed instinct1 is a statement which ,mr4 ,darwin nowhere makes1 and1 we presume1 would not accept4 ,that he would have us believe that individual animals acquire their instincts gradually1,,iii-#ba is a statement which must have been penned in inadvertence both of the very definition of instinct1 and of everything we know of in ,mr4 ,darwin's book4 ,it has been attempted to destroy the very foundation of ,darwin's hypothesis by denying that there are any wild varieties1 to speak of1 for natural selection to operate upon4 ,we cannot gravely sit down to prove that wild varieties abound4 ,we should think it just as necessary to prove that snow falls in winter4 ,that variation among plants cannot be largely due to hybridism1 and that their variation in ,nature is not essentially different from much that occurs in domestication1 and1 in the long-run1 probably hardly less in amount1 we could show if our space permitted4 ,as to the sterility of hybrids1 that can no longer be insisted upon as absolutely true1 nor be practically used as a test between species and varieties1 unless we allow that hares and rabbits are of one species4 ,that such sterility1 whether total or partial1 subserves a purpose in keeping species apart1 and was so designed1 we do not doubt4 ,but the critics fail to perceive that this sterility proves nothing whatever against the derivative origin of the actual species2 for it may as well have been intended to keep separate those forms which have reached a certain amount of divergence1 as those which were always thus distinct4 ,the argument for the permanence of species1 drawn from the identity with those now living of cats1 birds1 and other animals preserved in ,egyptian catacombs1 was good enough as used by ,cuvier against ,st4-,hilaire1 that is1 against the supposition that time brings about a gradual alteration of whole species2 but it goes for little against ,darwin1 unless it be proved that species never vary1 or that the perpetuation of a variety necessitates the extinction of the parent breed4 ,for ,darwin clearly maintains--what the facts warrant--that the mass of a species remains fixed so long as it exists at all1 though it may set off a variety now and then4 ,the variety may finally supersede the parent form1 or it may coexist with it2 yet it does not in the least hinder the unvaried stock from continuing true to the breed1 unless it crosses with it4 ,the common law of inheritance may be expected to keep both the original and the variety mainly true as long as they last1 and none the less so because they have given rise to occasional varieties4 ,the tailless ,manx cats1 like the curtailed fox in the fable1 have not induced the normal breeds to dispense with their tails1 nor have the ,dorkings 7apparently known to ,pliny7 affected the permanence of the common sort of fowl4 ,as to the objection that the lower forms of life ought1 on ,darwin's theory1 to have been long ago improved out of existence1 and replaced by higher forms1 the objectors forget what a vacuum that would leave below1 and what a vast field there is to which a simple organization is best adapted1 and where an advance would be no improvement1 but the contrary4 ,to accumulate the greatest amount of being upon a given space1 and to provide as much enjoyment of life as can be under the conditions1 is what ,nature seems to aim at2 and this is effected by diversification4 ,finally1 we advise nobody to accept ,darwin's or any other derivative theory as true4 ,the time has not come for that1 and perhaps never will4 ,we also advise against a similar credulity on the other side1 in a blind faith that species--that the manifold sorts and forms of existing animals and vegetables--have no secondary cause4 ,the contrary is already not unlikely1 and we suppose will hereafter become more and more probable4 ,but we are confident that1 if a derivative hypothesis ever is established1 it will be so on a solid theistic ground4 ,meanwhile an inevitable and legitimate hypothesis is on trial--an hypothesis thus far not untenable--a trial just now very useful to science1 and1 we conclude1 not harmful to religion1 unless injudicious assailants temporarily make it so4 ,one good effect is already manifest2 its enabling the advocates of the hypothesis of a multiplicity of human species to perceive the double insecurity of their ground4 ,when the races of men are admitted to be of one species1 the corollary1 that they are of one origin1 may be expected to follow4 ,those who allow them to be of one species must admit an actual diversification into strongly-marked and persistent varieties1 and so admit the basis of fact upon which the ,darwinian hypothesis is built2 while those1 on the other hand1 who recognize several or numerous human species1 will hardly be able to maintain that such species were primordial and supernatural in the ordinary sense of the word4 ,the ,english mind is prone to positivism and kindred forms of materialistic philosophy1 and we must expect the derivative theory to be taken up in that interest4 ,we have no predilection for that school1 but the contrary4 ,if we had1 we might have looked complacently upon a line of criticism which would indirectly1 but effectively1 play into the hands of positivists and materialistic atheists generally4 ,the wiser and stronger ground to take is1 that the derivative hypothesis leaves the argument for design1 and therefore for a designer1 as valid as it ever was2 that to do any work by an instrument must require1 and therefore presuppose1 the exertion rather of more than of less power than to do it directly2 that whoever would be a consistent theist should believe that ,design in the natural world is coextensive with ,providence1 and hold as firmly to the one as he does to the other1 in spite of the wholly similar and apparently insuperable difficulties which the mind encounters whenever it endeavors to develop the idea into a system1 either in the material and organic1 or in the moral world4 ,it is enough1 in the way of obviating objections1 to show that the philosophical difficulties of the one are the same1 and only the same1 as of the other4 ,,iv ,,species ,,as ,,to ,,variation1 ,,geographical ,,distribution1 ,,and ,,succession 7,american ,journal of ,science and ,arts1 ,may1 #ahfc7 ,etude sur l',espece1 a l',occasion d'une ,revision de la ,famille des ,cupuliferes1 par ,m4 ,,alphonse ,,de ,,candolle4-- ,this is the title of a paper by ,m4 ,alph4 ,de ,candolle1 growing out of his study of the oaks4 ,it was published in the ,november number of the ,bibliotheque ,universelle1 and separately issued as a pamphlet4 ,a less inspiring task could hardly be assigned to a botanist than the systematic elaboration of the genus ,quercus and its allies4 ,the vast materials assembled under ,de ,candolle's hands1 while disheartening for their bulk1 offered small hope of novelty4 ,the subject was both extremely trite and extremely difficult4 ,happily it occurred to ,de ,candolle that an interest might be imparted to an onerous undertaking1 and a work of necessity be turned to good account for science1 by studying the oaks in view of the question of species4 ,what this term species means1 or should mean1 in natural history1 what the limits of species1 inter se or chronologically1 or in geographical distribution1 their modifications1 actual or probable1 their origin1 and their destiny--these are questions which surge up from time to time2 and now and then in the progress of science they come to assume a new and hopeful interest4 ,botany and zoology1 geology1 and what our author1 feeling the want of a new term proposes to name epiontology1 ,,iv-#a all lead up to and converge into this class of questions1 while recent theories shape and point the discussion ,so we look with eager interest to see what light the study of oaks by a very careful experienced and conservative botanist1 particularly conversant with the geographical relations of plants may throw upon the subject4 ,the course of investigation in this instance does not differ from that ordinarily pursued by working botanists nor1 in deed are the theoretical conclusions other than those to which a similar study of other orders might not have equally led4 ,the oaks afford a very good occasion for the discussion of questions which press upon our attention1 and perhaps they offer peculiarly good materials on account of the number of fossil species4 ,preconceived notions about species being laid aside1 the specimens in hand were distributed1 according to their obvious resemblances1 into groups of apparently identical or nearly identical forms1 which were severally examined and compared4 ,where specimens were few1 as from countries little explored1 the work was easy1 but the conclusions1 as will be seen1 of small value4 ,the fewer the materials1 the smaller the likelihood of forms intermediate between any two1 and--what does not appear being treated upon the old law-maxim as non-existent--species are readily enough defined4 ,where1 however1 specimens abound1 as in the case of the oaks of ,europe1 of the ,orient1 and of the ,united ,states1 of which the specimens amounted to hundreds1 collected at different ages1 in varied localities1 by botanists of all sorts of views and predilections--here alone were data fit to draw useful conclusions from4 ,here1 as ,de ,candolle remarks1 he had every advantage1 being furnished with materials more complete than any one person could have procured from his own herborizations1 more varied than if he had observed a hundred times over the same forms in the same district1 and more impartial than if they had all been amassed by one person with his own ideas or predispositions4 ,so that vast herbaria1 into which contributions from every source have flowed for years1 furnish the best possible data--at least are far better than any practicable amount of personal herborization--or the comparative study of related forms occurring over wide tracts of territory4 ,but as the materials increase1 so do the difficulties4 ,forms1 which appeared totally distinct1 approach or blend through intermediate gradations2 characters1 stable in a limited number of instances or in a limited district1 prove unstable occasionally1 or when observed over a wider area2 and the practical question is forced upon the investigator1 ,what here is probably fixed and specific1 and what is variant1 pertaining to individual1 variety1 or race8 ,in the examination of these rich materials1 certain characters were found to vary upon the same branch1 or upon the same tree1 sometimes according to age or development1 sometimes irrespective of such relations or of any assignable reasons4 ,such characters1 of course1 are not specific1 although many of them are such as would have been expected to be constant in the same species1 and are such as generally enter into specific definitions4 ,variations of this sort1 ,de ,candolle1 with his usual painstaking1 classifies and tabulates1 and even expresses numerically their frequency in certain species4 ,the results are brought well to view in a systematic enumeration3 #a4 ,of characters which frequently vary upon the same branch3 over a dozen such are mentioned4 #b4 ,of those which sometimes vary upon the same branch3 a smaller number of these are mentioned4 #c4 ,those so rare that they might be called monstrosities4 ,then he enumerates characters1 ten in number1 which he has never found to vary on the same branch1 and which1 therefore1 may better claim to be employed as specific4 ,but1 as among them he includes the duration of the leaves1 the size of the cupule1 and the form and size of its scales1 which are by no means quite uniform in different trees of the same species1 even these characters must be taken with allowance4 ,in fact1 having first brought together1 as groups of the lowest order1 those forms which varied upon the same stock1 he next had to combine similarly various forms which1 though not found associated upon the same branch1 were thoroughly blended by intermediate degrees3 ,the lower groups 7varieties or races7 being thus constituted1 ,i have given the rank of species to the groups next above these1 which differ in other respects1 i4e41 either in characters which were not found united upon certain individuals1 or in those which do not show transitions from one individual to another4 ,for the oaks of regions sufficiently known1 the species thus formed rest upon satisfactory bases1 of which the proof can be furnished4 ,it is quite otherwise with those which are represented in our herbaria by single or few specimens4 ,these are provisional species--species which may hereafter fall to the rank of simple varieties4 ,i have not been inclined to prejudge such questions2 indeed1 in this regard1 ,i am not disposed to follow those authors whose tendency is1 as they say1 to reunite species4 ,i never reunite them without proof in each particular case2 while the botanists to whom ,i refer do so on the ground of analogous variations or transitions occurring in the same genus or in the same family4 ,for example resting on the fact that ,quercus hex1 ,q4 coccifera1 ,q4 acutifolia1 etc41 have the leaves sometimes entire and sometimes toothed upon the same branch1 or present transitions from one tree to another1 ,i might readily have united my ,q4 ,tlapuxahuensis to ,q4 ,sartorii of ,liebmann1 since these two differ only in their entire or their toothed leaves4 ,from the fact that the length of the peduncle varies in ,q4 ,robur and many other oaks1 ,i might have combined ,q4 ,seemannii ,liebm4 with ,q4 salicifolia ,nee4 ,i have not admitted these inductions1 but have demanded visible proof in each particular case4 ,many species are thus left as provisional2 but1 in proceeding thus1 the progress of the science will be more regular1 and the synonymy less dependent upon the caprice or the theoretical opinions of each author4 ,this is safe and to a certain degree judicious1 no doubt1 as respects published species4 ,once admitted1 they may stand until they are put down by evidence1 direct or circumstantial4 ,doubtless a species may rightfully be condemned on good circumstantial evidence4 ,but what course does ,de ,candolle pursue in the case--of every-day occurrence to most working botanists1 having to elaborate collections from countries not so well explored as ,europe--when the forms in question1 or one of the two1 are as yet unnamed8 ,does he introduce as a new species every form which he cannot connect by ocular proof with a near relative1 from which it differs only in particulars which he sees are inconstant in better known species of the same group8 ,we suppose not4 ,but1 if he does1 little improvement for the future upon the state of things revealed in the following quotation can be expected3 ,in the actual state of our knowledge1 after having seen nearly all the original specimens1 and in some species as many as two hundred representatives from different localities1 ,i estimate that1 out of the three hundred species of ,cupuliferae which will be enumerated in the ,prodromus1 two-thirds at least are provisional species4 ,in general1 when we consider what a multitude of species were described from a single specimen1 or from the forms of a single locality1 of a single country1 or are badly described1 it is difficult to believe that above one-third of the actual species in botanical works will remain unchanged4 ,such being the results of the want of adequate knowledge1 how is it likely to be when our knowledge is largely increased8 ,the judgment of so practised a botanist as ,de ,candolle is important in this regard1 and it accords with that of other botanists of equal experience4 ,they are mistaken1 he pointedly asserts1 who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited1 and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority4 ,this seemed to be true1 so long as a genus was imperfectly known1 and its species were founded upon few specimens1 that is to say1 were provisional4 ,just as we come to know them better1 intermediate forms flow in1 and doubts as to specific limits augment4 ,de ,candolle insists1 indeed1 in this connection1 that the higher the rank of the groups the more definite their limitation1 or1 in other terms1 the fewer the ambiguous or doubtful forms1 that genera are more strictly limited than species tribes than genera1 orders than tribes1 etc4 ,we are not convinced of this ,often where it has appeared to be so1 advancing discovery has brought intermediate forms to light1 perplexing to the systematist4 ,they are mistaken1 we think more than one systematic botanist will say1 who repeat that the greater part of our natural orders and tribes are absolutely limited1 however we may agree that we will limit them4 ,provisional genera we suppose are proportionally hardly less common than provisional species2 and hundreds of genera are kept up on considerations of general propriety or general convenience1 although well known to shade off into adjacent ones by complete gradations4 ,somewhat of this greater fixity of higher groups1 therefore1 is rather apparent than real4 ,on the other hand1 that varieties should be less definite than species1 follows from the very terms employed4 ,they are ranked as varieties1 rather than species1 just because of their less definiteness4 ,singular as it may appear1 we have heard it denied that spontaneous varieties occur4 ,de ,candolle makes the important announcement that1 in the oak genus1 the best known species are just those which present the greatest number of spontaneous varieties and sub-varieties4 ,the maximum is found in ,q4 ,robur1 with twenty-eight varieties1 all spontaneous4 ,of ,q4 ,lusitanica eleven varieties are enumerated1 of ,q4 ,calliprinos ten1 of ,q4 coccifera eight1 99 etc4 ,and he significantly adds that these very species which offer such numerous modifications are themselves ordinarily surrounded by other forms1 provisionally called species1 because of the absence of known transitions or variations1 but to which some of these will probably have to be joined hereafter4 ,the inference is natural1 if not inevitable1 that the difference between such species and such varieties is only one of degree1 either as to amount of divergence1 or of hereditary fixity1 or as to the frequency or rarity at the present time of intermediate forms4 ,this brings us to the second section of ,de ,candolle's article1 in which he passes on1 from the observation of the present forms and affinities of cupuliferous plants1 to the consideration of their probable history and origin4 ,suffice it to say1 that he frankly accepts the inferences derived from the whole course of observation1 and contemplates a probable historical connection between congeneric species4 ,he accepts and1 by various considerations drawn from the geographical distribution of ,european ,cupuliferae1 fortifies the conclusion--long ago arrived at by ,edward ,forbes--that the present species1 and even some of their varieties1 date back to about the close of the ,tertiary epoch1 since which time they have been subject to frequent and great changes of habitation or limitation1 but without appreciable change of specific form or character2 that is1 without profounder changes than those within which a species at the present time is known to vary4 ,moreover1 he is careful to state that he is far from concluding that the time of the appearance of a species in ,europe at all indicates the time of its origin4 ,looking back still further into the ,tertiary epoch1 of which the vegetable remains indicate many analogous1 but few1 if any1 identical forms1 he concludes1 with ,heer and others1 that specific changes of form1 as well as changes of station1 are to be presumed2 and1 finally1 that the theory of a succession of forms through the deviation of anterior forms is the most natural hypothesis1 and the most accordant with the known facts in palaeontology1 geographical botany and zoology1 of anatomical structure and classification3 but direct proof of it is wanting1 and moreover1 if true1 it must have taken place very slowly2 so slowly1 indeed1 that its effects are discernible only after a lapse of time far longer than our historic epoch4 ,in contemplating the present state of the species of ,cupuliferae in ,europe1 ,de ,candolle comes to the conclusion that1 while the beech is increasing1 and extending its limits southward and westward 7at the expense of ,coniferae and birches71 the common oak1 to some extent1 and the ,turkey oak decidedly1 are diminishing and retreating1 and this wholly irrespective of man's agency4 ,this is inferred of the ,turkey oak from the great gaps found in its present geographical area1 which are otherwise inexplicable1 and which he regards as plain indications of a partial extinction4 ,community of descent of all the individuals of species is of course implied in these and all similar reasonings4 ,an obvious result of such partial extinction is clearly enough brought to view ,the ,european oaks 7like the ,american species7 greatly tend to vary that is they manifest an active disposition to produce new forms ,every form tends to become hereditary and so to pass from the state of mere variation to that of race and of these competing incipient races some only will survive4 ,quercus ,robur offers a familiar illustration of the manner in which one form may in the course of time become separated into two or more distinct ones4 ,to ,linnaeus this common oak of ,europe was all of one species4 ,but of late years the greater number of ,european botanists have regarded it as including three species1 ,q4 pedunculata1 ,q4 sessiliflora1 and ,q4 pubescens4 ,de ,candolle looks with satisfaction to the independent conclusion which he reached from a long and patient study of the forms 7and which ,webb1 ,gay1 ,bentham1 and others1 had equally reached71 that the view of ,linnaeus was correct1 inasmuch as it goes to show that the idea and the practical application of the term species have remained unchanged during the century which has elapsed since the publication of the ,species ,plantarum4 ,but1 the idea remaining unchanged1 the facts might appear under a different aspect1 and the conclusion be different1 under a slight and very supposable change of circumstances4 ,of the twenty-eight spontaneous varieties of ,q4 ,robur1 which ,de ,candolle recognizes1 all but six1 he remarks1 fall naturally under the three sub-species1 pedunculata1 sessiliflora1 and pubescens1 and are therefore forms grouped around these as centres2 and1 moreover1 the few connecting forms are by no means the most common4 ,were these to die out1 it is clear that the three forms which have already been so frequently taken for species would be what the group of four or five provisionally admitted species which closely surround ,q4 ,robur now are4 ,the best example of such a case1 as having in all probability occurred through geographical segregation and partial extinction1 is that of the cedar1 thus separated into the ,deodar1 the ,lebanon1 and the ,atlantic cedars--a case admirably worked out by ,dr4 ,hooker two or three years ago4 ,,iv-#b ,a special advantage of the ,cupuliferae for determining the probable antiquity of existing species in ,europe1 ,de ,candolle finds in the size and character of their fruits4 ,however it may be with other plants 7and he comes to the conclusion generally that marine currents and all other means of distant transport have played only a very small part in the actual dispersion of species71 the transport of acorns and chestnuts by natural causes across an arm of the sea in a condition to germinate1 and much more the spontaneous establishment of a forest of oaks or chestnuts in this way1 ,de ,candolle conceives to be fairly impossible in itself1 and contrary to all experience4 ,from such considerations1 i4e41 from the actual dispersion of the existing species 7with occasional aid from post-tertiary deposits71 it is thought to be shown that the principal ,cupuliferae of the ,old ,world attained their actual extension before the present separation of ,sicily1 ,sardinia and ,corsica1 and of ,britain1 from the ,european ,continent4 ,this view once adopted1 and this course once entered upon1 has to be pursued farther4 ,quercus ,robur of ,europe with its bevy of admitted derivatives1 and its attending species only provisionally admitted to that rank1 is very closely related to certain species of ,eastern ,asia1 and of ,oregon and ,california--so closely that a view of the specimens by no means forbids the idea that they have all originated from ,q4 ,robur1 or have originated1 with the latter1 from one or more preceding forms so like the present ones that a naturalist could hardly know whether to call them species or varieties4 ,moreover1 there are fossil leaves from diluvian deposits in ,italy1 figured by ,gaudin1 which are hardly distinguishable from those of ,q4 ,robur on the one hand1 and from those of ,q4 ,douglasii1 etc41 of ,california1 on the other4 ,no such leaves are found in any tertiary deposit in ,europe2 but such are found of that age1 it appears1 in ,northwest ,america1 where their remote descendants still flourish4 ,so that the probable genealogy of ,q4 ,robur1 traceable in ,europe up to the commencement of the present epoch1 looks eastward and far into the past on far-distant shores4 ,quercus ,ilex1 the evergreen oak of ,southern ,europe and ,northern ,africa1 reveals a similar archaeology2 but its presence in ,algeria leads ,de ,candolle to regard it as a much more ancient denizen of ,europe than ,q4 ,robur2 and a ,tertiary oak1 ,q4 ilicoides1 from a very old ,miocene bed in ,switzerland1 is thought to be one of its ancestral forms4 ,this high antiquity once established1 it follows almost of course that the very nearly-related species in ,central ,asia1 in ,japan1 in ,california1 and even our own live-oak with its ,mexican relatives1 may probably enough be regarded as early offshoots from the same stock with ,q4 hex4 ,in brief--not to continue these abstracts and remarks1 and without reference to ,darwin's particular theory 7which ,de ,candolle at the close very fairly considers7--if existing species1 or many of them1 are as ancient as they are now generally thought to be1 and were subject to the physical and geographical changes 7among them the coming and the going of the glacial epoch7 which this antiquity implies2 if in former times they were as liable to variation as they now are2 and if the individuals of the same species may claim a common local origin1 then we cannot wonder that the theory of a succession of forms by deviations of anterior forms should be regarded as the most natural hypothesis1 nor at the general advance made toward its acceptance4 ,the question being1 not1 how plants and animals originated1 but1 how came the existing animals and plants to be just where they are and what they are1 it is plain that naturalists interested in such inquiries are mostly looking for the answer in one direction4 ,the general drift of opinion1 or at least of expectation1 is exemplified by this essay of ,de ,candolle2 and the set and force of the current are seen by noticing how it carries along naturalists of widely different views and prepossessions--some faster and farther than others--but all in one way4 ,the tendency is1 we may say1 to extend the law of continuity1 or something analogous to it1 from inorganic to organic ,nature1 and in the latter to connect the present with the past in some sort of material connection4 ,the generalization may indeed be expressed so as not to assert that the connection is genetic1 as in ,mr4 ,wallace's formula3 ,every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with preexisting closely-allied species4 ,edward ,forbes1 who may be called the originator of this whole line of inquiry1 long ago expressed a similar view4 ,but the only material sequence we know1 or can clearly conceive1 in plants and animals1 is that from parent to progeny2 and1 as ,de ,candolle implies1 the origin of species and that of races can hardly be much unlike1 nor governed by other than the same laws1 whatever these may be4 ,the progress of opinion upon this subject in one generation is not badly represented by that of ,de ,candolle himself1 who is by no means prone to adopt new views without much consideration4 ,in an elementary treatise published in the year #ahce1 he adopted and1 if we rightly remember1 vigorously maintained1 ,schouw's idea of the double or multiple origin of species1 at least of some species--a view which has been carried out to its ultimate development only perhaps by ,agassiz1 in the denial of any necessary genetic connection among the individuals of the same species1 or of any original localization more restricted than the area now occupied by the species4 ,but in i#hee1 in his ,geographic ,botanique1 the multiple hypothesis1 although in principle not abandoned1 loses its point1 in view of the probable high antiquity of existing species4 ,the actual vegetation of the world being now regarded as a continuation1 through numerous geological1 geographical1 and more recently historical changes1 of anterior vegetations1 the actual distribution of plants is seen to be a consequence of preceding conditions2 and geological considerations1 and these alone1 may be expected to explain all the facts--many of them so curious and extraordinary--of the actual geographical distribution of the species4 ,in the present essay1 not only the distribution but the origin of congeneric species is regarded as something derivative2 whether derived by slow and very gradual changes in the course of ages1 according to ,darwin1 or by a sudden1 inexplicable change of their tertiary ancestors1 as conceived by ,heer1 ,de ,candolle hazards no opinion4 ,it may1 however1 be inferred that he looks upon natural selection as a real1 but insufficient cause2 while some curious remarks upon the number of monstrosities annually produced1 and the possibility of their enduring1 may be regarded as favorable to ,heer's view4 ,as an index to the progress of opinion in the direction referred to1 it will be interesting to compare ,sir ,charles ,lyell's well-known chapters of twenty or thirty years ago1 in which the permanence of species was ably maintained1 with his treatment of the same subject in a work just issued in ,england1 which1 however1 has not yet reached us4 ,a belief of the derivation of species may be maintained along with a conviction of great persistence of specific characters4 ,this is the idea of the excellent ,swiss vegetable palaeontologist1 ,heer1 who imagines a sudden change of specific type at certain periods1 and perhaps is that of ,pictet4 ,falconer adheres to somewhat similar views in his elaborate paper on elephants1 living and fossil1 in the ,natural ,history ,review for ,january last4 ,noting that there is clear evidence of the true mammoth having existed in ,america long after the period of the northern drift1 when the surface of the country had settled down into its present form1 and also in ,europe so late as to have been a contemporary of the ,irish elk1 and on the other hand that it existed in ,england so far back as before the deposition of the bowlder clay2 also that four well-defined species of fossil elephant are known to have existed in ,europe2 that a vast number of the remains of three of these species have been exhumed over a large area in ,europe2 and1 even in the geological sense1 an enormous interval of time has elapsed between the formation of the most ancient and the most recent of these deposits1 quite sufficient to test the persistence of specific characters in an elephant1 he presents the question1 ,do1 then1 the successive elephants occurring in these strata show any signs of a passage from the older form into the newer8 ,to which the reply is3 ,if there is one fact which is impressed on the conviction of the observer with more force than any other1 it is the persistence and uniformity of the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth and his most modern successor 4 4 4 ,assuming the observation to be correct1 what strong proof does it not afford of the persistence and constancy1 throughout vast intervals of time1 of the distinctive characters of those organs which arc most concerned in the existence and habits of the species8 ,if we cast a glance back on the long vista of physical changes which our planet has undergone since the ,neozoic epoch1 we can nowhere detect signs of a revolution more sudden and pronounced1 or more important in its results1 than the intercalation and sudden disappearance of the glacial period4 ,yet the 'dicyclotherian' mammoth lived before it1 and passed through the ordeal of all the hard extremities it involved1 bearing his organs of locomotion and digestion all but unchanged4 ,taking the group of four ,european fossil species above enumerated1 do they show any signs in the successive deposits of a transition from the one form into the other8 ,here again the result of my observation1 in so far as it has extended over the ,european area1 is1 that the specific characters of the molars are constant in each1 within a moderate range of variation1 and that we nowhere meet with intermediate forms4 4 4 4 ,dr4 ,falconer continues 7page #hj73 ,the inferences which ,i draw from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of ,darwin's theory4 ,with him1 ,i have no faith in the opinion that the mammoth and other extinct elephants made their appearance suddenly1 after the type in which their fossil remains are presented to us4 ,the most rational view seems to be1 that they are in some shape the modified descendants of earlier progenitors4 ,but if the asserted facts be correct1 they seem clearly to indicate that the older elephants of ,europe1 such as ,e4 meridionalis and ,e4 antiguus1 were not the stocks from which the later species1 ,e4 primigenius and ,e4 ,africanus sprung1 and that we must look elsewhere for their origin4 ,the nearest affinity1 and that a very close one1 of the ,european ,e4 meridionalis is with the ,miocene ,e4 planifrons of ,india2 and of ,e4 primigenius1 with the existing ,india species4 ,another reflection is equally strong in my mind--that the means which have been adduced to explain the origin of the species by 'natural selection1' or a process of variation from external influences1 are inadequate to account for the phenomena4 ,the law of phyllotaxis1 which governs the evolution of leaves around the axis of a plant1 is as nearly constant in its manifestation as any of the physical laws connected with the material world4 ,each instance1 however different from another1 can be shown to be a term of some series of continued fractions4 ,when this is coupled with the geometrical law governing the evolution of form1 so manifest in some departments of the animal kingdom1 e4 g41 the spiral shells of the ,mollusca1 it is difficult to believe that there is not1 in ,nature1 a deeper-seated and innate principle1 to the operation of which natural selection is merely an adjunct4 ,the whole range of the ,mammalia1 fossil and recent1 cannot furnish a species which has had a wider geographical distribution1 and passed through a longer term of time1 and through more extreme changes of climatal conditions1 than the mammoth4 ,if species are so unstable1 and so susceptible of mutation through such influences1 why does that extinct form stand out so signally a monument of stability8 ,by his admirable researches and earnest writings1 ,darwin has1 beyond all his contemporaries1 given an impulse to the philosophical investigation of the most backward and obscure branch of the biological sciences of his day2 he has laid the foundations of a great edifice2 but he need not be surprised if1 in the progress of erection1 the superstructure is altered by his successors1 like the ,duomo of ,milan from the ,roman to a different style of architecture4 ,entertaining ourselves the opinion that something more than natural selection is requisite to account for the orderly production and succession of species1 we offer two incidental remarks upon the above extract4 #a4 ,we find in it--in the phrase natural selection1 or a process of variation from external influences--an example of the very common confusion of two distinct things1 viz41 variation and natural selection4 ,the former has never yet been shown to have its cause in external influences1 nor to occur at random4 ,as we have elsewhere insisted1 if not inexplicable1 it has never been explained2 all we can yet say is1 that plants and animals are prone to vary1 and that some conditions favor variation4 ,perhaps in this ,dr4 ,falconer may yet find what he seeks3 for it is difficult to believe that there is not in nature a deeper-seated and innate principle1 to the operation of which natural selection is merely an adjunct4 ,the latter1 which is the ensemble of the external influences1 including the competition of the individuals them selves1 picks out certain variations as they arise1 but in no proper sense can be said to originate them #b4 ,although we are not quite sure how ,dr ,falconer in tends to apply the law of phyllotaxis to illustrate his idea1 we fancy that a pertinent illustration may be drawn from it in this way4 ,there are two species of phyllotaxis1 perfectly distinct1 and we suppose1 not mathematically reducible the one to the other1 viz43 7#a47 ,that of alternate leaves1 with its vane ties and 7#b47 ,that of verticillate leaves1 of which opposite leaves present the simplest case ,that although generally constant a change from one variety of alternate phyllotaxis to an other should occur on the same axis1 or on successive axes1 is not surprising1 the different sorts being terms of a regular series--although indeed we have not the least idea as to how the change from the one to the other comes to pass ,but it is interesting and in this connection perhaps instructive1 to remark that while some dicotyledonous plants hold to the verticillate1 i4e41 opposite-leaved phyllotaxis throughout1 a larger number--through the operation of some deep seated and innate principle which we cannot fathom--change abruptly into the other species at the second or third node1 and change back again in the flower1 or else effect a synthesis of the two species in a manner which is puzzling to understand4 ,here is a change from one fixed law to another1 as unaccountable1 if not as great1 as from one specific form to another4 ,an elaborate paper on the vegetation of the ,tertiary period in the southeast of ,france1 by ,count ,gaston de ,saporta1 published in the ,annales des ,sciences ,naturelles in #ahfb1 vol4 xvi41 pp4 #cji-cdd--which we have not space to analyze--is worthy of attention from the general inquirer1 on account of its analysis of the ,tertiary flora into its separate types1 ,cretaceous1 ,austral1 ,tropical1 and ,boreal1 each of which has its separate and different history--and for the announcement that the hiatus1 which1 in the idea of most geologists1 intervened between the close of the ,cretaceous and the beginning of the ,tertiary1 appears to have had no existence1 so far as concerns the vegetation2 that in general it was not by means of a total overthrow1 followed by a complete new emission of species1 that the flora has been renewed at each successive period2 and that while the plants of ,southern ,europe inherited from the ,cretaceous period more or less rapidly disappeared1 as also the austral forms1 and later the tropical types 7except the laurel1 the myrtle1 and the ,chamaerops humilis71 the boreal types1 coming later1 survived all the others1 and now compose1 either in ,europe1 or in the north of ,asia1 or in ,north ,america1 the basis of the actual arborescent vegetation4 ,especially a very considerable number of forms nearly identical with tertiary forms now exist in ,america1 where they have found1 more easily than in our soil--less vast and less extended southward--refuge from ulterior revolutions1 ,the extinction of species is attributed to two kinds of causes2 the one material or physical1 whether slow or rapid2 the other inherent in the nature of organic beings1 incessant1 but slow1 in a manner latent1 but somehow assigning to the species1 as to the individuals1 a limited period of existence1 and1 in some equally mysterious but wholly natural way1 connected with the development of organic types3 ,by type meaning a collection of vegetable forms constructed upon the same plan of organization1 of which they reproduce the essential lineaments with certain secondary modifications1 and which appear to run back to a common point of departure4 ,in this community of types1 no less than in the community of certain existing species1 ,saporta recognizes a prolonged material union between ,north ,america and ,europe in former times4 ,most naturalists and geologists reason in the same way--some more cautiously than others--yet perhaps most of them seem not to perceive how far such inferences imply the doctrine of the common origin of related species4 ,for obvious reasons such doctrines are likely to find more favor with botanists than with zoologists4 ,but with both the advance in this direction is seen to have been rapid and great2 yet to us not unexpected4 ,we note1 also1 an evident disposition1 notwithstanding some endeavors to the contrary1 to allow derivative hypotheses to stand or fall upon their own merits--to have indeed upon philosophical grounds certain presumptions in their favor--and to be1 perhaps1 quite as capable of being turned to good account as to bad account in natural theology4,,iv-#c ,among the leading naturalists1 indeed1 such views--taken in the widest sense--have one and1 so far as we are now aware1 only one thoroughgoing and thoroughly consistent opponent1 viz41 ,mr4 ,agassiz4 ,most naturalists take into their very conception of a species1 explicitly or by implication1 the notion of a material connection resulting from the descent of the individuals composing it from a common stock1 of local origin4 ,agassiz wholly eliminates community of descent from his idea of species1 and even conceives a species to have been as numerous in individuals and as wide-spread over space1 or as segregated in discontinuous spaces1 from the first as at the later period4 ,the station which it inhabits1 therefore1 is with other naturalists in no wise essential to the species1 and may not have been the region of its origin4 ,in ,agassiz's view the habitat is supposed to mark the origin1 and to be a part of the character of the species4 ,the habitat is not merely the place where it is1 but a part of what it is4 ,most naturalists recognize varieties of species2 and many1 like ,de ,candolle1 have come to conclude that varieties of the highest grade1 or races1 so far partake of the characteristics of species1 and are so far governed by the same laws1 that it is often very difficult to draw a clear and certain distinction between the two4 ,agassiz will not allow that varieties or races exist in ,nature1 apart from man's agency4 ,most naturalists believe that the origin of species is supernatural1 their dispersion or particular geographical area1 natural1 and their extinction1 when they disappear1 also the result of physical causes4 ,in the view of ,agassiz1 if rightly understood1 all three are equally independent of physical cause and effect1 are equally supernatural4 ,in comparing preceding periods with the present and with each other1 most naturalists and palaeontologists now appear to recognize a certain number of species as having survived from one epoch to the next1 or even through more than one formation1 especially from the ,tertiary into the post-,tertiary period1 and from that to the present age4 ,agassiz is understood to believe in total extinctions and total new creations at each successive epoch1 and even to recognize no existing species as ever contemporary with extinct ones1 except in the case of recent exterminations4 ,these peculiar views if sustained will effectually dispose of every form of derivative hypothesis4 ,returning for a moment to ,de ,candolle's article1 we are disposed to notice his criticism of ,linnaeus's definition of the term species 7,philosophia ,botanica1 ,no4 #aeg73 ,species tot numeramus quot diversae formae in principio sunt creatae-- which he declares illogical1 inapplicable1 and the worst that has been propounded4 ,so1 to determine if a form is specific1 it is necessary to go back to its origin which is impossible ,a definition by a character which can never be verified is no definition at all4 ,now as ,linnaeus practically applied the idea of species with a sagacity which has never been surpassed and rarely equaled and indeed may be said to have fixed its received meaning in natural history1 it may well be inferred that in the phrase above cited he did not so much undertake to frame a logical definition1 as to set forth the idea which1 in his opinion1 lay at the foundation of species2 on which basis ,a4,l4 ,jussieu did construct a logical definition--,nunc rectius definitur perennis individuorum similium successio continuata generatione renascentium4 ,the fundamental idea of species1 we would still maintain1 is that of a chain of which genetically-connected individuals are the links4 ,that1 in the practical recognition of species1 the essential characteristic has to be inferred1 is no great objection--the general fact that like engenders like being an induction from a vast number of instances1 and the only assumption being that of the uniformity of ,nature4 ,the idea of gravitation1 that of the atomic constitution of matter1 and the like1 equally have to be verified inferentially4 ,if we still hold to the idea of ,linnaeus1 and of ,agassiz1 that existing species were created independently and essentially all at once at the beginning of the present era1 we could not better the propositions of ,linnaeus and of ,jussieu4 ,if2 on the other hand1 the time has come in which we may accept1 with ,de ,candolle1 their successive origination1 at the commencement of the present era or before1 and even by derivation from other forms1 then the in principio of ,linnaeus will refer to that time1 whenever it was1 and his proposition be as sound and wise as ever4 ,in his ,geographie ,botanique 7ii41 #ajfh-ajgg7 ,de ,candolle discusses this subject at length1 and in the same interest4 ,remarking that of the two great facts of species1 viz41 likeness among the individuals1 and genealogical connection1 zoologists have generally preferred the latter1,,iv-#d while botanists have been divided in opinion1 he pronounces for the former as the essential thing1 in the following argumentative statement3 ,quant a moi1 j'ai ete conduit1 dans ma definition de l'espece1 a mettre decidement la ressemblance au-dessus de caracteres de succession4 ,ce n'est pas seulement a cause des circonstances propres au regne vegetal1 dont je m'occupe exclusivement2 ce n'est pas non plus afin de sortir ma definition des theories et de la rendre le plus possible utile aux naturalistes descripteurs et nomenclateurs1 c'est aussi par un motif philosophique4 ,en toute chose il faut aller au fond des questions1 quand on le peut4 ,or1 pourquoi la reproduction est-elle possible1 habituelle1 feconde indefiniment1 entre des etres organises que nous dirons de la meme espece8 ,parce qu'ils se ressemblent et uniquement a cause de cela4 ,lorsque deux especes ne peuvent1 ou1 s'il s'agit d'animaux superieurs1 ne peuvent et ne veulent se croiser1 c'est qu'elles sont tres differentes4 ,si l'on obtient des croisements1 c'est que les individus sont analogues2 si ces croisements donnent des produits feconds1 c'est que les individus etaient plus analogues2 si ces produits euxmemes sont feconds1 c'est que la ressemblance etait plus grande2 s'ils sont fecond habituellement et indefiniment1 c'est que la ressemblance interieure et exterieure etait tres grande4 ,ainsi le degre de ressemblance est le fond2 la reproduction en est seulement la manifestation et la mesure1 et il est logique de placer la cause au-dessus de l'effet4 ,we are not yet convinced4 ,we still hold that genealogical connection1 rather than mutual resemblance1 is the fundamental thing--first on the ground of fact1 and then from the philosophy of the case4 ,practically1 no botanist can say what amount of dissimilarity is compatible with unity of species2 in wild plants it is sometimes very great1 in cultivated races often enormous4 ,de ,candolle himself informs us that the different variations which the same oak-tree exhibits arc significant indications of a disposition to set up separate varieties1 which becoming hereditary may constitute a race2 he evidently looks upon the extreme forms1 say of ,quercus ,robur1 as having thus originated2 and on this ground1 inferred from transitional forms1 and not from their mutual resemblance1 he includes them in that species4 ,this will be more apparent should the discovery of transitions1 which he leads us to expect1 hereafter cause the four provisional species which attend ,q4 ,robur to be merged in that species4 ,it may rightly be replied that this conclusion would be arrived at from the likeness step by step in the series of forms2 but the cause of the likeness here is obvious4 ,and this brings in our motif philosophique4 ,not to insist that the likeness is after all the variable1 not the constant1 element--to learn which is the essential thing1 resemblance among individuals or their genetic connection--we have only to ask which can be the cause of the other4 ,in hermaphrodite plants 7the normal case71 and even as the question is ingeniously put by ,de ,candolle in the above extract1 the former surely cannot be the cause of the latter1 though it may1 in case of crossing1 offer occasion4 ,but1 on the ground of the most fundamental of all things in the constitution of plants and animals--the fact incapable of further analysis1 that individuals reproduce their like1 that characteristics are inheritable--the likeness is a direct natural consequence of the genetic succession2 and it is logical to place the cause above the effect4 ,we are equally disposed to combat a proposition of ,de ,candolle's about genera1 elaborately argued in the ,geographie ,botanique1 and incidentally reaffirmed in his present article1 viz41 that genera are more natural than species1 and more correctly distinguished by people in general1 as is shown by vernacular names4 ,but we have no space left in which to present some evidence to the contrary4 ,v ,,sequoia ,,and ,,its ,,history ,,the ,,relations ,,of ,,north ,,american ,,to ,,northeast ,,asian ,,and ,,to ,,tertiary ,,vegetation 7,a ,presidential ,address to the ,american ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 at ,dubuque1 ,august1 #ahgb7 ,the session being now happily inaugurated1 your presiding officer of the last year has only one duty to perform before he surrenders the chair to his successor4 ,if allowed to borrow a simile from the language of my own profession1 ,i might liken the ,president of this ,association to a biennial plant4 ,he flourishes for the year in which he comes into existence1 and performs his appropriate functions as presiding officer4 ,when the second year comes round1 he is expected to blossom out in an address and disappear4 ,each president1 as he retires1 is naturally expected to contribute something from his own investigations or his own line of study1 usually to discuss some particular scientific topic4 ,now1 although ,i have cultivated the field of ,north ,american botany1 with some assiduity1 for more than forty years1 have reviewed our vegetable hosts1 and assigned to no small number of them their names and their place in the ranks1 yet1 so far as our own wide country is concerned1 ,i have been to a great extent a closet botanist4 ,until this summer ,i had not seen the ,mississippi1 nor set foot upon a prairie4 ,to gratify a natural interest1 and to gain some title for addressing a body of practical naturalists and explorers1 ,i have made a pilgrimage across the continent4 ,i have sought and viewed in their native haunts many a plant and flower which for me had long bloomed unseen1 or only in the hortus siccus4 ,i have been able to see for myself what species and what forms constitute the main features of the vegetation of each successive region1 and record--as the vegetation unerringly does--the permanent characteristics of its climate4 ,passing on from the eastern district1 marked by its equably distributed rainfall1 and therefore naturally forest-clad1 ,i have seen the trees diminish in number1 give place to wide prairies1 restrict their growth to the borders of streams1 and then disappear from the boundless drier plains2 have seen grassy plains change into a brown and sere desert--desert in the common sense1 but hardly anywhere botanically so--have seen a fair growth of coniferous trees adorning the more favored slopes of a mountain-range high enough to compel summer showers2 have traversed that broad and bare elevated region shut off on both sides by high mountains from the moisture supplied by either ocean1 and longitudinally intersected by sierras which seemingly remain as naked as they were born2 and have reached at length the westward slopes of that high mountain-barrier which1 refreshed by the ,pacific1 bears the noble forests of the ,sierra ,nevada and the ,coast ,ranges1 and among them trees which are the wonder of the world4 ,as ,i stood in their shade1 in the groves of ,mariposa and ,calaveras1 and again under the canopy of the commoner redwood1 raised on columns of such majestic height and ample girth1 it occurred to me that ,i could not do better than to share with you1 upon this occasion1 some of the thoughts which possessed my mind4 ,in their development they may1 perhaps1 lead us up to questions of considerable scientific interest4 ,i shall not detain you with any remarks--which would now be trite--upon the size or longevity of these far-famed ,sequoia-trees1 or of the sugar-pines1 incense-cedar1 and firs associated with them1 of which even the prodigious bulk of the dominating ,sequoia does not sensibly diminish the grandeur4 ,although no account and no photographic representation of either species of the far-famed ,sequoia-trees gives any adequate impression of their singular majesty--still less of their beauty--yet my interest in them did not culminate merely or mainly in considerations of their size and age4 ,other trees1 in other parts of the world1 may claim to be older4 ,certain ,australian gumtrees 7,eucalypti7 are said to be taller4 ,some1 we are told1 rise so high that they might even cast a flicker of shadow upon the summit of the ,pyramid of ,cheops4 ,yet the oldest of them doubtless grew from seed which was shed long after the names of the pyramid-builders had been forgotten4 ,so far as we can judge from the actual counting of the layers of several trees1 no ,sequoia now alive sensibly antedates the ,christian era4 ,nor was ,i much impressed with an attraction of man's adding4 ,that the more remarkable of these trees should bear distinguishing appellations seems proper enough2 but the tablets of personal names which are affixed to many of them #agb in the most visited groves--as if the memory of more or less notable people of our day might be made enduring by the juxtaposition--do suggest some incongruity4 ,when we consider that a hand's breadth at the circumference of any one of the venerable trunks so placarded has recorded in annual lines the lifetime of the individual thus associated with it1 one may question whether the next hand's breadth may not measure the fame of some of the names thus ticketed for adventitious immortality4 ,whether it be the man or the tree that is honored in the connection1 probably either would live as long1 in fact and in memory1 without it4 ,one notable thing about the ,sequoia-trees is their isolation4 ,most of the trees associated with them are of peculiar species1 and some of them are nearly as local4 ,yet every pine1 fir1 and cypress of ,california is in some sort familiar1 because it has near relatives in other parts of the world4 ,but the redwoods have none4 ,the redwood--including in that name the two species of big-trees--belongs to the general ,cypress family1 but is sui generis4 ,thus isolated systematically1 and extremely isolated geographically1 and so wonderful in size and port1 they more than other trees suggest questions4 ,were they created thus local and lonely1 denizens of ,california only2 one in limited numbers in a few choice spots on the ,sierra ,nevada1 the other along the ,coast ,range from the ,bay of ,monterey to the frontiers of ,oregon8 ,are they veritable ,melchizedeks1 without pedigree or early relationship1 and possibly fated to be without descent8 ,or are they now coming upon the stage--or rather were they coming but for man's interference--to play a part in the future8 ,or are they remnants1 sole and scanty survivors of a race that has played a grander part in the past1 but is now verging to extinction8 ,have they had a career1 and can that career be ascertained or surmised1 so that we may at least guess whence they came1 and how1 and when8 ,,sequoia ,,and ,,its ,,history #agc ,time was1 and not long ago1 when such questions as these were regarded as useless and vain--when students of natural history1 unmindful of what the name denotes1 were content with a knowledge of things as they now are1 but gave little heed as to how they came to be so4 ,now such questions are held to be legitimate1 and perhaps not wholly unanswerable4 ,it cannot now be said that these trees inhabit their present restricted areas simply because they are there placed in the climate and soil of all the world most congenial to them4 ,these must indeed be congenial1 or they would not survive4 ,but when we see how the ,australian ,eucalyptus-trees thrive upon the ,californian coast1 and how these very redwoods flourish upon another continent2 how the so-called wild-oat 7,avena sterilis of the ,old ,world7 has taken full possession of ,california2 how that cattle and horses1 introduced by the ,spaniard1 have spread as widely and made themselves as much at home on the plains of ,la ,plata as on those of ,tartary2 and that the cardoon-thistle-seeds1 and others they brought with them1 have multiplied there into numbers probably much exceeding those extant in their native lands2 indeed1 when we contemplate our own race1 and our particular stock1 taking such recent but dominating possession of this ,new ,world2 when we consider how the indigenous flora of islands generally succumbs to the foreigners which come in the train of man2 and that most weeds 7i4e41 the prepotent plants in open soil7 of all temperate climates are not to the manner born1 but are self-invited intruders--we must needs abandon the notion of any primordial and absolute adaptation of plants and animals to their habitats1 which may stand in lieu of explanation1 and so preclude our inquiring any further4 ,the harmony of ,nature and its admirable perfection need not be regarded as inflexible and changeless4 ,nor need ,nature be likened to a statue1 or a cast in rigid bronze1 but rather to an organism1 with play and adaptability of parts1 and life and even soul informing the whole4 ,under the former view ,nature #agd would be the faultless monster which the world ne'er saw1 but inscrutable as the ,sphinx1 whom it were vain1 or worse1 to question of the whence and whither4 ,under the other1 the perfection of ,nature1 if relative1 is multifarious and ever renewed2 and much that is enigmatical now may find explanation in some record of the past4 ,that the two species of redwood we are contemplating originated as they are and where they are1 and for the part they are now playing1 is1 to say the least1 not a scientific supposition1 nor in any sense a probable one4 ,nor is it more likely that they are destined to play a conspicuous part in the future1 or that they would have done so1 even if the ,indian's fires and the white man's axe had spared them4 ,the redwood of the coast 7,sequoia sempervirens7 had the stronger hold upon existence1 forming as it did large forests throughout a narrow belt about three hundred miles in length1 and being so tenacious of life that every large stump sprouts into a copse4 ,but it does not pass the bay of ,monterey1 nor cross the line of ,oregon1 although so grandly developed not far below it4 ,the more remarkable ,sequoia gigantea of the ,sierra exists in numbers so limited that the separate groves may be reckoned upon the fingers1 and the trees of most of them have been counted1 except near their southern limit1 where they are said to be more copious4 ,a species limited in individuals holds its existence by a precarious tenure2 and this has a foothold only in a few sheltered spots1 of a happy mean in temperature1 and locally favored with moisture in summer4 ,even there1 for some reason or other1 the pines with which they are associated 7,pinus ,lambertiana and ,p4 ponderosa71 the firs 7,abies grandis and ,a4 amabilis71 and even the incense-cedar 7,libocedrus decurrens71 possess a great advantage1 and1 though they strive in vain to emulate their size1 wholly overpower the ,sequoias in numbers4 ,to him that hath shall be given4 ,the force of numbers eventually wins4 ,at least in the commonly-visited groves ,sequoia gigantea is invested in its ,,sequoia ,,and ,,its ,,history #age last stronghold1 can neither advance into more exposed positions above1 nor fall back into drier and barer ground below1 nor hold its own in the long-run where it is1 under present conditions2 and a little further drying of the climate1 which must once have been much moister than now1 would precipitate its doom4 ,whatever the individual longevity1 certain if not speedy is the decline of a race in which a high death-rate afflicts the young4 ,seedlings of the big trees occur not rarely1 indeed1 but in meagre proportion to those of associated trees2 ,t small indeed is the chance that any of these will attain to the days of the years of their fathers4 ,few and evil are 43 the days of all the forest likely to be1 while man1 both bar-barian and civilized1 torments them with fires1 fatal at once to seedlings1 and at length to the aged also4 ,the forests of ,california1 proud as the ,state may be of them1 are already too scanty and insufficient for her uses4 ,two lines1 such as may be drawn with one sweep of a brush over the map1 would cover them all4 ,the coast redwood--the most important tree in ,california1 although a million times more numerous than its relative of the ,sierra--is too good to live long4 ,such is its value for lumber and its accessibility1 that1 judging the future by the past1 it is not likely1 in its primeval growth1 to outlast its rarer fellow-species4 ,happily man preserves and disseminates as well as destroys4 ,the species will doubtless be preserved to science1 and for ornamental and other uses1 in its own and other lands2 and the more remarkable individuals of the present day are likely to be sedulously cared for1 all the more so as they become scarce4 ,our third question remains to be answered3 ,have these famous ,sequoias played in former times and upon a larger stage a more imposing part1 of which the present is but the epilogue8 ,we cannot gaze high up the huge and venerable trunks1 which one crosses the continent to behold1 without wishing that these patriarchs of the grove were able1 like the #agf long-lived antediluvians of ,scripture1 to hand down to us1 through a few generations1 the traditions of centuries1 and so tell us somewhat of the history of their race4 ,fifteen hundred annual layers have been counted1 or satisfactorily made out1 upon one or two fallen trunks4 ,it is probable that close to the heart of some of the living trees may be found the circle that records the year of our ,saviour's nativity4 ,a few generations of such trees might carry the history a long way back4 ,but the ground they stand upon1 and the marks of very recent geological change and vicissitude in the region around1 testify that not very many such generations can have flourished just there1 at least in an unbroken series4 ,when their site was covered by glaciers1 these ,sequoias must have occupied other stations1 if1 as there is reason to believe1 they then existed in the land4 ,i have said that the redwoods have no near relatives in the country of their abode1 and none of their genus anywhere else4 ,perhaps something may be learned of their genealogy by inquiring of such relatives as they have4 ,there are only two of any particular nearness of kin2 and they are far away4 ,one is the bald cypress1 our ,southern cypress1 ,taxodium1 inhabiting the swamps of the ,atlantic coast from ,maryland to ,texas1 thence extending--with1 probably1 a specific difference--into ,mexico4 ,it is well known as one of the largest trees of our ,atlantic forest-district1 and1 although it never--except perhaps in ,mexico1 and in rare instances--attains the portliness of its ,western relatives1 yet it may equal them in longevity4 ,the other relative is ,glyptostrobus1 a sort of modified ,taxodium1 being about as much like our bald cypress as one species of redwood is like the other4 ,now1 species of the same type1 especially when few1 and the type peculiar1 are1 in a general way1 associated geographically1 i4e41 inhabit the same country1 or 7in a large sense7 the same region4 ,where it is not so1 where near relatives are separated1 there is usually something to be explained4 ,here is an instance4 stance4 ,these four trees1 sole representatives of their tribe1 dwell almost in three separate quarters of the world3 the two redwoods in ,california1 the bald cypress in ,atlantic ,north ,america1 its near relative1 ,glyptostrobus1 in ,china4 ,it was not always so4 ,in the ,tertiary period1 the geological botanists assure us1 our own very ,taxodium or bald cypress1 and a ,glyptostrobus1 exceedingly like the present ,chinese tree1 and more than one ,sequoia1 coexisted in a fourth quarter of the globe1 viz41 in ,europe6 ,this brings up the question1 ,is it possible to bridge over these four wide intervals of space and the much vaster interval of time1 so as to bring these extraordinarily separated relatives into connection8 ,the evidence which may be brought to bear upon this question is various and widely scattered4 ,i bespeak your patience while ,i endeavor to bring together1 in an abstract1 the most important points of it4 ,some interesting facts may come out by comparing generally the botany of the three remote regions1 each of which is the sole home of one of these genera1 i4e41 ,sequoia in ,california1 ,taxodium in the ,atlantic ,united ,states1,v-#a and ,glyptostrobus in ,china1 which compose the whole of the peculiar tribe under consideration4 ,note then1 first1 that there is another set of three or four peculiar trees1 in this case of the yew family1 which has just the same peculiar distribution1 and which therefore may have the same explanation1 whatever that explanation be4 ,the genus ,torreya1 which commemorates our botanical ,nestor and a former president of this ,association1 ,dr4 ,torrey1 was founded upon a tree rather lately discovered 7that is1 about thirty-five years ago7 in ,northern ,florida4 ,it is a noble1 yew like tree1 and very local1 being1 so far as known1 nearly confined to a few miles along the shores of a single river4 ,it seems as if it had somehow been crowded down out of the ,alleghanies into its present limited southern quarters2 for in cultivation it evinces a northern hardiness4 ,now1 another species of ,torreya is a characteristic tree of ,japan2 and one very like it1 if not the same1 inhabits the mountains of ,northern ,china--belongs1 therefore1 to the ,eastern ,asiatic temperate region1 of which ,northern ,china is a part1 and ,japan1 as we shall see1 the portion most interesting to us4 ,there is only one more species of ,torreya1 and that is a companion of the redwoods in ,california4 ,it is the tree locally known under the name of the ,california nutmeg4 ,here are three or four near brethren1 species of the same genus1 known nowhere else than in these three habitats4 ,moreover1 the ,torreya of ,florida is associated with a yew2 and the trees of this grove are the only yew-trees of ,eastern ,north ,america2 for the yew of our ,northern woods is a decumbent shrub4 ,a yew-tree1 perhaps the same1 is found with ,taxodium in the temperate parts of ,mexico4 ,the only other yews in ,america grow with the redwoods and the other ,torreya in ,california1 and extend northward into ,oregon4 ,yews are also associated with ,torreya in ,japan2 and they extend westward through ,mantchooria and the ,himalayas to ,western ,europe1 and even to the ,azores ,islands1 where occurs the common yew of the ,old ,world4 ,so we have three groups of coniferous trees which agree in this peculiar geographical distribution1 with1 however1 a notable extension of range in the case of the yew3 #a4 ,the redwoods1 and their relatives1 ,taxodium and ,glyptostrobus1 which differ so as to constitute a genus for each of the three regions2 #b4 ,the ,torreyas1 more nearly akin1 merely a different species in each region2 #c4 ,the yews1 still more closely related while more widely disseminated1 of which it is yet uncertain whether they constitute seven1 five1 three1 or only one species4 ,opinions differ1 and can hardly be brought to any decisive test4 ,however it be determined1 it may still be said that the extreme differences among the yews do not surpass those of the recognized variations of the ,european yew1 the cultivated races included4 ,it appears to me that these several instances all raise the very same question1 only with different degrees of emphasis1 and1 if to be explained at all1 will have the same kind of explanation4 ,continuing the comparison between the three regions with which we are concerned1 we note that each has its own species of pines1 firs1 larches1 etc41 and of a few deciduous-leaved trees1 such as oaks and maples2 all of which have no peculiar significance for the present purpose1 because they are of genera which are common all round the northern hemisphere4 ,leaving these out of view1 the noticeable point is that the vegetation of ,california is most strikingly unlike that of the ,atlantic ,united ,states4 ,they possess some plants1 and some peculiarly ,american plants1 in common--enough to show1 as ,i imagine1 that the difficulty was not in the getting from the one district to the other1 or into both from a common source1 but in abiding there4 ,the primordially unbroken forest of ,atlantic ,north ,america1 nourished by rainfall distributed throughout the year1 is widely separated from the western region of sparse and discontinuous tree-belts of the same latitude on the western side of the continent 7where summer rain is wanting1 or nearly so71 by immense treeless plains and plateaux of more or less aridity1 traversed by longitudinal mountain-ranges of a similar character4 ,their nearest approach is at the north1 in the latitude of ,lake ,superior1 where1 on a more rainy line1 trees of the ,atlantic forest and that of ,oregon may be said to intermix4 ,the change of species and of the aspect of vegetation in crossing1 say on the forty-seventh parallel1 is slight in comparison with that on the thirty-seventh or near it4 ,confining our attention to the lower latitude1 and under the exceptions already specially noted1 we may say that almost every characteristic form in the vegetation of the ,atlantic ,states is wanting in ,california1 and the characteristic plants and trees of ,california are wanting here4 ,california has no magnolia nor tulip trees1 nor star-anise tree2 no so-called papaw 7,asimina72 no barberry of the common single-leaved sort2 no ,podophyllum or other of the peculiar associated genera2 no nelumbo nor white water-lily2 no prickly ash nor sumach2 no loblolly-bay nor ,stuartia2 no basswood nor linden-trees2 neither locust1 honey-locust1 coffeetrees 7,gymnocladus7 nor yellow-wood 7,cladrastis72 nothing answering to ,hydrangea or witch-hazel1 to gum-trees 7,nyssa and ,liquidambar71 ,viburnum or ,diervilla2 it has few asters and golden-rods2 no lobelias2 no huckleberries and hardly any blueberries2 no ,epigaea1 charm of our earliest ,eastern spring1 tempering an icy ,april wind with a delicious wild fragrance2 no ,kalmia nor ,clethra1 nor holly1 nor persimmon2 no catalpa-tree1 nor trumpet-creeper 7,tecoma72 nothing answering to sassafras1 nor to benzoin-tree1 nor to hickory2 neither mulberry nor elm2 no beech1 true chestnut1 hornbeam1 nor iron-wood1 nor a proper birch-tree2 and the enumeration might be continued very much further by naming herbaceous plants and others familiar only to botanists4 ,in their place ,california is filled with plants of other types--trees1 shrubs1 and herbs1 of which ,i will only remark that they are1 with one or two exceptions1 as different from the plants of the ,eastern ,asiatic region with which we are concerned 7,japan1 ,china1 and ,mantchooria71 as they are from those of ,atlantic ,north ,america4 ,their near relatives1 when they have any in other lands1 are mostly southward1 on the ,mexican plateau1 or many as far south as ,chili4 ,the same may be said of the plants of the intervening great ,plains1 except that northward in the subsaline vegetation there are some close alliances with the flora of the steppes of ,siberia4 ,and #aha along the crests of high mountain-ranges the ,arctic-,alpine 4 flora has sent southward more or less numerous representatives through the whole length of the country4 ,if we now compare1 as to their flora generally1 the ,atlantic ,united ,states with ,japan1 ,mantchooria1 and ,northern ,china--i4e41 ,eastern ,north ,america with ,eastern ,north ,asia1 half the earth's circumference apart--we find an astonishing similarity4 ,the larger part of the genera of our own region1 which ,i have enumerated as wanting in ,california1 are present in ,japan or ,mantchooria1 along with many other peculiar plants1 divided between the two4 ,there are plants enough of the one region which have no representatives in the other4 ,there are types which appear to have reached the ,atlantic ,states from the south2 and there is a larger infusion of subtropical ,asiatic types into temperate ,china and ,japan2 among these there is no relationship between the two countries to speak of4 ,there are also1 as ,i have already said1 no small number of genera and some species which1 being common all round or partly round the northern temperate zone1 have no special significance because of their occurrence in these two antipodal floras1 although they have testimony to bear upon the general question of geographical distribution4 ,the point to be remarked is1 that many1 or even most1 of the genera and species which are peculiar to ,north ,america as compared with ,europe1 and largely peculiar to ,atlantic ,north ,america as compared with the ,californian region1 are also represented in ,japan and ,mantchooria1 either by identical or by closely-similar forms6 ,the same rule holds on a more northward line1 although not so strikingly4 ,if we compare the plants1 say of ,new ,england and ,pennsylvania 7latitude #dejdgj71 with those of ,oregon1 and then with those of ,northeastern ,asia1 we shall find many of our own curiously repeated in the latter1 while only a small number of them can be traced along the route even so far as the western slope of the ,rocky ,mountains4 ,and these repetitions of ,east ,american types in ,japan #ahb and neighboring districts are in all degrees of likeness4 ,sometimes the one is undistinguishable from the other2 sometimes there is a difference of aspect1 but hardly of tangible character2 sometimes the two would be termed marked varieties if they grew naturally in the same forest or in the same region2 sometimes they are what the botanist calls representative species1 the one answering closely to the other1 but with some differences regarded as specific2 sometimes the two are merely of the same genus1 or not quite that1 but of a single or very few species in each country2 in which case the point which interests us is1 that this peculiar limited type should occur in two antipodal places1 and nowhere else4 ,it would be tedious1 and1 except to botanists1 abstruse1 to enumerate instances2 yet the whole strength of the case depends upon the number of such instances4 ,i propose therefore1 if the ,association does me the honor to print this discourse1 to append in a note a list of the more remarkable ones4,v-#b ,but ,i would here mention certain cases as specimens4 ,our ,rhus ,toxicodendron1 or poison-ivy1 is very exactly repeated in ,japan1 but is found in no other part of the world1 although a species much like it abounds in ,california4 ,our other poisonous ,rhus 7,r4 venenata71 commonly called poison-dogwood1 is in no way represented in ,western ,america1 but has so close an analogue in ,japan that the two were taken for the same by ,thunberg and ,linnaeus1 who called them both ,r4 vernix4 ,our northern fox-grape1 ,vitis ,labrusca1 is wholly confined to the ,atlantic ,states1 except that it reappears in ,japan and that region4 ,the original ,wistaria is a woody leguminous climber with showy blossoms1 native to the middle ,atlantic ,states2 the other species1 which we so much prize in cultivation1 ,w4 ,sinensis1 is from ,china1 as its name denotes1 or perhaps only from ,japan1 where it is certainly indigenous4 ,our yellow-wood 7,cladrastis7 inhabits a very limited district on the western slope of the ,alleghanies4 ,its only and very near relative1 ,maackia1 is confined to ,mantchooria4 ,the ,hydrangeas have some species in our ,alleghany region3 all the rest belong to the ,chino-,japanese region and its continuation westward4 ,the same may be said of ,philadelphus1 except that there are one or two mostly very similar species in ,california and ,oregon4 ,our ,may-flower 7,epigaea7 and our creeping snowberry1 otherwise peculiar to ,atlantic ,north ,america1 recur in ,japan4 ,our blue cohosh 7,caulophyllum7 is confined to the woods of the ,atlantic ,states1 but has lately been discovered in ,japan4 ,a peculiar relative of it1 ,diphylleia1 confined to the higher ,alleghanies1 is also repeated in ,japan1 with a slight difference1 so that it may barely be distinguished as another 3 species4 ,another relative is our twin-leaf 7,jeffersonia7 of the ,alleghany region alone3 a second species has lately turned up in ,mantchooria4 ,a relative of this is ,podophyllum1 our mandrake1 a common inhabitant of the ,atlantic ,united ,states1 but found nowhere else4 ,there is one other species of it1 and that is in the ,himalayas4 ,here are four most peculiar genera of one family1 each of a single species in the ,atlantic ,united ,states1 which are duplicated on the other side of the world1 either in identical or almost identical species1 or in an analogous species1 while nothing else of the kind is known in any other part of the world4 ,i ought not to omit ginseng1 the root so prized by the ,chinese1 which they obtain from their northern provinces and ,mantchooria1 and which is now known to inhabit ,corea and ,northern ,japan4 ,the ,jesuit ,fathers identified the plant in ,canada and the ,atlantic ,states1 brought over the ,chinese name by which we know it1 and established the trade in it1 which was for many years most profitable4 ,the exportation of ginseng to ,china probably has not yet entirely ceased4 ,whether the ,asiatic and the ,atlantic ,american ginsengs are to be regarded as of the same species or not is somewhat uncertain1 but they are hardly1 if at all1 distinguishable4 ,there is a shrub1 ,elliottia1 which is so rare and local that it is known only at two stations on the ,savannah ,river in ,georgia4 ,it is of peculiar structure1 and was without near relative until one was lately discovered in ,japan 7,tripetaleia71 so like it as hardly to be distinguishable except by having the parts of the blossom in threes instead of fours--a difference not uncommon in the same genus1 or even in the same species4 ,suppose ,elliottia had happened to be collected only once1 a good while ago1 and all knowledge of the limited and obscure locality were lost2 and meanwhile the ,japanese form came to be known4 ,such a case would be parallel with an actual one4 ,a specimen of a peculiar plant 7,shortia galacifolia7 was detected in the herbarium of the elder ,michaux1 who collected it 7as his autograph ticket shows7 somewhere in the high ,alleghany ,mountains1 more than eighty years ago4 ,no one has seen the living plant since or knows where to find it1 if haply it still flourishes in some secluded spot4 ,at length it is found in ,japan2 and ,i had the satisfaction of making the identification4,v-#c ,a relative is also known in ,japan2 and a less near one has just been detected in ,thibet4 ,whether the ,japanese and the ,alleghanian plants are exactly the same or not1 it needs complete specimens of the two to settle4 ,so far as we know1 they are just alike2 and1 even if some difference were discerned between them1 it would not appreciably alter the question as to how such a result came to pass4 ,each and every one of the analogous cases ,i have been detailing--and very many more could be mentioned--raises the same question1 and would be satisfied with the same answer4 ,these singular relations attracted my curiosity early in the course of my botanical studies1 when comparatively few of them were known1 and my serious attention in later years1 when ,i had numerous and new ,japanese plants to study in the collections made1 by ,messrs4 ,williams and ,morrow1 during ,commodore ,perry's visit in #ahec1 and especially1 by ,mr4 ,charles ,wright1 of ,commodore ,rodgers's expedition in #ahee4 ,i then discussed this subject somewhat fully1 and tabulated the facts within my reach4,v-#d ,this was before ,heer had developed the rich fossil botany of the arctic zone1 before the immense antiquity of existing species of plants was recognized1 and before the publication of ,darwin's now famous volume on the ,origin of ,species had introduced and familiarized the scientific world with those now current ideas respecting the history and vicissitudes of species with which ,i attempted to deal in a moderate and feeble way4 ,my speculation was based upon the former glaciation of the northern temperate zone1 and the inference of a warmer period preceding and perhaps following4 ,i considered that our own present vegetation1 or its proximate ancestry1 must have occupied the arctic and subarctic regions in pliocene times1 and that it had been gradually pushed southward as the temperature lowered and the glaciation advanced1 even beyond its present habitation2 that plants of the same stock and kindred1 probably ranging round the arctic zone as the present arctic species do1 made their forced migration southward upon widely different longitudes1 and receded more or less as the climate grew warmer2 that the general difference of climate which marks the eastern and the western sides of the continents--the one extreme1 the other mean--was doubtless even then established1 so that the same species and the same sorts of species would be likely to secure and retain foothold in the similar climates of ,japan and the ,atlantic ,united ,states1 but not in intermediate regions of different distribution of heat and moisture2 so that different species of the same genus1 as in ,torreya1 or different genera of the same group1 as redwood1 ,taxodium1 and ,glyptostrobus1 or different associations of forest-trees1 might establish themselves each in the region best suited to the particular requirements1 while they would fail to do so in any other4 ,these views implied that the sources of our actual vegetation and the explanation of these peculiarities were to be sought in1 and presupposed1 an ancestry in pliocene or earlier times1 occupying the higher northern regions4 ,and it was thought that the occurrence of peculiar ,north ,american genera in ,europe in the ,tertiary period 7such as ,taxodium1 ,carya1 ,liquidambar1 sassafras1 ,negundo1 etc47 might be best explained on the assumption of early interchange and diffusion through ,north ,asia1 rather than by that of the fabled ,atlantis4 ,the hypothesis supposed a gradual modification of species in different directions under altering conditions1 at least to the extent of producing varieties1 sub-species1 and representative species1 as they may be variously regarded2 likewise the single and local origination of each type1 which is now almost universally taken for granted4 ,the remarkable facts in regard to the ,eastern ,american and ,asiatic floras which these speculations were to explain have since increased in number1 especially through the admirable collections of ,dr4 ,maximowicz in ,japan and adjacent countries1 and the critical comparisons he has made and is still engaged upon4 ,i am bound to state that1 in a recent general work,v-#e by a distinguished ,european botanist1 ,prof4 ,grisebach1 of ,jotting1 these facts have been emptied of all special significance1 and the relations between the ,japanese and the ,atlantic ,united ,states flora declared to be no more intimate than might be expected from the situation1 climate1 and present opportunity of interchange4 ,this extraordinary conclusion is reached by regarding as distinct species all the plants common to both countries between which any differences have been discerned1 although such differences would probably count for little if the two inhabited the same country1 thus transferring many of my list of identical to that of representative species2 and then by simply eliminating from consideration the whole array of representative species1 i4e41 all cases in which the ,japanese and the ,american plant are not exactly alike4 ,as if1 by pronouncing the cabalistic word species1 the question were settled1 or rather the greater part of it remanded out of the domain of science2 as if1 while complete identity of forms implied community of origin1 anything short of it carried no presumption of the kind2 so leaving all these singular duplicates to be wondered at1 indeed1 but wholly beyond the reach of inquiry4 ,now1 the only known cause of such likeness is inheritance2 and as all transmission of likeness is with some difference in individuals1 and as changed conditions have resulted1 as is well known1 in very considerable differences1 it seems to me that1 if the high antiquity of our actual vegetation could be rendered probable1 not to say certain1 and the former habitation of any of our species or of very near relatives of them in high northern regions could be ascertained1 my whole case would be made out4 ,the needful facts1 of which ,i was ignorant when my essay was published1 have now been for some years made known--thanks1 mainly1 to the researches of ,heer upon ample collections of arctic fossil plants4 ,these are confirmed and extended by new investigations1 by ,heer and ,lesquereux1 the results of which have been indicated to me by the latter4,v-#f ,the ,taxodium1 which everywhere abounds in the miocene formations in ,europe1 has been specifically identified1 first by ,goeppert1 then by ,heer1 with our common cypress of the ,southern ,states4 ,it has been found fossil in ,spitzbergen1 ,greenland1 and ,alaska--in the latter country along with the remains of another form1 distinguishable1 but very like the common species2 and this has been identified by ,lesquereux in the miocene of the ,rocky ,mountains4 ,so there is one species of tree which has come down essentially unchanged from the ,tertiary period1 which for a long while inhabited both ,europe and ,north ,america1 and also1 at some part of the period1 the region which geographically connects the two 7once doubtless much more closely than now71 but which has survived only in the ,atlantic ,united ,states and ,mexico4 ,the same ,sequoia which abounds in the same miocene formations in ,northern ,europe has been abundantly found in those of ,iceland1 ,spitzbergen1 ,greenland1 ,mackenzie ,river1 and ,alaska4 ,it is named ,s4 ,langsdorfii1 but is pronounced to be very much like ,s4 sempervirens1 our living redwood of the ,californian coast1 and to be the ancient representative of it4 ,fossil specimens of a similar1 if not the same1 species have recently been detected in the ,rocky ,mountains by ,hayden1 and determined by our eminent palaeontological botanist1 ,lesquereux2 and he assures me that he has the common redwood itself from ,oregon in a deposit of tertiary age4 ,another ,sequoia 7,s4 ,sternbergii71 discovered in miocene deposits in ,greenland1 is pronounced to be the representative of ,s4 gigantea1 the big tree of the ,californian ,sierra4 ,if the ,taxodium of the tertiary time in ,europe and throughout the arctic regions is the ancestor of our present bald cypress--which is assumed in regarding them as specifically identical-- then ,i think we may1 with our present light1 fairly assume that the two redwoods of ,california are the direct or collateral descendants of the two ancient species which so closely resemble them4 ,the forests of the arctic zone in tertiary times contained at least three other species of ,sequoia1 as determined by their remains1 one of which1 from ,spitzbergen1 also much resembles the common redwood of ,california4 ,another1 which appears to have been the commonest coniferous tree on ,disco1 was common in ,england and some other parts of ,europe4 ,so the ,sequoias1 now remarkable for their restricted station and numbers1 as well as for their extraordinary size1 are of an ancient stock2 their ancestors and kindred formed a large part of the forests which flourished throughout the polar regions1 now desolate and ice-clad1 and which extended into low latitudes in ,europe4 ,on this continent one species1 at least1 had reached to the vicinity of its present habitat before the glaciation of the region4 ,among the fossil specimens already found in ,california1 but which our trustworthy palaeontological botanist has not yet had time to examine1 we may expect to find evidence of the early arrival of these two redwoods upon the ground which they now1 after much vicissitude1 scantily occupy4 ,differences of climate1 or circumstances of migration1 or both1 must have determined the survival of ,sequoia upon the ,pacific1 and of ,taxodium upon the ,atlantic coast4 ,and still the redwoods will not stand in the east1 nor could our ,taxodium find a congenial station in ,california4 ,both have probably had their opportunity in the olden time1 and failed4 ,as to the remaining near relative of ,sequoia1 the ,chinese ,glyptostrobus1 a species of it1 and its veritable representative1 was contemporaneous with ,sequoia and ,taxodium1 not only in temperate ,europe1 but throughout the arctic regions from ,greenland to ,alaska4 ,according to ,newberry1 it was abundantly represented in the miocene flora of the temperate zone of our own continent1 from ,nebraska to the ,pacific4 ,very similar would seem to have been the fate of a more familiar gymnospermous tree1 the ,gingko or ,salisburia4 ,it is now indigenous to ,japan only4 ,its ancestor1 as we may fairly call it--since1 according to ,heer1 it corresponds so entirely with the living species that it can scarcely be separated from it--once inhabited ,northern ,europe and the whole arctic region round to ,alaska1 and had even a representative farther south1 in our ,rocky ,mountain district4 ,for some reason1 this and ,glyptostrobus survive only on the shores of ,eastern ,asia4 ,libocedrus1 on the other hand1 appears to have cast in its lot with the ,sequoias4 ,two species1 according to ,heer1 were with them in ,spitzbergen4 ,l4 decurrens1 the incense cedar1 is one of the noblest associates of the present redwoods4 ,but all the rest are in the southern hemisphere1 two at the southern extremity of the ,andes1 two in the ,south-,sea ,islands4 ,it is only by bold and far-reaching suppositions that they can be geographically associated4 ,the genealogy of the ,torreyas is still wholly obscure2 yet it is not unlikely that the yew-like trees1 named ,taxites1 which flourished with the ,sequoias in the tertiary arctic forests1 are the remote ancestors of the three species of ,torreya1 now severally in ,florida1 in ,california1 and in ,japan4 ,as to the pines and firs1 these were more numerously associated with the ancient ,sequoias of the polar forests than with their present representatives1 but in different species1 apparently more like those of ,eastern than of ,western ,north ,america4 ,they must have encircled the polar zone then1 as they encircle the present temperate zone now4 ,i must refrain from all enumeration of the angiospermous or ordinary deciduous trees and shrubs1 which are now known1 by their fossil remains1 to have flourished throughout the polar regions when ,greenland better deserved its name and enjoyed the present climate of ,new ,england and ,new ,jersey4 ,then ,greenland and the rest of the north abounded with oaks1 representing the several groups of species which now inhabit both our ,eastern and ,western forest districts2 several poplars1 one very like our balsam poplar or balm-of-,gilead tree2 more beeches than there are now1 a hornbeam1 and a hop-hornbeam1 some birches1 a persimmon1 and a planer-tree1 near representatives of those of the ,old ,world1 at least of ,asia1 as well as of ,atlantic ,north ,america1 but all wanting in ,california2 one ,juglans like the walnut of the ,old ,world1 and another like our black walnut2 two or three grapevines1 one near our ,southern fox grape or muscadine1 another near our ,northern frostgrape2 a ,tilia1 very like our basswood of the ,atlantic ,states only2 a ,liquidambar2 a magnolia1 which recalls our ,m4 grandiflora2 a ,liriodendron1 sole representative of our tulip-tree2 and a sassafras1 very like the living tree4 ,most of these1 it will be noticed1 have their nearest or their only living representatives in the ,atlantic ,states1 and when elsewhere1 mainly in ,eastern ,asia4 ,several of them1 or of species like them1 have been detected in our tertiary deposits1 west of the ,mississippi1 by ,newberry and ,lesquereux4 ,herbaceous plants1 as it happens1 are rarely preserved in a fossil state1 else they would probably supply additional testimony to the antiquity of our existing vegetation1 its wide diffusion over the northern and now frigid zone1 and its enforced migration under changes of climate4,v-#g ,concluding1 then1 as we must1 that our existing vegetation is a continuation of that of the tertiary period1 may we suppose that it absolutely originated then8 ,evidently not4 ,the preceding ,cretaceous period has furnished to ,carruthers in ,europe a fossil fruit like that of the ,sequoia gigantea of the famous groves1 associated with pines of the same character as those that accompany the present tree2 has furnished to ,heer1 from ,greenland1 two more ,sequoias1 one of them identical with a tertiary species1 and one nearly allied to ,sequoia ,langsdorfii1 which in turn is a probable ancestor of the common ,california redwood2 has furnished to ,newberry and ,lesquereux in ,north ,america the remains of another ancient ,sequoia1 a ,glyptostrobus1 a ,liquidambar which well represents our sweet-gum-tree1 oaks analogous to living ones1 leaves of a plane-tree1 which are also in the ,tertiary1 and are scarcely distinguishable from our own ,platanus occidentalis1 of a magnolia and a tulip-tree1 and of a sassafras undistinguishable from our living species4 ,i need not continue the enumeration4 ,suffice it to say that the facts justify the conclusion which ,lesquereux--a scrupulous investigator--has already announced3 that the essential types of our actual flora are marked in the ,cretaceous period1 and have come to us after passing1 without notable changes1 through the ,tertiary formations of our continent4 ,according to these views1 as regards plants at least1 the adaptation to successive times and changed conditions has been maintained1 not by absolute renewals1 but by gradual modifications4 ,i1 for one1 cannot doubt that the present existing species are the lineal successors of those that garnished the earth in the old time before them1 and that they were as well adapted to their surroundings then1 as those which flourish and bloom around us are to their conditions now4 ,order and exquisite adaptation did not wait for man's coming1 nor were they ever stereotyped4 ,organic ,nature--by which ,i mean the system and totality of living things1 and their adaptation to each other and to the world--with all its apparent and indeed real stability1 should be likened1 not to the ocean1 which varies only by tidal oscillations from a fixed level to which it is always returning1 but rather to a river1 so vast that we can neither discern its shores nor reach its sources1 whose onward flow is not less actual because too slow to be observed by the ephemerae which hover over its surface1 or are borne upon its bosom4 ,such ideas as these1 though still repugnant to some1 and not long since to many1 have so possessed the minds of the naturalists of the present day that hardly a discourse can be pronounced or an investigation prosecuted without reference to them4 ,i suppose that the views here taken are little1 if at all1 in advance of the average scientific mind of the day4 ,i cannot regard them as less noble than those which they are succeeding4 ,an able philosophical writer1 ,miss ,frances ,power ,cobbe1 has recently and truthfully said3,v-#h ,it is a singular fact that1 when we can find out how anything is done1 our first conclusion seems to be that ,god did not do it4 ,no matter how wonderful1 how beautiful1 how intimately complex and delicate has been the machinery which has worked1 perhaps for centuries1 perhaps for millions of ages1 to bring about some beneficent result1 if we can but catch a glimpse of the wheels its divine character disappears4 ,i agree with the writer that this first conclusion is premature and unworthy--,i will add1 deplorable4 ,through what faults or infirmities of dogmatism on the one hand1 and skepticism on the other1 it came to be so thought1 we need not here consider4 ,let us hope1 and ,i confidently expect1 that it is not to last2 that the religious faith which survived without a shock the notion of the fixity of the earth itself may equally outlast the notion of the fixity of the species which inhabit it2 that1 in the future even more than in the past1 faith in an order1 which is the basis of science1 will not--as it cannot reasonably--be dissevered from faith in an ,ordainer1 which is the basis of religion4 ,,vi ,,the ,,attitude ,,of ,,working ,,naturalists ,,toward ,,darwinism ,,vi-#a 7,the ,nation1 ,october #af1 #ahgc7 ,that homely adage1 ,what is one man's meat is another man's poison1 comes to mind when we consider with what different eyes different naturalists look upon the hypothesis of the derivative origin of actual specific forms1 since ,mr4 ,darwin gave it vogue and vigor and a raison d'tre for the present day4 ,this latter he did1 not only by bringing forward a vera causa in the survival of the fittest under changing circumstances--about which the question among naturalists mainly is how much it will explain1 some allowing it a restricted1 others an unlimited operation--but also by showing that the theory may be made to do work1 may shape and direct investigations1 the results of which must in time tell us whether the theory is likely to hold good or not4 ,if the hypothesis of natural selection and the things thereto appertaining had not been capable of being put to useful work1 although1 like the ,vestiges of the ,natural ,history of ,creation1 it might have made no little noise in the world1 it would hardly have engaged the attention of working naturalists as it has done4 ,we have no idea even of opening the question as to what work the ,darwinian theory has incited1 and in what way the work done has reacted upon the theory2 and least of all do we like to meddle with the polemical literature of the subject1 already so voluminous that the ,german bibliographers and booksellers make a separate class of it4 ,but two or three treatises before us1 of a minor or incidental sort1 suggest a remark or two upon the attitude of mind toward evolutionary theories taken by some of the working naturalists4 ,mr4 ,darwin's own expectation1 that his new presentation of the subject would have little or no effect upon those who had already reached middle-age1 has--out of ,paris--not been fulfilled4 ,there are1 indeed1 one or two who have thought it their duty to denounce the theory as morally dangerous1 as well as scientifically baseless2 a recent instance of the sort we may have to consider further on4 ,others1 like the youth at the river's bank1 have been waiting in confident expectation of seeing the current run itself dry4 ,on the other hand1 a notable proportion of the more active-minded naturalists had already come to doubt the received doctrine of the entire fixity of species1 and still more that of their independent and supernatural origination4 ,while their systematic work all proceeded implicitly upon the hypothesis of the independence and entire permanence of species1 they were perceiving more or less clearly that the whole question was inevitably to be mooted again1 and so were prepared to give the alternative hypothesis a dispassionate consideration4 ,the veteran ,lyell set an early example1 and1 on a reconsideration of the whole question1 wrote anew his famous chapter and reversed his former and weighty opinion4 ,owen1 still earlier1 signified his adhesion to the doctrine of derivation in some form1 but apparently upon general1 speculative grounds2 for he repudiated natural selection1 and offered no other natural solution of the mystery of the orderly incoming of cognate forms4 ,as examples of the effect of ,darwin's ,origin of ,species upon the minds of naturalists who are no longer young1 and whose prepossessions1 even more than ,lyell's1 were likely to bias them against the new doctrine1 two from the botanical side are brought to our notice through recent miscellaneous writings which are now before us4,,vi-#b ,before the publication of ,darwin's first volume1 ,m4 ,alphonse de ,candolle had summed up the result of his studies in this regard1 in the final chapter of his classical ,geographie ,botanique ,raisonnee1 in the conclusion1 that existing vegetation must be regarded as the continuation1 through many geological and geographical changes1 of the anterior vegetations of the world2 and that1 consequently1 the present distribution of species is explicable only in the light of their geological history4 ,he surmised that1 notwithstanding the general stability of forms1 certain species or quasi-species might have originated through diversification under geographical isolation4 ,but1 on the other hand1 he was still disposed to admit that even the same species might have originated independently in two or more different regions of the world2 and he declined1 as unpractical and unavailing1 all attempts to apply hypotheses to the elucidation of the origin of species4 ,soon after ,darwin's book appeared1 ,de ,candolle had occasion to study systematically a large and wide-spread genus-- that of the oak4 ,investigating it under the new light of natural selection1 he came to the conclusion that the existing oaks are all descendants of earlier forms1 and that no clear line can be drawn between the diversification whic h has resulted in species and that which is exhibited in races and minor varieties4 ,and now1 in the introductory chapter of the volume of essays before us1 he informs us that the idea which pervades them all1 and in some sort connects very diverse topics1 is that of considering this principle of selection4 ,of the principle itself1 he remarks that it is neither a theory nor an hypothesis1 but the expression of a necessary fact2 that to deny it is very much like denying that round stones will roll downhill faster and farther than flat ones2 and that the question of the present day in natural history is not whether there be natural selection1 or even whether forms are derived from other forms1 but to comprehend how1 in what proportions1 and by what means hereditary deviations take place1 and in what ways an inevitable selection takes effect upon these4 ,in two of these essays natural selection is directly discussed in its application to the human race2 the larger one dealing ably with the whole subject1 and with results at first view seemingly in a great degree negative1 but yet showing that the supposed failure of natural selection in the case of man was an unwarrantable conclusion from too limited a view of a very complicated question4 ,the article abounds in acute and fertile suggestions1 and its closing chapter1 on the probable future of the human species under the laws of selection1 is highly interesting and noteworthy4 ,the other and shorter essay discusses a special point1 and brings out a corollary of the law of heredity which may not have been thought of before1 but which is perfectly clear as soon as it is stated4 ,it explains at once why contagious or epidemic diseases are most fatal at their first appearance1 and less so afterward3 not by the dying out of a virus--for1 when the disease reaches a new population1 it is as virulent as ever 7as1 for instance1 the smallpox among the ,indians7--but by the selection of a race less subject to attack through the destruction of those that were more so1 and the inheritance of the comparative immunity by the children and the grandchildren of the survivors2 and how this immunity itself1 causing the particular disease to become rare1 paves the way to a return of the original fatality2 for the mass of such population1 both in the present and the immediately preceding generation1 not having been exposed to the infection1 or but little exposed1 has not undergone selection1 and so in time the proportion liable to attack1 or to fatal attack1 gets to be as large as ever4 ,the greater the fatality1 especially in the population under marriageable age1 the more favorable the condition of the survivors2 and1 by the law of heredity1 their children should share in the immunity4 ,this explanation of the cause1 or of one cause1 of the return of pests at intervals no less applies to the diminution of the efficacy of remedies1 and of preventive means1 such as vaccination4 ,when ,jenner introduced vaccination1 the small-pox in ,europe and ,european colonies must have lost somewhat of its primitive intensity by the vigorous weeding out of the more susceptible through many generations4 ,upon the residue1 vaccination was almost complete protection1 and1 being generally practised1 small-pox consequently became rare4 ,selection thus ceasing to operate1 a population arises which has not been exposed to the contagion1 and of which a considerable proportion1 under the common law of atavism1 comes to be very much in the condition of a people invaded for the first time by the disease4 ,to these1 as we might expect1 vaccination would prove a less safeguard than to their progenitors three or four generations before4 ,mr4 ,bentham is a veteran systematic botanist of the highest rank and widest knowledge4 ,he had not1 so far as we know1 touched upon questions of origination in the ante-,darwinian era4 ,the dozen of presidential addresses delivered at anniversary meetings of the ,linnean ,society1 from his assumption of the chair in the year #ahfb down to the current year--each devoted to some topic of interest--and his recent ,memoir on ,compositae1 summing up the general results of a revision of an order to which a full tenth of all higher plants belong1 furnish apt examples both of cautious criticism1 conditional assent 7as becomes the inaugurator of the quantification of the predicate71 and of fruitful application of the new views to various problems concerning the classification and geographical distribution of plants4 ,in his hands the hypothesis is turned at once to practical use as an instrument of investigation1 as a means of interrogating ,nature4 ,in the result1 no doubt seems to be left upon the author's mind that the existing species of plants are the result of the differentiation of previous species1 or at least that the derivative hypothesis is to be adopted as that which offers the most natural1 if not the only1 explanation of the problems concerned4 ,similar conclusions reached in this country1 from a study of the relations of its present flora with that which in earlier ages occupied the arctic zone1 might also be referred to4 7,see preceding article47 ,an excellent instance of the way in which the derivative hypothesis is practically applied in these days1 by a zoologist1 is before us in ,prof4 ,flower's modest and admirable paper on the ,ungulata1 or hoofed animals1 and their geological history4 ,we refer to it here1 not so much for the conclusions it reaches or suggests1 as to commend the clearness and the impartiality of the handling1 and the sobriety and moderation of the deductions4 ,confining himself within the region of the known1 it is shown that1 at least in one group of animals1 the facts which we have as yet acquired point to the former existence of various intermediate forms1 so numerous that they go far to discredit the view of the sudden introduction of new species4 4 4 4 ,the modern forms are placed along lines which converge toward a common centre4 ,the gaps between the existing forms of the odd-toed group of ungulates 7of which horses1 rhinoceroses1 and tapirs1 are the principal representatives7 are most bridged over by palaeontology1 and somewhat the same may be said of the even-toed group1 to which the ruminants and the porcine genus belong4 ,moreover1 the lines of both groups to a certain extent approximate1 but1 within the limits of our knowledge1 they do not meet4 4 - 4 ,was the order according to which the introduction of new forms seems to have taken place since the ,eocene then entirely changed1 or did it continue as far back as the period when these lines would have been gradually fused in a common centre8 ,facts like these1 which suggest grave diversification under long lapse of time1 are well supplemented by those which essentially demonstrate a slighter diversification of many species over a wide range of space2 whether into species or races depends partly upon how the naturalist uses these terms1 partly upon the extent of the observations1 or luck in getting together intermediate forms4 ,the researches of ,prof4 ,baird upon the birds of this continent afford a good illustration4 ,a great number of our birds which have been1 and must needs have been1 regarded as very distinct species1 each mainly with its own geographical area1 are found to mingle their characters along bordering lines2 and the same kinds of differences 7of coloration1 form1 or other7 are found to prevail through the species of each region1 thus impressing upon them a geographical facies4 ,upon a submergence of the continent1 reducing these several regions to islands sufficiently separated1 these forms would be unquestioned species4 ,considerations such as these1 of which a few specimens have now been adduced 7not general speculations1 as the unscientific are apt to suppose71 and trials of the new views to see how far they will explain the problems or collocate the facts they are severally dealing with1 are what have mainly influenced working naturalists in the direction of the provisional acceptance of the derivative hypothesis4 ,they leave to polemical speculators the fruitless discussion of the question whether all species came from one or two1 or more2 they are trying to grasp the thing by the near1 not by the farther end1 and to ascertain1 first of all1 whether it is probable or provable that present species are descendants of former ones which were like them1 but less and less like them the farther back we go4 ,and it is worth noting that they all seem to be utterly unconscious of wrong-doing4 ,their repugnance to novel hypotheses is only the natural and healthy one4 ,a change of a wonted line of thought is not made without an effort1 nor need be made without adequate occasion4 ,some courage was required of the man who first swallowed an oyster from its shell2 and of most of us the snail would still demand more4 ,as the unaccustomed food proves to be good and satisfying1 and also harmless1 we may come to like it4 ,that1 however1 which many good and eminent naturalists find to be healthful and reasonable1 and others innocuous1 a few still regard as most unreasonable and harmful4 ,at present1 we call to mind only two who not only hold to the entire fixity of species as an axiom or a confirmed principle1 but also as a dogma1 and who maintain1 either expressly or implicitly1 that the logical antithesis to the creation of species as they are1 is not by law 7which implies intention71 but by chance4 ,a recent book by one of these naturalists1 or rather1 by a geologist of eminence1 the ,story of the ,earth and ,man1 by ,dr4 ,dawson1#d is now before us4 ,the title is too near that of ,guyot's ,earth and ,man1 with the publication of which popular volume that distinguished physical naturalist commenced his career in this country2 and such catch-titles are a sort of trade-mark4 ,as to the nature and merits of ,dr4 ,dawson's work1 we have left ourselves space only to say3 #a4 ,that it is addressed ad populum1 which renders it rather the more than less amenable to the criticisms we may be disposed to make upon it4 #b4 ,that the author is thoroughly convinced that no species or form deserving the name was ever derived from another1 or originated from natural causes2 and he maintains this doctrine with earnestness1 much variety of argument and illustration1 and no small ability2 so that he may be taken as a representative of the view exactly opposed to that which is favored by those naturalists whose essays we have been considering--to whom1 indeed1 he stands in marked contrast in spirit and method1 being greatly disposed to argue the question from the remote rather than the near end4 #c4 ,and finally1 he has a conviction that the evolutionary doctrines of the day are not only untrue1 but thoroughly bad and irreligious4 ,this belief1 and the natural anxiety with which he contemplates their prevalence1 may excuse a certain vehemence and looseness of statement which were better avoided1 as where the geologists of the day are said to be broken up into bands of specialists1 little better than scientific banditti1 liable to be beaten in detail1 and prone to commit outrages on common-sense and good taste which bring their otherwise good cause into disrepute2 and where he despairingly suggests that the prevalence of the doctrines he deprecates seems to indicate that the accumulated facts of our age have gone altogether beyond its capacity for generalization1 and1 but for the vigor which one sees everywhere1 might be taken as an indication that the human mind has fallen into a state of senility4 ,this is droll reading1 when one considers that the evolutionist is the only sort of naturalist who has much occasion to employ his capacity for generalization upon the accumulated facts in their bearing upon the problem of the origin of species2 since the special creationist1 who maintains that they were supernaturally originated just as they are1 by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation4 ,again1 when one reflects upon the new impetus which the derivative hypothesis has given to systematic natural history1 and reads the declaration of a master in this department 7the ,president of the ,linnean ,society7 that ,mr4 ,darwin has in this nineteenth century brought about as great a revolution in the philosophic study of organic ,nature as that which was effected in the previous century by the immortal ,swede1 it sounds oddly to hear from ,dr4 ,dawson that it obliterates the fine perception of differences from the mind of the naturalist1 4 4 4 4 destroys the possibility of a philosophical classification1 reducing all things to a mere series1 and leads to a rapid decay in systematic zoology and botany1 which is already very manifest among the disciples of ,spencer and ,darwin in ,england4 ,so1 also1 it removes from the study of ,nature the ideas of final cause and purpose--a sentence which reads curiously in the light of ,darwin's special investigations1 such as those upon the climbing of plants1 the agency of insects in the fertilization of blossoms1 and the like1 which have brought back teleology to natural science1 wedded to morphology and already fruitful of discoveries4 ,the difficulty with ,dr4 ,dawson here is 7and it need not be underrated7 that apparently he cannot as yet believe an adaptation1 act1 or result1 to be purposed the apparatus of which is perfected or evolved in the course of ,nature--a common but a crude state of mind on the part of those who believe that there is any originating purpose in the universe1 and one which1 we are sure1 ,dr4 ,dawson does not share as respects the material world until he reaches the organic kingdoms1 and there1 possibly1 because he sees man at the head of them--of them1 while above them4 ,however that may be1 the position which ,dr4 ,dawson chooses to occupy is not left uncertain4 ,after concluding1 substantially1 that those evolutionists who exclude design from ,nature thereby exclude theism1 which nobody will deny1 he proceeds 7on page #cdh7 to give his opinion that the evolutionism which professes to have a creator somewhere behind it 4 4 4 4 is practically atheistic1 and1 if possible1 more unphilosophical than that which professes to set out from absolute and eternal nonentity1 etc4 ,there are some sentences which might lead one to suppose that ,dr4 ,dawson himself admitted of an evolution with a creator somewhere behind it4 ,he offers it 7page #cbj7 as a permissible alternative that even man has been created mediately by the operation of forces also concerned in the production of other animals2 concedes that a just theory does not even exclude evolution or derivation1 to a certain extent 7page #cda72 and that a modern man of science may safely hold that all things have been produced by the ,supreme ,creative ,will1 acting either directly or through the agency of the forces and materials of his own production4 ,well1 if this be so1 why denounce the modern man of science so severely upon the other page merely for accepting the permission8 ,at first sight1 it might be thought that our author is exposing himself in one paragraph to a share of the condemnation which he deals out in the other4 ,but the permitted views are nowhere adopted as his own2 the evolution is elsewhere restricted within specific limits2 and as to mediate creation1 although we cannot divine what is here meant by the term1 there is reason to think it does not imply that the several species of a genus were mediately created1 in a natural way1 through the supernatural creation of a remote common ancestor4 ,so that his own judgment in the matter is probably more correctly gathered from the extract above referred to and other similar deliverances1 such as that in which he warns those who endeavor to steer a middle course1 and to maintain that the ,creator has proceeded by way of evolution1 that the bare1 hard logic of ,spencer1 the greatest ,english authority on evolution1 leaves no place for this compromise1 and shows that the theory1 carried out to its legitimate consequences1 excludes the knowledge of a ,creator and the possibility of his work4 ,now1 this is a dangerous line to take4 ,those defenders of the faith are more zealous than wise who must needs fire away in their catapults the very bastions of the citadel1 in the defense of outposts that have become untenable4 ,it has been and always will be possible to take an atheistic view of ,nature1 but far more reasonable from science and philosophy only to take a theistic view4 ,voltaire's saying here holds true3 that if there were no ,god known1 it would be necessary to invent one4 ,it is the best1 if not the only1 hypothesis for the explanation of the facts4 ,whether the philosophy of ,herbert ,spencer 7which is not to our liking7 is here fairly presented1 we have little occasion and no time to consider4 ,in this regard1 the close of his article ,no4 #ab in the ,contemporary ,review shows1 at least1 his expectation of the entire permanence of our ideas of cause1 origin1 and religion1 and predicts the futility of the expectation that the religion of humanity will be the religion of the future1 or can ever more than temporarily shut out the thought of a ,power1 of which humanity is but a small and fugitive product1 which was in its course of ever-changing manifestation before humanity was1 and will continue through other manifestations when humanity has ceased to be4 ,if1 on the one hand1 the philosophy of the unknowable of the ,infinite may be held in a merely quasi-theistic or even atheistic way1 were not its ablest expounders and defenders ,hamilton and ,dean ,mansel8 ,one would sup-pose that ,dr4 ,dawson might discern at least as much of a divine foundation to ,nature as ,herbert ,spencer and ,matthew ,arnold2 might recognize in this power that something not ourselves that makes for order as well as for righteousness1 and which he fitly terms supreme creative will2 and1 resting in this1 endure with more complacency and faith the inevitable prevalence of evolutionary views which he is powerless to hinder4 ,although he cannot arrest the stream1 he might do something toward keeping it in safe channels4 ,we wished to say something about the way in which scientific men1 worthy of the name1 hold hypotheses and theories1 using them for the purpose of investigation and the collocation of facts1 yielding or withholding assent in degrees or provisionally1 according to the amount of verification or likelihood1 or holding it long in suspense2 which is quite in contrast to that of amateurs and general speculators 7not that we reckon ,dr4 ,dawson in this class71 whose assent or denial seldom waits1 or endures qualification4 ,with them it must on all occasions be yea or nay only1 according to the letter of the ,scriptural injunction1 and whatsoever is less than this1 or between the two1 cometh of evil4 ,,vii ,,evolution ,,and ,,theology ,,vii-#a 7,the ,nation1 ,january #ae1 #ahgd7 ,the attitude of theologians toward doctrines of evolution1 from the nebular hypothesis down to ,darwinism1 is no less worthy of consideration1 and hardly less diverse1 than that of naturalists4 ,but the topic1 if pursued far1 leads to questions too wide and deep for our handling here1 except incidentally1 in the brief notice which it falls in our way to take of the ,rev4 ,george ,henslow's recent volume on ,the ,theory of ,evolution of ,living ,things4 ,this treatise is on the side of evolution1 considered as illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the ,almighty4 ,it was submitted for and received one of the ,actonian prizes recently awarded by the ,royal ,institution of ,great ,britain4 ,we gather that the staple of a part of it is worked up anew from some earlier discourses of the author upon ,genesis and ,geology1 ,science and ,scripture not antagonistic1 etc4 ,in coupling with it a chapter of the second volume of ,dr4 ,hodge's ,systematic ,theology 7,part ,,ii1 ,anthropology71 we call attention to a recent essay1 by an able and veteran writer1 on the other side of the question4 ,as the two fairly enough represent the extremes of ,christian thought upon the subject1 it is convenient to review them in connection4 ,theologians have a short and easy1 if not wholly satisfactory1 way of refuting scientific doctrines which they object to1 by pitting the authority or opinion of one savant against another4 ,already1 amid the currents and eddies of modern opinion1 the savants may enjoy the same advantage at the expense of the divines-- we mean1 of course1 on the scientific arena2 for the mutual refutation of conflicting theologians on their own ground is no novelty4 ,it is not by way of offset1 however1 that these divergent or contradictory views are here referred to1 but only as an illustration of the fact that the divines are by no means all arrayed upon one side of the question in hand4 ,and indeed1 in the present transition period1 until some one goes much deeper into the heart of the subject1 as respects the relations of modern science to the foundations of religious belief1 than either of these writers has done1 it is as well that the weight of opinion should be distributed1 even if only according to prepossessions1 rather than that the whole stress should bear upon a single point1 and that perhaps the authority of an interpretation of ,scripture4 ,a consensus of opinion upon ,dr4 ,hodge's ground1 for instance 7although better guarded than that of ,dr4 ,dawson71 if it were still possible1 would--to say the least--probably not at all help to reconcile science and religion4 ,therefore1 it is not to be regretted that the diversities of view among accredited theologians and theological naturalists are about as wide and as equably distributed between the extremes 7and we may add that the views themselves are quite as hypothetical7 as those which prevail among the various naturalists and natural philosophers of the day4 ,as a theologian1 ,mr4 ,henslow doubtless is not to be compared with the veteran professor at ,princeton4 ,on the other hand1 he has the advantage of being a naturalist1 and the son of a naturalist1 as well as a clergyman3 consequently he feels the full force of an array of facts in nature1 and of the natural inferences from them1 which the theological professor1 from his ,biblical standpoint1 and on his implicit assumption that the ,old ,testament must needs teach true science1 can hardly be expected to appreciate4 ,accordingly1 a naturalist would be apt to say of ,dr4 ,hodge's exposition of theories of the universe and kindred topics--and in no captious spirit-- that whether right or wrong on particular points1 he is not often right or wrong in the way of a man of science4 ,probably from the lack of familiarity with prevalent ideas and their history1 the theologians are apt to suppose that scientific men of the present day are taking up theories of evolution in pure wantonness or mere superfluity of naughtiness2 that it would have been quite possible1 as well as more proper1 to leave all such matters alone4 ,quieta non movere is doubtless a wise rule upon such subjects1 so long as it is fairly applicable4 ,but the time for its application in respect to questions of the origin and relations of existing species has gone by4 ,to ignore them is to imitate the foolish bird that seeks security by hiding its head in the sand4 ,moreover1 the naturalists did not force these questions upon the world2 but the world they study forced them upon the naturalists4 ,how these questions of derivation came naturally and inevitably to be revived1 how the cumulative probability that the existing are derived from preexisting forms impressed itself upon the minds of many naturalists and thinkers1 ,mr4 ,henslow has briefly explained in the introduction and illustrated in the succeeding chapters of the first part of his book4 ,science1 he declares1 has been compelled to take up the hypothesis of the evolution of living things as better explaining all the phenomena4 ,in his opinion1 it has become infinitely more probable that all living and extinct beings have been developed or evolved by natural laws of generation from preexisting forms1 than that they1 with all their innumerable races and varieties1 should owe their existences severally to ,creative fiats4 ,this doctrine1 which even ,dr4 ,hodge allows may possibly be held in a theistic sense1 and which1 as we suppose1 is so held or viewed by a great proportion of the naturalists of our day1 ,mr4 ,henslow maintains is fully compatible with dogmatic as well as natural theology2 that it explains moral anomalies1 and accounts for the mixture of good and evil in the world1 as well as for the merely relative perfection of things2 and1 finally1 that the whole scheme which ,god has framed for man's existence1 from the first that was created to all eternity1 collapses if the great law of evolution be suppressed4 ,the second part of his book is occupied with a development of this line of argument4 ,by this doctrine of evolution he does not mean the ,darwinian hypothesis1 although he accepts and includes this1 looking upon natural selection as playing an important though not an unlimited part4 ,he would be an evolutionist with ,mivart and ,owen and ,argyll1 even if he had not the vera causa which ,darwin contributed to help him on4 ,and1 on rising to man1 he takes ground with ,wallace1 saying3 ,i would wish to state distinctly that ,i do not at present see any evidence for believing in a gradual development of man from the lower animals by ordinary natural laws2 that is1 without some special interference1 or1 if it be preferred1 some exceptional conditions which have thereby separated him from all other creatures1 and placed him decidedly in advance of them all4 ,on the other hand1 it would be absurd to regard him as totally severed from them4 ,it is the great degree of difference ,i would insist upon1 bodily1 mental1 and spiritual1 which precludes the idea of his having been evolved by exactly the same processes1 and with the same limitations1 as1 for example1 the horse from the palaeotherium4 ,in illustrating this view1 he reproduces ,wallace's well-known points1 and adds one or two of his own4 ,we need not follow up his lines of argument4 ,the essay1 indeed1 adds nothing material to the discussion of evolution1 although it states one side of the case moderately well1 as far as it goes4 ,dr4 ,hodge approaches the subject from the side of systematic theology1 and considers it mainly in its bearing upon the origin and original state of man4 ,under each head he first lays down the ,scriptural doctrine1 and then discusses anti-,scriptural theories1 which latter1 under the first head1 are the heathen doctrine of spontaneous generation1 the modern doctrine of spontaneous generation1 theories of development1 specially that of ,darwin1 the atheistic character of the theory1 etc4 ,although he admits that there is a theistic and an atheistic form of the nebular hypothesis as to the origin of the universe1 so there may be a theistic interpretation of the ,darwinian theory1 yet he contends that the system is thoroughly atheistic1 notwithstanding that the author expressly acknowledges the existence of ,god4 ,curiously enough1 the atheistic form of evolutionary hypotheses1 or what he takes for such1 is the only one which ,dr4 ,hodge cares to examine4 ,even the ,reign of ,law theory1 ,owen's purposive route of development and chance 4 4 4 4 by virtue of inherent tendencies thereto1 as well as other expositions of the general doctrine on a theistic basis1 are barely mentioned without a word of comment1 except1 perhaps1 a general protest against the arraying of probabilities against the teachings of ,scripture4 ,now1 all former experience shows that it is neither safe nor wise to pronounce a whole system thoroughly atheistic which it is conceded may be held theistically1 and which is likely to be largely held1 if not to prevail1 on scientific grounds4 ,it may be well to remember that1 of the two great minds of the seventeenth century1 ,newton and ,leibnitz1 both profoundly religious as well as philosophical1 one produced the theory of gravitation1 the other objected to that theory that it was subversive of natural religion2 also that the nebular hypothesis--a natural consequence of the theory of gravitation and of the subsequent progress of physical and astronomical discovery--has been denounced as atheistical even down to our day4 ,it has now outlived anathema4 ,it is undeniable that ,mr4 ,darwin lays himself open to this kind of attack4 ,the propounder of natural selection might be expected to make the most of the principle1 and to overwork the law of parsimony in its behalf4 ,and a system in which exquisite adaptation of means to ends1 complicated inter-dependencies1 and orderly sequences1 appear as results instead of being introduced as factors1 and in which special design is ignored in the particulars1 must needs be obnoxious1 unless guarded as we suppose ,mr4 ,darwin might have guarded his4 ground if he had chosen to do so4 ,our own opinion1 after long consideration1 is1 that ,mr4 ,darwin has no atheistical intent2 and that1 as respects the test question of design in ,nature1 his view may be made clear to the theological mind by likening it to that of the believer in general but not in particular ,providence4 ,there is no need to cull passages in support of this interpretation from his various works while the author--the most candid of men--retains through all the editions of the ,origin of ,species the two mottoes from ,whewell and ,bishop ,butler4,,vii-#b ,the gist of the matter lies in the answer that should be rendered to the questions--#a4 ,do order and useful-working collocation1 pervading a system throughout all its parts1 prove design8 and1 #b4 ,is such evidence negatived or invalidated by the probability that these particular collocations belong to lineal series of such in time1 and diversified in the course of ,nature--grown up1 so to say1 step by step8 ,we do not use the terms adaptation1 arrangement of means to ends1 and the like1 because they beg the question in stating it4 ,finally1 ought not theologians to consider whether they have not already1 in principle1 conceded to the geologists and physicists all that they are asked to concede to the evolutionists2 whether1 indeed1 the main natural theological difficulties which attend the doctrine of evolution--serious as they may be--are not virtually contained in the admission that there is a system of ,nature with fixed laws4 ,this1 at least1 we may say1 that1 under a system in which so much is done by the establishment of general laws1 it is legitimate for any one to prove1 if he can1 that any particular thing in the natural world is so done2 and it is the proper business of scientific men to push their enquiries in this direction4 ,it is beside the point for ,dr4 ,hodge to object that1 from the nature of the case1 what concerns the origin of things cannot be known except by a supernatural revelation2 that science has to do with the facts and laws of ,nature3 here the question concerns the origin of such facts4 ,for the very object of the evolutionists1 and of ,mr4 ,darwin in particular1 is to remove these subjects from the category of origination1 and to bring them under the domain of science by treating them as questions about how things go on1 not how they began4 ,whether the succession of living forms on the earth is or is not among the facts and laws of ,nature1 is the very matter in controversy4 ,moreover1 adds ,dr4 ,hodge1 it has been conceded that in this matter proofs1 in the proper sense of the word1 are not to be had2 we are beyond the region of demonstration1 and have only probabilities to consider4 ,wherefore ,christians have a right to protest against the arraying of probabilities against the clear teachings of ,scripture4 ,the word is italicized1 as if to intimate that probabilities have no claims which a theologian is bound to respect4 ,as to arraying them against ,scripture1 there is nothing whatever in the essay referred to that justifies the statement4 ,indeed1 no occasion offered2 for the writer was discussing evolution in its relations to theism1 not to ,biblical theology1 and probably would not be disposed to intermix arguments so different in kind as those from natural science and those from revelation4 ,to pursue each independently1 according to its own method1 and then to compare the results1 is thought to be the better mode of proceeding4 ,the weighing of probabilities we had regarded as a proper exercise of the mind preparatory to forming an opinion4 ,probabilities1 hypotheses1 and even surmises1 whatever they may be worth1 are just what1 as it seems to us1 theologians ought not to be foremost in decrying1 particularly those who deal with the reconciliation of science with ,scripture1 ,genesis with geology1 and the like4 ,as soon as they go beyond the literal statements even of the ,english text1 and enter into the details of the subject1 they find ample occasion and display a special aptitude for producing and using them1 not always with very satisfactory results4 ,it is not1 perhaps1 for us to suggest that the theological army in the past has been too much encumbered with impedimenta for effective aggression in the conflict against atheistic tendencies in modern science2 and that in resisting attack it has endeavored to hold too much ground1 so wasting strength in the obstinate defense of positions which have become unimportant as well as untenable4 ,some of the arguments1 as well as the guns1 which well served a former generation1 need to be replaced by others of longer range and greater penetration4 ,if the theologians are slow to discern the signs and exigencies of the times1 the religious philosophical naturalists must be looked to4 ,since the above remarks were written1 ,prof4 ,le ,conte's ,religion and ,science1 just issued1 has come to our hands4 ,it is a series of nineteen ,sunday lectures on the relation of natural and revealed religion1 prepared in the first instance for a ,bible-class of young men1 his pupils in the ,university of ,south ,carolina1 repeated to similar classes at the ,university of ,california1 and finally delivered to a larger and general audience4 ,they are printed1 the preface states1 from a verbatim report1 with only verbal alterations and corrections of some redundancies consequent upon extemporaneous delivery4 ,they are not1 we find1 lectures on science under a religious aspect1 but discourses upon ,christian theology and its foundations from a scientific layman's point of view1 with illustrations from his own lines of study4 ,as the headings show1 they cover1 or1 more correctly speaking1 range over1 almost the whole field of theological thought1 beginning with the personality of ,deity as revealed in ,nature1 the spiritual nature and attributes of ,deity1 and the incarnation2 discussing by the way the general relations of theology to science1 man1 and his place in ,nature2 and ending with a discussion of predestination and free-will1 and of prayer in relation to invariable law--all in a volume of three hundred and twenty-four duodecimo pages6 ,and yet the author remarks that many important subjects have been omitted because he felt unable to present them in a satisfactory manner from a scientific point of view4 ,we note1 indeed1 that one or two topics which would naturally come in his way--such1 especially1 as the relation of evolution to the human race--are somewhat conspicuously absent4 ,that most of the momentous subjects which he takes up are treated discursively1 and not exhaustively1 is all the better for his readers4 ,what they and we most want to know is1 how these serious matters are viewed by an honest1 enlightened1 and devout scientific man4 ,to solve the mysteries of the universe1 as the ,french lady required a philosopher to explain his new system1 dans un mot1 is beyond rational expectation4 ,all that we have time and need to say of this little book upon great subjects relates to its spirit and to the view it takes of evolution4 ,its theology is wholly orthodox2 its tone devotional1 charitable1 and hopeful2 its confidence in religious truth1 as taught both in ,nature and revelation1 complete2 the illustrations often happy1 but often too rhetorical2 the science1 as might be expected from this author1 unimpeachable as regards matters of fact1 discreet as to matters of opinion4 ,the argument from design in the first lecture brings up the subject of the introduction of species4 ,of this1 considered as a question of history1 there is no witness on the stand except geology4 ,the present condition of geological evidence is undoubtedly in favor of some degree of suddenness--is against infinite gradations4 ,the evidence may be meagre 4 4 4 but whether meagre or not1 it is all the evidence we have4 4 4 4 ,now1 the evidence of geology to-day is1 that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection1 remain substantially unchanged during the term of their existence1 and pass away in full perfection4 ,other species take their place apparently by substitution1 not by transmutation4 ,but you will ask me1 ',do you1 then1 reject the doctrine of evolution8 ,do you accept the creation of species directly and without secondary agencies and processes8' ,i answer1 ,no6 ,science knows nothing of phenomena which do not take place by secondary causes and processes4 ,she does not deny such occurrence1 for true ,science is not dogmatic1 and she knows full well that1 tracing up the phenomena from cause to cause1 we must somewhere reach the more direct agency of a ,first ,cause4 4 4 4 ,it is evident that1 however species were introduced1 whether suddenly or gradually1 it is the duty of ,science ever to strive to understand the means and processes by which species originated4 4 4 4 ,now1 of the various conceivable secondary causes and processes1 by some of which we must believe species originated1 by far the most probable is certainly that of evolution from other species4 7,we might interpose the remark that the witness on the stand1 if subjected to cross-examination by a biologist1 might be made to give a good deal of testimony in favor of transmutation rather than substitution47 ,after referring to different ideas as to the cause or mode of evolution1 he concludes that it can make no difference1 so far as the argument of design in ,nature is concerned1 whether there be evolution or not1 or whether1 in the case of evolution1 the change be paroxysmal or uniform4 ,we may infer even that he accepts the idea that physical and chemical forces are changed into vital force1 and vice versa4 ,physicists incline more readily to this than physiologists2 and if what is called vital force be a force in the physicists' sense1 then it is almost certainly so4 ,but the illustration on page #bge touches this point only seemingly4 ,it really concerns only the storing and the using of physical force in a living organism4 ,if1 for want of a special expression1 we continue to use the term vital force to designate that intangible something which directs and governs the accumulation and expenditure of physical force in organisms1 then there is as yet no proof and little likelihood that this is correlate with physical force4 ,a few words upon the first chapter of ,genesis and the ,mosaic cosmogony1 and ,i am done1 says ,prof4 ,le ,conte1 and so are we3 ,it might be expected by many that1 after speaking of schemes of reconciliation1 ,i should give mine also4 ,my ,christian friends1 these schemes of reconciliation become daily more and more distasteful to me4 ,i have used them in times past2 but now the deliberate construction of such schemes seems to me almost like trifling with the words of ,scripture and the teachings of ,nature4 ,they seem to me almost irreverent1 and quite foreign to the true1 humble1 liberal spirit of ,christianity2 they are so evidently artificial1 so evidently mere ingenious human devices4 ,it seems to me that if we will only regard the two books in the philosophical spirit which ,i have endeavored to describe1 and then simply wait and possess our souls in patience1 the questions in dispute will soon adjust themselves as other similar questions have already done4 ,,viii ,,what ,,is ,,darwinism8 ,,viii-#a ,the ,nation1 ,may #bh1 #ahgd7 ,the question which ,dr4 ,hodge asks he promptly and decisively answers3 ,what is ,darwinism8 it is atheism4 ,leaving aside all subsidiary and incidental matters1 let us consider--#a4 ,what the ,darwinian doctrine is1 and #b4 ,how it is proved to be atheistic4 ,dr4 ,hodge's own statement of it cannot be very much bettered3 ,his ,darwin's work on the ',origin of ,species' does not purport to be philosophical4 ,in this aspect it is very different from the cognate works of ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,darwin does not speculate on the origin of the universe1 on the nature of matter or of force4 ,he is simply a naturalist1 a careful and laborious observer1 skillful in his descriptions1 and singularly candid in dealing with the difficulties in the way of his peculiar doctrine4 ,he set before himself a single problem--namely1 ,how are the fauna and flora of our earth to be accounted for8 4 4 4 ,to account for the existence of matter and life1 ,mr4 ,darwin admits a ,creator4 ,this is done explicitly and repeatedly4 4 4 4 ,he assumes the efficiency of physical causes1 showing no disposition to resolve them into mind-force or into the efficiency of the ,first ,cause4 4 4 4 ,he assumes1 also1 the existence of life in the form of one or more primordial germs4 4 4 4 ,how all living things on earth1 including the endless variety of plants and all the diversity of animals1 4 4 4 have descended from the primordial animalcule1 he thinks1 may be accounted for by the operation of the following natural laws1 viz43 ,first1 the law of ,heredity1 or that by which like begets like--the offspring are like the parent4 ,second1 the law of ,variation2 that is1 while the offspring are in all essential characteristics like their immediate progenitor1 they nevertheless vary more or less within narrow limits from their parent and from each other4 ,some of these variations are indifferent1 some deteriorations1 some improvements--that is1 such as enable the plant or animal to exercise its functions to greater advantage4 ,third1 the law of ,over-,production4 ,all plants and animals tend to increase in a geometrical ratio1 and therefore tend to overrun enormously the means of support4 ,if all the seeds of a plant1 all the spawn of a fish1 were to arrive at maturity1 in a very short time the world could not contain them4 ,hence1 of necessity1 arises a struggle for life4 ,only a few of the myriads born can possibly live4 ,fourth1 here comes in the law of ,natural ,selection1 or the ,survival of the ,fittest2 that is1 if any individual of a given species of plant or animal happens to have a slight deviation from the normal type favorable to its success in the struggle for life1 it will survive4 ,this variation1 by the law of heredity1 will be transmitted to its offspring1 and by them again to theirs4 ,soon these favored ones gain the ascendency1 and the less favored perish1 and the modification becomes established in the species4 ,after a time1 another and another of such favorable variations occur1 with like results4 ,thus1 very gradually1 great changes of structure are introduced1 and not only species1 but genera1 families1 and orders1 in the vegetable and animal world1 are produced 7pp4 #bf-bi74 ,now1 the truth or the probability of ,darwin's hypothesis is not here the question1 but only its congruity or incongruity with theism4 ,we need take only one exception to this abstract of it1 but that is an important one for the present investigation4 ,it is to the sentence which we have italicized in the earlier part of ,dr4 ,hodge's own statement of what ,darwinism is4 ,with it begins our inquiry as to how he proves the doctrine to be atheistic4 ,first1 if we rightly apprehend it1 a suggestion of atheism is infused into the premises in a negative form3 ,mr4 ,darwin shows no disposition to resolve the efficiency of physical causes into the efficiency of the ,first ,cause4 ,next 7on page #dh7 comes the positive charge that ,mr4 ,darwin1 although himself a theist1 maintains that the contrivances manifested in the organs of plants and animals 4 4 4 are not due to the continued cooperation and control of the divine mind1 nor to the original purpose of ,god in the constitution of the universe4 ,as to the negative statement1 it might suffice to recall ,dr4 ,hodge's truthful remark that ,darwin is simply a naturalist1 and that his work on the origin of species does not purport to be philosophical4 ,in physical and physiological treatises1 the most religious men rarely think it necessary to postulate the ,first ,cause1 nor are they misjudged by the omission4 ,but surely ,mr4 ,darwin does show the disposition which our author denies him1 not only by implication in many instances1 but most explicitly where one would naturally look for it1 namely--at the close of the volume in question3 ,to my mind1 it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the ,creator1 etc4 ,if that does not refer the efficiency of physical causes to the ,first ,cause1 what form of words could do so8 ,the positive charge appears to be equally gratuitous4 ,in both ,dr4 ,hodge must have overlooked the beginning as well as the end of the volume which he judges so hardly4 ,just as mathematicians and physicists1 in their systems1 are wont to postulate the fundamental and undeniable truths they are concerned with1 or what they take for such and require to be taken for granted1 so ,mr4 ,darwin postulates1 upon the first page of his notable work1 and in the words of ,whewell and ,bishop ,butler3 #a4 ,the establishment by divine power of general laws1 according to which1 rather than by insulated interpositions in each particular case1 events are brought about in the material world2 and #b4 ,that by the word '3natural is meant stated1 fixed1 or settled1 by this same power1 since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so--i4e41 to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once4,,viii-#b ,so when ,mr4 ,darwin makes such large and free use of natural as antithetical to supernatural causes1 we are left in no doubt as to the ultimate source which he refers them to4 ,rather let us say there ought to be no doubt1 unless there are other grounds for it to rest upon4 ,such ground there must be1 or seem to be1 to justify or excuse a veteran divine and scholar like ,dr4 ,hodge in his deduction of pure atheism from a system produced by a confessed theist1 and based1 as we have seen1 upon thoroughly orthodox fundamental conceptions4 ,even if we may not hope to reconcile the difference between the theologian and the naturalist1 it may be well to ascertain where their real divergence begins1 or ought to begin1 and what it amounts to4 ,seemingly1 it is in their proximate1 not in their ultimate1 principles1 as ,dr4 ,hodge insists when he declares that the whole drift of ,darwinism is to prove that everything may be accounted for by the blind operation of natural causes1 without any intention1 purpose1 or cooperation of ,god4 ,why don't he say1 cries the theologian1 that the complicated organs of plants and animals are the product of the divine intelligence8 ,if ,god made them1 it makes no difference1 so far as the question of design is concerned1 how he made them1 whether at once or by process of evolution4 ,but1 as we have seen1 ,mr4 ,darwin does say that1 and he over and over implies it when he refers the production of species to secondary causes1 and likens their origination to the origination of individuals2 species being series of individuals with greater difference4 ,it is not for the theologian to object that the power which made individual men and other animals1 and all the differences which the races of mankind exhibit1 through secondary causes1 could not have originated congeries of more or less greatly differing individuals through the same causes4 ,clearly1 then1 the difference between the theologian and the naturalist is not fundamental1 and evolution may be as profoundly and as particularly theistic as it is increasingly probable4 ,the taint of atheism which1 in ,dr4 ,hodge's view1 leavens the whole lump1 is not inherent in the original grain of ,darwinism--in the principles posited--but has somehow been introduced in the subsequent treatment4 ,possibly1 when found1 it may be eliminated4 ,perhaps there is mutual misapprehension growing out of some ambiguity in the use of terms4 ,without any intention1 purpose1 or cooperation of ,god4- ,these are sweeping and effectual words4 ,how came they to be applied to natural selection by a divine who professes that ,god ordained whatsoever cometh to pass8 ,in this wise3 ,the point to be proved is1 that it is the distinctive doctrine of ,mr4 ,darwin that species owe their origin--#a4 ,not to the original intention of the divine mind2 #b4 ,not to special acts of creation calling new forms into existence at certain epochs2 #c4 ,not to the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of ,god guiding physical causes in the production of intended effects2 but #d4 ,to the gradual accumulation of unintended variations of structure and instinct securing some advantage to their subjects4 ,then ,dr4 ,hodge adduces ,darwin's own testimony1 to the purport that natural selection denotes the totality of natural causes and their interactions1 physical and physiological1 reproduction1 variation1 birth1 struggle1 extinction--in short1 all that is going on in ,nature2 that the variations which in this interplay are picked out for survival are not intentionally guided2 that nothing can be more hopeless than the attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes 7which ,dr4 ,hodge takes to be the denial of any such thing as final causes72 and that the interactions and processes going on which constitute natural selection may suffice to account for the present diversity of animals and plants 7primordial organisms being postulated and time enough given7 with all their structures and adaptations--that is1 to account for them scientifically1 as science accounts for other things4 ,a good deal may be made of this1 but does it sustain the indictment8 ,moreover1 the counts of the indictment may be demurred to4 ,it seems to us that only one of the three points which ,darwin is said to deny is really opposed to the fourth1 which he is said to maintain1 except as concerns the perhaps ambiguous word unintended4 ,otherwise1 the origin of species through the gradual accumulation of variations--i4e41 by the addition of a series of small differences--is surely not incongruous with their origin through the original intention of the divine mind or through the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of ,god4- ,one or both of these ,mr4 ,darwin 7being1 as ,dr4 ,hodge says1 a theist7 must needs hold to in some form or other2 wherefore he may be presumed to hold the fourth proposition in such wise as not really to contradict the first or the third4 ,the proper antithesis is with the second proposition only1 and the issue comes to this3 ,have the multitudinous forms of living creatures1 past and present1 been produced by as many special and independent acts of creation at very numerous epochs8 ,or have they originated under causes as natural as reproduction and birth1 and no more so1 by the variation and change of preceding into succeeding species8 ,those who accept the latter alternative are evolutionists4 ,and ,dr4 ,hodge fairly allows that their views1 although clearly wrong1 may be genuinely theistic4 ,surely they need not become the less so by the discovery or by the conjecture of natural operations through which this diversification and continued adaptation of species to conditions is brought about4 ,now1 ,mr4 ,darwin thinks--and by this he is distinguished4 from most evolutionists--that he can assign actual natural causes1 adequate to the production of the present out of the preceding state of the animal and vegetable world1 and so on backward--thus uniting1 not indeed the beginning but the far past with the present in one coherent system of ,nature4 ,but in assigning actual natural causes and processes1 and applying them to the explanation of the whole case1 ,mr4 ,dar-win assumes the obligation of maintaining their general sufficiency--a task from which the numerous advocates and acceptors of evolution on the general concurrence of probabilities and its usefulness as a working hypothesis 7with or without much conception of the manner how7 are happily free4 ,having hit upon a modus operandi which all who understand it admit will explain something1 and many that it will explain very much1 it is to be expected that ,mr4 ,darwin will make the most of it4 ,doubtless he is far from pretending to know all the causes and operations at work2 he has already added some and restricted the range of others2 he probably looks for additions to their number and new illustrations of their efficiency2 but he is bound to expect them all to fall within the category of what he calls natural selection 7a most expansible principle71 or to be congruous with it--that is1 that they shall be natural causes4 ,also--and this is the critical point--he is bound to maintain their sufficiency without intervention4 ,here1 at length1 we reach the essential difference between ,darwin1 as we understand him1 and ,dr4 ,hodge4 ,the terms which ,darwin sometimes uses1 and doubtless some of the ideas they represent1 are not such as we should adopt or like to defend2 and we may say once for all--aside though it be from the present issue--that1 in our opinion1 the adequacy of the assigned causes to the explanation of the phenomena has not been made out4 ,but we do not understand him to deny purpose1 intention1 or the cooperation of ,god in ,nature4 ,this would be as gratuitous as unphilosophical1 not to say unscientific4 ,when he speaks of this or that particular or phase in the course of events or the procession of organic forms as not intended1 he seems to mean not specially and disjunctively intended and not brought about by intervention4 ,purpose in the whole1 as we suppose1 is not denied but implied4 ,and when one considers how1 under whatever view of the case1 the designed and the contingent lie inextricably commingled in this world of ours1 past man's disentanglement1 and into what metaphysical dilemmas the attempt at unraveling them leads1 we cannot greatly blame the naturalist for relegating such problems to the philosopher and the theologian4 ,if charitable1 these will place the most favorable construction upon attempts to extend and unify the operation of known secondary causes1 this being the proper business of the naturalist and physicist2 if wise1 they will be careful not to predicate or suggest the absence of intention from what comes about by degrees through the continuous operation of physical causes1 even in the organic world1 lest1 in their endeavor to retain a probable excess of supernaturalism in that realm of ,nature1 they cut away the grounds for recognizing it at all in inorganic ,nature1 and so fall into the same condemnation that some of them award to the ,darwinian4 ,moreover1 it is not certain that ,mr4 ,darwin would very much better his case1 ,dr4 ,hodge being judge1 if he did propound some theory of the nexus of divine causation and natural laws1 or even if he explicitly adopted the one or the other of the views which he is charged with rejecting4 ,either way he might meet a procrustean fate2 and1 although a saving amount of theism might remain1 he would not be sound or comfortable4 ,for1 if he predicates the constant and everywhere operative efficiency of ,god1 he may lapse into the same doctrine that the ,duke of ,argyll and ,sir ,john ,herschel seem inclined to1 the latter of whom is blamed for thinking it but reasonable to regard the force of gravitation as the direct or indirect result of a consciousness or will existing somewhere1 and the former for regarding it unphilosophical 'to think or speak as if the forces of ,nature were either independent of or even separate from the ,creator's power' 3 while if he falls back upon an original intention of the divine mind1 endowing matter with forces which he foresaw and intended should produce such results as these contrivances in ,nature1 he is told that this banishes ,god from the world1 and is inconsistent with obvious facts4 ,and that because of its implying that ,he never interferes to guide the operation of physical causes4 ,we italicize the word1 for interference proves to be the keynote of ,dr4 ,hodge's system4 ,interference with a divinely ordained physical ,nature for the accomplishment of natural results6 ,an unorthodox friend has just imparted to us1 with much misgiving and solicitude lest he should be thought irreverent1 his tentative hypothesis1 which is1 that even the ,creator may be conceived to have improved with time and experience6 ,never before was this theory so plainly and barely put before us4 ,we were obliged to say that1 in principle and by implication1 it was not wholly original4 ,but in such matters1 which are far too high for us1 no one is justly to be held responsible for the conclusions which another may draw from his principles or assumptions4 ,dr4 ,hodge's particular view should be gathered from his own statement of it3 ,in the external world there is always and everywhere indisputable evidence of the activity of two kinds of force1 the one physical1 the other mental4 ,the physical belongs to matter1 and is due to the properties with which it has been endowed2 the other is the everywhere present and ever-acting mind of ,god4 ,to the latter are to be referred all the manifestations of design in ,nature1 and the ordering of events in ,providence4 ,this doctrine does not ignore the efficiency of second causes2 it simply asserts that ,god overrules and controls them4 ,thus the ,psalmist says3 ',i am fearfully and wonderfully made4 ,my substance was not hid from ,thee when ,i was made in secret1 and curiously wrought 7or embroidered7 in the lower parts of the earth4 4 4 4 ,god makes the grass to grow1 and herbs for the children of men4'- ,he sends rain1 frost1 and snow4 ,he controls the winds and the waves4 ,he determines the casting of the lot1 the flight of an arrow1 and the falling of a sparrow4 ,far be it from us to object to this mode of conceiving divine causation1 although1 like the two other theistic conceptions referred to1 it has its difficulties1 and perhaps the difficulties of both4 ,but1 if we understand it1 it draws an unusually hard and fast line between causation in organic and inorganic ,nature1 seems to look for no manifestation of design in the latter except as ,god overrules and controls second causes1 and1 finally1 refers to this overruling and controlling 7rather than to a normal action through endowment7 all embryonic development1 the growth of vegetables1 and the like4 ,he even adds1 without break or distinction1 the sending of rain1 frost1 and snow1 the flight of an arrow1 and the falling of a sparrow4 ,somehow we must have misconceived the bearing of the statement2 but so it stands as one of the three ways1 and the right way1 of accounting for contrivances in ,nature2 the other two being--#a4 ,their reference to the blind operation of natural causes2 and1 #b4 ,that they were foreseen and purposed by ,god1 who endowed matter with forces which he foresaw and intended should produce such results1 but never interferes to guide their operation4 ,in animadverting upon this latter view1 ,dr4 ,hodge brings forward an argument against evolution1 with the examination of which our remarks must close3 ,paley1 indeed1 says that if the construction of a watch be an undeniable evidence of design1 it would be a still more wonderful manifestation of skill if a watch could be made to produce other watches1 and1 it may be added1 not only other watches1 but all kinds of timepieces1 in endless variety4 ,so it has been asked1 ,if a man can make a telescope1 why cannot ,god make a telescope which produces others like itself8 ,this is simply asking whether matter can be made to do the work of mind4 ,the idea involves a contradiction4 ,for a telescope to make a telescope supposes it to select copper and zinc in due proportions1 and fuse them into brass2 to fashion that brass into inter-entering tubes2 to collect and combine the requisite materials for the different kinds of glass needed2 to melt them1 grind1 fashion1 and polish them1 adjust their densities1 focal distances1 etc41 etc4 ,a man who can believe that brass can do all this might as well believe in ,god 7pp4 #de1 #df74 ,if ,dr4 ,hodge's meaning is1 that matter unconstructed cannot do the work of mind1 he misses the point altogether2 for original construction by an intelligent mind is given in the premises4 ,if he means that the machine cannot originate the power that operates it1 this is conceded by all except believers in perpetual motion1 and it equally misses the point2 for the operating power is given in the case of the watch1 and implied in that of the reproductive telescope4 ,but if he means that matter cannot be made to do the work of mind in constructions1 machines1 or organisms1 he is surely wrong4 ,sovitur ambulando1 vel scribendo2 he confuted his argument in the act of writing the sentence4 ,that is just what machines and organisms are for2 and a consistent ,christian theist should maintain that is what all matter is for4 ,finally1 if1 as we freely suppose1 he means none of these1 he must mean 7unless we are much mistaken7 that organisms originated by the ,almighty ,creator could not be endowed with the power of producing similar organisms1 or slightly dissimilar organisms1 without successive interventions4 ,then he begs the very question in dispute1 and that1 too1 in the face of the primal command1 ,be fruitful and multiply1 and its consequences in every natural birth4 ,if the actual facts could be ignored1 how nicely the parallel would run6 ,the idea involves a contradiction4 ,for an animal to make an animal1 or a plant to make a plant1 supposes it to select carbon1 hydrogen1 oxygen1 and nitrogen1 to combine these into cellulose and protoplasm1 to join with these some phosphorus1 lime1 etc41 to build them into structures and usefully-adjusted organs4 ,a man who can believe that plants and animals can do this 7not1 indeed1 in the crude way suggested1 but in the appointed way7 might as well believe in ,god4 ,yes1 verily1 and so he probably will1 in spite of all that atheistical philosophers have to offer1 if not harassed and confused by such arguments and statements as these4 ,there is a long line of gradually-increasing divergence from the ultra-orthodox view of ,dr4 ,hodge through those of such men as ,sir ,william ,thomson1 ,herschel1 ,argyll1 ,owen1 ,mivart1 ,wallace1 and ,darwin1 down to those of ,strauss1 ,vogt1 and ,buchner4 ,to strike the line with telling power and good effect1 it is necessary to aim at the right place4 ,excellent as the present volume is in motive and clearly as it shows that ,darwinism may bear an atheistic as well as a theistic interpretation1 we fear that it will not contribute much to the reconcilement of science and religion4 ,the length of the analysis of the first book on our list precludes the notices which we intended to take of the three others4 ,they are all the production of men who are both scientific and religious1 one of them a celebrated divine and writer unusually versed in natural history4 ,they all look upon theories of evolution either as in the way of being established or as not unlikely to prevail1 and they confidently expect to lose thereby no solid ground for theism or religion4 ,mr4 ,st4 ,clair1 a new writer1 in his ,darwinism and ,design2 or1 ,creation by ,evolution1 takes his ground in the following succinct statement of his preface3 ,it is being assumed by our scientific guides that the design-argument has been driven out of the field by the doctrine of evolution4 ,it seems to be thought by our theological teachers that the best defense of the faith is to deny evolution in toto1 and denounce it as anti-,biblical4 ,my volume endeavors to show that1 if evolution be true1 all is not lost2 but1 on the contrary1 something is gained3 the design-argument remains unshaken1 and the wisdom and beneficence of ,god receive new illustration4 ,of his closing remark1 that1 so far as he knows1 the subject has never before been handled in the same way for the same purpose1 we will only say that the handling strikes us as mainly sensible rather than as substantially novel4 ,he traverses the whole ground of evolution1 from that of the solar system to the origin of moral species4 ,he is clearly a theistic ,darwinian without misgiving1 and the arguments for that hypothesis and for its religious aspects obtain from him their most favorable presentation1 while he combats the dysteleology of ,hackel1 ,buchner1 etc41 not1 however1 with any remarkable strength4 ,dr4 ,winchell1 chancellor of the new university at ,syracuse1 in his volume just issued upon the ,doctrine of ,evolution1 adopts it in the abstract as clearly as the law of universal intelligence under which complex results are brought into existence 7whatever that may mean71 accepts it practically for the inorganic world as a geologist should1 hesitates as to the organic world1 and sums up the arguments for the origin of species by diversification unfavorably for the ,darwinians1 regarding it mainly from the geological side4 ,as some of our zoologists and palaeontologists may have somewhat to say upon this matter1 we leave it for their consideration4 ,we are tempted to develop a point which ,dr4 ,winchell incidentally refers to--viz41 how very modern the idea of the independent creation and fixity of species is1 and how well the old divines got on without it4 ,dr4 ,winchell reminds us that ,st4 ,augustine and ,st4 ,thomas ,aquinas were model evolutionists2 and1 where authority is deferred to1 this should count for something4 ,mr4 ,kingsley's eloquent and suggestive ,westminster ,sermons1 in which he touches here and there upon many of the topics which evolution brings up1 has incorporated into the preface a paper which he read in #ahg;i to a meeting of ,london clergy at ,sion ,college1 upon certain problems of natural theology as affected by modern theories in science4 ,we may hereafter have occasion to refer to this volume4 ,meanwhile1 perhaps we may usefully conclude this article with two or three short extracts from it3 ,the ,god who satisfies our conscience ought more or less to satisfy our reason also4 ,to teach that was ,butler's mission2 and he fulfilled it well4 ,but it is a mission which has to be refulfilled again and again1 as human thought changes1 and human science develops1 ,for if1 in any age or country1 the ,god who seems to be revealed by ,nature seems also different from the ,god who is revealed by the then-popular religion1 then that ,god and the religion which tells of that ,god will gradually cease to be believed in4 ,for the demands of reason--as none knew better than good ,bishop ,butler--must be and ought to be satisfied4 ,and1 therefore1 when a popular war arises between the reason of any generation and its theology1 then it behooves the ministers of religion to inquire1 with all humility and godly fear1 on whose side lies the fault2 whether the theology which they expound is all that it should be1 or whether the reason of those who impugn it is all that it should be4 ,pronouncing it to be the duty of the naturalist to find out the how of things1 and of the natural theologian to find out the why1 ,mr4 ,kingsley continues3 ,but if it be said1 ',after all1 there is no why2 the doctrine of evolution1 by doing away with the theory of creation1 does away with that of final causes1' let us answer boldly1 ',not in the least4' ,we might accept all that ,mr4 ,darwin1 all that ,prof4 ,huxley1 all that other most able men have so learnedly and acutely written on physical science1 and yet preserve our natural theology on the same basis as that on which ,butler and ,paley left it4 ,that we should have to develop it ,i do not deny4 ,let us rather look with calmness1 and even with hope and good-will1 on these new theories2 they surely mark a tendency toward a more1 not a less1 ,scriptural view of ,nature4 ,of old it was said by ,him1 without whom nothing is made1 ',my ,father worketh hitherto1 and ,i work4' ,shall we quarrel with ,science if she should show how these words are true8 ,what1 in one word1 should we have to say but this3 ',we know of old that ,god was so wise that he could make all things2 but1 behold1 he is so much wiser than even that1 that he can make all things make themselves8' ,,charles ,,darwin3 ,a ,,sketch 7,nature1 ,june #d1 #ahgd1 accompanying a portrait7 ,two ,british naturalists1 ,robert ,brown and ,charles ,darwin1 have1 more than any others1 impressed their influence upon science in this nineteenth century4 ,unlike as these men and their works were and are1 we may most readily subserve the present purpose in what we are called upon to say of the latter by briefly comparing and contrasting the two4 ,robert ,brown died sixteen years ago1 full of years and scientific honors1 and he seems to have finished1 several years earlier1 all the scientific work that he had undertaken4 ,to the other1 ,charles ,darwin1 a fair number of productive years may yet remain1 and are earnestly hoped for4 ,both enjoyed the great advantage of being all their lives long free from exacting professional duties or cares1 and so were able in the main to apply themselves to research without distraction and according to their bent4 ,both1 at the beginning of their career1 were attached to expeditions of exploration in the southern hemisphere1 where they amassed rich stores of observation and materials1 and probably struck out1 while in the field1 some of the best ideas which they subsequently developed4 ,they worked in different fields and upon different methods2 only in a single instance1 so far as we know1 have they handled the same topic2 and in this the more penetrating insight of the younger naturalist into an interesting general problem may be appealed to in justification of a comparison which some will deem presumptuous4 ,be this as it may1 there will probably be little dissent from the opinion that the characteristic trait common to the two is an unrivaled scientific sagacity4 ,in this these two naturalists seem to us1 each in his way1 preeminent4 ,there is a characteristic likeness1 too--underlying much difference--in their admirable manner of dealing with facts closely1 and at first hand1 without the interposition of the formal laws1 vague ideal conceptions1 or glittering generalities which some philosophical naturalists make large use of4 ,a likeness may also be discerned in the way in which the work or contributions of predecessors and contemporaries are referred to4 ,the brief historical summaries prefixed to many of ,mr4 ,brown's papers are models of judicial conscientiousness4 ,and ,mr4 ,darwin's evident delight at discovering that some one else has said his good things before him1 or has been on the verge of uttering them1 seemingly equals that of making the discovery himself4 ,it reminds one of ,goethe's insisting that his views in morphology must have been held before him and must be somewhere on record1 so obvious did they appear to him4 ,considering the quiet and retired lives led by both these men1 and the prominent place they are likely to occupy in the history of science1 the contrast between them as to contemporary and popular fame is very remarkable4 ,while ,mr4 ,brown was looked up to with the greatest reverence by all the learned botanists1 he was scarcely heard of by any one else2 and out of botany he was unknown to science except as the discoverer of the ,brownian motion of minute particles1 which discovery was promulgated in a privately-printed pamphlet that few have ever seen4 ,although ,mr4 ,darwin had been for twenty years well and widely known for his ,naturalist's ,journal1 his works on ,coral ,islands1 on ,volcanic ,islands1 and especially for his researches on the ,barnacles1 it was not till about fifteen years ago that his name became popularly famous4 ,ever since no scientific name has been so widely spoken4 ,many others have had hypotheses or systems named after them1 but no one else that we know of a department of bibliography4 ,the nature of his latest researches accounts for most of the difference1 but not for all1 ,the ,origin of ,species is a fascinating topic1 having interests and connections with every branch of science1 natural and moral4 ,the investigation of recondite affinities is very dry and special2 its questions1 processes1 and results alike--although in part generally presentable in the shape of morphology--are mainly1 like the higher mathematics1 unintelligible except to those who make them a subject of serious study4 ,they are especially so when presented in ,mr4 ,brown's manner4 ,perhaps no naturalist ever recorded the results of his investigations in fewer words and with greater precision than ,robert ,brown3 certainly no one ever took more pains to state nothing beyond the precise point in question4 ,indeed1 we have sometimes fancied that he preferred to enwrap rather than to explain his meaning2 to put it into such a form that1 unless you follow ,solomon's injunction and dig for the wisdom as for hid treasure1 you may hardly apprehend it until you have found it all out for yourself1 when you will have the satisfaction of perceiving that ,mr4 ,brown not only knew all about it1 but had put it upon record4 ,very different from this is the way in which ,mr4 ,darwin takes his readers into his confidence1 freely displays to them the sources of his information1 and the working of his mind1 and even shares with them all his doubts and misgivings1 while in a clear exposition he sets forth the reasons which have guided him to his conclusions4 ,these you may hesitate or decline to adopt1 but you feel sure that they have been presented with perfect fairness2 and if you think of arguments against them you may be confident that they have all been duly considered before4 ,the sagacity which characterizes these two naturalists is seen in their success in finding decisive instances1 and their sure insight into the meaning of things4 ,as an instance of the latter on ,mr4 ,darwin's part1 and a justification of our venture to compare him with the facile princeps botanicorum1 we will1 in conclusion1 allude to the single instance in which they took the same subject in hand4 ,in his papers on the organs and modes of fecundation in ,orchideae and ,asclepiadeae1 ,mr4 ,brown refers more than once to ,c4,k4 ,sprengel's almost forgotten work1 shows how the structure of the flowers in these orders largely requires the agency of insects for their fecundation1 and is aware that in ,asclepiadeae 4 4 4 the insect so readily passes from one corolla to another that it not unfrequently visits every flower of the umbel4 ,he must also have contemplated the transport of pollen from plant to plant by wind and insects2 and we know from another source that he looked upon ,sprengel's ideas as far from fantastic4 ,yet1 instead of taking the single forward step which now seems so obvious1 he even hazarded the conjecture that the insect-forms of some orchideous flowers are intended to deter rather than to attract insects4 ,and so the explanation of all these and other extraordinary structures1 as well as of the arrangement of blossoms in general1 and even the very meaning and need of sexual propagation1 were left to be supplied by ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,the aphorism ,nature abhors a vacuum is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages4 ,the aphorism ,nature abhors close fertilization1 and the demonstration of the principle1 belong to our age1 and to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,to have originated this1 and also the principle of natural selection--the truthfulness and importance of which are evident the moment it is apprehended--and to have applied these principles to the system of ,nature in such a manner as to make1 within a dozen years1 a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since ,linnaeus1 is ample title for one man's fame4 ,there is no need of our giving any account or of estimating the importance of such works as the ,origin of ,species by means of ,natural ,selection1 the ,variation of ,animals and ,plants under ,domestication1 the ,descent of ,man1 and ,selection in ,relation to ,sex1 and the ,expression of the ,emotions in ,men and ,animals--a series to which we may hope other volumes may in due time be added4 ,we would rather1 if space permitted1 attempt an analysis of the less known1 but not less masterly1 subsidiary essays1 upon the various arrangements for insuring cross-fertilization in flowers1 for the climbing of plants1 and the like4 ,these1 as we have heard1 may before long be reprinted in a volume1 and supplemented by some long-pending but still unfinished investigations upon the action of ,dionaea and ,drosera--a capital subject for ,mr4 ,darwin's handling4 ,a propos to these papers1 which furnish excellent illustrations of it1 let us recognize ,darwin's great service to natural science in bringing back to it ,teleology2 so that1 instead of ,morphology versus ,teleology1 we shall have ,morphology wedded to ,teleology4 ,to many1 no doubt1 evolutionary ,teleology comes in such a questionable shape as to seem shorn of all its goodness2 but they will think better of it in time1 when their ideas become adjusted1 and they see what an impetus the new doctrines have given to investigation4 ,they are much mistaken who suppose that ,darwinism is only of speculative importance1 and perhaps transient interest4 ,in its working applications it has proved to be a new power1 eminently practical and fruitful4 ,and here1 again1 we are bound to note a striking contrast to ,mr4 ,brown1 greatly as we revere his memory4 ,he did far less work than was justly to be expected from him4 ,mr4 ,darwin not only points out the road1 but labors upon it indefatigably and unceasingly4 ,a most commendable noblesse oblige assures us that he will go on while strength 7would we could add health7 remains4 ,the vast amount of such work he has already accomplished might overtax the powers of the strongest4 ,that it could have been done at all under constant infirm health is most wonderful4 ,x ,,insectivorous ,,plants 7,the ,nation1 ,april #b and #i1 #ahgd7 ,that animals should feed upon plants is natural and normal1 and the reverse seems impossible4 ,but the adage1 ,natura non agit saltatim1 has its application even here4 ,it is the naturalist1 rather than ,nature1 that draws hard and fast lines everywhere1 and marks out abrupt boundaries where she shades off with gradations4 ,however opposite the parts which animals and vegetables play in the economy of the world as the two opposed kingdoms of organic ,nature1 it is becoming more and more obvious that they are not only two contiguous kingdoms1 but are parts of one whole--antithetical and complementary to each other1 indeed2 but such thin partitions do the bounds divide that no definitions yet framed hold good without exception4 ,this is a world of transition in more senses than is commonly thought2 and one of the lessons which the philosophical naturalist learns1 or has to learn1 is1 that differences the most wide and real in the main1 and the most essential1 may nevertheless be here and there connected or bridged over by gradations4 ,there is a limbo filled with organisms which never rise high enough in the scale to be manifestly either animal or plant1 unless it may be said of some of them that they are each in turn and neither long4 ,there are undoubted animals which produce the essential material of vegetable fabric1 or build up a part of their structure of it1 or elaborate the characteristic leaf-green which1 under solar light1 assimilates inorganic into organic matter1 the most distinguishing function of vegetation4 ,on the other hand1 there are plants--microscopic1 indeed1 but unquestionable--which move spontaneously and freely around and among animals that are fixed and rooted4 ,and1 to come without further parley to the matter in hand1 while the majority of animals feed directly upon plants1 for 'tis their nature to1 there are plants which turn the tables and feed upon them4 ,some1 being parasitic upon living animals1 feed insidiously and furtively2 these1 although really cases in point1 are not so extraordinary1 and1 as they belong to the lower orders1 they are not much regarded1 except for the harm they do4 ,there are others1 and those of the highest orders1 which lure or entrap animals in ways which may well excite our special wonder--all the more so since we are now led to conclude that they not only capture but consume their prey4 ,as respects the two or three most notable instances1 the conclusions which have been reached are among the very recent acquisitions of physiological science4 ,curiously enough1 however1 now that they are made out1 it appears that they were in good part long ago attained1 recorded1 and mainly forgotten4 ,the earlier observations and surmises shared the common fate of discoveries made before the time1 or by those who were not sagacious enough to bring out their full meaning or importance4 ,vegetable morphology1 dimly apprehended by ,linnaeus1 initiated by ,casper ,frederick ,wolff1 and again1 independently in successive generations1 by ,goethe and by ,de ,candolle1 offers a parallel instance4 ,the botanists of ,goethe's day could not see any sense1 advantage1 or practical application1 to be made of the proposition that the parts of a blossom answer to leaves2 and so the study of homologies had long to wait4 ,until lately it appeared to be of no consequence whatever 7except1 perhaps1 to the insects7 whether ,drosera and ,sarracenia caught flies or not2 and even ,dionaea excited only unreflecting wonder as a vegetable anomaly4 ,as if there were real anomalies in ,nature1 and some one plant possessed extraordinary powers denied to all others1 and 7as was supposed7 of no importance to itself6 ,that most expert of fly-catchers1 ,dionaea1 of which so much has been written and so little known until lately1 came very near revealing its secret to ,solander and ,ellis a hundred years ago1 and doubtless to ,john ,bartram1 our botanical pioneer1 its ,c probable discoverer1 who sent it to ,europe4 ,ellis1 in his published letter to ,linnaeus1 with which the history begins1 described the structure and action of the living trap correctly2 noticed that the irritability which called forth the quick movement closing the trap1 entirely resided in the few small bristles of its upper face2 that this whole surface was studded ,c with glands1 which probably secreted a liquid2 and that the trap did not open again when an insect was captured1 even upon the death of the captive1 although it opened very soon when nothing was caught1 or when the irritation was caused by a bit of straw1 or any such substance4 ,it was ,linnaeus who originated the contrary and erroneous statement1 which has long prevailed in the books1 that the trap reopened when the fatigued captive became quiet1 and let it go2 as if the plant caught flies in mere play and pastime6 ,linnaeus also omitted all allusion to a secreted liquid--which was justifiable1 as4 ,ellis does not state that he had actually seen any2 and1 if he did see it1 quite mistook its use1 supposing it to be1 like the nectar of flowers1 a lure for insects1 a bait for the trap4 ,whereas1 in fact1 the lure1 if there be any1 must be an odor 7although nothing is perceptible to the human olfactories72 for the liquid secreted by the glands never appears until the trap has closed upon some insect1 and held it at least for some hours a prisoner4 ,within twenty-four or forty-eight hours this glairy liquid is abundant1 bathing and macerating the body of the perished insect4 ,its analogue is not the nectar of flowers1 but the saliva or the gastric juice6 ,the observations which compel such an inference are re-cent1 and the substance of them may be briefly stated4 ,the late ,rev4 ,dr4 ,m4 ,a4 ,curtis 7by whose death1 two years ago1 we lost one of our best botanists1 and the master in his especial line1 mycology71 forty years and more ago resided at ,wilmington1 ,north ,carolina1 in the midst of the only district to which the ,dionaea is native2 and he published1 in #ahcd1 in the first volume of the ,journal of the ,boston ,society of ,natural ,history1 by far the best account of this singular plant which had then appeared4 ,he remarks that the little prisoner is not crushed and suddenly destroyed1 as is sometimes supposed1 for he had often liberated captive flies and spiders1 which sped away as fast as fear or joy could hasten them4 ,but he neglected to state1 although he must have noticed the fact1 that the two sides of the trap1 at first concave to the contained insect1 at length flatten and close down firmly upon the prey1 exerting no inconsiderable pressure1 and insuring the death of any soft-bodied insect1 if it had not already succumbed to the confinement and salivation4 ,this last ,dr4 ,curtis noticed1 and first discerned its import1 although he hesitated to pronounce upon its universality4 ,that the captured insects were in some way made subservient to the nourishment of the plant had been conjectured from the first4 ,dr4 ,curtis at times 7and he might have always at the proper time7 found them enveloped in a fluid of mucilaginous consistence1 which seems to act as a solvent1 the insects being more or less consumed in it4 ,this was verified and the digestive character of the liquid well-nigh demonstrated six or seven years ago by ,mr4 ,canby1 of ,wilmington1 ,delaware1 who1 upon a visit to the sister-town of ,north ,carolina1 and afterward at his home1 followed up ,dr4 ,curtis's suggestions with some capital observations and experiments4 ,these were published at ,philadelphia in the tenth volume of ,meehan's ,gardeners' ,monthly1 ,august1 i#hfh2 but they do not appear to have attracted the attention which they merited4 ,the points which ,mr4 ,canby made out are1 that this fluid is always poured out around the captured insect in due time1 if the leaf is in good condition and the prey suitable2 that it comes from the leaf itself1 and not from the decomposing insect 7for1 when the trap caught a plum-curculio1 the fluid was poured out while he was still alive1 though very weak1 and endeavoring1 ineffectively1 to eat his way out72 that bits of raw beef1 although sometimes rejected after a while1 were generally acted upon in the same manner--i4e41 closed down upon tightly1 salvered with the liquid1 dissolved mainly1 and absorbed2 so that1 in fine1 the fluid may well be said to be analogous to the gastric juice of animals1 dissolving the prey and rendering it fit for absorption by the leaf4 ,many leaves remain inactive or slowly die away after one meal2 others reopen for a second and perhaps even a third capture1 and are at least capable of digesting a second meal4 ,before ,mr4 ,canby's experiments had been made1 we were aware that a similar series had been made in ,england by ,mr4 ,darwin1 with the same results1 and with a small but highly-curious additional one--namely1 that the fluid secreted in the trap of ,dionaea1 like the gastric juice1 has an acid reaction4 ,having begun to mention unpublished results 7too long allowed to remain so71 it may be well1 under the circumstances1 to refer to a still more remarkable experiment by the same most sagacious investigator4 ,by a prick with a sharp lancet at a certain point1 he has been able to paralyze one-half of the leaf-trap1 so that it remained motionless under the stimulus to which the other half responded4 ,such high and sensitive organization entails corresponding ailments4 ,mr4 ,canby tells us that he gave to one of his ,dionaea-subjects a fatal dyspepsia by feeding it with cheese2 and under ,mr4 ,darwin's hands another suffers from paraplegia4 ,finally1 ,dr4 ,burdon-,sanderson's experiments1 detailed at the last meeting of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 show that the same electrical currents are developed upon the closing of the ,dionaea-trap as in the contraction of a muscle4 ,if the ,venus's ,fly-trap stood alone1 it would be doubly marvelous--first1 on account of its carnivorous propensities1 and then as constituting a real anomaly in organic ,nature1 to which nothing leads up4 ,before acquiescing in such a conclusion1 the modern naturalist would scrutinize its relatives4 ,now1 the nearest relatives of our vegetable wonder are the sundews4 ,while ,dionaea is as local in habitation as it is singular in structure and habits1 the ,droseras or sundews are widely diffused over the world and numerous in species4 ,the two whose captivating habits have attracted attention abound in bogs all around the northern hemisphere4 ,that flies are caught by them is a matter of common observation2 but this was thought to be purely accidental4 ,they spread out from the root a circle of small leaves1 the upper face of which especially is beset and the margin fringed with stout bristles 7or what seem to be such1 although the structure is more complex71 tipped by a secreting gland1 which produces1 while in vigorous state1 a globule of clear liquid like a drop of dew-- whence the name1 both ,greek and ,english4 ,one expects these seeming dew-drops to be dissipated by the morning sun2 but they remain unaffected4 ,a touch shows that the glistening drops are glutinous and extremely tenacious1 as flies learn to their cost on alighting1 perhaps to sip the tempting liquid1 which acts first as a decoy and then like birdlime4 ,a small fly is held so fast1 and in its struggles comes in contact with so many of these glutinous globules1 that it seldom escapes4 ,the result is much the same to the insect1 whether captured in the trap of ,dionaea or stuck fast to the limed bristles of ,drosera4 ,as there are various plants upon whose glandular hairs or glutinous surfaces small insects are habitually caught and perish1 it might be pure coincidence that the most effectual arrangement of the kind happens to occur in the nearest relatives of ,dionaea4 ,roth1 a keen ,german botanist of the eighteenth century1 was the first to detect1 or at least to record1 some evidence of intention in ,drosera1 and to compare its action with that of ,dionaea1 which1 through ,ellis's account1 had shortly before been made known in ,europe4 ,he noticed the telling fact that not only the bristles which the unfortunate insect had come in contact with1 but also the surrounding rows1 before widely spreading1 curved inward one by one1 although they had not been touched1 so as within a few hours to press their glutinous tips likewise against the body of the captive insect--thus doubling or quadrupling the bonds of the victim and 7as we may now suspect7 the surfaces through which some part of the animal substance may be imbibed4 ,for ,roth surmised that both these plants were1 in their way1 predaceous4 ,he even observed that the disk of the ,drosera-leaf itself often became concave and enveloped the prey4 ,these facts1 although mentioned now and then in some succeeding works1 were generally forgotten1 except that of the adhesion of small insects to the leaves of sundews1 which must have been observed in every generation4 ,up to and even within a few years past1 if any reference was made to these asserted movements 7as by such eminent physiologists as ,meyen and ,treviranus7 it was to discredit them4 ,not because they are difficult to verify1 but because1 being naturally thought improbable1 it was easier to deny or ignore them4 ,so completely had the knowledge of almost a century ago died out in later years that1 when the subject was taken up anew in our days by ,mr4 ,darwin1 he had1 as we remember1 to advertise for it1 by sending a note and query to the magazines1 asking where any account of the fly-catching of the leaves of sundew was recorded4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin takes a matter of this sort in hand1 he is not likely to leave it where he found it4 ,he not only confirmed all ,roth's observations as to the incurving of the bristles toward and upon an insect entangled on any part of the disk of the leaf1 but also found that they responded similarly to a bit of muscle or other animal substance1 while to any particles of inorganic matter they were nearly indifferent4 ,to minute fragments of carbonate of ammonia1 however1 they were more responsive4 ,as these remarkable results1 attained 7as we are able to attest7 half a dozen years ago1 remained unpublished 7being portions of an investigation not yet completed71 it would have been hardly proper to mention them1 were it not that independent observers were beginning to bring out the same or similar facts4 ,mrs4 ,treat1 of ,new ,jersey1 noticed the habitual infolding of the leaf in the longer-leaved species of sundew 7,american ,journal of ,science for ,november1 #ahga71 as was then thought for the first time--,roth's and ,withering's observations not having been looked up4 ,in recording this1 the next year1 in a very little book1 entitled ,how ,plants ,behave1 the opportunity was taken to mention1 in the briefest way1 the capital discovery of ,mr4 ,darwin that the leaves of ,drosera act differently when different objects are placed upon them1 the bristles closing upon a particle of raw meat as upon a living insect1 while to a particle of chalk or wood they are nearly inactive4 ,the same facts were independently brought out by ,mr4 ,a4 ,w4 ,bennett at the last year's meeting of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 and have been mentioned in the journals4 ,if to these statements1 which we may certify1 were added some far more extraordinary ones1 communicated to the ,french ,academy of ,science in ,may last by ,m4 ,zeigler1 a stranger story of discrimination on the part of sundew-bristles would be told4 ,but it is safer to wait for the report of the committee to which these marvels were referred1 and conclude this sufficiently strange eventful history with some details of experiments made last summer by ,mrs4 ,treat1 of ,new ,jersey1 and published in the ,december number of the ,american ,naturalist4 ,it is well to note that ,mrs4 ,treat selects for publication the observations of one particular day in ,july1 when the sundew-leaves were unusually active2 for their moods vary with the weather1 and also in other unaccountable ways1 although in general the sultrier days are the most appetizing3 ,at fifteen minutes past ten of the same day ,i placed bits of raw beef on some of the most vigorous leaves of ,drosera longifolia4 ,ten minutes past twelve1 two of the leaves had folded around the beef1 hiding it from sight4 ,half-past eleven of the same day1 ,i placed living flies on the leaves of ,d4 longifolia4 ,at #ab and #dh minutes one of the leaves had folded entirely around its victim1 the other leaves had partially folded1 and the flies had ceased to struggle4 ,by #b and #cj minutes four leaves had each folded around a fly4 4 4 4 ,i tried mineral substances--bits of dry chalk1 magnesia1 and pebbles4 ,in twenty-four hours1 neither the leaves nor their bristles had made any move like clasping these articles4 ,i wet a piece of chalk in water1 and in less than an hour the bristles were curving about it1 but soon unfolded again1 leaving the chalk free on the blade of the leaf4 ,parallel experiments made on ,d4 rotundifolia1 with bits of beef and of chalk1 gave the same results as to the action of the bristles2 while with a piece of raw apple1 after eleven hours1 part of the bristles were clasping it1 but not so closely as the beef1 and in twenty-four hours nearly all the bristles were curved toward it1 but not many of the glands were touching it4 ,to make such observations is as easy as it is interesting4 ,throughout the summer one has only to transfer plants of ,drosera from the bogs into pots or pans filled with wet moss--if need be1 allowing them to become established in the somewhat changed conditions1 or even to put out fresh leaves--and to watch their action or expedite it by placing small flies upon the disk of the leaves4 ,the more common round-leaved sundew acts as well as the other by its bristles1 and the leaf itself is sometimes almost equally prehensile1 although in a different way1 infolding the whole border instead of the summit only4 ,very curious1 and even somewhat painful1 is the sight when a fly1 alighting upon the central dew-tipped bristles1 is held as fast as by a spider's web2 while the efforts to escape not only entangle the insect more hopelessly as they exhaust its strength1 but call into action the surrounding bristles1 which1 one by one1 add to the number of the bonds1 each by itself apparently feeble1 but in their combination so effectual that the fly may be likened to the sleeping ,gulliver made fast in the tiny but multitudinous toils of the ,liliputians4 ,anybody who can believe that such an apparatus was not intended to capture flies might say the same of a spider's web4 ,is the intention here to be thought any the less real because there are other species of ,drosera which are not so perfectly adapted for fly-catching1 owing to the form of their leaves and the partial or total want of cooperation of their scattered bristles8 ,one such species1 ,d4 filiformis1 the thread-leaved sundew1 is not uncommon in this country1 both north and south of the district that ,dionaea locally inhabits4 ,its leaves are long and thread-shaped1 beset throughout with glutinous gland-tipped bristles1 but wholly destitute of a blade4 ,flies1 even large ones1 and even moths and butterflies1 as ,mrs4 ,treat and ,mr4 ,canby affirm 7in the ,american ,naturalist71 get stuck fast to these bristles1 whence they seldom escape4 ,accidental as such captures are1 even these thread-shaped leaves respond more or less to the contact1 somewhat in the manner of their brethren4 ,in ,mr4 ,canby's recent and simple experiment1 made at ,mr4 ,darwin's suggestion1 when a small fly alights upon a leaf a little below its slender apex1 or when a bit of crushed fly is there affixed1 within a few hours the tip of the leaf bends at the point of contact1 and curls over or around the body in question2 and ,mrs4 ,treat even found that when living flies were pinned at half an inch in distance from the leaves1 these in forty minutes had bent their tips perceptibly toward the flies1 and in less than two hours reached them6 ,if this be confirmed--and such a statement needs ample confirmation--then it may be suspected that these slender leaves not only incurve after prolonged contact1 just as do the leaf-stalks of many climbers1 but also make free and independent circular sweeps1 in the manner of twining stems and of many tendrils4 ,correlated movements like these indicate purpose4 ,when performed by climbing plants1 the object and the advantage are obvious4 ,that the apparatus and the actions of ,dionaea and ,drosera are purposeless and without advantage to the plants themselves1 many have been believed in former days1 when it was likewise conceived that abortive and functionless organs were specially created for the sake of symmetry and to display a plan2 but this is not according to the genius of modern science4 ,in the cases of insecticide next to be considered1 such evidence of intent is wanting1 but other and circumstantial evidence may be had1 sufficient to warrant convictions4 ,sarracenias have hollow leaves in the form of pitchers or trumpet-shaped tubes1 containing water1 in which flies and other insects are habitually drowned4 ,they are all natives of the eastern side of ,north ,america1 growing in bogs or low ground1 so that they cannot be supposed to need the water as such4 ,indeed1 they secrete a part if not all of it4 ,the commonest species1 and the only one at the ,north1 which ranges from ,newfoundland to ,florida1 has a broad-mouthed pitcher with an upright lid1 into which rain must needs fall more or less4 ,the yellow ,sarracenia1 with long tubular leaves1 called trumpets in the ,southern ,states1 has an arching or partly upright lid1 raised well above the orifice1 so that some water may rain in2 but a portion is certainly secreted there1 and may be seen bedewing the sides and collected at the bottom before the mouth opens4 ,in other species1 the orifice is so completely overarched as essentially to prevent the access of water from without4 ,in these tubes1 mainly in the water1 flies and other insects accumulate1 perish1 and decompose4 ,flies thrown into the open-mouthed tube of the yellow ,sarracenia1 even when free from water1 are unable to get out--one hardly sees why1 except that they cannot fly directly upward2 and microscopic chevaux-de-frise of fine1 sharp-pointed bristles which line most of the interior1 pointing strictly downward1 may be a more effectual obstacle to crawling up the sides than one would think possible4 ,on the inside of the lid or hood of the purple ,northern species1 the bristles are much stronger2 but an insect might escape by the front without encountering these4 ,in this species1 the pitchers1 however1 are so well supplied with water that the insects which somehow are most abundantly attracted thither are effectually drowned1 and the contents all summer long are in the condition of a rich liquid manure4 ,that the tubes or pitchers of the ,southern species are equally attractive and fatal to flies is well known4 ,indeed1 they are said to be taken into houses and used as fly-traps4 ,there is no perceptible odor to draw insects1 except what arises from the decomposition of macerated victims2 nor is any kind of lure to be detected at the mouth of the pitcher of the common purple-flowered species4 ,some incredulity was therefore natural when it was stated by a ,carolinian correspondent 7,mr4 ,b4,f4 ,grady7 that in the long-leaved1 yellow-flowered species the lid just above the mouth of the tubular pitcher habitually secretes drops of a sweet and viscid liquid1 which attracts flies and apparently intoxicates them1 since those that sip it soon become unsteady in gait and mostly fall irretrievably into the well beneath4 ,but upon cultivating plants of this species1 obtained for the purpose1 the existence of this lure was abundantly verified2 and1 although we cannot vouch for its inebriating quality1 we can no longer regard it as unlikely4 ,no sooner was it thus ascertained that at least one species of ,sarracenia allures flies to their ruin than it began to appear that--just as in the case of ,drosera--most of this was a mere revival of obsolete knowledge4 ,the insect-destroying process was known and well described sixty years ago1 the part played by the sweet exudation indicated1 and even the intoxication perhaps hinted at1 although evidently little thought of in those ante-temperance days4 ,dr4 ,james ,macbride1 of ,south ,carolina--the early associate of ,elliott in his ,botany of ,south ,carolina and ,georgia1 and to whose death1 at the age of thirty-three1 cutting short a life of remarkable promise1 the latter touchingly alludes in the preface to his second volume--sent to ,sir ,james ,edward ,smith an account of his observations upon this subject1 made in #ahaj and the following years4 ,this was read to the ,linnaean ,society in #ahae1 and published in the twelfth volume of its ,transactions4 ,from this forgotten paper 7to which attention has lately been recalled7 we cull the following extracts1 premising that the observations mostly relate to a third species1 ,sarracenia adunca1 alias variolaris1 which is said to be the most efficient fly-catcher of the kind3 ,if1 in the months of ,may1 ,june1 or ,july1 when the leaves of those plants perform their extraordinary functions in the greatest perfection1 some of them be removed to a house and fixed in an erect position1 it will soon be perceived that flies are attracted by them4 ,these insects immediately approach the fauces of the leaves1 and1 leaning over their edges1 appear to sip with eagerness something from their internal surfaces4 ,in this position they linger2 but at length1 allured as it would seem by the pleasure of taste1 they enter the tubes4 ,the fly which has thus changed its situation will be seen to stand unsteadily2 it totters for a few seconds1 slips1 and falls to the bottom of the tube1 where it is either drowned or attempts in vain to ascend against the points of the hairs4 ,the fly seldom takes wing in its fall and escapes4 4 4 4 in a house much infested with flies1 this entrapment goes on so rapidly that a tube is filled in a few hours1 and it becomes necessary to add water1 the natural quantity being insufficient to drown the imprisoned insects4 ,the leaves of ,s4 adunca and rubra might well be employed as fly-catchers2 indeed1 ,i am credibly informed they are in some neighborhoods4 ,the leaves of the ,s4 flava the species to which our foregoing remarks mainly relate1 although they are very capacious1 and often grow to the height of three feet or more1 are never found to contain so many insects as those of the species above mentioned4 ,the cause which attracts flies is evidently a sweet1 viscid substance resembling honey1 secreted by or exuding from the internal surface of the tube 4 4 4 ,from the margin1 where it commences1 it does not extend lower than one-fourth of an inch4 ,the falling of the insect as soon as it enters the tube is wholly attributable to the downward or inverted position of the hairs of the internal surface of the leaf4 ,at the bottom of a tube split open1 the hairs are plainly discernible pointing downward2 as the eye ranges upward1 they gradually become shorter and attenuated1 till at or just below the surface covered by the bait they are no longer perceptible to the naked eye nor to the most delicate touch4 ,it is here that the fly cannot take a hold sufficiently strong to support itself1 but falls4 ,the in4 ability of insects to crawl up against the points of the hairs ,i have often tested in the most satisfactory manner4 ,from the last paragraph it may be inferred that ,dr4 ,macbride did not suspect any inebriating property in the nectar1 and in a closing note there is a conjecture of an impalpable loose powder in ,s4 flava1 at the place where the fly stands so unsteadily1 and from which it is supposed to slide4 ,we incline to take ,mr4 ,grady's view of the case4 ,the complete oblivion into which this paper and the whole subject had fallen is the more remarkable when it is seen that both are briefly but explicitly referred to in ,elliott's book1 with which botanists are familiar4 ,it is not so wonderful that the far earlier allusion to these facts by the younger ,bartram should have been overlooked or disregarded4 ,with the genuine love of ,nature and fondness for exploration1 ',william ,bartram did not inherit the simplicity of his father1 the earliest native botanist of this country4 ,fine writing was his foible2 and the preface to his well-known ,travels 7published at ,philadelphia in #agia7 is its full-blown illustration1 sometimes perhaps deserving the epithet which he applies to the palms of ,florida--that of pomposity4 ,in this preface he declares that all the ,sarracenias are insect-catchers1 and so is the ,drosera rotundifolia4 ,whether the insects caught in their leaves1 and which dissolve and mix with the fluid1 serve for aliment or support to these kind of plants is doubtful1 he thinks1 but he should be credited with the suggestion4 ,in one sentence he speaks of the quantities of insects which1 being invited down to sip the mellifluous exuvia from the interior surface of the tube1 where they inevitably perish1 being prevented from returning by the stiff hairs all pointing downward4 ,this1 if it refers to the sweet secretion1 would place it below1 and not1 as it is1 above the bristly surface1 while the liquid below1 charged with decomposing insects1 is declared in an earlier sentence to be cool and animating1 limpid as the morning dew4 ,bartram was evidently writing from memory2 and it is very doubtful if he ever distinctly recognized the sweet exudation which entices insects4 ,why should these plants take to organic food more than others8 ,if we cannot answer the question1 we may make a probable step toward it4 ,for plants that are not parasitic1 these1 especially the sundews1 have much less than the ordinary amount of chlorophyll--that is1 of the universal leaf-green upon which the formation of organic matter out of inorganic materials depends4 ,these take it instead of making it1 to a certain extent4 ,what is the bearing of these remarkable adaptations and operations upon doctrines of evolution8 ,there seems here to be a field on which the specific creationist1 the evolutionist with design1 and the necessary evolutionist1 may fight out an interesting1 if not decisive1 triangular duel4 ,,xi ,,insectivorous ,,and ,,climbing ,,plants ,,xi-#a 7,the ,nation1 ,january #f and #ac1 #ahgf7 ,minerals grow2 vegetables grow and live2 animals grow1 live1 and feel2 this is the well-worn1 not to say out-worn1 diagnosis of the three kingdoms by ,linnaeus4 ,it must be said of it that the agreement indicated in the first couplet is unreal1 and that the distinction declared in the second is evanescent4 ,crystals do not grow at all in the sense that plants and animals grow4 ,on the other hand1 if a response to external impressions by special movements is evidence of feeling1 vegetables share this endowment with animals2 while1 if conscious feeling is meant1 this can be affirmed only of the higher animals4 ,what appears to remain true is1 that the difference is one of successive addition4 ,that the increment in the organic world is of many steps2 that in the long series no absolute lines separate1 or have always separated1 organisms which barely respond to impressions from those which more actively and variously respond1 and even from those that consciously so respond--this1 as we all know1 is what the author of the works before us has undertaken to demonstrate4 ,without reference here either to that part of the series with which man is connected1 and in some sense or other forms a part of1 or to that lower limbo where the two organic kingdoms apparently merge--or whence1 in evolutionary phrase1 they have emerged--,mr4 ,darwin1 in the present volumes1 directs our attention to the behavior of the highest plants alone4 ,he shows that some 7and he might add that all7 of them execute movements for their own advantage1 and that some capture and digest living prey4 ,when plants are seen to move and to devour1 what faculties are left that are distinctively animal8 ,as to insectivorous or otherwise carnivorous plants1 we have so recently here discussed this subject--before it attained to all this new popularity--that a brief account of ,mr4 ,darwin's investigation may suffice4,,xi-#b ,it is full of interest as a physiological research1 and is a model of its kind1 as well for the simplicity and directness of the means employed as for the clearness with which the results are brought out--results which any one may verify now that the way to them is pointed out1 and which1 surprising as they are1 lose half their wonder in the ease and sureness with which they seem to have been reached4 ,rather more than half the volume is devoted to one subject1 the round-leaved sundew 7,drosera rotundifolia71 a rather common plant in the northern temperate zone4 ,that flies stick fast to its leaves1 being limed by the tenacious seeming dew-drops which stud its upper face and margins1 had long been noticed in ,europe and in this country4 ,we have heard hunters and explorers in our ,northern woods refer with satisfaction to the fate which in this way often befalls one of their plagues1 the black fly of early summer4 ,and it was known to some observant botanists in the last century1 although forgotten or discredited in this1 that an insect caught on the viscid glands it has happened to alight upon is soon fixed by many more--not merely in consequence of its struggles1 but by the spontaneous incurvation of the stalks of surrounding and untouched glands2 and even the body of the leaf had been observed to incurve or become cup-shaped so as partly to involve the captive insect4 ,mr4 ,darwin's peculiar investigations not only confirm all this1 but add greater wonders4 ,they relate to the sensitiveness of these tentacles1 as he prefers to call them1 and the mode in which it is manifested2 their power of absorption2 their astonishing discernment of the presence of animal or other soluble azotized matter1 even in quantities so minute as to rival the spectroscope--that most exquisite instrument of modern research--in delicacy2 and1 finally1 they establish the fact of a true digestion1 in all essential respects similar to that of the stomach of animals4 ,first as to sensitiveness and movement4 ,sensitiveness is manifested by movement or change of form in response to an external impression4 ,the sensitiveness in the sundew is all in the gland which surmounts the tentacle4 ,to incite movement or other action1 it is necessary that the gland itself should be reached4 ,anything laid on the surface of the viscid drop1 the spherule of clear1 glairy liquid which it secretes1 produces no effect unless it sinks through to the gland2 or unless the substance is soluble and reaches it in solution1 which1 in the case of certain substances1 has the same effect4 ,but the glands themselves do not move1 nor does any neighboring portion of the tentacle4 ,the outer and longer tentacles bend inward 7toward the centre of the leaf7 promptly1 when the gland is irritated or stimulated1 sweeping through an arc of #ahjj or less1 or more--the quickness and the extent of the inflection depending1 in equally vigorous leaves1 upon the amount of irritation or stimulation1 and also upon its kind4 ,a tentacle with a particle of raw meat on its gland sometimes visibly begins to bend in ten seconds1 becomes strongly incurved in five minutes1 and its tip reaches the centre of the leaf in half an hour2 but this is a case of extreme rapidity4 ,a particle of cinder1 chalk1 or sand1 will also incite the bending1 if actually brought in contact with the gland1 not merely resting on the drop2 but the inflection is then much less pronounced and more transient4 ,even a bit of thin human hair1 only #a_/hjjj of an inch in length1 weighing only the #a_/ghgdj of a grain1 and largely supported by the viscid secretion1 suffices to induce movement2 but1 on the other hand1 one or two momentary1 although rude1 touches with a hard object produce no effect1 although a repeated touch or the slightest pressure1 such as that of a gnat's foot1 prolonged for a short time1 causes bending4 ,the seat of the movement is wholly or nearly confined to a portion of the lower part of the tentacle1 above the base1 where local irritation produces not the slightest effect4 ,the movement takes place only in response to some impression made upon its own gland at the distant extremity1 or upon other glands far more remote4 ,for if one of these members suffers irritation the others sympathize with it4 ,very noteworthy is the correlation between the central tentacles1 upon which an insect is most likely to alight1 and these external and larger ones1 which1 in proportion to their distance from the centre1 take the larger share in the movement4 ,the shorter central ones do not move at all when a bit of meat1 or a crushed fly1 or a particle of a salt of ammonia1 or the like1 is placed upon them2 but they transmit their excitation across the leaf to the surrounding tentacles on all sides2 and they1 although absolutely untouched1 as they successively receive the mysterious impulse1 bend strongly inward1 just as they do when their own glands are excited4 ,whenever a tentacle bends in obedience to an impulse from its own gland1 the movement is always toward the centre of the leaf2 and this also takes place1 as we have seen1 when an exciting object is lodged at the centre4 ,but when the object is placed upon either half of the leaf1 the impulse radiating thence causes all the surrounding untouched tentacles to bend with precision toward the point of excitement1 even the central tentacles1 which are motionless when themselves charged1 now responding to the call4 ,the inflection which follows mechanical irritation or the presence of any inorganic or insoluble body is transient2 that which follows the application of organic matter lasts longer1 more or less1 according to its nature and the amount2 but sooner or later the tentacles resume their former position1 their glands glisten anew with fresh secretion1 and they are ready to act again4 ,as to how the impulse is originated and propagated1 and how the movements are made1 comparatively simple as the structure is1 we know as little as we do of the nature of nervous impulse and muscular motion4 ,but two things ,mr4 ,darwin has wellnigh made out1 both of them by means and observations so simple and direct as to command our confidence1 although they are contrary to the prevalent teaching4 ,first1 the transmission is through the ordinary cellular tissue1 and not through what are called the fibrous or vascular bundles4 ,second1 the movement is a vital one1 and is effected by contraction on the side toward which the bending takes place1 rather than by turgescent tension of the opposite side4 ,the tentacle is pulled over rather than pushed over4 ,so far all accords with muscular action4 ,the operation of this fly-catching apparatus1 in any case1 is plain4 ,if the insect alights upon the disk of the leaf1 the viscid secretion holds it fast--at least1 an ordinary fly is unable to escape--its struggles only increase the number of glands involved and the amount of excitement2 this is telegraphed to the surrounding and successively longer tentacles1 which bent over in succession1 so that within ten to thirty hours1 if the leaf is active and the fly large enough1 every one of the glands 7on the average1 nearly two hundred in number7 will be found applied to the body of the insect4 ,if the insect is small1 and the lodgment toward one side1 only the neighboring tentacles may take part in the capture4 ,if two or three of the strong marginal tentacles are first encountered1 their prompt inflection carries the intruder to the centre1 and presses it down upon the glands which thickly pave the floor2 these notify all the surrounding tentacles of the capture1 that they may share the spoil1 and the fate of that victim is even as of the first4 ,a bit of meat or a crushed insect is treated in the same way4 ,this language implies that the animal matter is in some way or other discerned by the tentacles1 and is appropriated4 ,formerly there was only a presumption of this1 on the general ground that such an organization could hardly be purposeless4 ,yet1 while such expressions were natural1 if not unavoidable1 they generally were used by those familiar with the facts in a half-serious1 half-metaphorical sense4 ,thanks to ,mr4 ,darwin's investigations1 they may now be used in simplicity and seriousness4 ,that the glands secrete the glairy liquid of the drop is evident1 not only from its nature1 but from its persistence through a whole day's exposure to a summer sun1 as also from its renewal after it has been removed1 dried up1 or absorbed4 ,that they absorb as well as secrete1 and that the whole tentacle may be profoundly affected thereby1 are proved by the different effects1 in kind and degree1 which follow the application of different substances4 ,drops of rain-water1 like single momentary touches of a solid body1 produce no effect1 as indeed they could be of no advantage2 but a little carbonate of ammonia in the water1 or an infusion of meat1 not only causes inflection1 but promptly manifests its action upon the contents of the cells of which the tentacle is constructed4 ,these cells are sufficiently transparent to be viewed under the microscope without dissection or other interference2 and the change which takes place in the fluid contents of these cells1 when the gland above has been acted upon1 is often visible through a weak lens1 or sometimes even by the naked eye1 although higher powers are required to discern what actually takes place4 ,this change1 which ,mr4 ,darwin discovered1 and turns to much account in his researches1 he terms aggregation of the protoplasm4 ,when untouched and quiescent1 the contents appear as an homogeneous purple fluid4 ,when the gland is acted upon1 minute purple particles appear1 suspended in the now colorless or almost colorless fluid2 and this change appears first in the cells next the gland1 and then in those next beneath1 traveling down the whole length of the tentacle4 ,when the action is slight1 this appearance does not last long2 the particles of aggregated protoplasm redissolved1 the process of redissolution traveling upward from the base of the tentacle to the gland in a reverse direction to that of the aggregation4 ,whenever the action is more prolonged or intense1 as when a bit of meat or crushed fly1 or a fitting solution1 is left upon the gland1 the aggregation proceeds further1 so that the whole protoplasm of each cell condenses into one or two masses1 or into a single mass which will often separate into two1 which afterward reunite2 indeed1 they incessantly change their forms and positions1 being never at rest1 although their movements are rather slow4 ,in appearance and movements they are very like amoebae and the white corpuscles of the blood4 ,their motion1 along with the streaming movement of rotation in the layer of white granular protoplasm that flows along the walls of the cell1 under the high powers of the microscope presents a wonderful scene of vital activity4 ,this continues while the tentacle is inflected or the gland fed by animal matter1 but vanishes by dissolution when the work is over and the tentacle straightens4 ,that absorption takes place1 and matter is conveyed from cell to cell1 is well made out1 especially by the experiments with carbonate of ammonia4 ,nevertheless1 this aggregation is not dependent upon absorption1 for it equally occurs from mechanical irritation of the gland1 and always accompanies inflection1 however caused1 though it may take place without it4 ,this is also apparent from the astonishingly minute quantity of certain substances which suffices to produce sensible inflection and aggregation--such1 for instance1 as the #a_/bjjjjjjj or even the #a_/cjjjjjjj of a grain of phosphate or nitrate of ammonia6 ,by varied experiments it was found that the nitrate of ammonia was more powerful than the carbonate1 and the phosphate more powerful than the nitrate1 this result being intelligible from the difference in the amount of nitrogen in the first two salts1 and from the presence of phosphorus in the third4 ,there is nothing surprising in the absorption of such extremely dilute solutions by a gland4 ,as our author remarks3 ,all physiologists admit that the roots of plants absorb the salts of ammonia brought to them by the rain2 and fourteen gallons of rain-water contain a grain of ammonia2 therefore1 only a little more than twice as much as in the weakest solution employed by me4 ,the fact which appears truly wonderful is that the #a_/bjjjjjjj of a grain of the phosphate of ammonia1 including less than #a_/cjjjjjjj of efficient matter 7if the water of crystallization is deducted71 when absorbed by a gland1 should induce some change in it which leads to a motor impulse being transmitted down the whole length of the tentacle1 causing its basal part to bend1 often through an angle of #ahj degrees4 ,but odoriferous particles which act upon the nerves of animals must be infinitely smaller1 and by these a dog a quarter of a mile to the leeward of a deer perceives his presence by some change in the olfactory nerves transmitted through them to the brain4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin obtained these results1 fourteen years ago1 he could claim for ,drosera a power and delicacy in the detection of minute quantities of a substance far beyond the resources of the most skillful chemist2 but in a foot-note he admits that now the spectroscope has altogether beaten ,drosera2 for1 according to ,bunsen and ,kirchhoff1 probably less than the #a_/bjjjjjjjj of a grain of sodium can be thus detected4 ,finally1 that this highly-sensitive and active living organism absorbs1 will not be doubted when it is proved to digest1 that is1 to dissolve otherwise insoluble animal matter by the aid of special secretions4 ,that it does this is now past doubting4 ,in the first place1 when the glands are excited they pour forth an increased amount of the ropy secretion4 ,this occurs directly when a bit of meat is laid upon the central glands2 and the influence which they transmit to the long-stalked marginal glands causes them1 while incurving their tentacles1 to secrete more copiously long before they have themselves touched anything4 ,the primary fluid1 secreted without excitation1 does not of itself digest4 ,but the secretion under excitement changes in ,nature and becomes acid4 ,so1 according to ,schiff1 mechanical irritation excites the glands of the stomach to secrete an acid4 ,in both this acid appears to be necessary to1 but of itself insufficient for1 digestion4 ,the requisite solvent1 a kind of ferment called pepsin1 which acts only in the presence of the acid1 is poured forth by the glands of the stomach only after they have absorbed certain soluble nutritive substances of the food2 then this pepsin promptly dissolves muscle1 fibrine1 coagulated albumen1 cartilage1 and the like4 ,similarly it appears that ,drosera-glands1 after irritation by particles of glass1 did not act upon little cubes of albumen4 ,but when moistened with saliva1 or replaced by bits of roast-meat or gelatine1 or even cartilage1 which supply some soluble peptone-matter to initiate the process1 these substances are promptly acted upon1 and dissolved or digested2 whence it is inferred that the analogy with the stomach holds good throughout1 and that a ferment similar to pepsin is poured out under the stimulus of some soluble animal matter4 ,but the direct evidence of this is furnished only by the related carnivorous plant1 ,dionaea1 from which the secretions1 poured out when digestion is about to begin1 may be collected in quantity sufficient for chemical examination4 ,in short1 the experiments show that there is a remarkable accordance in the power of digestion between the gastric juice of animals1 with its pepsin and hydrochloric acid1 and the secretion of ,drosera1 with its ferment and acid belonging to the acetic series4 ,we can1 therefore1 hardly doubt that the ferment in both cases is closely similar1 if not identically the same4 ,that a plant and an animal should pour forth the same1 or nearly the same1 complex secretion1 adapted for the same purpose of digestion1 is a new and wonderful fact in physiology4 ,there are one or two other species of sundew--one of them almost as common in ,europe and ,north ,america as the ordinary round-leaved species--which act in the same way1 except that1 having their leaves longer in proportion to their breadth1 their sides never curl inward1 but they are much disposed to aid the action of their tentacles by incurving the tip of the leaf1 as if to grasp the morsel4 ,there are many others1 with variously less efficient and less advantageously arranged insectivorous apparatus1 which1 in the language of the new science1 may be either on the way to acquire something better1 or of losing what they may have had1 while now adapting themselves to a proper vegetable life4 ,there is one member of the family 7,drosophyllum ,lusitanicum71 an almost shrubby plant1 which grows on dry and sunny hills in ,portugal and ,morocco--which the villagers call the flycatcher1 and hang up in their cottages for the purpose--the glandular tentacles of which have wholly lost their powers of movement1 if they ever had any1 but which still secrete1 digest1 and absorb1 being roused to great activity by the contact of any animal matter4 ,a friend of ours once remarked that it was fearful to contemplate the amount of soul that could be called forth in a dog by the sight of a piece of meat4 ,equally wonderful is the avidity for animal food manifested by these vegetable tentacles1 that can only stand and wait for it4 ,only a brief chapter is devoted to ,dionaea of ,north ,carolina1 the ,venus's fly-trap1 albeit1 from the rapidity and force of its movements1 one of the most wonderful in the world4 ,it is of the same family as the sundew2 but the action is transferred from tentacles on the leaf to the body of the leaf itself1 which is transformed into a spring-trap1 closing with a sudden movement over the alighted insect4 ,no secretion is provided beforehand either for allurement or detention2 but after the captive is secured1 microscopic glands within the surface of the leaf pour out an abundant gastric juice to digest it4 ,mrs4 ,glass's classical directions in the cook-book1 first catch your hare1 are implicitly followed4 ,avoiding here all repetition or recapitulation of our former narrative1 suffice it now to mention two interesting recent additions to our knowledge1 for which we are indebted to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,one is a research1 the other an inspiration4 ,it is mainly his investigations which have shown that the glairy liquid1 which is poured upon and macerates the captured insect1 accomplishes a true digestion2 that1 like the gastric juice of animals1 it contains both a free acid and pepsin or its analogue1 these two together dissolving albumen1 meat1 and the like4 ,the other point relates to the significance of a peculiarity in the process of capture4 ,when the trap suddenly incloses an insect which has betrayed its presence by touching one of the internal sensitive bristles1 the closure is at first incomplete4 ,for the sides approach in an arching way1 surrounding a considerable cavity1 and the marginal spine-like bristles merely intercross their tips1 leaving intervening spaces through which one may look into the cavity beneath4 ,a good idea may be had of it by bringing the two palms near together to represent the sides of the trap1 and loosely interlocking the fingers to represent the marginal bristles or bars4 ,after remaining some time in this position the closure is made complete by the margins coming into full contact1 and the sides finally flattening down so as to press firmly upon the insect within2 the secretion excited by contact is now poured out1 and digestion begins4 ,why these two stages8 ,why should time be lost by this preliminary and incomplete closing8 ,the query probably was never distinctly raised before1 no one noticing anything here that needed explanation4 ,darwinian teleology1 however1 raises questions like this1 and ,mr4 ,darwin not only propounded the riddle but solved it4 ,the object of the partial closing is to permit small insects to escape through the meshes1 detaining only those plump enough to be worth the trouble of digesting4 ,for naturally only one insect is caught at a time1 and digestion is a slow business with ,dionaeas1 as with anacondas1 requiring ordinarily a fortnight4 ,it is not worth while to undertake it with a gnat when larger game may be had4 ,to test this happy conjecture1 ,mr4 ,canby was asked1 on visiting the ,dionaeas in their native habitat1 to collect early in the season a good series of leaves in the act of digesting naturally-caught insects4 ,upon opening them it was found that ten out of fourteen were engaged upon relatively large prey1 and of the remaining four three had insects as large as ants1 and one a rather small fly4 ,there be land-rats and water-rats in this carnivorous sun-dew family4 ,aldrovanda1 of the warmer parts of ,europe and of ,india1 is an aquatic plant1 with bladdery leaves1 which were supposed to be useful in rendering the herbage buoyant in water4 ,but it has recently been found that the bladder is composed of two lobes1 like the trap of its relative ,dionaea1 or the valves of a mussel-shell2 that these open when the plant is in an active state1 are provided with some sensitive bristles within1 and when these are touched close with a quick movement4 ,these water-traps are manifestly adapted for catching living creatures2 and the few incomplete investigations that have already been made render it highly probably that they appropriate their prey for nourishment2 whether by digestion or by mere absorption of decomposing animal matter1 is uncertain4 ,it is certainly most remarkable that this family of plants1 wherever met with1 and under the most diverse conditions and modes of life1 should always in some way or other be predaceous and carnivorous4 ,if it be not only surprising but somewhat confounding to our classifications that a whole group of plants should subsist partly by digesting animal matter and partly in the normal way of decomposing carbonic acid and producing the basis of animal matter1 we have1 as ,mr4 ,darwin remarks1 a counterpart anomaly in the animal kingdom4 ,while some plants have stomachs1 some animals have roots4 ,the rhizocephalous crustaceans do not feed like other animals by their mouths1 for they are destitute of an alimentary canal1 but they live by absorbing through root-like processes the juices of the animals on which they are parasitic4 ,to a naturalist of our day1 imbued with those ideas of the solidarity of organic ,nature which such facts as those we have been considering suggest1 the greatest anomaly of all would be that they are really anomalous or unique4 ,reasonably supposing1 therefore1 that the sundew did not stand alone1 ,mr4 ,darwin turned his attention to other groups of plants2 and1 first1 to the bladderworts1 which have no near kinship with the sundews1 but1 like the aquatic representative of that family1 are provided with bladdery sacs1 under water4 ,in the common species of ,utricularia or bladderwort1 these little sacs1 hanging from submerged leaves or branches1 have their orifice closed by a lid which opens inwardly--a veritable trapdoor4 ,it had been noticed in ,england and ,france that they contained minute crustacean animals4 ,early in the summer of #ahgd1 ,mr4 ,darwin ascertained the mechanism for their capture and the great success with which it is used4 ,but before his account was written out1 ,prof4 ,cohn published an excellent paper on the subject in ,germany2 and ,mrs4 ,treat1 of ,vineland1 ,new ,jersey1 a still earlier one in this country--in the ,new ,york ,tribune in the autumn of #ahgd4 ,of the latter1 ,mr4 ,darwin remarks that she has been more successful than any other observer in witnessing the actual entrance of these minute creatures4 ,they never come out1 but soon perish in their prison1 which receives a continued succession of victims1 but little1 if any1 fresh air to the contained water4 ,the action of the trap is purely mechanical1 without evident irritability in the opening or shutting4 ,there is no evidence nor much likelihood of proper digestion2 indeed1 ,mr4 ,darwin found evidence to the contrary4 ,but the more or less decomposed and dissolved animal matter is doubtless absorbed into the plant2 for the whole interior of the sac is lined with peculiar1 elongated and four-armed very thin-walled processes1 which contain active protoplasm1 and which were proved by experiment to have the power of absorbing matter from weak solutions of certain salts of ammonia and urea1 and from a putrid infusion of raw meat4 ,although the bladderworts prey on garbage1 their terrestrial relatives live cleanly1 as nobler plants should do1 and have a good and true digestion4 ,pinguicula1 or butterwort1 is the representative of this family upon land4 ,it gets both its ,latin and its ,english name from the fatty or greasy appearance of the upper face of its broad leaves2 and this appearance is due to a dense coat or pile of short-stalked glands1 which secrete a colorless and extremely viscid liquid4 ,by this small flies1 or whatever may alight or fall upon the leaf1 are held fast4 ,these waifs might be useless or even injurious to the plant4 ,probably ,mr4 ,darwin was the first to ask whether they might be of advantage4 ,he certainly was the first to show that they probably are so4 ,the evidence from experiment1 shortly summed up1 is1 that insects alive or dead1 and also other nitrogenous bodies1 excite these glands to increased secretion2 the secretion then becomes acid1 and acquires the power of dissolving solid animal substances--that is1 the power of digestion in the manner of ,drosera and ,dionaea4 ,and the stalks of their glands under the microscope give the same ocular evidence of absorption4 ,the leaves of the butterwort are apt to have their margins folded inward1 like a rim or hem4 ,taking young and vigorous leaves to which hardly anything had yet adhered1 and of which the margins were still flat1 ,mr4 ,darwin set within one margin a row of small flies4 ,fifteen hours afterward this edge was neatly turned inward1 partly covering the row of flies1 and the surrounding glands were secreting copiously4 ,the other edge remained flat and unaltered4 ,then he stuck a fly to the middle of the leaf just below its tip1 and soon both margins infolded1 so as to clasp the object4 ,many other and varied experiments yielded similar results4 ,even pollen1 which would not rarely be lodged upon these leaves1 as it falls from surrounding wind-fertilized plants1 also small seeds1 excited the same action1 and showed signs of being acted upon4 ,we may therefore conclude1 with ,mr4 ,darwin1 that ,pinguicula vulgaris1 with its small roots1 is not only supported to a large extent by the extraordinary number of insects which it habitually captures1 but likewise draws some nourishment from the pollen1 leaves1 and seeds1 of other plants which often adhere to its leaves4 ,it is1 therefore1 partly a vegetable as well as an animal feeder4 ,what is now to be thought of the ordinary glandular hairs which render the surface of many and the most various plants extremely viscid8 ,their number is legion4 ,the ,chinese primrose of common garden and house culture is no extraordinary instance2 but ,mr4 ,francis ,darwin1 counting those on a small space measured by the micrometer1 estimated them at #fe1cga to the square inch of foliage1 taking in both surfaces of the leaf1 or two or three millions on a moderate-sized specimen of this small herb4 ,glands of this sort were loosely regarded as organs for excretion1 without much consideration of the question whether1 in vegetable life1 there could be any need to excrete1 or any advantage gained by throwing off such products2 and1 while the popular name of catch-fly1 given to several common species of ,silene1 indicates long familiarity with the fact1 probably no one ever imagined that the swarms of small insects which perish upon these sticky surfaces were ever turned to account by the plant4 ,in many such cases1 no doubt they perish as uselessly as when attracted into the flame of a candle4 ,in the tobacco-plant1 for instance1 ,mr4 ,darwin could find no evidence that the glandular hairs absorb animal matter4 ,but ,darwinian philosophy expects all gradations between casualty and complete adaptation4 ,it is most probable that any thin-walled vegetable structure which secretes may also be capable of absorbing under favorable conditions4 ,the myriads of exquisitely-constructed glands of the ,chinese primrose are not likely to be functionless4 ,mr4 ,darwin ascertained by direct experiment that they promptly absorb carbonate of ammonia1 both in watery solution and in vapor4 ,so1 since rain-water usually contains a small percentage of ammonia1 a use for these glands becomes apparent--one completely congruous with that of absorbing any animal matter1 or products of its decomposition1 which may come in their way through the occasional entanglement of insects in their viscid secretion4 ,in several saxifrages--not very distant relatives of ,drosera--the viscid glands equally manifested the power of absorption4 ,to trace a gradation between a simply absorbing hair with a glutinous tip1 through which the plant may perchance derive slight contingent advantage1 and the tentacles of a sundew1 with their exquisite and associated adaptations1 does not much lessen the wonder nor explain the phenomena4 ,after all1 as ,mr4 ,darwin modestly concludes1 we see how little has been made out in comparison with what remains unexplained and unknown4 ,but all this must be allowed to be an important contribution to the doctrine of the gradual acquirement of uses and functions1 and hardly to find conceivable explanation upon any other hypothesis4 ,there remains one more mode in which plants of the higher grade are known to prey upon animals2 namely1 by means of pitchers1 urns1 or tubes1 in which insects and the like are drowned or confined1 and either macerated or digested4 ,to this ,mr4 ,darwin barely alludes on the last page of the present volume4 ,the main facts known respecting the ,american pitcher-plants have1 as was natural1 been ascertained in this country2 and we gave an abstract1 two years ago1 of our then incipient knowledge4 ,much has been learned since1 although all the observations have been of a desultory character4 ,if space permitted1 an instructive narrative might be drawn up1 as well of the economy of the ,sarracenias as of how we came to know what we do of it4 ,but the very little we have room for will be strictly supplementary to our former article4 ,the pitchers of our familiar ,northern ,sarracenia1 which is likewise ,southern1 are open-mouthed2 and1 although they certainly secrete some liquid when young1 must derive most of the water they ordinarily contain from rain4 ,how insects are attracted is unknown1 but the water abounds with their drowned bodies and decomposing remains4 ,in the more southern ,s4 flava1 the long and trumpet-shaped pitchers evidently depend upon the liquid which they themselves secrete1 although at maturity1 when the hood becomes erect1 rain may somewhat add to it4 ,this species1 as we know1 allures insects by a peculiar sweet exudation within the orifice2 they fall in and perish1 though seldom by drowning1 yet few are able to escape2 and their decomposing remains accumulate in the narrow bottom of the vessel4 ,two other long-tubed species of the ,southern ,states are similar in these respects4 ,there is another1 ,s4 psittacina1 the parrot-headed species1 remarkable for the cowl-shaped hood so completely inflexed over the mouth of the small pitcher that no rain can possibly enter4 ,little is known1 however1 of the efficiency of this species as a fly-catcher2 but its conformation has a morphological interest1 leading up1 as it does1 to the ,californian type of pitcher presently to be mentioned4 ,but the remaining species1 ,s4 variolaris1 is the most wonderful of our pitcher-plants in its adaptations for the capture of insects4 ,the inflated and mottled lid or hood overarches the ample orifice of the tubular pitcher sufficiently to ward off the rain1 but not to obstruct the free access of flying insects4 ,flies1 ants1 and most insects1 glide and fall from the treacherous smooth throat into the deep well below1 and never escape4 ,they are allured by a sweet secretion just within the orifice-- which was discovered and described long ago1 and the knowledge of it wellnigh forgotten until recently4 ,and1 finally1 ,dr4 ,mellichamp1 of ,south ,carolina1 two years ago made the capital discovery that1 during the height of the season1 this lure extends from the orifice down nearly to the ground1 a length of a foot or two1 in the form of a honeyed line or narrow trail on the edge of the wing-like border which is conspicuous in all these species1 although only in this one1 so far as known1 turned to such account4 ,here1 one would say1 is a special adaptation to ants and such terrestrial and creeping insects4 ,well1 long before this sweet trail was known1 it was remarked by the late ,prof4 ,wyman and others that the pitchers of this species1 in the savannahs of ,georgia and ,florida1 contain far more ants than they do of all other insects put together4 ,finally1 all this is essentially repeated in the peculiar ,californian pitcher-plant 7,darlingtonia71 a genus of the same natural family1 which captures insects in great variety1 enticing them by a sweetish secretion over the whole inside of the inflated hood and that of a curious forked appendage1 resembling a fish-tail1 which overhangs the orifice4 ,this orifice is so concealed that it can be seen and approached only from below1 as if--the casual observer might infer--to escape visitation4 ,but dead insects of all kinds1 and their decomposing remains1 crowd the cavity and saturate the liquid therein contained1 enticed1 it is said1 by a peculiar odor1 as well as by the sweet lure which is at some stages so abundant as to drip from the tips of the overhanging appendage4 ,the principal observations upon this pitcher-plant in its native habitat have been made by ,mrs4 ,austin1 and only some of the earlier ones have thus far been published by ,mr4 ,canby4 ,but we are assured that in this1 as in the ,sarracenia variolaris1 the sweet exudation extends at the proper season from the orifice down the wing nearly to the ground1 and that ants follow this honeyed pathway to their destruction4 ,also1 that the watery liquid in the pitcher1 which must be wholly a secretion1 is much increased in quantity after the capture of insects4 ,it cannot now well be doubted that the animal matter is utilized by the plant in all these cases1 although most probably only after maceration or decomposition4 ,in some of them even digestion1 or at least the absorption of undecomposed soluble animal juices1 may be suspected2 but there is no proof of it4 ,but1 if pitchers of the ,sarracenia family are only macerating vessels1 those of ,nepenthes--the pitchers of the ,indian ,archipelago1 familiar in conservatories--seem to be stomachs4 ,the investigations of the ,president of the ,royal ,society1 ,dr4 ,hooker1 although incomplete1 wellnigh demonstrate that these not only allure insects by a sweet secretion at the rim and upon the lid of the cup1 but also that their capture1 or the presence of other partly soluble animal matter1 produces an increase and an acidulation of the contained watery liquid1 which thereupon becomes capable of acting in the manner of that of ,drosera and ,dionaea1 dissolving flesh1 albumen1 and the like4 ,after all1 there never was just ground for denying to vegetables the use of animal food4 ,the fungi are by far the most numerous family of plants1 and they all live upon organic matter1 some upon dead and decomposing1 some upon living1 some upon both2 and the number of those that feed upon living animals is large4 ,whether these carnivorous propensities of higher plants which so excite our wonder be regarded as survivals of ancestral habits1 or as comparatively late acquirements1 or even as special endowments1 in any case what we have now learned of them goes to strengthen the conclusion that the whole organic world is akin4 ,the volume upon ,the ,movements and ,habits of ,climbing ,plants is a revised and enlarged edition of a memoir communicated to the ,linnaean ,society in #ahfe1 and published in the ninth volume of its ,journal4 ,there was an extra impression1 but1 beyond the circle of naturalists1 it can hardly have been much known at first-hand4 ,even now1 when it is made a part of the general ,darwinian literature1 it is unlikely to be as widely read as the companion volume which we have been reviewing2 although it is really a more readable book1 and well worthy of far more extended notice at our hands than it can now receive4 ,the reason is obvious4 ,it seems as natural that plants should climb as it does unnatural that any should take animal food4 ,most people1 knowing that some plants twine with the sun1 and others against the sun1 have an idea that the sun in some way causes the twining2 indeed1 the notion is still fixed in the popular mind that the same species twines in opposite directions north and south of the equator4 ,readers of this fascinating treatise will learn1 first of all1 that the sun has no influence over such movements directly1 and that its indirect influence is commonly adverse or disturbing1 except the heat1 which quickens vegetable as it does animal life4 ,also1 that climbing is accomplished by powers and actions as unlike those generally predicated of the vegetable kingdom as any which have been brought to view in the preceding volume4 ,climbing plants feel as well as grow and live2 and they also manifest an automatism which is perhaps more wonderful than a response by visible movement to an external irritation4 ,nor do plants grow up their supports1 as is unthinkingly supposed2 for1 although only growing or newly-grown parts act in climbing1 the climbing and the growth are entirely distinct4 ,to this there is one exception--an instructive one1 as showing how one action passes into another1 and how the same result may be brought about in different ways--that of stems which climb by rootlets1 such as of ivy and trumpet-creeper4 ,here the stem ascends by growth alone1 taking upward direction1 and is fixed by root-lets as it grows4 ,there is no better way of climbing walls1 precipices1 and large tree-trunks4 ,but small stems and similar supports are best ascended by twining2 and this calls out powers of another and higher order4 ,the twining stem does not grow around its support1 but winds around it1 and it does this by a movement the nature of which is best observed in stems which have not yet reached their support1 or have overtopped it and stretched out beyond it4 ,then it may be seen that the extending summit1 reaching farther and farther as it grows1 is making free circular sweeps1 by night as well as by day1 and irrespective of external circumstances1 except that warmth accelerates the movement1 and that the general tendency of young stems to bend toward the light may1 in case of lateral illumination1 accelerate one-half the circuit while it equally retards the other4 ,the arrest of the revolution where the supporting body is struck1 while the portion beyond continues its movement1 brings about the twining4 ,as to the proximate cause of this sweeping motion1 a few simple experiments prove that it results from the bowing or bending of the free summit of the stem into a more or less horizontal position 7this bending being successively to every point of the compass1 through an action which circulates around the stem in the direction of the sweep71 and of the consequent twining1 i4e41 with the sun1 or with the movement of the hands of a watch1 in the hop1 or in the opposite direction in pole-beans and most twiners4 ,twining plants1 therefore1 ascend trees or other stems by an action and a movement of their own1 from which they derive advantage4 ,to plants liable to be overshadowed by more robust companions1 climbing is an economical method of obtaining a freer exposure to light and air with the smallest possible expenditure of material4 ,but twiners have one disadvantage3 to rise ten feet they must produce fifteen feet of stem or thereabouts1 according to the diameter of the support1 and the openness or closeness of the coil4 ,a rootlet-climber saves much in this respect1 but has a restricted range of action1 and other disadvantages4 ,there are two other modes1 which combine the utmost economy of material with freer range of action4 ,there are1 in the first place1 leaf-climbers of various sorts1 agreeing only in this1 that the duty of laying hold is transferred to the leaves1 so that the stem may rise in a direct line4 ,sometimes the blade or leaflets1 or some of them1 but more commonly their slender stalks1 undertake the work1 and the plant rises as a boy ascends a tree1 grasping first with one hand or arm1 then with the other4 ,indeed1 the comparison1 like the leaf-stalk1 holds better than would be supposed2 for the grasping of the latter is not the result of a blind groping in all directions by a continuous movement1 but of a definite sensitiveness which acts only upon the occasion4 ,most leaves make no regular sweeps2 but when the stalks of a leaf-climbing species come into prolonged contact with any fitting extraneous body1 they slowly incurve and make a turn around it1 and then commonly thicken and harden until they attain a strength which may equal that of the stem itself4 ,here we have the faculty of movement to a definite end1 upon external irritation1 of the same nature with that displayed by ,dionaea and ,drosera1 although slower for the most part than even in the latter4 ,but the movement of the hour-hand of the clock is not different in nature or cause from that of the second-hand4 ,finally--distribution of office being1 on the whole1 most advantageous and economical1 and this1 in the vegetable kingdom1 being led up to by degrees--we reach1 through numerous gradations1 the highest style of climbing plants in the tendril-climber4 ,a tendril morphologically1 is either a leaf or branch of stem1 or a portion of one1 specially organized for climbing4 ,some tendrils simply turn away from light1 as do those of grape-vines1 thus taking the direction in which some supporting object is likely to be encountered2 most are indifferent to light2 and many revolve in the manner of the summit of twining stems4 ,as the stems which bear these highly-endowed tendrils in many cases themselves also revolve more or less1 though they seldom twine1 their reach is the more extensive2 and to this endowment of automatic movement most tendrils add the other faculty1 that of incurving and coiling upon prolonged touch1 or even brief contact1 in the highest degree4 ,some long tendrils1 when in their best condition1 revolve so rapidly that the sweeping movement may be plainly seen2 indeed1 we have seen a quarter-circuit in a ,passiflora sicyoides accomplished in less than a minute1 and the half-circuit in ten minutes2 but the other half 7for a reason alluded to in the next paragraph7 takes a much longer time4 ,then1 as to the coiling upon contact1 in the case first noticed in this country1,,xi-#c in the year #aheh1 which ,mr4 ,darwin mentions as having led him into this investigation1 the tendril of ,sicyos was seen to coil within half a minute after a stroke with the hand1 and to make a full turn or more within the next minute2 furnishing ocular evidence that tendrils grasp and coil in virtue of sensitiveness to contact1 and1 one would suppose1 negativing ,sachs's recent hypothesis that all these movements are owing to rapid growth on the side opposite to that which becomes concave--a view to which ,mr4 ,darwin objects1 but not so strongly as he might4 ,the tendril of this sort1 on striking some fitting object1 quickly curls round and firmly grasps it2 then1 after some hours1 one side shortening or remaining short in proportion to the other1 it coils into a spire1 dragging the stem up to its support1 and enabling the next tendril above to secure a readier hold4 ,in revolving tendrils perhaps the most wonderful adaptation is that by which they avoid attachment to1 or winding themselves upon1 the ascending summit of the stem that bears them4 ,this they would inevitably do if they continued their sweep horizontally4 ,but when in its course it nears the parent stem the tendril moves slowly1 as if to gather strength1 then ,c4 stiffens and rises into an erect position parallel with it1 and ,c so passes by the dangerous point2 after which it comes rapidly down to the horizontal position1 in which it moves until it again approaches and again avoids the impending obstacle4 ,climbing plants are distributed throughout almost all the natural orders4 ,in some orders climbing is the rule1 in most it is the exception1 occurring only in certain genera4 ,the tendency of stems to move in circuits--upon which climbing more commonly depends1 and out of which it is conceived to have been educed--is manifested incipiently by many a plant which does not climb4 ,of those that do there are all degrees1 from the feeblest to the most efficient1 from those which have no special adaptation to those which have exquisitely-endowed special organs for climbing4 ,the conclusion reached is1 that the power is inherent1 though undeveloped1 in almost every plant2 that climbing plants have utilized and perfected a widely-distributed and incipient capacity1 which1 as far as we can see1 is of no service to ordinary plants4 ,inherent powers and incipient manifestations1 useless to their possessors but useful to their successors--this1 doubtless1 is according to the order of ,nature2 but it seems to need something more than natural selection to account for it4 ,,xii ,,duration ,,and ,,origination ,,of ,,race ,,and ,,species-- ,,import ,,of ,,sexual ,,reproduction ,i ,do ,varieties wear out1 or tend to wear out8 7,new ,york ,tribune1 and ,american ,journal of ,science and the ,arts1 ,february1 #ahge7 ,this question has been argued from time to time for more than half a century1 and is far from being settled yet4 ,indeed1 it is not to be settled either way so easily as is sometimes thought4 ,the result of a prolonged and rather lively discussion of the topic about forty years ago in ,england1 in which ,lindley bore a leading part on the negative side1 was1 if we rightly remember1 that the nays had the best of the argument4 ,the deniers could fairly well explain away the facts adduced by the other side1 and evade the force of the reasons then assigned to prove that varieties were bound to die out in the course of time4 ,but if the case were fully re-argued now1 it is by no means certain that the nays would win it4 ,the most they could expect would be the ,scotch verdict1 not proven4 ,and this not because much1 if any1 additional evidence of the actual wearing out of any variety has turned up since1 but because a presumption has been raised under which the evidence would take a bias the other way4 ,there is now in the minds of scientific men some reason to expect that certain varieties would die out in the long run1 and this might have an important influence upon the interpretation of the facts4 ,curiously enough1 however1 the recent discussions to which our attention has been called seem1 on both sides1 to have overlooked this4 ,but1 first of all1 the question needs to be more specifically stated4 ,there are varieties and varieties4 ,they may1 some of them1 disappear or deteriorate1 but yet not wear out--not come to an end from any inherent cause4 ,one might even say1 the younger they are the less the chance of survival unless well cared for4 ,they may be smothered out by the adverse force of superior numbers2 they are even more likely to be bred out of existence by unprevented cross-fertilization1 or to disappear from mere change of fashion4 ,the question1 however1 is not so much about reversion to an ancestral state1 or the falling off of a high-bred stock into an inferior condition4 ,of such cases it is enough to say that1 when a variety or strain1 of animal or vegetable1 is led up to unusual fecundity or of size or product of any organ1 for our good1 and not for the good of the plant or animal itself1 it can be kept so only by high feeding and exceptional care2 and that with high feeding and artificial appliances comes vastly increased liability to disease1 which may practically annihilate the race4 ,but then the race1 like the bursted boiler1 could not be said to wear out1 while if left to ordinary conditions1 and allowed to degenerate back into a more natural if less useful state1 its hold on life would evidently be increased rather than diminished4 ,as to natural varieties or races under normal conditions1 sexually propagated1 it could readily be shown that they are neither more nor less likely to disappear from any inherent cause than the species from which they originated4 ,whether species wear out1 i4e41 have their rise1 culmination1 and decline1 from any inherent cause1 is wholly a geological and very speculative problem1 upon which1 indeed1 only vague conjectures can be offered4 ,the matter actually under discussion concerns cultivated domesticated varieties only1 and1 as to plants1 is covered by two questions4 ,first1 ,will races propagated by seed1 being so fixed that they come true to seed1 and purely bred 7not crossed with any other sort71 continue so indefinitely1 or will they run out in time--not die out1 perhaps1 but lose their distinguishing characters8 ,upon this1 all we are able to say is that we know no reason why they should wear out or deteriorate from any inherent cause4 ,the transient existence or the deterioration and disappearance of many such races are sufficiently accounted for otherwise2 as in the case of extraordinarily exuberant varieties1 such as mammoth fruits or roots1 by increased liability to disease1 already adverted to1 or by the failure of the high feeding they demand4 ,a common cause1 in ordinary cases1 is cross-breeding1 through the agency of wind or insects1 which is difficult to guard against4 ,or they go out of fashion and are superseded by others thought to be better1 and so the old ones disappear4 ,or1 finally1 they may revert to an ancestral form4 ,as offspring tend to resemble grandparents almost as much as parents1 and as a line of close-bred ancestry is generally prepotent1 so newly-originated varieties have always a tendency to reversion4 ,this is pretty sure to show itself in some of the progeny of the earlier generations1 and the breeder has to guard against it by rigid selection4 ,but the older the variety is--that is1 the longer the series of generations in which it has come true from seed--the less the chance of reversion3 for now1 to be like the immediate parents1 is also to be like a long line of ancestry2 and so all the influences concerned--- that is1 both parental and ancestral heritability--act in one and the same direction4 ,so1 since the older a race is the more reason it has to continue true1 the presumption of the unlimited permanence of old races is very strong4 ,of course the race itself may give off new varieties2 but that is no interference with the vitality of the original stock4 ,if some of the new varieties supplant the old1 that will not be because the unvaried stock is worn out or decrepit with age1 but because in wild ,nature the newer forms are better adapted to the surroundings1 or1 under man's care1 better adapted to his wants or fancies4 ,the second question1 and one upon which the discussion about the wearing out of varieties generally turns1 is1 ,will varieties propagated from buds1 i4e41 by division1 grafts1 bulbs1 tubers1 and the like1 necessarily deteriorate and die out8 ,first1 ,do they die out as a matter of fact8 ,upon this1 the testimony has all along been conflicting4 ,andrew ,knight was sure that they do1 and there could hardly be a more trustworthy witness4 ,the fact1 he says1 fifty years ago1 that certain varieties of some species of fruit which have been long cultivated cannot now be made to grow in the same soils and under the same mode of management1 which was a century ago so perfectly successful1 is placed beyond the reach of controversy4 ,every experiment which seemed to afford the slightest prospect of success was tried by myself and others to propagate the old varieties of the apple and pear which formerly constituted the orchards of ,herefordshire1 without a single healthy or efficient tree having been obtained2 and ,i believe all attempts to propagate these varieties have1 during some years1 wholly ceased to be made4 ,to this it was replied1 in that and the next generation1 that cultivated vines have been transmitted by perpetual division from the time of the ,romans1 and that several of the sorts1 still prized and prolific1 are well identified1 among them the ancient ,graecula1 considered to be the modern ,corinth or currant grape1 which has immemorially been seedless2 that the old nonpareil apple was known in the time of ,queen ,elizabeth2 that the white beurre pears of ,france have been propagated from the earliest times2 and that golden pippins1 ,st4 ,michael pears1 and others said to have run out1 were still to be had in good condition4 ,coming down to the present year1 a glance through the proceedings of pomological societies1 and the debates of farmers' clubs1 brings out the same difference of opinion4 ,the testimony is nearly equally divided4 ,perhaps the larger number speak of the deterioration and failure of particular old sorts2 but when the question turns on wearing out1 the positive evidence of vigorous trees and sound fruits is most telling4 ,a little positive testimony outweighs a good deal of negative4 ,this cannot readily be explained away1 while the failures may be1 by exhaustion of soil1 incoming of disease1 or alteration of climate or circumstances4 ,on the other hand1 it may be urged that1 if a variety of this sort is fated to become decrepit and die out1 it is not bound to die out all at once1 and everywhere at the same time4 ,it would be expected first to give way wherever it is weakest1 from whatever cause4 ,this consideration has an important bearing upon the final question1 ,are old varieties of this kind on the way to die out on account of their age or any inherent limit of vitality8 ,here1 again1 ,mr4 ,knight took an extreme view4 ,in his essay in the ,philosophical ,transactions1 published in the year #ahaj1 he propounded the theory1 not merely of a natural limit to varieties from grafts and cuttings1 but even that they would not survive the natural term of the life of the seedling trees from which they were originally taken4 ,whatever may have been his view of the natural term of the life of a tree1 and of a cutting being merely a part of the individual that produced it1 there is no doubt that he laid himself open to the effective replies which were made from all sides at the time1 and have lost none of their force since4 ,weeping-willows1 bread-fruits1 bananas1 sugar-cane1 tiger-lilies1 ,jerusalem artichokes1 and the like1 have been propagated for a long while in this way1 without evident decadence4 ,moreover1 the analogy upon which his hypothesis is founded will not hold4 ,whether or not one adopts the present writer's conception1 that individuality is not actually reached or maintained in the vegetable world1 it is clear enough that a common plant or tree is not an individual in the sense that a horse or man1 or any one of the higher animals1 is--that it is an individual only in the sense that a branching zoophyte or mass of coral is4 ,solvitur crescendo3 the tree and the branch equally demonstrate that they are not individuals1 by being divided with impunity and advantage1 with no loss of life1 but much increase4 ,it looks odd enough to see a writer like ,mr4 ,sisley reproducing the old hypothesis in so bare a form as this3 ,i am prepared to maintain that varieties are individuals1 and that as they are born they must die1 like other individuals 4 4 4 ,we know that oaks1 ,sequoias1 and other trees1 live several centuries1 but how many we do not exactly know4 ,but that they must die1 no one in his senses will dispute4 ,now1 what people in their senses do dispute is1 not that the tree will die1 but that other trees1 established from its cuttings1 will die with it4 ,but does it follow from this that non-sexually-propagated varieties are endowed with the same power of unlimited duration that is possessed by varieties and species propagated sexually--i4e41 by seed8 ,those who think so jump too soon at their conclusion4 ,for1 as to the facts1 it is not enough to point out the diseases or the trouble in the soil or the atmosphere to which certain old fruits are succumbing1 nor to prove that a parasitic fungus 7,peronospora infestans7 is what is the matter with potatoes4 ,for how else would constitutional debility1 if such there be1 more naturally manifest itself than in such increased liability or diminished resistance to such attacks8 ,and if you say that1 anyhow1 such varieties do not die of old age--meaning that each individual attacked does not die of old age1 but of manifest disease--it may be asked in return1 what individual man ever dies of old age in any other sense than of a similar inability to resist invasions which in earlier years would have produced no noticeable effect8 ,aged people die of a slight cold or a slight accident1 but the inevitable weakness that attends old age is what makes these slight attacks fatal4 ,finally1 there is a philosophical argument which tells strongly for some limitation of the duration of non-sexually propagated forms1 one that probably ,knight never thought of1 but which we should not have expected recent writers to overlook4 ,when ,mr4 ,darwin announced the principle that cross-fertilization between the individuals of a species is the plan of ,nature1 and is practically so universal that it fairly sustains his inference that no hermaphrodite species continually self-fertilized would continue to exist1 he made it clear to all who apprehend and receive the principle that a series of plants propagated by buds only must have weaker hold of life than a series reproduced by seed4 ,for the former is the closest possible kind of close breeding4 ,upon this ground such varieties may be expected ultimately to die out2 but the mills of the gods grind so exceeding slow that we cannot say that any particular grist has been actually ground out under human observation4 ,if it be asked how the asserted principle is proved or made probable1 we can here merely say that the proof is wholly inferential4 ,but the inference is drawn from such a vast array of facts that it is wellnigh irresistible4 ,it is the legitimate explanation of those arrangements in ,nature to secure cross-fertilization in the species1 either constantly or occasionally1 which are so general1 so varied and diverse1 and1 we may add1 so exquisite and wonderful1 that1 once propounded1 we see that it must be true499 ,what else1 indeed1 is the meaning and 99 ,here an article would be in place1 explaining the arrangements in ,nature for cross-fertilization1 or wide-breeding1 in plants1 through the agency1 sometimes of the winds1 but more commonly of insects2 the more so1 since the development of the principle1 the appreciation of its importance1 and its confirmation by abundant facts1 are mainly due to ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,but our reviews and notices of his early work ,on the ,contrivances in ,nature for the ,fertilization of ,orchids by ,means of ,insects1 in #ahfb1 and his various subsequent papers upon other parts of this subject1 are either too technical or too fragmentary or special to be here reproduced4 ,indeed1 a popular essay is now hardly needed1 since the topic has been fully presented1 of late years1 in the current popular and scientific journals1 and in common educational works and text-books1 so that it is in the way of becoming a part--and a most inviting part--of ordinary botanical instruction4 use of sexual reproduction8 ,not simply increase of numbers2 for that is otherwise effectually provided for by budding propagation in plants and many of the lower animals4 ,there are plants1 indeed1 of the lower sort 7such as diatoms71 in which the whole multiplication takes place in this way1 and with great rapidity4 ,these also have sexual reproduction2 but in it two old individuals are always destroyed to make a single new one6 ,here propagation diminishes the number of individuals fifty per cent4 ,who can suppose that such a costly process as this1 and that all the exquisite arrangements for cross-fertilization in hermaphrodite plants1 do not subserve some most important purpose8 ,how and why the union of two organisms1 or generally of two very minute portions of them1 should reenforce vitality1 we do not know1 and can hardly conjecture4 ,but this must be the meaning of sexual reproduction4 ,the conclusion of the matter1 from the scientific point of view1 is1 that sexually-propagated varieties or races1 although liable to disappear through change1 need not be expected to wear out1 and there is no proof that they do2 but1 that non-sexually propagated varieties1 though not especially liable to change1 may theoretically be expected to wear out1 but to be a very long time about it4 ,,ii ,do ,species wear out8 and if not1 why not8 ,the question we have just been considering was merely whether races are1 or may be1 as enduring as species4 ,as to the inherently unlimited existence of species themselves1 or the contrary1 this1 as we have said1 is a geological and very speculative problem4 ,not a few geologists and naturalists1 however1 have concluded1 or taken for granted1 that species have a natural term of existence--that they culminate1 decline1 and disappear through exhaustion of specific vitality1 or some equivalent internal cause4 ,as might be expected from the nature of the inquiry1 the facts which bear upon the question are far from decisive4 ,if the fact that species in general have not been interminable1 but that one after another in long succession has become extinct1 would seem to warrant this conclusion1 the persistence through immense periods of no inconsiderable number of the lower forms of vegetable and animal life1 and of a few of the higher plants from the ,tertiary period to the present1 tells even more directly for the limitless existence of species4 ,the disappearance is quite compatible with the latter view2 while the persistence of any species is hardly explicable upon any other4 ,so that1 even under the common belief of the entire stability and essential inflexibility of species1 extinction is more likely to have been accidental than predetermined1 and the doctrine of inherent limitation is unsupported by positive evidence4 ,on the other hand1 it is an implication of the ,darwinian doctrine that species are essentially unlimited in existence4 ,when they die out--as sooner or later any species may--the verdict must be accidental death1 under stress of adverse circumstances1 not exhaustion of vitality2 and1 commonly1 when the species seems to die out1 it will rather have suffered change4 ,for the stock of vitality which enables it to vary and4 survive in changed forms under changed circumstances must be deemed sufficient for a continued unchanged existence under unaltered conditions4 ,and1 indeed1 the advancement from simpler to more complex1 which upon the theory must have attended the diversification1 would warrant or require the supposition of increase instead of diminution of power from age to age4 ,the only case we call to mind which1 under the ,darwinian view1 might be interpreted as a dying out from inherent causes1 is that of a species which refuses to vary1 and thus lacks the capacity of adaptation to altering conditions4 ,under altering conditions1 this lack would be fatal4 ,but this would be the fatality of some species or form in particular1 not of species or forms generally1 which1 for the most part1 may and do vary sufficiently1 and in varying survive1 seemingly none the worse1 but rather the better1 for their long tenure of life4 ,the opposite idea1 however1 is maintained by ,m4 ,naudin1,,xii-#a in a detailed exposition of his own views of evolution1 which differ widely from those of ,darwin in most respects1 and notably in excluding that which1 in our day1 gives to the subject its first claim to scientific 7as distinguished from purely speculative7 attention2 namely1 natural selection4 ,instead of the causes or operations collectively personified under this term1 and which are capable of exact or probable appreciation1 ,m4 ,naudin invokes the two principles of rhythm and of the decrease of forces in ,nature4 ,he is a thorough evolutionist1 starting from essentially the same point with ,darwin2 for he conceives of all the forms or species of animals and plants comme tire tout entier d'un protoplasma primordial1 uniform1 instable1 eminemment plastique4 ,also in l'integration croissante de la force evolutive a mesure qu'elle se partage dans les formes produites1 et la decroissance proportionelle de la plasticite de ces formes a mesure qu'elles s'eloignent davantage de leur origine1 et qu'elles sont mieux arretees4 ,as they get older1 they gain in fixity through the operation of the fundamental law of inheritance2 but the species1 like the individual1 loses plasticity and vital force4 ,to continue in the language of the original3 ,c'est dire qu'il y a eu1 pour l'ensemble du monde organique1 une periode de formation ou tout etait changeant et mobile1 une phase analogue a la vie embryonnaire et a la jeunesse de chaque etre particulier2 et qu'a cet age de mobilite et de croissance a succede une periode de stabilite1 au moins relative1 une sorte d'age adulte1 ou la force evolutive1 ayant acheve son oeuvre1 n'est plus occupee qu'a la maintenir1 sans pouvoir produire d'organismes nouveaux4 ,limitee en quantite1 comme toutes les forces en jeu dans une planete ou dans un systeme sideral tout entier1 cette force n'a pu accomplir qu'un travail limite2 et du meme qu'un organisme1 animal ou vegetal1 ne croit pas indefiniment et qu'il s'arrete a des proportions que rien ne peut faire depasser1 de meme aussi l'organisme total de la nature s'est arrete a un etat d'equilibre1 dont la duree1 selon toutes vraisemblances1 doit etre beaucoup plus longue que celle de la phase de developpement et de croissance4 ,a fixed amount of evolutive force is given1 to begin with4 ,at first enormous1 because none has been used up in work1 it is necessarily enfeebled in the currents into which the stream divides1 and the narrower and narrower channels in which it flows with slowly-diminishing power4 ,hence the limited although very unequal duration of all individuals1 of all species1 and of all types of organization4 ,a multitude of forms have disappeared already1 and the number of species1 far from increasing1 as some have believed1 must1 on the contrary1 be diminishing4 ,some species1 no doubt1 have suffered death by violence or accident1 by geological changes1 local alteration of the conditions1 or the direct or indirect attacks of other species2 but these have only anticipated their fate1 for ,m4 ,naudin contends that most of the extinct species have died a natural death from exhaustion of force1 and that all the survivors are on the way to it4 ,the great timepiece of ,nature was wound up at the beginning1 and is running down4 ,in the earlier stages of great plasticity and exuberant power1 diversification took place freely1 but only in definite lines1 and species and types multiplied4 ,as the power of survival is inherently limited1 still more the power of change3 this diminishes in time1 if we rightly apprehend the idea1 partly through the waning of vital force1 partly through the fixity acquired by heredity--like producing like1 the more certainly in proportion to the length and continuity of the ancestral chain ,and so the small variations of species which we behold are the feeble remnants of the pristine plasticity and an exhausted force4,,xii-#b ,this force of variation or origination of forms has acted rhythmically or intermittently1 because each movement was the result of the rupture of an equilibrium1 the liberation of a force which till then was retained in a potential state by some opposing force or obstacle1 overcoming which it passes to a new equilibrium and so on ,hence alternations of dynamic activity and static repose1 of origination of species and types1 alternated with periods of stability or fixity4 ,the timepiece does not run down regularly1 but la force procede par saccades2 et 4 4 4 par pulsations d'autant plus energiques que la nature etait plus pres de son commencement4 ,such is the hypothesis4 ,for a theory of evolution1 this is singularly unlike ,darwin's in most respects1 and particularly in the kind of causes invoked and speculations indulged in4 ,but we are not here to comment upon it beyond the particular point under consideration1 namely1 its doctrine of the inherently limited duration of species4 ,this comes1 it will be noticed1 as a deduction from the modern physical doctrine of the equivalence of force4 ,the reasoning is ingenious1 but1 if we mistake not1 fallacious4 ,to call that evolutive force which produces the change of one kind of plant or animal into another1 is simple and easy1 but of little help by way of explanation4 ,to homologize it with physical force1 as ,m4 ,naudin's argument requires1 is indeed a step1 and a hardy one2 but it quite invalidates the argument4 ,for1 if the evolutive force is a part of the physical force of the universe1 of which1 as he reminds us1 the sum is fixed and the tendency is toward a stable equilibrium in which all change is to end1 then this evolutive was derived from the physical force2 and why not still derivable from it8 ,what is to prevent its replenishment in vegetation1 pari passu with that great operation in which physical force is stored up in vegetable organisms1 and by the expenditure or transformation of which their work1 and that of all animals1 is carried on8 ,whatever be the cause 7if any there be7 which determines the decadence and death of species1 one cannot well believe that it is a consequence of a diminution of their proper force by plant-development and division2 for instance1 that the sum of what is called vital force in a full-grown tree is not greater1 instead of less1 than that in the seeding1 and in the grove greater than in the single parental tree4 ,this power1 if it be properly a force1 is doubtless as truly derived from the sunbeam as is the power which the plant and animal expend in work4 ,here1 then1 is a source of replenishment as lasting as the sun itself1 and a ground--so far as a supply of force is concerned--for indefinite duration4 ,for all that any one can mean by the indefinite existence of species is1 that they may 7for all that yet appears7 continue while the external conditions of their being or well-being continue4 ,perhaps1 however1 ,m4 ,naudin does not mean that evolutive force1 or the force of vitality1 is really homologous with common physical force1 but only something which may be likened to it4 ,in that case the parallel has only a metaphorical value1 and the reason why variation must cease and species die out is still to seek4 ,in short1 if that which continues the series of individuals in propagation1 whether like or unlike the parents1 be a force in the physical sense of the term1 then there is abundant provision in ,nature for its indefinite replenishment4 ,if1 rather1 it be a part or phase of that something which directs and determines the expenditure of force1 then it is not subject to the laws of the latter1 and there is no ground for inferring its exhaustibility4 ,the limited vitality is an unproved and unprovable conjecture4 ,the evolutive force1 dying out in the using1 is either the same conjecture repeated1 or a misapplied analogy4 ,after all--apart from speculative analogies--the only evidences we possess which indicate a tendency in species to die out1 are those to which ,mr4 ,darwin has called attention4 ,these are1 first1 the observed deterioration which results1 at least in animals1 from continued breeding in and in1 which may possibly be resolvable into cumulative heritable disease2 and1 secondly1 as already stated 7p4 #bhe71 what may be termed the sedulous and elaborate pains everywhere taken in ,nature to prevent close breeding--arrangements which are particularly prominent in plants1 the greater number of which bear hermaphrodite blossoms4 ,the importance of this may be inferred from the universality1 variety1 and practical perfection of the arrangements which secure the end2 and the inference may fairly be drawn that this is the physiological import of sexes4 ,it follows from this that there is a tendency1 seemingly inherent1 in species as in individuals1 to die out2 but that this tendency is counteracted or checked by sexual wider breeding1 which is1 on the whole1 amply secured in ,nature1 and which in some way or other reenforces vitality to such an extent as to warrant ,darwin's inference that some unknown great good is derived from the union of individuals which have been kept distinct for many generations4 ,whether this reenforcement is a complete preventive of decrepitude in species1 or only a palliative1 is more than we can determine4 ,if the latter1 then existing species and their derivatives must perish in time1 and the earth may be growing poorer in species1 as ,m4 ,naudin supposes1 through mere senility4 ,if the former1 then the earth1 if not even growing richer1 may be expected to hold its own1 and extant species or their derivatives should last as long as the physical world lasts and affords favorable conditions4 ,general analogies seem to favor the former view4 ,such facts as we possess1 and the ,darwinian hypothesis1 favor the latter4 ,,xiii ,,evolutionary ,,teleology ,when ,cuvier spoke of the combination of organs in such order that they may be in consistence with the part which the animal has to play in ,nature1 his opponent1 ,geoffroy ,st4-,hilaire1 rejoined1 ,i know nothing of animals which have to play a part in ,nature4 ,the discussion was a notable one in its day4 ,from that time to this1 the reaction of morphology against final causes has not rarely gone to the extent of denying the need and the propriety of assuming ends in the study of animal and vegetable organizations4 ,especially in our day1 when it became apparent that the actual use of an organ might not be the fundamental reason of its existence-- that one and the same organ1 morphologically considered1 was modified in different cases to the most diverse uses1 while intrinsically different organs subserved identical functions1 and consequently that use was a fallacious and homology the surer guide to correct classification--it was not surprising that teleological ideas nearly disappeared from natural history4 ,probably it is still generally thought that the school of ,cuvier and that of ,st4-,hilaire have neither common ground nor capability of reconcilement4 ,in a review of ,darwin's volume on the ,fertilization of ,orchids 99 7too technical and too detailed for reproduction here71 and later in a brief sketch of the character of his scientific work 7art4 ,,ix1 p4 #bcd71 we expressed our sense of the great gain to science from his having brought back teleology to natural history4 ,in ,darwinism1 usefulness and purpose come to the front again as working principles of the first order2 upon them1 indeed1 the whole system rests4 ,to most1 this restoration of teleology has come from an unexpected quarter1 and in an unwonted guise2 so that the first look of it is by no means reassuring to the minds of those who cherish theistic views of ,nature4 ,adaptations irresistibly suggesting purpose had their supreme application in natural theology4 ,being manifold1 particular1 and exquisite1 and evidently inwrought into the whole system of the organic world1 they were held to furnish irrefragable as well as independent proof of a personal designer1 a divine originator of ,nature4 ,by a confusion of thought1 now obvious1 but at the time not unnatural1 they were also regarded as proof of a direct execution of the contriver's purpose in the creation of each organ and organism1 as it were1 in the manner man contrives and puts together a machine--an idea which has been set up as the orthodox doctrine1 but which to ,st4 ,augustine and other learned ,christian fathers would have savored of heterodoxy4 ,in the doctrine of the origination of species through natural selection1 these adaptations appear as the outcome rather than as the motive1 as final results rather than final causes4 ,adaptation to use1 although the very essence of ,darwinism1 is not a fixed and inflexible adaptation1 realized once for all at the outset2 it includes a long progression and succession of modifications1 adjusting themselves to changing circumstances1 under which they may be more and more diversified1 specialized1 and in a just sense perfected4 ,now1 the question is1 ,does this involve the destruction or only the reconstruction of our consecrated ideas of teleology8 ,is it compatible with our seemingly inbore conception of ,nature as an ordered system8 ,furthermore1 and above all1 can the ,darwinian theory itself dispense with the idea of purpose1 in the ordinary sense of the word1 as tantamount to design8 ,from two opposing sides we hear the first two questions answered in the negative4 ,and an affirmative response to the third is directly implied in the following citation3 ,the word purpose has been used in a sense to which it is1 perhaps1 worth while to call attention4 ,adaptation of means to an end may be provided in two ways that we at present know of3 by processes of natural selection1 and by the agency of an intelligence in which an image or idea of the end preceded the use of the means4 ,in both cases the existence of the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end4 ,it seems to me convenient to use the word purpose as meaning generally the end to which certain means are adapted1 both in these two cases and in any other that may hereafter become known1 provided only that the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end4 ,and there seems no objection to the use of the phrase 'final cause' in this wider sense1 if it is to be kept at all4 ,the word 'design' might then be kept for the special case of adaptation by an intelligence4 ,and we may then say that1 since the process of natural selection has been understood1 purpose has ceased to suggest design to instructed people1 except in cases where the agency of man is independently probable4--,p4,c4,w41 in the ,contemporary ,review for ,september1 #ahge1 p4 #feg4 ,the distinction made by this anonymous writer is convenient and useful1 and his statement clear4 ,we propose to adopt this use of the terms purpose and design1 and to examine the allegation4 ,the latter comes to this3 ,processes of natural selection exclude the agency of an intelligence in which the image or idea of the end precedes the use of the means2 and since the former have been understood purpose has ceased to suggest design to instructed people1 except in cases where the agency of man is independently probable4 ,the maxim ,l'homme propose1 ,dieu dispose1 under this reading means that the former has the monopoly of design1 while the latter accomplishes without designing4 ,man's works alone suggest design4 ,but it is clear to us that this monopoly is shared with certain beings of inferior grade4 ,granting that quite possibly the capture of flies for food by ,dionaea and the sundews may be attributed to purpose apart from design 7if it be practicable in the last resort to maintain this now convenient distinction71 still their capture by a spider's-web1 and by a swallow on the wing1 can hardly cease to suggest design to instructed people4 ,and surely1 in coming at his master's call1 the dog fulfills his own design as well as that of his master2 and so of other actions and constructions of brute animals4 ,without doubt so acute a writer has a clear and sensible meaning2 so we conclude that he regards brutes as automata1 and was thinking of design as coextensive merely with general conceptions4 ,not concerning ourselves with the difficulty he may have in drawing a line between the simpler judgments and affections of man and those of the highest-endowed brutes1 we subserve our immediate ends by remarking that the automatic theory would seem to be one which can least of all dispense with design1 since1 either in the literal or current sense of the word1 undesigned automatism is1 as near as may be1 a contradiction in terms4 ,as the automaton man constructs manifests the designs of its maker and mover1 so the more efficient automata which man did not construct would not legitimately suggest less than human intelligence4 ,and so all adaptations in the animal and vegetable world which irresistibly suggest purpose 7in the sense now accepted7 would also suggest design1 and1 under the law of parsimony1 claim to be thus interpreted1 unless some other hypothesis will better account for the facts4 ,we will consider1 presently1 if any other does so4 ,we here claim only that some beings other than men design1 and that the adaptations of means to ends in the structure of animals and plants1 in so far as they carry the marks of purpose1 carry also the implication of having been designed4 ,also1 that the idea or hypothesis of a designing mind1 as the author of ,nature--however we came by it--having possession of the field1 and being one which man1 himself a designer1 seemingly must needs form1 cannot be rivaled except by some other equally adequate for explanation1 or displaced except by showing the illegitimacy of the inference4 ,as to the latter1 is the common apprehension and sense of mankind in this regard well grounded8 ,can we rightly reason from our own intelligence and powers to a higher or a supreme intelligence ordering and shaping the system of ,nature8 ,a very able and ingenious writer upon ,the ,evidences of ,design in ,nature1 in the ,westminster ,review for ,july1 #ahge1 maintains the negative4 ,his article may be taken as the argument in support of the position assumed by ,p4,c4,w41 in the ,contemporary ,review above cited4 ,it opens with the admission that the orthodox view is the most simple and apparently convincing1 has had for centuries the unhesitating assent of an immense majority of thinkers1 and that the latest master-writer upon the subject disposed to reject it1 namely1 ,mill1 comes to the conclusion that1 in the present state of our knowledge1 the adaptations in ,nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence4 ,it proceeds to attack not so much the evidence in favor of design as the foundation upon which the whole doctrine rests1 and closes with the prediction that sooner or later the superstructure must fall4 ,and1 truly1 if his reasonings are legitimate1 and his conclusions just1 ,science has laid the axe to the tree4 ,given a set of marks which we look upon in human productions as unfailing indications of design1 he asks1 is not the inference equally legitimate when we recognize these marks in ,nature8 ,to gaze on such a universe as this1 to feel our hearts exult within us in the fullness of existence1 and to offer in explanation of such beneficent provision no other word but ,chance1 seems as unthankful and iniquitous as it seems absurd4 ,chance produces nothing in the human sphere2 nothing1 at least1 that can be relied upon for good4 ,design alone engenders harmony1 consistency2 and ,chance not only never is the parent1 but is constantly the enemy of these4 ,how1 then1 can we suppose ,chance to be the author of a system in which everything is as regular as clockwork8 4 4 4 ,the hypothesis of ,chance is inadmissible4 ,there is1 then1 in ,nature1 an order2 and1 in ,p4,c4,w4's sense of the word1 a manifest purpose4 ,some sort of conception as to the cause of it is inevitable1 that of design first and foremost4 ,why--the ,westminster ,reviewer repeats the question--why1 if the marks of utility and adaptation are conclusive in the works of man1 should they not be considered equally conclusive in the works of ,nature8 ,his answer appears to us more ingenious than sound4 ,because1 referring to ,paley's watch1-- ,the watch-finder is not guided solely in his inference by marks of adaptation and utility2 he would recognize design in half a watch1 in a mere fragment of a watch1 just as surely as in a whole time-keeper 4 4 4 ,two cog-wheels1 grasping each other1 will be thought conclusive evidence of design1 quite independently of any use attaching to them4 ,and the inference1 indeed1 is perfectly correct2 only it is an inference1 not from a mark of design1 properly so called1 but from a mark of human workmanship 4 4 4 ,no more is needed for the watch-finder1 since all the works of man are1 at the same time1 products of design2 but a great deal more is requisite for us1 who are called upon by ,paley to recognize design in works in which this stamp1 this label of human workmanship1 is wanting4 ,the mental operation required in the one case is radically different from that performed in the other2 there is no parallel1 and ,paley's demonstration is totally irrelevant4,,xiii-#b ,but1 surely1 all human doings are not products of design2 many are contingent or accidental4 ,and why not suppose that the finder of the watch1 or of the watch-wheel1 infers both design and human workmanship8 ,the two are mutually exclusive only on the supposition that man alone is a designer1 which is simply begging the question in discussion4 ,if the watch-finder's attention had been arrested by a different object1 such as a spider's web1 he would have inferred both design and non-human workmanship4 ,of some objects he might be uncertain whether they were of human origin or not1 with-out ever doubting they were designed1 while of others this might remain doubtful4 ,nor is man's recognition of human workmanship1 or of any other1 dependent upon his comprehending how it was done1 or what particular ends it subserves4 ,such considerations make it clear that the label of human workmanship is not the generic stamp from which man infers design4 ,it seems equally clear that the mental operation required in the one case is not so radically or materially different from that performed in the other as this writer would have us suppose4 ,the judgment respecting a spider's web1 or a trap-door spider's dwelling1 would be the very same in this regard if it preceded1 as it occasionally might1 all knowledge of whether the object met with were of human or animal origin4 ,a dam across a stream1 and the appearance of the stumps of trees which entered into its formation1 would suggest design quite irrespective of and antecedent to the considerable knowledge or experience which would enable the beholder to decide whether this was the work of men or of beavers4 ,why1 then1 should the judgment that any particular structure is a designed work be thought illegitimate when attributed to a higher instead of a lower intelligence than that of man8 ,it might1 indeed1 be so if the supposed observer had no conception of a power and intelligence superior to his own4 ,but it would then be more than irrelevant2 it would be impossible1 except on the supposition that the phenomena would of themselves give rise to such an inference4 ,that it is now possible to make the inference1 and1 indeed1 hardly possible not to make it1 is sufficient warrant of its relevancy4 ,it may1 of course1 be rejoined that1 if this important factor is given1 the inference yields no independent argument of a divine creator2 and it may also be reasonably urged that the difference between things that are made under our observation and comprehension1 and things that grow1 but have originated beyond our comprehension1 is too wide for a sure inference from the one to the other4 ,but the present question involves neither of these4 ,it is simply whether the argument for design from adaptations in ,nature is relevant1 not whether it is independent or sure4 ,it is conceded that the argument is analogical1 and the parallel incomplete4 ,but the gist is in the points that are parallel or similar4 ,pulleys1 valves1 and suchlike elaborate mechanical adaptations1 cannot differ greatly in meaning1 wherever met with4 ,the opposing argument is repeated and passed in another form3 ,the evidence of design afforded by the marks of adaptation in works of human competence is null and void in the case of creation itself 4 4 4 ,nature is full of adaptations2 but these are valueless to us as traces of design1 unless we know something of the rival adaptations among which an intelligent being might have chosen4 ,to assert that in ,nature no such rival adaptations existed1 and that in every case the useful function in question could be established by no other instrument but one1 is simply to reason in a circle1 since it is solely from what we find existing that our notions of possibility and impossibility are drawn4 4 4 4 ,we cannot imagine ourselves in the position of the ,creator before his work began1 nor examine the materials among which he had to choose1 nor count the laws which limited his operations4 ,here all is dark1 and the inference we draw from the seeming perfections of the existing instruments or means is a measure of nothing but our ignorance4 ,but the question is not about the perfection of these adaptations1 or whether others might have been instituted in their place4 ,it is simply whether observed adaptations of intricate sorts1 admirably subserving uses1 do or do not legitimately suggest to one designing mind that they are the product of some other4 ,if so1 no amount of ignorance1 or even inconceivability1 of the conditions and mode of production could affect the validity of the inference1 nor could it be affected by any misunderstanding on our part as to what the particular use or function was2 a statement which would have been deemed superfluous1 except for the following3 ,there is not an organ in our bodies but what has passed1 and is still passing1 through a series of different and often contradictory interpretations4 ,our lungs1 for instance1 were anciently conceived to be a kind of cooling apparatus1 a refrigerator2 at the close of the last century they were supposed to be a centre of combustion2 and nowadays both these theories have been abandoned for a third 4 4 4 ,have these changes modified in the slightest degree the supposed evidence of design8 ,we have not the least idea why they should4 ,so1 also1 of complicated processes1 such as human digestion1 being replaced by other and simpler ones in lower animals1 or even in certain plants4 ,if we argue the necessity of every adaptation solely from the fact that it exists1 and that we cannot mutilate it grossly without injury to the function1 we do not announce triumphantly that digestion is impossible in any way but this1 etc41 but see equal wisdom and no impugnment of design in any number of simpler adaptations accomplishing equivalent purposes in lower animals4 ,finally1 adaptation and utility being the only marks of design in ,nature which we possess1 and adaptation only as subservient to usefulness1 the ,westminster ,reviewer shows us how3 ,the argument from utility may be equally refuted another way4 ,we found in our discussion of the mark of adaptation that the positive evidence of design afforded by the mechanisms of the human frame was never accompanied by the possibility of negative evidence4 ,we regarded this as a suspicious circumstance1 just as the fox1 invited to attend the lion in his den1 was deterred from his visit by observing that all the foottracks lay in one direction4 ,the same suspicious circumstance warns us now4 ,if positive evidence of design be afforded by the presence of a faculty1 negative evidence of design ought to be afforded by the absence of a faculty4 ,this1 however1 is not the case4 ,then follows the account of a butterfly1 which1 from the wonderful power of the males to find the females at a great distance1 is conceived to possess a sixth sense4 ,do we consider the deficiency of this sixth sense in man as the slightest evidence against design8 ,should we be less apt to infer creative wisdom if we had only four senses instead of five1 or three instead of four8 ,no1 the case would stand precisely as it does now4 ,we value our senses simply because we have them1 and because our conception of life as we desire it is drawn from them4 ,but to reason from such value to the origin of our endowment1 to argue that our senses must have been given to us by a deity because we prize them1 is evidently to move round and round in a vicious circle4 ,the same rejoinder is easily applicable to the argument from beauty1 which indeed is only a particular aspect of the argument from utility4 ,it is certainly improbable that a random daubing of colors on a canvas will produce a tolerable painting1 even should the experiment be continued for thousands of years4 ,our conception of beauty being given1 it is utterly improbable that chance should select1 out of the infinity of combinations which form and color may afford1 the precise combination which that conception will approve4 ,but the universe is not posterior to our sense of beauty1 but antecedent to it3 our sense of beauty grows out of what we see2 and hence the conformance of our world to our aesthetical conceptions is evidence1 not of the world's origin1 but of our own4 ,we are accustomed to hear design doubted on account of certain failures of provision1 waste of resources1 or functionless condition of organs2 but it is refreshingly new to have the very harmony itself of man with his surroundings1 and the completeness of provision for his wants and desires1 brought up as a refutation of the validity of the argument for design4 ,it is hard1 indeed1 if man must be out of harmony with ,nature in order to judge anything respecting it1 or his relations with it2 if he must have experience of chaos before he can predicate anything of order4 ,but is it true that man has all that he conceives of1 or thinks would be useful1 and has no negative evidence of design afforded by the absence of a faculty to set against the positive evidence afforded by its presence8 ,he notes that he lacks the faculty of flight1 sometimes wants it1 and in dreams imagines that he has it1 yet as thoroughly believes that he was designed not to have it as that he was designed to have the faculties and organs which he possesses4 ,he notes that some animals lack sight1 and so1 with this negative side of the testimony to the value of vision1 he is apt to infer creative wisdom both in what he enjoys and in what the lower animal neither needs nor wants4 ,that man does not miss that which he has no conception of1 and is by this limitation disqualified from judging rightly of what he can conceive and know1 is what the ,westminster ,reviewer comes to1 as follows3 ,we value the constitution of our world because we live by it1 and because we cannot conceive ourselves as living otherwise4 ,our conceptions of possibility1 of law1 of regularity1 of logic1 are all derived from the same source2 and as we are constantly compelled to work with these conceptions1 as in our increasing endeavors to better our condition and increase our provision we are constantly compelled to guide ourselves by ,nature's regulations1 we accustom ourselves to look upon these regularities and conceptions as antecedent to all work1 even to a ,creator's1 and to judge of the origin of ,nature as we judge of the origin of inventions and utilities ascribable to man4 ,this explains why the argument of design has enjoyed such universal popularity4 ,but that such popularity is no criterion of the argument's worth1 and that1 indeed1 it is no evidence of anything save of an unhappy weakness in man's mental constitution1 is abundantly proved by the explanation itself4 ,well1 the constitution and condition of man being such that he always does infer design in ,nature1 what stronger presumption could there possibly be of the relevancy of the inference8 ,we do not say of its correctness3 that is another thing1 and is not the present point4 ,at the last1 as has well been said1 the whole question resolves itself into one respecting the ultimate veracity of ,nature1 or of the author of ,nature1 if there be any4 ,passing from these attempts to undermine the foundation of the doctrine--which we judge to be unsuccessful--we turn to the consideration of those aimed at the superstructure4 ,evidences of design may be relevant1 but not cogent4 ,they may1 as ,mill thought1 preponderate1 or the wavering balance may incline the other way4 ,there are two lines of argument3 one against the sufficiency1 the other against the necessity1 of the principle of design4 ,design has been denied on the ground that it squares with only one part of the facts1 and fails to explain others2 it may be superseded by showing that all the facts are in the way of being explained without it4 ,the things which the principle of design does not explain are many and serious4 ,some are in their nature inexplicable1 at least are beyond the power and province of science4 ,others are of matters which scientific students have to consider1 and upon which they may form opinions1 more or less well grounded4 ,as to biological science--with which alone we are concerned--it is getting to be generally thought that this principle1 as commonly understood1 is weighted with much more than it can carry4 ,this statement will not be thought exaggerated by those most familiar with the facts and the ideas of the age1 and accustomed to look them in the face4 ,design is held to1 no doubt1 by most1 and by a sure instinct2 not1 however1 as always offering an explanation of the facts1 but in spite of the failure to do so4 ,the stumbling-blocks are various1 and they lie in every path3 we can allude only to one or two as specimens4 ,adaptation and utility are the marks of design4 ,what1 then1 are organs not adapted to use marks of8 ,functionless organs of some sort are the heritage of almost every species4 ,we have ways of seeming to account for them--and of late one which may really account for them--but they are unaccountable on the principle of design4 ,some1 shutting their eyes to the difficulty1 deny that we know them to be functionless1 and prefer to believe they must have a use because they exist1 and are more or less connected with organs which are correlated to obvious use2 but only blindfolded persons care to tread the round of so narrow a circle4 ,of late some such abortive organs in flowers and fruits are found to have a use1 though not the use of their kind4 ,but unwavering believers in design should not trust too much to instances of this sort4 ,there is an old adage that1 if anything be kept long enough1 a use will be found for it4 ,if the following up of this line1 when it comes in our way1 should bring us round again to a teleological principle1 it will not be one which conforms to the prevalent ideas now attacked4 ,it is commonly said that abortive and useless organs exist for the sake of symmetry1 or as parts of a plan4 ,to say this1 and stop there1 is a fine instance of mere seeming to say something4 ,for1 under the principle of design1 what is the sense of introducing useless parts into a useful organism1 and what shadow of explanation does symmetry give8 ,to go further and explain the cause of the symmetry and how abortive organs came to be1 is more to the purpose1 but it introduces quite another principle than that of design4 ,the difficulty recurs in a somewhat different form when an organ is useful and of exquisite perfection in some species1 but functionless in another4 ,an organ1 such as an eye1 strikes us by its exquisite and1 as we may1 perfect adaptation and utility in some animal2 it is found repeated1 still useful but destitute of many of its adaptations1 in some animal of lower grade2 in some one lower still it is rudimentary and useless4 ,it is asked1 ,if the first was so created for its obvious and actual use1 and the second for such use as it has1 what was the design of the third8 ,one more case1 in which use after all is well subserved1 we cite from the article already much quoted from3 ,it is well known that certain fishes 7,pleuronecta7 display the singularity of having both eyes on the same side of their head1 one eye being placed a little higher than the other4 ,this arrangement has its utility2 for the ,pleuronecta1 swimming on their side quite near the bottom of the sea1 have little occasion for their eyesight except to observe what is going on above them4 ,but the detail to which we would call notice is1 that the original position of the eyes is symmetrical in these fishes1 and that it is only at a certain point of their development that the anomaly is manifested1 one of the eyes passing to the other side of the head4 ,it is almost inconceivable that an intelligent being should have selected such an arrangement2 and that1 intending the eyes to be used only on one side of the head1 he should have placed them originally on different sides4 ,then the waste of being is enormous1 far beyond the common apprehension4 ,seeds1 eggs1 and other germs1 are designed to be plants and animals1 but not one of a thousand or of a million achieves its destiny4 ,those that fall into fitting places and in fitting numbers find beneficent provision1 and1 if they were to wake to consciousness1 might argue design from the adaptation of their surroundings to their well-being4 ,but what of the vast majority that perish8 ,as of the light of the sun1 sent forth in all directions1 only a minute portion is intercepted by the earth or other planets where some of it may be utilized for present or future life1 so of potential organisms1 or organisms begun1 no larger proportion attain the presumed end of their creation4 ,destruction1 therefore1 is the rule2 life is the exception4 ,we notice chiefly the exception--namely1 the lucky prize-winner in the lottery-- and take but little thought about the losers1 who vanish from our field of observation1 and whose number it is often impossible to estimate4 ,but1 in this question of design1 the losers are important witnesses4 ,if the maxim 'audi alteram partem' is applicable anywhere1 it is applicable here4 ,we must hear both sides1 and the testimony of the seed fallen on good ground must be corrected by the testimony of that which falls by the wayside1 or on the rocks4 ,when we find1 as we have seen above1 that the sowing is a scattering at random1 and that1 for one being provided for and living1 ten thousand perish unprovided for1 we must allow that the existing order would be accounted as the worst disorder in any human sphere of action4 ,it is urged1 moreover1 that all this and much more applies equally to the past stages of our earth and its immensely long and varied succession of former inhabitants1 different from1 yet intimately connected with1 the present4 ,it is not one specific creation that the question has to deal with--as was thought not very many years ago--but a series of creations through countless ages1 and of which the beginning is unknown4 ,these references touch a few out of many points1 and merely allude to some of the difficulties which the unheeding pass by1 but which1 when brought before the mind1 are seen to be stupendous4 ,somewhat may be justly1 or at least plausibly1 said in reply to all this from the ordinary standpoint1 but probably not to much effect4 ,there were always insuperable difficulties1 which1 when they seemed to be few1 might be regarded as exceptional2 but1 as they increase in number and variety1 they seem to fall into a system4 ,no doubt we may still insist that1 in the present state of our knowledge1 the adaptations in ,nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence1 as ,mill concluded2 and probability must needs be the guide of reason through these dark places4 ,still1 the balancing of irreconcilable facts is not a satisfying occupation1 nor a wholly hopeful one1 while fresh weights are from time to time dropping into the lighter side of the balance4 ,strong as our convictions are1 they may be overborne by evidence4 ,we cannot rival the fabled woman of ,ephesus1 who1 beginning by carrying her calf from the day of its birth1 was still able to do so when it became an ox4 ,the burden which our fathers carried comfortably1 with some adventitious help1 has become too heavy for our shoulders4 ,seriously1 there must be something wrong in the position1 some baleful error mixed with the truth1 to which this contradiction of our inmost convictions may be attributed4 ,the error1 as we suppose1 lies in the combination of the principle of design with the hypothesis of the immutability and isolated creation of species4 ,the latter hypothesis1 in its nature un-provable1 has1 on scientific grounds1 become so far improbable that few1 even of the anti-,darwinian naturalists1 now hold to it2 and1 whatever may once have been its religious claims1 it is at present a hinderance rather than a help to any just and consistent teleology4 ,by the adoption of the ,darwinian hypothesis1 or something like it1 which we incline to favor1 many of the difficulties are obviated1 and others diminished4 ,in the comprehensive and far-reaching teleology which may take the place of the former narrow conceptions1 organs and even faculties1 useless to the individual1 find their explanation and reason of being4 ,either they have done service in the past1 or they may do service in the future4 ,they may have been essentially useful in one way in a past species1 and1 though now functionless1 they may be turned to useful account in some very different way hereafter4 ,in botany several cases come to our mind which suggest such interpretation4 ,under this view1 moreover1 waste of life and material in organic ,nature ceases to be utterly inexplicable1 because it ceases to be objectless4 ,it is seen to be a part of the general economy of ,nature1 a phrase which has a real meaning4 ,one good illustration of it is furnished by the pollen of flowers4 ,the seeming waste of this in a pine-forest is enormous4 ,it gives rise to the so-called showers of sulphur1 which every one has heard of4 ,myriads upon myriads of pollen-grains 7each an elaborate organic structure7 are wastefully dispersed by the winds to one which reaches a female flower and fertilizes a seed4 ,contrast this with one of the close-fertilized flowers of a violet1 in which there are not many times more grains of pollen produced than there are of seeds to be fertilized2 or with an orchis-flower1 in which the proportion is not widely different4 ,these latter are certainly the more economical2 but there is reason to believe that the former arrangement is not wasteful4 ,the plan in the violet-flower assures the result with the greatest possible saving of material and action2 but this result1 being close-fertilization or breeding in and in1 would1 without much doubt1 in the course of time1 defeat the very object of having seeds at all4,,xiii-#c ,so the same plant produces other flowers also1 provided with a large surplus of pollen1 and endowed 7as the others are not7 with color1 fragrance1 and nectar1 attractive to certain insects1 which are thereby induced to convey this pollen from blossom to blossom1 that it may fulfill its office4 ,in such blossoms1 and in the great majority of flowers1 the fertilization and consequent perpetuity of which are committed to insects1 the likelihood that much pollen may be left behind or lost in the transit is sufficient reason for the apparent superfluity4 ,so1 too1 the greater economy in orchis-flowers is accounted for by the fact that the pollen is packed in coherent masses1 all attached to a common stalk1 the end of which is expanded into a sort of button1 with a glutinous adhesive face 7like a bit of sticking-plaster71 and this is placed exactly where the head of a moth or butterfly will be pressed against it when it sucks nectar from the flower1 and so the pollen will be bodily conveyed from blossom to blossom1 with small chance of waste or loss4 ,the floral world is full of such contrivances2 and while they exist the doctrine of purpose or final cause is not likely to die out4 ,now1 in the contrasted case1 that of pine-trees1 the vast superabundance of pollen would be sheer waste if the intention was to fertilize the seeds of the same tree1 or if there were any provision for insect-carriage2 but with wide-breeding as the end1 and the wind which bloweth where it listeth as the means1 no one is entitled to declare that pine-pollen is in wasteful excess4 ,the cheapness of wind-carriage may be set against the overproduction of pollen4 ,similar considerations may apply to the mould-fungi and other very low organisms1 with spores dispersed through the air in countless myriads1 but of which only an infinitesimal portion find opportunity for development4 ,the myriads perish4 ,the exceptional one1 falling into a fit medium1 is imagined by the ,westminster ,reviewer to argue design from the beneficial provision it finds itself enjoying1 in happy ignorance of the perishing or latent multitude4 ,but1 in view of the large and important part they play 7as the producers of all fermentation and as the omnipresent scavenger-police of ,nature71 no good ground appears for arguing either wasteful excess or absence of design from the vast disparity between their potential and their actual numbers4 ,the reserve and the active members of the force should both be counted in1 ready as they always and everywhere are for service4 ,considering their ubiquity1 persistent vitality1 and promptitude of action upon fitting occasion1 the suggestion would rather be that1 while 4 4 4 thousands at ,his bidding speed1 ,and post o'er land and ocean without rest1 ,they also serve which only stand and wait4 ,finally1 ,darwinian teleology has the special advantage of accounting for the imperfections and failures as well as for successes4 ,it not only accounts for them1 but turns them to practical account4 ,it explains the seeming waste as being part and parcel of a great economical process4 ,without the competing multitude1 no struggle for life2 and without this1 no natural selection and survival of the fittest1 no continuous adaptation to changing surroundings1 no diversification and improvement1 leading from lower up to higher and nobler forms4 ,so the most puzzling things of all to the old-school teleologists are the principia of the ,darwinian4 ,in this system the forms and species1 in all their variety1 are not mere ends in themselves1 but the whole a series of means and ends1 in the contemplation of which we may obtain higher and more comprehensive1 and perhaps worthier1 as well as more consistent1 views of design in ,nature than heretofore4 ,at least1 it would appear that in ,darwinian evolution we may have a theory that accords with if it does not explain the principal facts1 and a teleology that is free from the common objections4 ,but is it a teleology1 or rather--to use the new-fangled term--a dysteleology8 ,that depends upon how it is held4 ,darwinian evolution 7whatever may be said of other kinds7 is neither theistical nor nontheistical4 ,its relations to the question of design belong to the natural theologian1 or1 in the larger sense1 to the philosopher4 ,so long as the world lasts it will probably be open to any one to hold consistently1 in the last resort1 either of the two hypotheses1 that of a divine mind1 or that of no divine mind4 ,there is no way that we know of ,c by which the alternative may be excluded4 ,viewed philosophically1 the question only is1 ,which is the better supported hypothesis of the two8 ,we have only to say that the ,darwinian system1 as we understand it1 coincides well with the theistic view of ,nature4 ,it not only acknowledges purpose 7in the ,contemporary ,reviewer's sense71 but builds upon it2 and if purpose in this sense does not of itself imply design1 it is certainly compatible with it1 and suggestive of it4 ,difficult as it may be to conceive and impossible to demonstrate design in a whole of which the series of parts appear to be contingent1 the alternative may be yet more difficult and less satisfactory4 ,if all ,nature is of a piece--as modern physical philosophy insists-- then it seems clear that design must in some way1 and in some sense1 pervade the system1 or be wholly absent from it4 ,of the alternatives1 the predication of design--special1 general1 or universal1 as the case may be--is most natural to the mind2 while the exclusion of it throughout1 because some utilities may happen1 many adaptations may be contingent results1 and no organic maladaptations could continue1 runs counter to such analogies as we have to guide us1 and leads to a conclusion which few men ever rested in4 ,it need not much trouble us that we are incapable of drawing clear lines of demarkation between mere utilities1 contingent adaptations1 and designed contrivances in ,nature2 for we are in much the same condition as respects human affairs and those of lower animals4 ,what results are comprehended in a plan1 and what are incidental1 is often more than we can readily determine in matters open to observation4 ,and in plans executed mediately or indirectly1 and for ends comprehensive and far-reaching1 many purposed steps must appear to us incidental or meaningless4 ,but the higher the intelligence1 the more fully will the incidents enter into the plan1 and the more universal and interconnected may the ends be4 ,trite as the remark is1 it would seem still needful to insist that the failure of a finite being to compass the designs of an infinite mind should not invalidate its conclusions respecting proximate ends which he can understand4 ,it is just as in physical science1 where1 as our knowledge and grasp increase1 and happy discoveries are made1 wider generalizations are formed1 which commonly comprehend1 rather than destroy1 the earlier and partial ones4 ,so1 too1 the sterility of the old doctrine of final causes in science1 and the presumptuous uses made of them1 when it was supposed that every adapted arrangement or structure existed for this or that direct and special end1 and for no other1 can hardly be pressed to the conclusion that there are no final causes1 i4e41 ultimate reasons of things4,,xiii-#d ,design in ,nature is distinguished from that in human affairs--as it fittingly should be--by all comprehensiveness and system4 ,its theological synonym is ,providence4 ,its application in particular is surrounded by similar insoluble difficulties2 nevertheless1 both are bound up with theism4 ,probably few at the present day will maintain that ,darwinian evolution is incompatible with the principle of design2 but some insist that the theory can dispense with1 and in fact supersedes1 this principle4 ,the ,westminster ,reviewer cleverly expounds how it does so4 ,the exposition is too long to quote1 and an abstract is unnecessary1 for the argument adverse to design is1 as usual1 a mere summation or illustration of the facts and assumptions of the hypothesis itself1 by us freely admitted4 ,simplest forms began2 variations occurred among them2 under the competition consequent upon the arithmetical or geometrical progression in numbers1 only the fittest for the conditions survive and propagate1 vary further1 and are similarly selected2 and so on4 ,progress having once begun by the establishment of species1 the laws of atavism and variability will suffice to tell the remainder of the story4 ,the colonies gifted with the faculty of forming others in their likeness will soon by their increase become sole masters of the field2 but the common enemy being thus destroyed1 the struggle for life will be renewed among the conquerors4 ,the saying that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand1' receives in ,nature its flattest contradiction4 ,civil war is here the very instrument of progress2 it brings about the survival of the fittest4 ,original differences in the cell-colonies1 however slight1 will bring about differences of life and action2 the latter1 continued through successive generations1 will widen the original differences of structure2 innumerable species will thus spring up1 branching forth in every direction from the original stock2 and the competition of these species among each other for the ground they occupy1 or the food they seek1 will bring out and develop the powers of the rivals4 ,one chief cause of superiority will lie in the division of labor instituted by each colony2 or1 in other words1 in the localization of the colony's functions4 ,in the primitive associations 7as in the lowest organisms existing now71 each cell performed much the same work as its neighbor1 and the functions necessary to the existence of the whole 7alimentation1 digestion1 respiration1 etc47 were exercised by every colonist in his own behalf4 ,social life1 however1 acting upon the cells as it acts upon the members of a human family1 soon created differences among them--differences ever deepened by continuance1 and which1 by narrowing the limits of each colonist's activity1 and increasing his dependence on the rest1 rendered him fitter for his special task4 ,each function was thus gradually monopolized2 but it came to be the appanage of a single group of cells1 or organ2 and so excellent did this arrangement prove1 so greatly were the powers of each commonwealth enhanced by the division of its labor1 that the more organs a colony possessed1 the more likely it was to succeed in its struggle for life4 4 4 ,we shall go no further1 for the reader will easily fill out the remainder of the picture for himself4 ,man is but an immense colony of cells1 in which the division of labor1 together with the centralization of the nervous system1 has reached its highest limit4 ,it is chiefly to this that his superiority is due2 a superiority so great1 as regards certain functions of the brain1 that he may be excused for having denied his humbler relatives1 and dreamed that1 standing alone in the centre of the universe1 sun1 moon1 and stars1 were made for him4 ,let us learn from the same writer how both eyes of the flounder get1 quite unintentionally1 on the same side of the head4 ,the writer makes much of this case 7see p4 #cjf71 and we are not disposed to pass it by3 ,a similar application may be made to the ,pleuronecta4 ,presumably1 these fishes had adopted their peculiar mode of swimming long before the position of their eyes became adapted to it4 ,a spontaneous variation occurred1 consisting in the passage of one eye to the opposite side of the head2 and this variation afforded its possessors such increased facilities of sight that in the course of time the exception became the rule4 ,but the remarkable point is1 that the law of heredity not only preserved the variation itself1 but the date of its occurrence2 and that1 although for thousands of years the adult ,pleuronecta have had both eyes on the same side1 the young still continue during their earlier development to exhibit the contrary arrangement1 just as if the variation still occurred spontaneously4 ,here a wonderful and one would say unaccountable transference takes place in a short time4 ,as ,steenstrup showed1 one eye actually passes through the head while the young fish is growing4 ,we ask how this comes about2 and we are told1 truly enough1 that it takes place in each generation because it did so in the parents and in the whole line of ancestors4 ,why offspring should be like parent is more than any one can explain2 but so it is1 in a manner so nearly fixed and settled that we can count on it2 yet not from any absolute necessity that we know of1 and1 indeed1 with sufficiently striking difference now and then to demonstrate that it might have been otherwise1 or is so in a notable degree4 ,this transference of one eye through the head1 from the side where it would be nearly useless to that in which it may help the other1 bears all the marks of purpose1 and so carries the implication of design4 ,the case is adduced as part of the evidence that ,darwinian evolution supersedes design4 ,but how8 ,not certainly in the way this goes on from generation to generation2 therefore1 doubtless in the way it began4 ,so we look for the explanation of how it came about at the first unintentionally or accidentally2 how1 under known or supposed conditions1 it must have happened1 or at least was likely to happen4 ,and we read1 ,a spontaneous variation occurred1 consisting in the passage of one eye to the opposite side of the head4 ,that is all2 and we suppose there is nothing more to be said4 ,in short1 this surprising thing was undesigned because it took place1 and has taken place ever since6 ,the writer presumes1 moreover 7but this is an obiter dictum71 that the peculiarity originated long after flounders had fixed the habit of swimming on one side 7and in this particular case it is rather difficult to see how the two may have gone on pari passu71 and so he cuts away all obvious occasion for the alteration through the summation of slight variations in one direction1 each bringing some advantage4 ,this is a strongly-marked case2 but its features1 although unusually prominent1 are like those of the general run of the considerations by which evolution is supposed to exclude design4 ,those of the penultimate citation and its context are all of the same stamp4 ,the differences which begin as variations are said to be spontaneous--a metaphorical word of wide meanings--are inferred to be casual 7whereas we only know them to be occult71 or to be originated by surrounding agencies 7which is not in a just sense true72 they are legitimately inferred to be led on by natural selection1 wholly new structures or organs appear1 no one can say how1 certainly no one can show that they are necessary outcomes of what preceded2 and these two are through natural selection kept in harmony with the surroundings1 adapted to different ones1 diversified1 and perfected2 purposes are all along subserved through exquisite adaptations2 and yet the whole is thought to be undesigned1 not because of any assigned reason why this or that must have been thus or so1 but simply because they all occurred in ,nature6 ,the ,darwinian theory implies that the birth and development of a species are as natural as those of an individual1 are facts of the same kind in a higher order4 ,the alleged proof of the absence of design from it amounts to a simple reiteration of the statement1 with particulars4 ,now1 the marks of contrivance in the structure of animals used not to be questioned because of their coming in the way of birth and development4 ,it is curious that a further extension of this birth and development should be held to disprove them4 ,it appears to us that all this is begging the question against design in ,nature1 instead of proving that it may be dispensed with4 ,two things have helped on this confusion4 ,one is the notion of the direct and independent creation of species1 with only an ideal connection between them1 to question which was thought to question the principle of design4 ,the other is a wrong idea of the nature and province of natural selection4 ,in former papers we have over and over explained the ,darwinian doctrine in this respect4 ,it may be briefly illustrated thus3 ,natural selection is not the wind which propels the vessel1 but the rudder which1 by friction1 now on this side and now on that1 shapes the course4 ,the rudder acts while the vessel is in motion1 effects nothing when it is at rest4 ,variation answers to the wind3 ,thou hearest the sound thereof1 but canst not tell when it cometh and whither it goeth4 ,its course is controlled by natural selection1 the action of which1 at any given moment1 is seemingly small or insensible2 but the ultimate results are great4 ,this proceeds mainly through outward influences4 ,but we are more and more convinced that variation1 and therefore the ground of adaptation1 is not a product of1 but a response to1 the action of the environment4 ,variations1 in other words1 the differences between individual plants and animals1 however originated1 are evidently not from without but from within--not physical but physiological4 ,we cannot here assign particularly the reasons for this opinion4 ,but we notice that the way in which varieties make their appearance strongly suggests it4 ,the variations of plants which spring up in a seed-bed1 for instance1 seem to be in no assignable relation to the external conditions4 ,they arise1 as we say1 spontaneously1 and either with decided characters from the first1 or with obvious tendencies in one or few directions4 ,the occult power1 whatever it be1 does not seem in any given case to act vaguely1 producing all sorts of variations from a common centre1 to be reduced by the struggle for life to fewness and the appearance of order2 there are1 rather1 orderly indications from the first4 ,the variations of which we speak1 as originating in no obvious casual relation to the external conditions1 do not include dwarfed or starved1 and gigantesque or luxuriant forms1 and those drawn up or expanded on the one hand1 or contracted and hardened on the other1 by the direct difference in the supply of food and moisture1 light and heat4 ,here the action of the environment is both obvious and direct4 ,but such cases do not account for much in evolution4 ,moreover1 while we see how the mere struggle and interplay among occurring forms may improve them and lead them on1 we cannot well imagine how the adaptations which arrest our attention are thereby secured4 ,our difficulty1 let it be understood1 is not about the natural origination of organs4 ,to the triumphant outcry1 ,how can an organ1 such as an eye1 be formed under ,nature8 we would respond with a parallel question1 ,how can a complex and elaborate organ1 such as a nettle-sting1 be formed under ,nature8 ,but it is so formed4 ,in the same species some individuals have these exquisitely-constructed organs and some have not4 ,and so of other glands1 the structure and adaptation of which1 when looked into1 appear to be as wonderful as anything in ,nature4 ,the impossibility lies in conceiving how the obvious purpose was effectuated under natural selection alone4 ,this1 under our view1 any amount of gradation in a series of forms goes a small way in explaining4 ,the transit of a young flounder's eye across the head is a capital instance of a wonderful thing done under ,nature1 and done unaccountably4 ,but simpler correlations are involved in similar difficulty4 ,the superabundance of the pollen of pine-trees above referred to1 and in oak-trees1 is correlated with chance fertilization under the winds4 ,in the analogous instance of willows a diminished amount of pollen is correlated with direct transportation by insects4 ,even in so simple a case as this it is not easy to see how this difference in the conveyance would reduce the quantity of pollen produced4 ,it is1 we know1 in the very alphabet of ,darwinism that if a male willow-tree should produce a smaller amount of pollen1 and if this pollen communicated to the offspring of the female flowers it fertilized a similar tendency 7as it might71 this male progeny would secure whatever advantage might come from the saving of a certain amount of work and material2 but why should it begin to produce less pollen8 ,but this is as nothing compared with the arrangements in orchid-flowers1 where new and peculiar structures are introduced--structures which1 once originated and then set into variation1 may thereupon be selected1 and thereby led on to improvement and diversification4 ,but the origination1 and even the variation1 still remains unexplained either by the action of insects or by any of the processes which collectively are personified by the term natural selection4 ,we really believe that these exquisite adaptations have come to pass in the course of ,nature1 and under natural selection1 but not that natural selection alone explains or in a just sense originates them4 ,or rather1 if this term is to stand for sufficient cause and rational explanation1 it must denote or include that inscrutable something which produces--as well as that which results in the survival of--the fittest4 ,we have been considering this class of questions only as a naturalist might who sought for the proper or reasonable interpretation of the problem before him1 unmingled with considerations from any other source4 ,weightier arguments in the last resort1 drawn from the intellectual and moral constitution of man1 lie on a higher plane1 to which it was unnecessary for our particular purpose to rise1 however indispensable this be to a full presentation of the evidence of mind in ,nature4 ,to us the evidence1 judged as impartially as we are capable of judging1 appears convincing4 ,but1 whatever view one unconvinced may take1 it cannot remain doubtful what position a theist ought to occupy4 ,if he cannot recognize design in ,nature because of evolution1 he may be ranked with those of whom it was said1 ,except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe4 ,how strange that a convinced theist should be so prone to associate design only with miracle6 ,all turns1 however1 upon what is meant by this ,nature1 to which it appears more and more probable that the being and becoming--no less than the well-being and succession--of species and genera1 as well as of individuals1 are committed4 ,to us it means the world of force and movement in time and space1 as ,aristotle defined it--the system and totality of things in the visible universe4 ,what is generally called ,nature ,prof4 ,tyndall names matter--a peculiar nomenclature1 requiring new definitions 7as he avers71 inviting misunderstanding1 and leaving the questions we are concerned with just where they were4 ,for it is still to ask3 whence this rich endowment of matter8 ,whence comes that of which all we see and know is the outcome8 ,that to which potency may in the last resort be ascribed1 ,prof4 ,tyndall1 suspending further judgment1 calls mystery--using the word in one of its senses1 namely1 something hidden from us which we are not to seek to know4 ,but there are also mysteries proper to be inquired into and to be reasoned about2 and1 although it may not be given unto us to know the mystery of causation1 there can hardly be a more legitimate subject of philosophical inquiry4 ,most scientific men have thought themselves intellectually authorized to have an opinion about it4 ,for1 by the primitive and very ancient men1 it has been handed down in the form of myths1 and thus left to later generations1 that the ,divine it is which holds together all ,nature2 and this tradition1 of which ,aristotle1 both naturalist and philosopher1 thus nobly speaks,,xiii-#e--;continued through succeeding ages1 and illuminated by the ,light which has come into the world--may still express the worthiest thoughts of the modern scientific investigator and reasoner4 ,,footnotes3 ,i-#a4 ,on the ,origin of ,species by ,means of ,natural ,selection1 or the ,preservation of ,favored ,races in the ,struggle for ,life1 by ,charles ,darwin1 ,m4,a41 ,fellow of the ,royal1 ,geological1 ,linnaean1 etc41 ,societies1 ,author of ,journal of ,researches during ,h4 ,m4 ,s4 ,beagle's ,voyage round the ,world4 ,london3 ,john ,murray4 #ahei4 #ejb pp41 post #hvo4 ,i-#b4 ,article in this ,journal1 vol4 xxiv41 p4 #cje4 ,i-#c4 ,species tot sunt1 quot diversas formas ab initio produxit ,infinitum ,ens2 quae formae secundum generationis inditas leges1 produxere plures1 at sibi semper similes4--,linn4 ,phil4 ,bot41 #ii1 #aeg4 ,i-#d4 ,agassiz1 ,essay on ,classification2 ,contributions to ,natural ,history1 p4 #acb1 et seq4 ,i-#e4 ,as to this1 ,darwin remarks that he can only hope to see the law hereafter proved true 7p4 #ddi72 and p4 #cch3 ,agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes2 or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms4 ,i must follow ,pictet and ,huxley in thinking that the truth of this doctrine is very far from proved4 ,yet ,i fully expect to see it hereafter confirmed1 at least in regard to subordinate groups1 which have branched off from each other within comparatively recent times4 ,for this doctrine of ,agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection4 ,i-#f4 ,op4 cit41 p4 #aca4--,one or two ,bridgewater ,treatises1 and most modern works upon natural theology1 should have rendered the evidences of thought in inorganic ,nature not unexpected4 ,i-#g4 ,volume xvii4 7#b71 #ahed1 p4 #ac4 ,i-#h4 ,we suspect that this is not an ultimate fact1 but a natural consequence of inheritance--the inheritance of disease or of tendency to disease1 which close interbreeding perpetuates and accumulates1 but wide breeding may neutralize or eliminate4 ,i-#i4 ,the rules and processes of breeders of animals1 and their results1 are so familiar that they need not be particularized4 ,less is popularly known about the production of vegetable races4 ,we refer our readers back to this ,journal1 vol4 xxvii41 pp4 #ddj--ddb 7,may1 #ahei71 for an abstract of the papers of ,m4 ,vilmorin upon this subject4 ,i-#aj4 ,quadrupeds of ,america1 vol4 ii41 p4 #bci4 ,i-#aa4 ,proceedings of the ,american ,academy of ,arts and ,sciences1 vol4 iv41 p4 #agh4 ,i-#ab4 ,owen adds a third1 viz41 vegetative repetition2 but this1 in the vegetable kingdom1 is simply unity of type4 ,i-#ac4 ,contributions to ,natural ,history of ,america1 vol4 i41 pp4 #abg--aca4 ,i-#ad4 ,op4 cit41 p4 #acj4 ,,ii-#a4 ,to parry an adversary's thrust at a vulnerable part1 or to show that it need not be fatal1 is an incomplete defense4 ,if the discussion had gone on1 it might1 perhaps1 have been made to appear that the ,darwinian hypothesis1 so far from involving the idea of necessity 7except in the sense that everything is of necessity71 was based upon the opposite idea1 that of contingency4 ,,iii-#a4 ,vide ,proceedings of the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 #ahei1 and ,london ,athenoeum1 passim4 ,it appears to be conceded that these celts or stone knives are artificial productions1 and apparently of the age of the mammoth1 the fossil rhinoceros1 etc4 ,,iii-#b4 ,see ,correspondence of ,m4 ,nickles1 in ,american ,journal of ,science and ,arts1 for ,march1 #ahfj4 ,,iii-#c4 ,see ,morlot1 ,some ,general ,views on ,archaeology1 in ,american ,journal of ,science and ,arts1 for ,january1 #ahfo1 translated from ,bulletin de la ,societe ,vaudoise1 #ahei4 ,,iii-#d4 ,page #dhd1 ,english edition4 ,in the new ,american edition 7vide ,supplement1 pp4 #dca1 #dcb7 the principal analogies which suggest the extreme view are referred to1 and the remark is appended3 ,but this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy1 and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted4 ,the case is different with the members of each great class1 as the ,vertebrata or ,articulata2 for here we have in the laws of homology1 embryology1 etc41 some distinct evidence that all have descended from a single primordial parent4 ,,iii-#e4 ,in ,bibliotheque ,universelle de ,geneve1 ,march1 #ahfj4 ,,iii-#f4 ,this we learn from his very interesting article1 ,de la ,question de l',homme ,fossile1 in the same 7,march7 number of the ,biblioteque ,universelle4 7,see1 also1 the same author's ,note sur la ,periode ,quaternaire ou ,diluvienne1 consideree dans ses ,rapports avec l',epoque ,actuelle1 in the number for ,august1 #ahfj1 of the same periodical47 ,,iii-#g4 ,in ,comptes ,rendus1 ,academie des ,sciences1 ,february #b1 #aheg4 ,,iii-#h4 ,whatever it may be1 it is not the homoeopathic form of the transmutative hypothesis1 as ,darwin's is said to be 7p4 #beb1 ,american reprint71 so happily that the prescription is repeated in the second 7p4 #bei7 and third 7p4 #bga7 dilutions1 no doubt1 on ,hahnemann's famous principle1 of an increase of potency at each dilution4 ,probably the supposed transmutation is per saltus4 ,homoeopathic doses of transmutation1 indeed6 ,well1 if we really must swallow transmutation in some form or other1 as this reviewer intimates1 we might prefer the mild homoeopathic doses of ,darwin's formula to the allopathic bolus which the ,edinburgh general practitioner appears to be compounding4 ,,iii-#i4 ,vide ,north ,american ,review1 for ,april1 #ahfj1 p4 #dge1 and ,christian ,examiner1 for ,may1 p4 #deg4 ,,iii-#aj4 ,page #ahh1 ,english edition4 ,,iii-#aa4 ,in ,american ,journal of ,science1 ,july1 #ahfj1 pp4 #adg--adi4 ,,iii-#ab4 ,in ,contributions to the ,natural ,history of the ,united ,states1 vol4 i41 p4#abh1 #abi4 ,,iii-#ac4 ,contributions to the ,natural ,history of the ,united ,states1 vol4 #a1 p4 #acj2 and ,american ,journal of ,science1 ,july1 #ahfj1 p4 #adc4 ,,iii-#ad4 ,north ,american ,review for ,april #ahfj1 p4 #ejf4 ,,iii-#ae4 ,vide motto from ,butler1 prefixed to the second edition of ,darwin's work4 ,,iii-#af4 ,north ,american ,review1 loc4 cit41 p4 #ejd4 ,,iii-#ag4 ,north ,american ,review1 loc4 cit41 p4 #dhg1 et passim4 ,,iii-#ah4 ,in ,american ,journal of ,science1 ,july1 #ahfj1 p4 #adc4 ,,iii-#ai4 ,vide article by ,mr4 ,c4 ,wright1 in the ,mathematical ,monthly for ,may last4 ,,iii-#bj4 ,vide ,edinburgh ,review for ,january1 #ahfj1 article on ,acclimatization1 etc4 ,,iii-#ba4 ,american ,journal of ,science1 ,july1 #ahfj1 p4 #adf4 ,,iv-#a4 ,a name which1 at the close of his article1 ,de ,candolle proposes for the study of the succession of organized beings1 to comprehend1 therefore1 palaeontology and all included under what is called geographical botany and zoology--the whole forming a science parallel to geology--the latter devoted to the history of unorganized bodies1 the former1 to that of organized beings1 as respects origin1 distribution1 and succession4 ,we are not satisfied with the word1 notwithstanding the precedent of palaeontology2 since ontology1 the ,science of being1 has an established meaning as referring to mental existence--i4e41 is a synonym for a department of metaphysics4 ,,iv-#b4 ,natural ,history ,review1 ,january1 #ahfb ,,iv-#c4 ,what the ,rev4 ,principal ,tulloch remarks in respect to the philosophy of miracles has a pertinent application here4 ,we quote at second hand3 ,the stoutest advocates of interference can mean nothing more than that the ,supreme ,will has so moved the hidden springs of ,nature that a new issue arises on given circumstances4 ,the ordinary issue is supplanted by a higher issue4 ,the essential facts before us are a certain set of phenomena1 and a ,higher ,will moving them4 ,how moving them8 is a question for human definition2 the answer to which does not and cannot affect the divine meaning of the change4 ,yet when we reflect that this ,higher ,will is every4 where reason and wisdom1 it seems a juster as well as a more comprehensive view to regard it as operating by subordination and evolution1 rather than by interference or violation4 ,,iv-#d4 ,particularly citing ,flourens3 ,la ressemblance n'est qu'une condition secondaire2 la condition essentielle est la descendance3 ce n'est pas la ressemblance1 c'est la succession des individus1 qui fait l'espece4 ,v-#a4 ,the phrase ,atlantic ,united ,states is here used throughout in contradistinction to ,pacific ,united ,states3 to the former of course belong1 botanically and geographically1 the valley of the ,mississippi and its tributaries up to the eastern border of the great woodless plains1 which constitute an intermediate region4 ,v-#b4 ,the tabulated list referred to was printed as an appendix to the official edition of this discourse1 but is here omitted4 ,v-#c4 ,american ,journal of ,science1 #ahfg1 p4 #djb2 ,proceedings of ,american ,academy1 vol4 viii41 p4 #bdd4 ,v-#d4 ,memoirs of ,american ,academy1 vol4 vi41 pp4 #cgg--deh 7#ahei7 ,v-#e4 ,die vegetation der erde nach ihrer kilmatischen ,anordnung1 #ahga4 ,v-#f4 ,reference should also be made to the extensive researches of ,newberry upon the tertiary and cretaceous floras of the ,western ,united ,states4 ,see especially ,prof4 ,newberry's paper in the ,boston ,journal of ,natural ,history1 vol4 vii41 ,no4 #d1 describing fossil plants of ,vancouver's ,island1 etc42 his ,notes on the ,later ,extinct ,floras of ,north ,america1 etc41 in ,annals of the ,lyceum of ,natural ,history1 vol4 ix41 ,april1 #ahfh2 ,report on the ,cretaceous and ,tertiary ,plants collected in ,raynolds and ,hayden's ,yellowstone and ,missouri ,exploring ,expedition1 #ahei--ahfj1 published in #ahfi2 and an interesting article entitled ,the ,ancient ,lakes of ,western ,america1 their ,deposits and ,drainage1 published in ,the ,american ,naturalist1 ,january1 #ahga4 ,the only document ,i was able to consult was ,lesquereux's ,report on the ,fossil ,plants1 in ,hayden's report of #ahgb4 ,v-#g4 ,there is1 at least1 one instance so opportune to the present argument that it should not pass unnoticed1 although ,i had overlooked the record until now4 ,onoclea sensibilis is a fern peculiar to the ,atlantic ,united ,states 7where it is common and wide-spread7 and to ,japan4 ,prof4 ,newberry identified it several years ago in a collection1 obtained by ,dr4 ,hayden1 of miocene fossil plants of ,dakota ,territory1 which is far beyond its present habitat4 ,he moreover regards it as probably identical with a fossil specimen described by the late ,prof4 ,e4 ,forbes1 under the name of ,filicites ,hebridicus1 and obtained by the ,duke of ,argyll from the island of ,mull4 ,v-#h4 ,darwinism in ,morals1 in ,theological ,review1 ,april1 #ahga4 ,,vi-#a4 ,histoire des ,sciences et des ,sevants depuis deux ,siecles1 suivie d'autres etudes sur des sujets scientifiques1 en particulier sur la ,selection dans #a';,espce ,humaine1 par ,alphonse ,de ,candolle4 ,geneve3 ,h4 ,georg4 #ahgc4 ,addresses of ,george ,bentham1 ,president1 read at the anniversary meetings of the ,linnaean ,society1 #ahfb--ahgc4 ,notes on the ,classification1 ,history1 and ,geographical ,distribution of ,compositae4 ,by ,george ,bentham4 ,separate issue from the ,journal of the ,linnean ,society4 ,vol4 ,,xiii4 ,london4 #ahgc4 ,on ,palaeontological ,evidence of ,gradual ,modification of ,animal ,forms1 read at the ,royal ,institution of ,great ,britain1 ,april #be1 #ahgc4 ,by ,prof4 ,w4,h4 ,flower4 7,journal of the ,royal ,institution1 pp4 #aa47 ,the ,distribution and ,migration of ,birds4 ,memoir presented to the ,national ,academy of ,sciences1 ,january1 #ahfe1 abstracted in the ,american ,journal of ,science and the ,arts4 #ahff1 etc4 ,by ,spencer ,f4 ,baird4 ,the ,story of the ,earth and ,man4 ,by ,j4,w4 ,dawson1 ,,ll4,d41 ,f4,r4,s41 ,f4,g4,s41 ,principal and ,vice-,chancellor of ,mc,gill ,university1 ,montreal4 ,london3 ,hodder ,stoughton2 ,new ,york3 ,harper ,brothers4 #ahgc4 ,pp4 #djc1 #abmo4 ,,vi-#b4 ,since this article was in type1 noteworthy examples of appreciative scientific judgment of the derivative hypothesis have come to hand3 #a4 ,in the opening address to the ,geological ,section of the ,british ,association1 at its recent meeting1 by its president1 the veteran ,phillips1 perhaps the oldest surviving geologist after ,lyell2 and1 #b4 ,that of ,prof4 ,allman1 ,president of the ,biological ,section4 ,the first touches the subject briefly1 but in the way of favorable suggestion2 the second is a full and discriminating exposition of the reasons which seem to assure at least the provisional acceptance of the hypothesis1 as a guide in all biological studies1 a key to the order and hidden forces of the world of life4 ,,vii-#a4 ,the ,theory of ,evolution of ,living ,things1 and the ,application of the ,principles of ,evolution to ,religion1 considered as illustrative of the ',wisdom and ,beneficence of the ,almighty4' ,by the ,rev4 ,george ,henslow1 ,m4,a41 ,f4,l4,s41 ,f4,g4,s41 etc4 ,new ,york3 ,macmillan ,co4 #ahgc4 #abmo1 pp4 #bbj4 ,systematic ,theology4 ,by ,charles ,hodge1 ,d4,d41 ,professor in the ,theological ,seminary1 ,princeton1 ,new ,jersey4 ,vol4 ii4 7,part ,,ii1 ,anthropology47 ,new ,york3 ,charles ,scribner ,co4 #ahgb4 ,religion and ,science3 ,a ,series of ,sunday ,lectures on the ,relation of ,natural and ,revealed ,religion1 or the ,truths ,revealed in ,nature and ,scripture4 ,by ,joseph ,le ,conte1 ,professor of ,geology and ,natural ,history in the ,university of ,california4 ,new ,york3 ,d4 ,appleton ,co4 #ahgd4 #abmo1 pp4 #cbd4 ,,vii-#b4 ,but with regard to the material world1 we can at least go so far as this-- we can perceive that events are brought about1 not by insulated interpositions of divine power1 exerted in each particular case1 but by the establishment of general laws4--,whewell's ,bridgewater ,treatise4 ,the only distinct meaning of the world 'natural' is stated1 fixed1 or settled2 since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so--i4e41 to effect it continually or at stated times--as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once4--,butler's ,analogy4 ,,viii-#a4 ,what ,is ,darwinism8 ,by ,charles ,hodge1 ,princeton1 ,n4,j4 ,new ,york3 ,scribner1 ,armstrong ,co4 #ahgd4 ,the ,doctrine of ,evolution4 ,by ,alexander ,winchell1 ,,ll4,d41 etc4 ,new ,york3 ,harper ,brothers4 #ahgd4 ,darwinism and ,design2 or1 ,creation by ,evolution4 ,by ,george ,st4 ,clair4 ,london3 ,hodder ,stoughton4 #ahgc4 ,westminster ,sermons4 ,by the ,rev4 ,charles ,kingsley1 ,f4,l4,s41 ,f4,g4,s41 ,canon of ,westminster1 etc4 ,london and ,new ,york3 ,macmillan ,co4 #ahgd4 ,,viii-#b4 ,these two postulate-mottoes are quoted in full in a previous article1 in ,no4 #ddf of ,the ,nation4 ,,xi-#a4 ,insectivorous ,plants4 ,by ,charles ,darwin1 ,m4,a41 ,f4,r4,s4 ,with ,illustrations4 ,london3 ,john ,murray4 #ahge4 ,pp4 #dfb4 ,new ,york3 ,d4 ,appleton ,co4 ,the ,movements and ,habits of ,climbing ,plants4 ,by ,charles ,darwin1 ,m4,a41 ,f4,r4,s41 etc4 ,second ,edition1 revised1 with ,illustrations4 ,london3 ,john ,murray4 #ahge4 ,pp4 #bjh4 ,new ,york3 ,d4 ,appleton ,co4 ,,xi-#b4 ,the ,nation1 ,nos4 #deg1 #deh1 #ahgd4 ,it was in these somewhat light and desultory1 but substantially serious1 articles that some account of ,mr4 ,darwin's observations upon the digestive powers of ,drosera and ,dionaea first appeared2 in fact1 their leading motive was to make sufficient reference to his then unpublished discoveries to guard against expected or possible claims to priority4 ,dr4 ,burdon-,sanderson's lecture1 and the report in ,nature1 which first made them known in ,england1 appeared later4 ,a mistake on our part in the reading of a somewhat ambiguous sentence in a letter led to the remark1 at the close of the first of those articles1 that the leaf-trap of ,dionaea had been paralyzed on one side in consequence of a dexterous puncture4 ,what was communicated really related to ,drosera4 ,,xi-#c4 ,a4 ,gray1 in ,proceedings of the ,american ,academy of ,arts and ,sciences1 vol4 iv41 p4 #ih2 and ,american ,journal of ,science and the ,arts1 ,march1 #ahei1 p4 #bgh4 ,,xii-#a4 ,les ,especes affines et la ,theorie de l',evolution1 par ,charles ,naudin1 ,membre de l',institut1 in ,bulletin de la ,societe ,botanique de ,france1 tome xxi41 pp4 #bdj-bgb1 #ahgd4 ,see also ,comptes ,rendus1 ,september #bg and ,october #d1 #ahge1 reproduced in ,annales des ,sciences ,naturelles1 #ahgf1 pp4 #gc-ha4 ,,xii-#b4 ,in noticing ,m4 ,naudin's paper in the ,comptes ,rendus1 now reprinted in the ,annales des ,sciences ,naturelles1 entitled ,variation desordonnee des ,plantes ,hybrides et ,deductions qu'on peut en tirer1 we were at a loss to conceive why he attributed all present variation of species to atavism1 i4e41 to the reappearance of ancestral characters 7,american ,journal of ,science1 ,february1 #ahgf74 ,his anterior paper was not then known to us2 from which it now appears that this view comes in as a part of the hypothesis of extreme plasticity and variability at the first1 subsiding at length into entire fixity and persistence of character4 ,according to which1 it is assumed that the species of our time have lost all power of original variation1 but can still reproduce some old ones--some reminiscences1 as it were1 of youthful vagaries--in the way of atavism4 ,,xiii-#a4 ,london1 #ahfb4 ,,xiii-#b4 ,hume1 in his ,essays1 anticipated this argument4 ,but he did not rest on it4 ,his matured convictions appear to be expressed in statements such as the following1 here cited at second hand from ,jackson's ,philosophy of ,natural ,theology1 a volume to which a friend has just called our attention3 ,though the stupidity of men1 writes ,hume1 barbarous and uninstructed1 be so great that they may not see a sovereign author in the more obvious works of ,nature1 to which they are so much familiarized1 yet it scarce seems possible that any one of good understanding should reject that idea1 when once it is suggested to him4 ,a purpose1 an intention1 a design1 is evident in everything2 and when our comprehension is so far enlarged as to contemplate the first rise of this visible system1 we must adopt1 with the strongest conviction1 the idea of some intelligent cause or author4 ,the uniform maxims1 too1 which prevail throughout the whole frame of the universe1 naturally1 if not necessarily1 lead us to conceive this intelligence as single and undivided1 where the prejudices of education oppose not so reasonable a theory4 ,even the contrarieties of ,nature1 by discovering themselves everywhere1 become proofs of some consistent plan1 and establish one single purpose or intention1 however inexplicable and incomprehensible4---7,natural ,history of ,religion1 xv47 ,in many views of the universe1 and of its parts1 particularly the latter1 the beauty and fitness of final causes strike us with such irresistible force that all objections appear 7what ,i believe they really are7 mere cavils and sophisms4-- 7,dialogues concerning ,natural ,religion1 ,part ,x47 ,the order and arrangement of ,nature1 the curious adjustment of final causes1 the plain use and intention of every part and organ1 all these bespeak in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author4--7,ibid41 ,part ,,iv47 ,,xiii-#c4 ,see ,section ,i1 ,chapter #ab4 ,,xiii-#d4 ,no single and limited good can be assigned by us as the final cause of any contrivance in ,nature4 ,the real final cause 4 4 4 is the sum of all the uses to which it is ever to be put4 ,any use to which a contrivance of ,nature is put1 we may be sure1 is a part of its final cause4--7,g4 ,f4 ,wright1 in ,the ,new-,englander1 ,october1 #ahga47 ,,xiii-#e4 ,no single and limited good can be assigned by us as the final cause of any contrivance in ,nature4 ,the real final cause 4 4 4 is the sum of all the uses to which it is ever to be put4 ,any use to which a contrivance of ,nature is put1 we may be sure1 is a part of its final cause4--7,g4 ,f4 ,wright1 in ,the ,new-,englander1 ,october1 #ahga47