(/BR.^W NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES S01 224908 Q This book is due on the date indicated below and is subject to an overdue fine as posted at the circulation desk. EXCEPTION: Date due will be earlier if this item is RECALLED. JAfP 5 2001 150M/01 -92-941 680 i* CONTENTS. the Rattlesnake and Cobra ; as to the Procesa of Formation of the Eye and Ear , as to the Fully-dovelopcd Condition of the Eye and Ear; aa to the Voice; as to Shell- fish; as to Orchids; aa to Ants. — the Necessity for the Slmuitiuieous Modification of Many Individuals. — Sumumry and Conclusion . . . . p. 85 CHAPTER III. THE 0OKXI8TENOK 0? 0L08ELY-BIMILAR 8TRUCTUBE8 OF DIVERSE ORIGIN". Chances against Concordant Variations.— Examples of Discordant Ones. — Concordant Variations not uuillieiy on a non-Darwinian Evolutionury lIyix)thosi8. — Placental and Implacentai Mammals.— Birds and Keptllus.— Independent Origins of Similar Sense Organs. — The Ear. — The Eye. — Other Coincidences. — Causes besides Natural Selection produce Concordant Variations In Certain Geographical Kegions. — Causes besides Natural Selection produce Concordant Variations in Certain Zoological and Botanical Groups. — There are Homologous Parts not genetically reLited. — Harmony In respect of the Organic and Inorganic Worlds. — Smnmary and Conclusion . p. 76 CHAPTER IV. MINUTE AND GRADUAL MODIFICATIONS. There are Dlfflcultios as to Minute Modifications, even If not fortuitous. — Examples of Sudden and Considerable Modifications of Diflferent Kinds.— Prof Owen's View. — Mr. Wallace. — Prof. Huxley. — Objections to Sudden Changes. — Labyrinthodont. — Potto.— Cetacea.— As to Origin of Buxl's Wing.— Tendrils of Cllmbhig Plants.— Animals once supposed to be Connecting Links. — Early Specialization of Structure. — Macrauchenla. — Glyptodon. — Sabre-toothed Tiger. — Conclusion . . p. Ill CHAPTER V. AS TO BPEOIFIO BTABILITT. What Is meant by the Phrase "Specific Stability;" such Stability to be expected a priorly or else Considerable Changes at once. — Rapidly -increasing DllBculty of in- tensifying Race Characters ; Alleged Causes of this Phenomenon ; probably an In- CONTENTS. 7 ft tomal Cause coni)cratoB. — A Certain Dcflnltcnoss In Variations. — Mr. Dar\vin ad- mits the Trlnciplo of Specific Stability In Certain Cases of Unequal Variability. — The Goose. — The Peacock. — The Guinea-fowl. — Exceptional Causes of Variation under Domestication. — Alleged Tendency to Reversion. — Instances. — Sterility of Hybrids. — Prepotency of Pollen of Same Species, but of Different Race. — Mortality in Young Gallinaceous Hybrids. — A Bar to Intermixture exists somewhere.— Guinea-pigs. — Siunmary and Conclusion . . . . . p. 12T CHAPTER VI. 8PE0IES AND TIUE. Two Relations of Species to Tlmo. — No Evidence of Past Existence of ^linutely- intermediato Forms when such might be expected a priori.— B&tA, Pterodac- tyls, Dinosauria, and Bbxls.— Ichthyosauria, Chelonia, and Anoura.— Horse An- cestry.— Labyrinthodonts and Trilobitcs.- Two Subdivisions of the Second Rela- tion of Species to Time. — Sir William Thomson's Views. — Probable Period re- quired for Ultimate Speclfio Evolution from Primitive Ancestral Forms.— Geo- metrical Increase of Tlmo required for Rapidly-multiplying Increase of Structural Differences.— Proboscis Monkey.— Time required for Deposition of Strata necea- sary for Dar^vinian Evolution.— High Organization of Silurian Forms of Life.— Absence of Fossils in Oldest Rocks. — Summary and Conclusion . . p. 142 CHAPTER VII. SPECIES AND SPACE. The Geographical Distribution of Animals presents Difficulties.— These not insor- mountable in themselves ; harmonize with other Difficulties.- Fresh-water Fishes. —Forms common to Africa and India; to Africa and South America; to China and Australia; to North America and China; to New Zealand and South America; to South America and Tasmania; to South America and Australia. — Pleurodont Lizards.- Insectivorous Mammals.— Slmlbrity of European and South American Frogs.- Analogy between European Salmon and Fishes of New Zea- land, etc.— An Ancient Antarctic Continent probable.— Other Modes of accounting for Facts of Distribution.- Independent Origin of Close ly-slmllar Forms.— Con- clusion I'-^'^ 8 CONTENTS. CnAPTEE VIII. BOMOLOOIES. * Animals made up of Parta mutually related In Various Ways.— What Homology la. — Ita Various Kinds. — Serial Homology. — Lateral Homology. — Vertical Homology. —Mr. Herbert Bi>encer'8 Exi»lanaUons.— An Internal Power noceasary, as shown by Facta of CkimiMiratlve Anatomy.— Of Teratology.— M. 8t llllalre.— Prof. Burt Wild- er. — Foot-wings. — Facts of Pathology. — Mr. .Jumus Paget — Dr. Wllikm Uudd. — The Exifltence of such an Internal Power of Indl\1dual Development diminishes the Improbability of an Analogous Law of Specilic Origination. . . p. 1G9 CHAPTER IX. EVOLUTION AND ETUIOS. The Origin of Morals an Inquiry not foreign to the Subject of this Book. — Modem Utilitarian View as to that Origin.— Mr. Darwin's Speculation as to the Origin of . the Abhorrence of IncosL — Cause assigned by him insufficienttr-Caro of the Aged and Infirm opposed by ''Natural Selection;" also Self-abnegation and Asceti- cism.— Distinctness of the Ideas "Eight" and " Useful."— Mr. John Stuart Mill.— Insufficiency of " Natural Selection " to account for the Origin of the Distinction between Duty and Profit.— Diatlnctlou of Moral Acts Into "Material" and "For- nud." — No Ground for believing that Formal Morality exists In Brutes. — Evidence that it does exist In Savages. — Facility with which Savages may be misunder- stood. — Objections as to Diversity of Customs. — Mr. Hutton's Review of Mr. Her- bert Spencer. — Anticipatory Character of Morals. — Sir John Lubbocli's Explana- tion. — Summary and Conclusion . . . . . .p. 202 CHAPTER X. PANOENEBIS. A Provisional Hypothesis supplementing " Notural Selection." — Statement of the Hy- pothesis. — Difliculty as to Multitude of Qemmules. — As to Certain Modes of lie- production. — As to Formations without the Kcquisite Qemmules. — Mr. Lewes and Prof. Delpino. — Difficulty as to Developmental Force of Gemmules. — As to their Spontaneous Rssion. — Pangenesis and Vitalism. — Paradoxical Keahty. — Pangene- sis scarcely 6ui>erior to Anterior Hypothesis. — Bufi'on. — Owen. — Herbert Spen- cer. — " Qemmules " as Mysterious as " Physiological Units."— Conclusion . p. 223 CONTENTS. 9 CHAPTER XI. 8PKOIFIOOBNKSI8. Review of the Statements and Arguments of Preceding Chapters. — Cumulative Argu- ment against Prodominant Action of "Natural Selection." — Whether any Thing positive as well as negative can be enunciated. — Constancy of Ijiws of Nature does not necessarily imply Constancy of Specific Evolution. — Possible E.xceptional Sta- bility of Existing Epoch. — Probability that an Internal Cause of Change exists.— Innate Powers somewhere must be accepted. — Symbolism of Molecular Action under Vibrating Impulses. — Prof. Owen's Statement. — Statement of the Author's View. — It avoids the Difficulties which oppose " Natural Selection." — It harmon- izes Apparently Conflicting Conceptions. — Summary and Conclusion . p. 235 CHAPTER XII. THEOLOOT AND EVOLUTION. Prejudiced Opinions on the Subject. — " Creation " sometimes denied from Prejudice. — The Unknowable. — Mr. Herbert Spencer's Objections to Theism; to Creation. — Meanings of Term "Creation." — Confusion from not distinguishing between "Pri- mary" and " Derivative " Creation. — Mr. Darwin's Objections. — Bearing of Chris- tianity on the Theory of Evolution. — Supposed Opposition, the Result of a Mlscou- copilon. — Theological Authority not opposed to Evolution. — St Augustine. — St. Tliomas Aquinas. — Certain Consequences of Want of Flexibility of Mind. — Reason and Imagination. — The First Cause and Demonstration. — Parallel between Chris- tianity and Natural Theology.— What Evolution of Species is.— Prof. Agassiz.— In- nate Powers must be recognized. — Bearing of Evolution on Religious Belief. — Prof. Huxley.— Prof. Owen.— Mr. Wallace.— Mr. Darwin. — A priori Conception of Di- vine Action. — Origin of Man. — Absolute Creation and Dogma. — Mr. Wallace's View. — A Supernatural Origin for Man's Body not necessary.- Two Orders of Being In Man.— Two Modes of Origin.— Harmony of the Physical, Hypcrphysical, and Super- natural—Reconciliation of Science and Religion as regards Evolution.— Conclu- sion .....•••••• P- 259 INDEX . • . P- 808 LIST OF ILLUSTEATIONS. PAOB Leaf Butterfly \n flight and rei)ose {from Mr. A. Wallace's '■'■ Malays s Archi- pelago''^) .......... 4-3 Walking-Loftf Insect ........ 47 ricuronpctidip, with tho pocnllnrly placed eyo In dlflferent poBltlons {from Dr. Traqualr''8 paper ih TAnn. Soc. ?>•on, with Binl's-head processes ...... 94 Bird's-head processes greatly enlarged ...... 95 Antcchinus MInutlssimus and Mus Delicatuhis {from 3fr. Andrew Murray's '■'■ Oeographical Distribution of Mammals") .... 96 12 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. TAO* Outlines of WlngB of Butterflies of Celebes compared with those of ollled spe- clea elsewhere ......... 100 Great Shielded Grasshopper ....... 103 The SLx-Bhaftod Bird of Paradise 104 The LoDg-tallod Bh^lofraradlso ...... 105 The Bed Bhrd of Paradise . . . . . . . .106 Homed Flics ......... 107 The Magnificent Bh^ of Paradise 107 {The above seven Ji{;ure4 are from Mr. A. ]yiiUac6''8 '^^ Malay Archi- peiago") Much enlarged horizontal Section of the Tooth of a Labyrinthodon (from Prof. Owen'a " Odontography ")....... 118 Hand of tho Potto {from life) 119 Skeleton of Plesiosaurufl 120,147,192 Tha kyQ-\y6 (^from Trans, of Zool. Soc.) ..... 122 Dentition of Sabre-toothed Tiger (/rom Pro/'. Owen'a '^ Odontograjthy ^'') . 125 Trlloblto 149, 185 Inner side of Tx>wer Jaw of Pleurodont Lizard (from Prof. Owen'a " Odontog- raphy'''') ......... 163 Solenodon {from Berlin TYana.) ....... 163 Tarsal Bones of Qalago and Cheht)galeufl {from Proc. Zool. Sac.) . . 178 SquUla 174 Parts of the Skeleton of the Lobster ...... 176 Spine of Galago Allenli (/ro?» Proo. 2(wZ. /&o.) ..... 176 Vertebra of AxolotI {from Proo. Zool. Soo.) ...... 179 Annelid undergoing spontaneous fission . . . . . 183, 226 Aard-Yark. {Orycteropm capeneia) . . . • . . 188 Pangolin {Mauls) ......... 189 Skeleton of Manus and Pes of a Tailed Batrachlan {from Prof Oegenbaur'a " Taraua and Carpus ")....... 192 Flexor Muscles of Hand of Nycticetus (/rOTH Proc. Zooi./Sbc.) . ^ . . 194 The Fibres of CorU 296 TEE GENESIS OF SPECIES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. The ProMom of tlio Ocnpsls of Ppoclos stntcd. — Nnturo of its Prohahle Rolntlon. — Tra- portnnce of the Question. — Position hero defended. — Statement of the Darwinian Tnr.onT. — Its Applicahility to Details of Oeogrnphicnl Distribution; to Rudimentary Structures; to Iloitiolopy ; to Mimicry, etc. — Consequent Utility of the Thcorj'.— Its Wide Acceptance. — Ileasons for this, other than, and In Addition to, its Scicnttflo Value. — Its Simplicity. — Its Bearing on Religious Questions. — Odium Theologicum and OcJiuin Antitheologicum. — The Antagonism supposed by many to exist be- tween It and Tlieology neither necessary nor universal. — Christian Authorities in flivor of Kvolutlon. — iMr. Darwin's "Animals and Plimts under Domostication." — Dlfllcultics of the Darwinian Theory enumerated. The great problem which has so long exercised the minds of naturalists, namely, that concerning the origin of different kinds of animals and plants, seems at last to be fairly on the road to receive — perhaps at no very dis- tant future — as satisfactory a solution as it can well have. But the problem presents peculiar difficulties. The birth of a " species " has often been compared with that of an " individual." The origin, however, of even an individ- ual animal or plant (that which determines an embryo to evolve itself — as, e. g., a spider rather than a beetle, a rose- plant rather than a pear) is shrouded in obscurity. A fortiori must this be the case with the origin of a " species." Moreover, the analogy between a "species" and an 14 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. "individual" is a very incomplete one. The word "indi- vidual" denotes a concrete whole with a real, separate, and distinct existence. The word " species," on the other hand, denotes a peculiar congeries of characters, innate powers and qualities, and a certain nature realized indeed in indi- viduals, but having no separate existence, except ideally as a thought in some mind. Thus the birth of a " species " can only be compared metaphorically, and very imperfectly, with that of an " indi- vidual." Individuals, as individuals^ actually and din^clly produce and bring forth other individuals ; but no " congeries of characters," no " common nature " as such^ can directly bring forth another " common nature," because, per se, it lias no existence (other than ideal) apart from the individ- uals in which it is manifested. The problem then is, " By what combination of natural laws does a new * common nature ' appear upon the scene of realized existence?" i. e., how is an individual embody- ing such new characters produced ? For the approximation we have of late made toward the solution of this problem, we are mainly indebted to the in- valuable labors and active brains of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Nevertheless, important as have been the impulse and direction given by those writers to both our observations and speculations, the solution will not (if the views here advocated are correct) ultimatel}'^ present that aspect and character with which it has issued from the hands of those writers. Neither, most certainly, will that solution agree in ap- pearance or substance with the more or less crude concep- tions which have been put forth by most of the opponents of Messrs. Darwin and Wallace. Rather, judging from the more recent manifestations of I.] INTRODUCTORY. 15 Ibouglit on opposite sides, we may expect the development of some tertium quid — the resultant of forces coming from different quarters, and not coinciding in direction with any one of them. As error is almost always partial truth, and so consists in the exaggeration or distortion of one verity by the sui> pression of another which qualifies and modifies the former, we may hope, by the synthesis of the truths contended for by various advocates, to arrive at the one conciliating reality. Signs of this conciliation are not wanting: opposite scientific views, opposite philosophical conceptions, and opposite religious beliefs, are rapidly tending, by their vig- orous conflict, to evolve such a systematic and comprehen- sive view of the genesis of species as will completely harmonize with the teachings of science, philosophy, and religion. K' To endeavor to add one stone to this temple of concord, to try and remove a few of the misconceptions and mutual misunderstandings which oppose harmonious action, are the aim and endeavor of the present work. This aim it is hoped to attain, not by shirking difficulties, but analyzing them, and by endeavoring to dig down to the common root which supports and unites diverging stems of truth. It cannot but be a gain when the laborers in the three fields above mentioned, namely, science, philosophy, and religion, shall fully recognize this harmony. Then the energy too often spent in futile controversy, or withheld through prejudice, may be profitably and reciprocally exer- cised for the mutual benefit of all. Remarkable is the rapidity with which an interest in the question of specific origination has spread. But a few years ago it scarcely occupied the minds of any but natural- ists. Then the crude theory put forth by Lamarck, and by his English interpreter, the author of the " Vestiges of Cre- 15 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. ation," had rather discredited than helped on a belief in organic evolution — a belief, that is, in new kinds being pro- duced from older ones by the ordinary and constant opera- tion of natural laws. Now, however, this belief is widely diffused. Indeed, there are few drawing-rooms where it is not the subject of occasional discussion, and artisans and school-boys have their views as to the pernianencc of or- ganic forms. Moreover, the reception of this doctrine tends actually, though by no means necessarily, to be accompa- nied by certain beliefs with regard to quite distinct and very momentous subject-matter. So that the question of the *' Genesis of Species " is not only one of great interest, but also of much importance. • But though the calm and thorough consideration of this matter is at the present moment exceedingly desirable, yet the actual importance of the question itself as to its conse- quences in the domain of theology has been strangely exag- gerated by many, both of its opponents and supporters. This is especially the case with that form of the evolution theory which is associated with the name of Mr. Darwin ; and yet neither the refutation nor the demonstration of that doctrine would be necessarily accompanied by the results whicli are hoped for by one party and dreaded by another. The general theory of evolution has indeed for some time past steadily gained ground, and it may be safely pre- dicted that the number of facts which can be brought for- ward in its support will, in a few years, be vastly augment- ed. But the prevalence of this theory need alarm no one, for it is, without any doubt, perfectly consistent with strict- est and most orthodox Christian theology. Moreover, it is not altogether without obscurities, and cannot yet be con- sidered as fully demonstrated. The special Darwinian hypothesis, however, is beset with certain scientific difficulties, which must by no means I.J INTRODUCTORY. 17 be ignored, and some of which, I venture to think, are ab- solutely insuperable. What Darwinism or " Natural Selec- tion " is, will be shortly exjilained ; but, before doing so, I think it well to slate the object of this book, and the view taken up and defended in it. It is its object to maintain the position that " Natural Selection " acts, and indeed must act, but that still, in order that we may be able to account for the production of known kinds of animals and plants, it requires to be supplemented by the action of some other natural law or laws as yet undiscovered.* Also, that the consequences which have been drawn from Evolution, whether exclusively Darwinian or not, to the prejudice of religion, by no means follow from it, and are in fact illegiti- mate. The Darwinian theory of " Natural Selection " may be shortly stated thus : ' Every kind of animal and plant tends to increase in numbers in a geometrical progression. Every kind of animal and plant transmits a general like- ness, with individual diflferences, to its offspring. Every individual may present minute variations of any kind and in any direction. Past time has been practically infinite. Every individual has to endure a very severe struggle for existence, owing to the tendency to geometrical increase of a,ll kinds of animals and plants, while the total animal and vegetable population (man and his agency excepted) remains almost stationary. * In the last edition of the "Origin of Species" (1869) Mr. Darwin himself admits that "Natural Selection" has not been the exclusive means of modification, though he still contends it has been the most im- portant one. ' Sec Mr. Wallace's recent work, entitled "Contributions to the The- oty of Natural Selection," where, at p. 302, it is very well and shortly stated. 18 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Tims, every variation of a kind tendinf^ to save the life of the individual possessing it, or to enal)le it more surely to propagate its kind, will in the long-run be preserved, and will transmit its favorable peculiarity to some of its oll'spring, which peculiarity will thus become intensified till it reaches the maximum degree of utility. On the other hand, individuals presenting unfavorable peculiarities will be ruthlessly destroyed. The action of this law of "Natural Selection" may thus be well represented by the convenient expression, " survival of the fittest." * Now, this conception of Mr. Darwin's is, perhaps, the most interesting theory, in relation to natural science, which has been pronnilgated during the present century. Uemarkable, indeed, is the way in which it groups together such a vast and varied series of biological * facts, and even paradoxes, which it appears more or less clearly to explain, as the following instances will show. By this theory of "Natural Selection," light is thrown on the more singular facts relating to the geographical distribution of animals and plants ; for example, on the resemblance between the l)ast and present inhabitants of different parts of the earth's surface. Thus in Australia remains have been found of creatures closely alHed to kangaroos and other kinds of pouched beasts, which in the present day exist nowhere but in the Australian region. Similarly in South America, and nowhere else, are found sloths and armadillos, and in that same part of the world have been discovered bones of ani- mals different indeed from existing sloths and armadillos, but yet much more nearly related to them than to any other kinds whatever. Such coincidences between the existing and antecedent geographical distribution of forms are nu- ' " Natural Selection " is happily so termed by Mr. Uerbert Spencer in his " Principles of Biology." * Biology is the science of life. It contains zoology, or the science of animals, and botany, or that of plants. L] INTRODUCTORY, 19 meroiis. Again, " Natural Selection " serves to explain the circumstance that often in adjacent islands we find ani- mals closely resembling, and appearing to represent, each other ; while, if certain of these islands show signs (by depth of surrounding sea or what not) of more ancient separation, the animals inhabiting them exhibit a corre- sponding divergence/ The explanation consists in rejv rcsenting the forms inhabiting the islands as being the modified descendants of a common stock, the modification being greatest where the separation has been the most pro- longed. " Rudimentary structures " also receive .nn explanation by meaiis of tliis theory. These structures are parts which are apparently functionless and useless where they occur, but which represent similar parts of large size and func- tional importance in other animals. Examples of such " ru- dimentary structures" are the fojtal teeth of whales, and of tlie front part of the jaw of ruminating quadrupeds. These foetal structures are minute in size, and never cut the gum, but are reabsorbed without ever coming into use, while no other teeth succeed them or represent them in the adult condition of those animals. The mammary glands of all male beasts constitute another example, as also does the wing of the apteryx — a New Zealand bird utterly incapable of flight, and with the wing in a quite rudimentary condi- tion (whence the name of the animal). Yet this rudiment- ary wing contains bones wdiich are miniature representa- tives of the ordinary wing-bones of birds of flight. Now, the presence of these useless bones and teeth is explained if they may be considered as actually being the inherited diminished representatives of parts of large size and func- tional importance in the remote ancestors of these various animals. ' For very interesting examples, see Mr. "Wallace's " Malay Archi- pelago." 20 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap Again, the singular facts of " liomology " are capable of a similar explanation. "Homology" is the name applied to the investigation of those profound resemblances which have so often been found to underlie superficial differences between animals of very different form and habit. Thus man, the horse, the whale, and the bat, all have the pec- toral limb, whether it be the arm, or fore-leg, or paddle, or wing, formed on essentially the same type, though the num- ber and proportion of parts may more or less differ. Again, the butterily and the shrimp, different as they are in ap- pearance and mode of life, are yet constructed on the same common plan, of which they constitute diverging manifesta- •tions. No a priori reason is conceivable why such simi- larities should be necessary, but they are readily explicable on the assumption of a genetic relationship and affinity be- tween the animals in question, assuming, that is, that they are the modified descendants of some ancient form— 7their common ancestor. That remarkable series of changes which animals under- go before they attain their adult condition, which is called their process of development, and during which they more or less closely resemble other animals during the early stages of the same process, has also great light thrown on it from the same source. The question as to the singularly complex resemblances borne by every adult animal and plant to a certain number of other animals and plants — re- semblances by means of which the adopted zoological and botanical systems of classification have been possible — finds its solution in a similar manner, classification becoming the expression of a genealogical relationship. Finally, by this theory — and as yet by this alone — can any explanation be given of that extraordinary phenomenon which is meta- phorically termed mlniicry. Mimicry is a close and striking, yet superficial resemblance borne by some animal or plant to some other, perhaps very diflerent, animal or plant. The I.] INTRODUCTORY. 21 • "walking leaf (an insect belonging to the grasshopper and cricket order) is a well-known and conspicuous instance of the assumption by an animal of the appearance of a vegetable structure (see illustration on p. 47) ; and the bee, fly, and spider orchids, are familiar examples of a converse resemblance. Birds, butterflies, reptiles, and even fish, seem to bear in certain instances a similarly striking re- semblance to other birds, butterflies, reptiles, and fish, of altogether distinct kinds. The explanation of this matter which "Natural Selection " oflers, as to animals, is that cer- tain varieties of one kind have found exemption from per- secution in consequence of an accidental resemblance which such varieties have exhibited to animals of another kind, or to plants ; and that they were thus preserved, and the de- gree of resemblance was continually augmented in their descendants. As to plants, the explanation ofi'ered by this theory might, perhaps, be, that varieties of plants, which jDresented a certain superficial resemblance in their flowers to insects, have thereby been helped to propagate their kind, the visit of certain insects being useful or indispen- sable to the fertilization of many flowers. *•" We have thus a whole series of important facts which " Natural Selection " helps us to understand and coordi- nate. And not only are all these diverse facts strung to- gether, as it were, by the theory in question ; not only does it explain the development of the complex instincts of the beaver, the cuckoo, the bee, and the ant, as also the dazzling brilliancy of the humming-bird, the glowing tail and neck of the peacack, and the melody of the nightin- gale ; the perfume of the rose and the violet, the bril- liancy of the tulip and the sweetness of the nectar of flow- ers ; not only does it help us to understand all these, but serves as a basis of future research and of inference from the knoAvn to the unknown, and it guides the investigator to the discovery of new facts which, when ascertained, it 22 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Cuap. seems also able to coordinate.' Nay, " Natural Selection " seems capable of application not only to the building up of the smallest and most insignificant organisms, but even of extension beyond the biological domain altogether, so as possibly to have relation to the stable equilibrium of the solar system itself, and even of the whole sidereal uni- verse. Thus, whether this theory be true or false, all lov- ers of natural science should acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude to Messrs. Darwin and Walhice, on account of itSy^ practical utility. 15ut the utility of a theory by no means implies its truth. What do we not owe, for example, to the labors of the Alcliemists ? The emission theory of light, again, has been pregnant with valuable results, as still is the Atomic theory, and others which will readily suggest themselves. With regard to Mr. Darwin (with whose name, on ac- count of the noble self-abnegation of Mr. Wallace, the theory is in general exclusively associated), his friends may heartily congratulate him on the fact that he is one of the few exceptions to the rule respecting the non-appreciation of a prophet in his own country. It would be diihcult to name another living laborer in the field of physical science who has excited an interest so wide-spread, and given rise to so much praise, gathering* round him, as he has done, a chorus of more or less completely acquiescing disciples, themselves masters in science, and each the representative of a crowd of enthusiastic followers. Such is the Darwinian theory of " Natural Selection," such are the more remarkable facts which it is potent to • See Miiller's work, " Fiir Darwin," lately translated into English by Mr. Dallas, Mr. Wallace also predicts the discovery, in ^Madagascar, of a hawk-moth with an enormously-long proboscis, and he does this on account of the discovery there of an orchid with a nectary from ten lo fourteen inches in length. See Quarterly Juurnal of JScicnce, October, 18G7, and "Natural Selection," p. 275. I.] INTRODUCTORY. 23 explain, and such is the reception it has met with in the world. A few words now as to the reasons for the very wide-spread interest it has awakened, and the keenness with which the theory has been both advocated and com- bated. The important bearing it has on such an extensive raufre of scientific facts, its utility, and the vast knowledge and great ingenuity of its promulgator, are enough to ac- count for the heartiness of its reception by those learned in natural history. But quite other causes have concurred to produce the general and higher degree of interest felt in the iheory besides the readiness with which it harmonizes with biological facts. These latter could only be appreci- ated by physiologists, zoologists, and botanists; whereas the Darwinian theory, so novel and so startling, lias found a cloud of advocates and opponents beyond and outside the world of physical science. In the first place, it was inevitable that a great crowd>/ of half-educated men and shallow thinkers should accept with eagerness the theory of " Natural Selection," or rath- er what they think to be such (for few things are more re- markable than the way in which it has been misunder- stood), on account of a certain characteristic it has in com- mon with other theories ; which should not be mentioned in the same breath with it, except, as now, with the accom- paniment of protest and apology. We refer to its remark- able simplicity, and the ready way in which phenomena the most complex appear explicable by a cause for the comprehension of which laborious and persevering efforts are not required, but which may be represented by the sim- ple phrase " survival of the fittest." With nothing more than this, can, on the Darwinian theory, all the most intri- cate facts of distribution and affinity, form and color, be accounted for ; as well the most complex instincts and the most admirable adjustments, such as those of the human 24 THE Genesis of species. [Chap eye and ear. It is in great measure, then, owing to this supposed simplicity, and to a belief in its being yet easier and more simple than it is, that Darwinism, however imper- fectly understood, has become a subject for general conver- sation, and has been able thus widely to increase a certain knowledge of biological matters; and this excitation of interest, in quarters where otherwise it would have been en- tirely wanting, is an additional motive for gratitude on the part of naturalists to the authors of the new theory. At the same time it must be admitted that a similar " simpli- city " — the apparently easy explanation of comi)lex phe- nomena — also constitutes the charm of such matters as hy- dropathy and phrenology, in the eyes of the unlearned or • half-educated public. It is indeed the charm of all those seeming " short-cuts " to knowledge, by which the labor of mastering scientific details is spared to those who yet be- lieve that without such labor they can attain all the most valuable results of scientific research. It is not, of course, for a moment meant to imply that its " simplicity " tells at all against "Natural Selection," but only that the actual or supposed possession of that quality is a strong reason for / the wide and somewhat hasty acceptance of the theory, whether it be true or not. In the second place, it was inevitable that a theory ap- pearing to have very grave relations with questions of the last importance and interest to man, that is, with ques- tions of religious belief, should call up an army of assail- ants and defenders. Nor have the supporters of the theory much reason, in many cases, to blame the more or less unskilful and hasty attacks of adversaries, seeing that y those attacks have been in great part due to the unskilful'' and perverse advocacy of the cause on the part of some of its adherents. If the odium theologicum has inspired some of its opponents, it is undeniable that the odium aii' titheologicum has possessed not a few of its supporters. I.] INTRODUCTORY. 25 It is (mo (and in appreciating some of Mr. Darwin's ex- pressions it should never be forgotten) that the theory has been both at ifa first promulgation and since vehemently attacked and denounced as unchristian, nay, as necessarily atheistic; but it is not less true that it has been made use of as a weapon of offence by irreligious writers, and has been again and again, especially in Continental Europe, thrown, as it were, in the face of believers, with sneers and contumely. When we recollect the "warmth with wdiich what he thought was Darwinism was advocated by such a writer as Prof. Vogt, one cause of his zeal was not far to seek — a zeal, by-thc-way, certainly not " accord- ing to knowledge ; " for few coiicej)tions could have been more confHcting with true Darwinism than the theory he formerly maintained, but has since abandoned, viz., that the men of the Old World were descended from African and Asiatic apes, while, similarly, the American apes were the progenitors of the human beings of the New World. The cause of this palpable error in a too eager disciple one might hope was not anxiety to snatch up all or any arms available against Christianity, were it not for the tone un- happily adopted by this author. But it is unfortunately quite impossible to mistake his meaning and intention, for lie is a writer whose offensiveness is gross, while it is some- times almost surpassed by an amazing shallowness. Of course, as might fully be expected, he adopts and repro- duces the absurdly trivial objections to absolute morality drawn from differences in national customs.' And he seems to have as little conception of the distinction be- tween " formally " moral actions and those which are only " materially " moral, as of that between the verhutn men- tale and the verhum oris. As an example of his onesided- ness, it may be remarked that he compares the skulls of the ' " Lectures on Man," translated by the Anthropological Society, 1861, p. 229. 2 26 THE GENESIS OF SPECIKS. [Chap. American monkeys {Cebiis apella and C. albifrons) with the intention of showing that man is of several distinct species, because skulls of dilferent men are less alike than are those of these two monkeys ; and lie does this regard- less of how the skulls of domestic animals (with which it is far more legitimate to compare races of men than with wild kinds), e.g., of different dogs or pigeons, tell precisely in tlie opposite direction. Hegardlesa also of tlie fact that perhaps no genus of monkeys is in a more unsatisfactory state as to the determination of its different kinds than the genus chosen by him for illustration. This is so much the case that J. A. Wagner (in his supj)lement to Schreber's great work on Beasts) at first included all the kinds in a single species, As to the strength of his prejudice and his regrettable coarseness, one quotation will be enough to display both. Speaking of certain early Christian missionaries, he says ; " " It is not so very improbable that the new religion, before which the flourishing Roman civilization relapsed into a state of barbarism, should have been introduced by people in whose / skulls the anatomist finds simious characters so well dev^el- oped, and in which the i)hrenologist finds the organ of ven- eration so mucli enlarged. I shall, in the meanwhile, call these simious narrow skulls of Switzerland ' Apostle skulls,' as I imagine that in life they must have resembled the type of Peter the Apostle, as represented in Byzantine-Nazarene art." In fiice of such a spirit, can it be wondered at that dis- putants have grown warm ? Moreover, in estimating the vehemence of the opposition which has been offered, it should be borne in mind that the views defended by religious writers are, or should be, all-important in their eyes. They could'not be expected to view with equanimity the destruc- tion in many minds of " theology, natural and revealed, 8 " Lectures on Mun," p. 378. I.J INTRODUCTORY. 27 psycliology, and inctapliysics; " nor to weign \vi(li calm and frigid impartiality arguments which seemed to them to be fraught with results of the highest moment to mankind, and therefore imposing on their consciences strenuous opposi- tion as a first duty; Cool, judicial impartiality in them would have been a sign perhaps of intellectual gifts, but also of a more important deficiency of generous emotion. It is easy to complain of the onesidedness of many of those who oppose Darwinism in the interest of orthodoxy ; but not at all less patent is the intolerance and narrow- mindedness of some of those who advocate it, avoAvedly or covertly, in the interest of heterodoxy. This hastiness of rejection or acceptance, determined by ulterior consequences believed to attach to " Natural Selection," is unfortunately in part to be accounted for by some expressions and a cer- tain tone to be found in Mr. Darwin's writings. That his expressions, however, are not always to be construed liter- ally is manifest. His frequent use metaphorically of the expressions, " contrivance," for example, and " purpose," has elicited, from the Duke of Argyll and others, criticisms which fail to tell against their opponent, because such ex- pressions are, in Mr. Darwin's writings merely figurative — metaphors, and nothing more. It may be hoped, then, that a similar looseness of ex- pression will account for passages of a directly opposite tendency to that of his theistic metaphors. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that he frequently uses that absolutely theological term, " the Creator," and that he has retained in all the editions of his " Origin of Species" an expression which has been much criticised. He speaks " of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one."" This is merely mentioned in justice to Mr. Darwin, and by no means because it is a position which this » Sec Cth edit., 1869, p. 579. 28 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. book is intended to support. For, from Mr. Darwin's usual mode of speaking, it appears that by such divine action he means a supernatural intervention, whereas it is here con- tended that throughout the whole process of pliysical evo- lution—the first manifestation of life included — supernatu- ral action is assuredly not to be looked for. Again, in justice to Rfr. Darwin, it may be observed that he is addressing tlie general public, and opposing the ordinary and connnon objections of popular religionists, who have inveighed against " Evolution " and " Natural Selec- tion " as atheistic, impious, and directly conflicting with the dogma of creation. Still, in so important a matter, it is to be regretted that he did not take the trouble to distinguish between such merely popular views and those which repose upon some more venerable authority. Mr. John Stuart Mill has replied to similar critics, and shown that the assertion that his philosophy is irreconcilable with theism is unfounded ; and it would have been better if Mr. Darwin had dealt in the same manner with some of his assailants, and shown the futility of certain of their objections when viewed from a more elevated njligious stand-point. Instead of so doing, he seems to adopt the narrowest notions of his opponents, and, far from endeavoring to expand them, appears to wish to indorse them, and to lend to them the weight of his author- ity. It is thus that Mr. Darwin seems to admit and assume that the idea of " creation " necessitates a belief in an in- terference with, or dispensation of, natural laws, and that " creation " must be accompanied by arbitrary and unorderly phenomena. None but the crudest conceptions are placed by him to the credit of supporters of the dogma of creation, and it is constantly asserted that they, to be consistent, must ofler "creative fiats " as explanations of physical phe- nomena, and be guilty of numerous other such absurdities. It is impossible, therefore, to acquit Mr. Darwin of ut least I.] INTRODUCTOUY. 29 a certain carelessness in this matter; and the result is, he has the appearance of opposing- ideas which he gives no clear evidence of having ever fully appreciated. He is far from being alone in this, and perhaps merely takes up and reiterates, without much consideration, assertions j)reviously assumed by others. Nothing could be further from Mr. Darwin's mind than any, liowever small, intentional misrep- resentation ; and it is therefore the more unfortunate that he should not have shown any appreciation of a position op- posed to his own other than that gross and crude one which he coml)ats so superfluously — that he should appear, for a moment, to be one of those, of whom there are far too many, who first misrepresent tlieir adversary's view and then elab- orately refute it ; who, in fact, erect a doll utterly incapable of self-defence, and then, with a ilourish of trumpets and many vigorous strokes, overthrow the helpless dummy they had previously raised. This is what many do who more or less distinctly oppose theism in the interests, as they believe, of physical science ; and they often represent, among other things, a gross and narrow anthropomorphism as the necessary consequence of views opposed to those which they themselves advocate. Mr. Darwin and others may perhaps be excused if they have not devoted much time to the study of Christian phi- losophy ; but they have no right to assume or accept with- out careful examination, as an unquestioned fact, that in that philosophy there is a necessary antagonism between \/^ the two ideas, " creation " and " evolution," as applied to organic forms. It is notorious and patent to all who choose to seek, that many distinguished Christian thinkers have accepted and do accept both ideas, i. e., both " creation " and " evo- lution." As much as ten years ago, an eminently Christian writer^ observed : " The creationist theory does not necessitate the 30 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. perpetual search after manifestations of miraculous powers and perpetual ' catastrophes.' Creation is not a miraculous interference with the laws of Nature, but the very institu- tion of those laws. Law and regularity, not arbitrary in- tervention, was the patristic ideal of creation. With this notion, they admitted without difiiculty the most surprising origin of living creatures, provided it took place by law. They held that when God said, ' Let tlie waters j)rodu(;e,' ' Let the earth produce,' lie conferred forces on the ele- ments of earth and water, which enabled them naturally to produce the various species of organic beings. This power, they thought, remains attached to the elements throughout all time." " The same writer quotes St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to the eflect that, " in the institution of Nature Ave do not look for miracles, but for the laws of Na- ture." " And, again, St. Basil,''' speaks of tlie continued operation of natural laws in the production of all organ- isms. So much foi writers of early and medi.neval times. As to the present day, the author can confidently ailirm that there are many as well versed in theology as Mr. Darwin is in his own department of natural knowledge, who would not be disturbed by the thorough demonstration of his theory. Nay, they would not even be in the least painful- ly affected at witnessing the generation of animals of com- plex organization by the skilful artificial arrangement of natural forces, and the production, in the future, of a fish, by means analogous to those by which we now ])roduce urea. And this because they know that the possibility of such phenomena, though by no means actually foreseen, has yet '0 77m; Rambler, March, 1860, vol. xii., p. 372. " "In priiusl institutiono naturai non cjuairittir miraculura, sed quid natura rcruni habeat, ut Augustiuus dicit, lib. ii., sup. Gen. and lit, c. 1." (St. Thomas, Sum. I« Ixvii. 4, ad 3.) " "Ilcxaem." Iloin. ix., p. 81. I.J INTRODUCTORY. 31 been fully provided for in the old philosophy centuries be- fore Darwin, or even before Bacon, and that tiieir place in the sypieni can be at once assigned them without even dis- turbing its order or marring its harmony. Moreover, the old tradition in this respect has never been abandoned, however much it may have been ignored or neglected by some modern writers. In proof of this it may be observed that perhaps no post-media3vaI theologian has a wider reception among Christians throughout the world than Suarez, who has a separate section " in opposi- tion to those who maintain the distinct creation of the vari- ous kinds — or substantial forms — of organic life. ]5ut the consideration of this matter must be deferred for the present, and the question of evolution, whether Dar- winian or other, be first gone into. It is j)roposcd, after that has been done, to return to this subject (here merely alluded to), and to consider at some length the bearing of " Evolution," whether Darwinian or non-Darwinian, upon " Creation and Theism." Now we will revert simply to the consideration of the theory of " Natural Selection " itself. Whatever may have hitherto been the amount of ac- ceptance that this theory has met with, all, I think, anti- cipated that the appearance of Mr. Darwin's large and care- ful work on "Animals and Plants under Domestication" could but further increase that acceptance. It is, however, somewhat problematical how far such anticipations will be realized. The newer book seems to add after all but little in sup[)ort of the theory, and to leave most, if not all, its difficulties exactly where they were. It is a question, also, whether the hypothesis of " Pangenesis " '* may not be " Suarcz, Mctapliysica. Edition Viv6s. Paris, 18G8. Vol. I. Dis- putatio XV., § 2. ^* " raiigcncsis " is tho name of the new theory proposed by Mr. Darwin, in order to account for various obscure physiological facts, such, 32 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. found rather to encumber than to support tlie theory it was intended to subserve. However, the work in question treats only of domestic animals, and probably the next in- stalment will address itself more vigorously and directly to the difhcultics which seem to us yet to bar the way to a complete acceptance of the doctrine. > If the theory of Natural Selection can be shown to be quite insulhcient to exi)lain any considerable number of im- portant phenomena connected with the origin of species, that theory, as the explanation, must be considered as pro- visionally discredited.. If other causes than Natural (including sexual) Selec- tion can be proved to have acted — if variation can in any cases be proved to be subject to certain determinations in special directions by other means than Natural Selection, it then becomes probable, a 2)riori, tliat it is so in others, and that Natural Selection depends upon, and only supple- ments, such means, which conception is opposed to the pure Darwinian position. Now it is certain, a priori^ that variation is obedient to some law, and therefore that " Natural Selection " itself must be capable of being subsumed into some higher laAv; {ind it is evident, I believe, a posteriorly that Natural Se- ,/ lection is, at the very least, aided and supplemented by some other agency. Admitting, then, organic and other evolution, and that new forms of animals and plants (new species, genera, etc.) e. g., as tho occasional reproduction, by individuals, of parts which they have lost ; the appearunce in oflspring of parental, and sonictinies of re- mote ancestral, characters, etc. It accounts for these plienomena by supposing that every creature possesses countless indelinitely-niinute organic atoms, termed *' geinmules," which atoms are supposed to be generated iu every part of every organ, to be in constant circulation about the body, and to have the power of reproduction. Moreover, atoms from every part are supposed to be stored in the generative prod- ucts. I.] INTRODUCTORY. 33 liave from time to time been evolved from preceding ani- mals and plants, it follows, if the views here advocated are true, that this evolution has not taken place by the action of " Natural Selection " alone^ but through it (among other influences) aided by the concurrent action of some other nat- ural law or laws, at present undiscovered ; and probably that the genesis of species takes place partly, perhaps mainly, through laws which may be most conveniently spoken of as special powers and tendencies existing in each organism ; and partly through influences exerted on each by surroimding conditions and agencies organic and inor- ganic, terrestrial and cosmical, among which the "survival of the fittest " plays a certain but subordinate part. The theory of " Natural Selection " may (though it need not) be taken in such a way as to lead men to regard Iho present organic world as formed, so to speak, accidentally^ beautiful and wonderful as is confessedlj^ the hap-hazard result. The same may perhaps be said with regard to the system advocated by Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, however; also relegates "Natural Selection" to a subordinate role. The vi(;w here advocated, on the other hand, regards the whole organic world as arising and going forward in one harmonious development similar to that which displays it- self in the growth and action of each separate individual organism. It also regards each such separate organism as the expression of powers and tendencies not to be accounted for by " Natural Selection " alone, or even by that together with merely the direct influence of surrounding conditions. The difliculties which appear to oppose themselves to the reception of " Natural Selection " or " the survival of the fittest," as the one explanation of the origin of spe- cies, have no doubt been already considered by Mr. Dar- win. Nevertlieless, it may be Avorth while to enumerate them, and to state the considerations which appear to give them weight ; and there is no doubt but that a naturalist 34 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. SO candid and careful as the author of the theory in ques- tion, will feel obliged, rather than the reverse, by the sug- gestion of all the doubts and dilliculties which can be brought against it. What is to be brought forward may be summed up as follows : Tliat " Natural Selection " is incompetent to account yj for the incipient stages of useful structures. That it does not harmonize with the coexistence of closely-similar structures of diverse origin. That tlicre are grounds for thinking that specific dif- ferences may be developed suddenly instead of gradually. That the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to their variability is still tenable. That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, which might have been exi)cctcd to be present. That some fticts of geographical distribution supple- ment other dilliculties. That the objection drawn from the physiological dif- ference between " species " and " races " still exists unre- futed. Tliat there are many rcmarka])le phenomena in organic forms upon which *' Natural Selection " throws no light whatever, but the explanations of which, if they could be attained, might throw light upon specific origination. Besides these objections to the sulHciency of " Natural Selection," others may be brought against the hypothesis of " Pangenesis," which, professing as it does to explain great dilliculties, seems to do so by presenting others not less great — almost to be the explanation of obscuniin per ohscuriiis. II.] INCIPIENT STRUCTURES. • 35 CHAPTER II. THE INCOMPETENCY OF " NATURAL. SELECTION " TO AC- COUNT FOR THE INCIPIENT STAGES OF USEFUL STRUCT- URES. Mr. Dnnvin siipposos (lint Natural SplocMon arts hy Rllirlit Variations. — TIicbo must bo URofiil nt oiico. — I)ini("\iItloa a.s to tlio OiralTo; as toMimirry; a.s to tho Ilt'ads of Flat-flshos; na to tlio <)rl>,'ln ami (^otiHtnnoy of llin Vorto!)mt(» LIriihs; as to Whalf- boiip; as to flip Yo\iii(? Katiparoo; iw to 8oa-nrcliins; as to cortaln IVwcssos of Metarnorpliosis ; as to the Mammary -plaud ; as to ccrtnin Apo Choractors ; as to the Rattic'^nakc and Cobi-a; as to tho Process of Formation of thoEyo ami Ear, as to the Fiilly-devcloped Condition of the Eye and Ear; as to tho Voice; as to Shell- fish; as to Orchids; as to Antfl. — tho Necessity for tho Simultaneous Modification of Many Individuals. — Summary and Conclusion. " Natural Selection," simply and by itself, is potent to explain the maintenance or the further extension and development of favorable variations, which are at once suf- ficiently considerable to be useful from the first to the indi- vidual possessing them. But Natural Selection utterly fails to account for the conservation and development of the minute and rudimentary beginnings, the slight and infini- tesimal commencements of structures, however useful those structures may afterward become. Now, it is distinctly enunciated by Mr. Darwin, that the spontaneous variations upon which his theory depends are individually slight, minute, and insensible. He says,* " Slight individual differences, however, suffice for the > work, and are proba})ly the sole differences which are effec- tivc in the production of new species." And again, after * "Animals and Tlants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 192 36 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. mentioning* the frequent sudden appearances of domestic varieties, he speaks of " the false belief as to the similarity of natural species in this respect." ^ In his work on the "Origin of Species," he also observes, "Natural Selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications." ' And " Natural Selection, if it be a true princij)le, will banish the belief ... of any great and sudden modification in their structure." * Finally, he adds, " If it could be demonstrated that any complex oi-gan existed, which could not possibly have been formed by nu- merous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ' Now the conservation of minute variations in many instances is, of course, plain and intelligible enough ; such e. g., as those which tend to promote the destructive facul- ties of beasts of prey on the one hand, or to facilitate the llight or concealment of the animals pui-sued on the other ; provided always that these minute beginnings are of such a kind as really to have a certain efliciency, however small, in favor of the conservation of the individual possessing them; and also provided that no unfavorable peculiarity in any other direction accompanies and neutralizes, in the sti-uggle for life, the minute favorable variation. But some of the cases which have been brouirht for- ward, and which have met with very general acceptance, seem less satisfactory when carefully analyzed than they at first appear to be. Among these we m.ay mention " the neck of the giraffe." At first sight it would seem as though a better exam- ple in support of " Natural Selection " could hardly have been chosen. Let the fact of the occurrence of occasional severe droughts in the country which that animal has in- * "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 114. 3 "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 18G9, p. 110. *Ibid., p. 111. Mh'id., p. 227. II.] INCIPIENT STRUCTURES. 37 habited be granted. In that case, when the ground vege- tation has been consumed, and the trees alone remain, it is phiin that at such times only those individuals (of what we assume to be the nascent giraffe species) which were able to reach high up would be preserved, and would become the })arents of the following generation, some individuals of which would, of course, inherit that high-reaching power which alone preserved their parents. Only the high-reach- ing issue of these high-reaching individuals would again, Cfrtcrifi p posed to breed freely ^vith the inferior variety, and so grad- ually lose their ascendency." Mr. Darwin himself says of the article quoted : " The justice of these remarks cannot, I 'think, be disputed. If, for instance, a bird of some kind could procure its food more easily by having its beak curved, and if one were born Avith its beak strongly cuived, and which consequently flourished, nevertheless there would be a very poor chance of this one individual perpetuating its kind to the exclusion of the com- mon form." This admission seems almost to amount to a change of front in the face of the enemy I II.] INCiriENT STRUCTURES. 73 Tliesc remarks liave boon quoted at length bocanse tlioy so greatly intensify the diflinulties brought forward in this chapter. If the most favorable variations have to contend vvitli sucli diflicultios, what must be thought as to the chance of preservation of the slightly-displaced eye in a sole or of the incipient development of baleen in a whale ? SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. It has been here contended that a certain few facts, out of many which might have been brought forward, are incon- sistent with the origination of species by " Natural Selec- tion " only or mainly. Mr. Darwin's theory requires miiuito, ind(^rmite, fortui- tous variations of all parts in all directions, and he insists that the sole operation of " Natural Selection " upon such is suflicient to account for the great majority of organic forms, with their most complicated structures, intricate mutual adaptations, and delicate adjustments. To this conception has been opposed the difficulties presented by such a structure as the form of the giraffe, which ought not to have been the solitary structure it is ; also the minute beginnings and the last refinements of pro- tective mimicry etiually difficult or rather impossible to ac- count for by " Natural Selection." Again, tlie difiiculty as to the heads of flat-fishes has been insisted on, as also the origin, and at the same time the constancy, of the limbs of the highest animals. Reference has also been made to the whalebone of whales, and to the impossibility of imder- standing its origin through "Natural Selection" only; the samoJis regards the infant kangaroo, with its singular defi- ciency of power compensated for by rpaternal structures on the one hand, to which its own breathing-organs bear direct relation on the other. Again, the delicate and complex pedicellari.'o of Echinoderms, with a certain process of dev^el- oi)ment (through a secondary larva) found in that class, 4 74 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. togellicr with certain otlicr ex('C})tioii5il nuules of develop- ment, have been brought forward. The development of color in certain apes, the hood of the cobra, and the rattle of the rattlesnake, have also been cited. Again, dilliculties as to the process of formation of the eye and car, and as to the fully-developed condition of those comj)lex organs, as well as of the voice, have been consideretl. The beauty of certain shell-fish ; the wonderful adaptations of structure, and variety of form and resemblance, found in orchids ; together with the complex habits and social conditions of certain ants, have been hastily passed in review. When all these complications are duly 'weighed and considered, and when it is borne in mind how necessary it is for the permanence of a new variety that 'many individuals in each case should be simultaneously modified, the cumulative argument seems irresistible. The author of this book can say that, though by no means disposed originally to dissent from the theory of "Natural Selection," if only its difliculties could be solved, he has found each successive year tliat deeper consideration and more careful examination have more and more brouirht home to him the inadequacy of Mr. Darwin's theory to ac- count for the preservation and intensification of incipient, specific, and generic characters. That minute, fortuitous, and indefinite variations could have brought about^ such sp(;- cial forms and modifications as have b(^en enumerateil in this chapter, seems to contradict not imagination, but reason. That either many individuals among a spe(;ies of butt(.'r- fly should be sinmltaneously j)reserved through a similar accidental and niiiuite variation in one definite direction, Avhen variations in many other directions would also pre- serve ; or that one or two so varying shoidd succeed in sup- planting the j)rogeny of thousands of other individuals, and that this should by no other cause be carried so far as to produce the appearance (as we have before stated) of spots ir.J INCIPIENT STRUCTURES. 75 of fungi, etc. — arc, alternatives of an iniprobal)iHty so ex- treme as to be practically equal to impossibility. In spite of all the resources of a fertile imagination, the Darwinian, pure and simple, is reduced to the assertion of a paradox as great as any he opposes. In the place of a mere assertion of our ignorance as to the way these phe- nomena have been produced, he brings forward, as their explanation, a cause which it is contended in this work is demonstrably insufficient. Of course in this matter, as elsewhere throughout Nature, we have to do with the operation of fixed and constant natural laws, and the knowledge of these may before long ])e()blain(Ml by human patience or human genius; but there is, it is believed, already enough evidence to show that these as yet unknown natural laws or law will never be resolved into the action of " Natural Selection," but will constitute or exemplify a mode and condition of organic action of which the Darwinian theory takes no account whatsoever. 7G THE GKNESIS OF SPKCIKS. '[Chap. CHAPTER III. THE COEXISTENCE OF CLOSELY-SIMILAR STRUCTURES OF DIVERSE ORIGIN. Chances apninst Concordant Vurliitlons. — Examples of Discordant Oiu-s. — ('oncordant Variations not unlikely on a non-Darwinian Evolutionary Hypothesis. — I'Licental and InipLicentjil Mammals. — IJirds and lieptiles. — Indei)endent Ori{,'in3 of Similar Sense Organs. — The Ear. — The Eye. — Other Coincidences. — Causes besides Natural Selection produco Concordant Variations in Certain CJeograiihluil Ket,'ion8.— ('auses besides Natural Selection i)roduco Concordant Variations in ('erUtin Zooloj^'icul and IJotauical Ci-oups. — There aru Homologous Parts not geiietlwilly related. — Harmony la respect of the Organic and Inorganic "Worlds. — Sumuioiy and Conclusion. The theory of " Natural Selection " supposes that tlie varied forms and structure of animals and j)lants have been built up merely hy indefinite, fortuitous,* minute variations in everj' part and in all directions — those variations only being j)reserved which are directly or indirectly usefid to tlie individual possessing them, or necessarily correlated with such useful variations. On this theory the chances are almost infinitely great against the independent, accidental occurrence and pres- ervation of two similar series of minute variations result- ing in the independent development of two closely-similar forms. In all cases, no doubt (on this same theory), sotne adaptation to habit or need would gradually be evolved, but that adaptation would surely be arrived at by dillerent roads. The organic world su])plies us with multitutles of ' By accidental variations Mr. Darwin does not, of course, mean to imply variatioua really due to " chance," bai to utterly indctcrmiuate antecedents. III.J INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTUKE. 77 exami^les of similar functional results being attained by the most diverse means. Thus the body is sustained in the air by birds and by bats. In the first case it is so sustained by a limb in wliich the bones of the hand are excessively reduced, but which is provided with immense outgrowths from the skin — namely, the feathers of the wing. In the second case, however, the body is sustained in the air by a limb in which the bones of the hand are enormously in- <^ ■\VlNO-nONES OF PTERODACTYL, BAT, ANT> niRD. {Copied^ htj permission, from 3fr. Aiidrew ,Vn7'rai/8 " Geographical Distribution 0/ Mammals^'') creased in length, and so sustain a great expanse of naked skin, which is the flying membrane of the bat's wing. Cer- tain fishes and certain reptiles can also flit and take very prolonged jumps in the air. The flying-fish, however, takes these by means of a great elongation of the rays of the pectoral fins — parts Avhich cannot be said to be of the same nature as the constituents of the wing of either the bat or the bird. The little lizard, which enjoys the formi- dable name of "flying-dragon," flits by means of a structure altogether peculiar — namel}', by the liberation and great elongation of some of the ribs which support a fold of skin. In the extinct pterodactyls — which were truhj flying rep- 78 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. tiles — we meet witli an approximation to the structure of the but, but in the pterodactyl we have only one finger elongated in each hand : a striking examj)le of how the very same function may be provided for by a modilicalion similar in principle, yet surely manifesting the indepen- dence of its origin. When we go to lower animals, we lind llight produced by organs, as the wings of insects, which are not even modilied limbs at all; or we find even the SKELETON OF THE FLYING-DBAOON. (Sho\\iDg the elongated ribs which support the flitting organ.) ^ function sometimes subserved by quite artificial means, as in the alirial spiders, which use their own threads to float with in the air. In the vegetable kingdom the atniosphere is often made use of for the scattering of seeds, by their l)cing furnished with special structures of very different kinds. The diverse modes by which such seeds are dis- persed are well expressed by Mr. Darwin. He says : ^ ••' " Origin of Species," 6th edit., p. 235. III.J INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 79 " Seeds firo disseminated by (heir minuteness — by their capsule ])eing' converted into a light balloon-Iikc envelope — l)y being (imbedded in pulp or flesh, formed of the most diverse parts, and rendered nutritious, as well as conspicu- ously colored, so as to attract and be devoured by birds — by having hooks and grapnels of many kinds and serrated awns, so as to adhere to the fur of quadrupeds — and by be- ing furnished with wings and plumes, as different in shape as elegant in structure, so as to be wafted by every breeze." Again, if we consider the poisoning apparatus pos- sessed by different animals, we find in serpents a perfo- rated — or, rather, very deeply-channelled — tooth. In wasps and bees the sting is formed of modified parts, accessory in reproduction. In the scorpion, we liave the median ter- minal process of the body specially organized. In the spider, we have a specially-constructed antenna ; and final- ly in the centipede a pair of modified thoracic limbs. A CENTirEDE. It would be easy to produce a multitude of such in- stances of similar ends being attained by dissimilar means, and it is here contended that by " the action of Natural so TIIK (JKNKSIS OF SPECIMS. [Ciiai'. Soleclion " onhj it is so iniprohable as to be practically im- possible for two exactly-similar structures to have ever been iudependently developed. It is so because the num- ber of possible variations is indefinitely great, and it is therefore an indefinitely great number to one against a similar series of variations occurring and being similarly preserved in any two independent instances. The dilliculty here asserted applies, however, only to pure Darwinism, \vhich makes use only of indirect modifi- cations through the survival of the fittest. Other theories (for example, that of Mr. Herbert Spen- cer) admit the direct action of conditions upon animals and j)lants — in ways not yet fully understood — there being con- ccivcKJ to be at the same time a certain pc^culiar but limited power of response and ada})tation in each animal and plant so acted on. Such theories have not to contend against the difhculty proposed, and it is here urged that even very comj)lex extremely similar structures have again and again been developed quite independently one of the other, and this because the j)rocess has taktiu place not by meri;ly haphazard, indefinite variations in all directions, but by tlie concurrence of some other and internal natural law or laws cooperating with external influences and with " Natural Selection" in the evolution of organic forms. It must never be forgotten that to admit any sucli con- stant operation of any such ludvuown natural cause is to deny the purely Darwinian theory, which relies upon the survival of the fittest by means of minute fortuitous indefi- nite variations. Anumg many other obligations which the author has to acknowledge to Prof. Huxley are, the pointing out of this very dilliculty, and tlie calling his attention to the striking resemblance between certain teeth of the dog and of the thylacine as one instance, and certain ornithic pe- culiarities of pterodactyls as another. III.] INDErENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 81 Mjitnmals' arc divisible into one great group, -which comprises the immense majority of kinds termed, from their mode of repTCKhxci'iou, j>lace7ital 3Iam,7nah^ and into nnoUicr very much smulhT group comprising the pouched- beasts or marsupials (wliich are the kangaroos, bandicoots, phalangers, etc., of Australia), and the true opossums of America, called imjylacental Ilanimals. Now, the ])laccn- tal mammals are subdivided into various orders, amonnr which are the flesh-eaters (Carniv^ora, i. e., cats, dogs, ot- ters, weasels, etc.), and the insect-eaters (Insectivora, i. c., moles, hedgehogs, shrew-mice, etc.). The marsupial mam- m.'ds also present a variety of forms (some of which are carnivorous beasts, while others are insectivorous), so marked that it has been even proposed to divide them into orders parallel to the orders of placental beasts. The resemblance, indeed, is so striking as, on Darwinian principles, to suggest the probability of genetic affinity ; and it even led Prof. Huxley, in his Hunterian Lectures, in 18GG, to promulgate the notion that a vast and widely-dif- fused marsupial fauna may have existed anteriorly to the TEEXn or UROTBIOnTIS AND TERAMELES development of the ordinary placental, non-pouched beasts, and that the carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous 3 I. c, warm-blooded animals which suckle their younp, such as apes, bats, hoofed beasts, lions, dogs, bears, weasels, rats, squirrels, armadillos, sloths, whales, porpoises, kangaroos, opossums, etc. 82 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. placentals may have respectively descended from the car- nivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous marsu])ials. Among otlier points Prof. Huxley called attention to the resemblance between the anterior molars of the placen- tal dog with those of the marsupial thylacine. These, in- deed, are strikingly similar, but there are better exam})les still of this sort of coincidence. Thus it has often been re- marked that the insectivorous marsupials, e. g., Pcnundc^^ wonderfully correspond, as to the form of certain of the grinding teeth, with certain insectivorous placentals, e. g., Urotrichus. Again, the saltatory insectivores of Africa [Macrosce- lides) not only resemble the kangaroo family [Jfacropodidtt) in their jumping habits and long hind-legs, but also in the structure of their molar teeth, and even further, as I have elsewhere * pointed out, in a certain similarity of the upper cutting teeth, or incisors. Now, these correspondences are the more striking when we bear in mind that a similar dentition is often put to very different uses. The food of different kinds of apes is very different, yet how uniform is their dental structure ! Again, who, looking at the teeth of different kinds of bears, would ever susj)ect that one kind was frugivorous, and another a devourer exclusively of animal food ? The suggestion made by Prof. Huxley was therefore one which had much to recommend it to ])arwinians, though it has not met with any notable acceptance, and though he seems himself to have returned to the older no- tion, namely, that the pouched-beasts, or marsupials, are a special ancient offshoot from the great mammalian class. But, whichever view may be the correct one, we have in either case a number of forms similarly modified in har- mony with surrounding conditions, and eloquently proclaim- ing some natural plastic power, other than mere fortuitous * " Journal of Anatomy and Physiology " (18G8), vol. ii., p. 139. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 83 variation with survival of tlio fittest. If, however, the reader tliiiiks that teeth are parts peculiarly qualifiecl for rapid variation (in which view the author cannot concur), he is re(piested to suspend his judgment till he has con- sidered the question of tlie independent evolution of the highest orrjaiis of sense. If this seems to establish the existence of some other law than tliat of " Natural Selec- tion," tlien the operation of that other law may surely be also traced in the liarmonious coordinations of dental form. Tiie other difficulty, kindly suggested to me by the learned professor, refers to the structure of birds, and of extinct reptiles more or less related to them. The class of birds is one which is remarkabl}'' uniform in its organization. So much is this the case, that the best mode ()f subdividing the class is a problem of the greatest diiriculty. Existing birds, however, present forms which, though closely resembling in the greater part of their struct- ure, yet differ importantly the one from the other. One form is exem[)lified by the ostrich, rliea, emeu, cassowary, apteryx, dinornis, etc. These are the struthious birds. All other existing birds belong to the second division, and arc called (from the keel on the breast-bone) carinate birds. Now, birds and reptiles have such and so many points in common that Darwinians must regard the former as modified descendants of ancient reptilian forms. But on Darwinian principles it is impossible that the class of birds so uniform and homogeneous should have had a double rep- tilian origin. If one set of birds sprang from one set of rep- tiles, and another set of birds from another set of reptiles, the two sets could never, by " Natural Selection " only, liave grown into such a perfect similarity. To admit such a j)henomenon would be equivalent to abandoning the theory of " Natural Selection " as the sole origin of species. Now, until recently it has generally been supposed by 84 TlIK GKNESrS OF SPECIES. [Chap. evolutionists tliat tliose ancient flying reptiles, the ptero- dactyls, or foriDS iillied to them, were the progenitors of the class of birds ; and certain parts of their structure espe- cially support this view. Allusion is here made to the blade-bone (scapula) and the bone which passes down from the shoulder-joint to the breast-bone (viz., the coracoid). These bones are such remarkable anticipations of the same parts in ordinary (i. e., carinate) birds that it is hardly pos- sible for a Darwinian not to regard the resemblance as due to community of origin. This resemblance was carefully pointed out by Prof. Huxley in his " Ilunterian Course " for 18G7, when attention was called to the existence in Dl- inorphodon inacromjx of even that small process which in birds gives attachment to the upper end of the merry- thought. Also Mr. Seeley * has shown that in pterodac- tyls, as in birds, the optic lobes of the brain were placed low down on each side — " lateral and depressed." Never- theless, the view has been put forward and ably maintained by the same professor,' as also by Prof. Cope in the United States, that the line of descent from reptiles to birds has not been from ordinary reptiles, through pterodactyl-like forms, to ordinary birds, but to the struthious ones from certain extinct reptiles termed Dinosauria ; one of the most familiarly known of which is the Iguanodon of the Weal- den formation. In these Dinosauria we find skeletal char- acters unlike those of ordinary (i. e., carinate) birds, but closely resembling in certain points the osseous structure of the struthious birds. Thus a difliculty presents itself as to the ex[)lanation of the three following relationships: (1) That of the Pterodactyls with carinate birds; (2) that * See "Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Ilist." for August, 1870, p. 140. ® See " Proceeilingd of the lioyul Institution," vol. v., part iv., p. 278 : Report of a Lecture delivered February 7, 1808. Also " (^uirterly Jour- nal of the Geological Society," February, 1870. "Contributions to the Anatomy and Taxonomy of the Dinosauria." ^^. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 85 of tlic Diiiosauria with striiihious birds; (3) that of the cariiiatc and struthious birds with each other. Either birds must have had two distinct origins whence they grew to their present conformity, or tlie very same skeletal, and probably cerebral characters, must have spon- taneously and independently arisen. Here is a dilemma, either horn of which bcnrs a threatening as})ect to the exclusive supporter of " Natural Selection," and between which it seems somewhat difficult to choose. It has been suggested to me that this difficulty may be evaded by considering pterodactyls and carinatc birds as independent branches from one side of an ancient common trunk, while similarly the Dinosauria and struthious birds arc tnken to be independent branches from the other side of the same common trunk ; the two kinds of birds resem- bling each other so much on account of their later develop- ment from that trunk as compared with the development of the reptilian forms. But to this it may be replied that the ancient common stock could not have had at one and the same time a shoulder structure of both kmds. It must have been that of the struthious birds or that of the c<^ri- nate birds, or something different from both. If it was that of the struthious birds, how did tlie pterodactyls and cari- nate birds independently arrive at the very same divergent structure? If it was that of the carinate birds, how did the struthious birds and Dinosauria independently agree to differ? Finally, if it was something different from cither, how did the carinate birds and pterodactyls take on inde- pendently one special common structure when disagreeing in so many ; while the struthious birds, agreeing in many points with the Dinosauria, agree yet more with the cari- nate birds ? Indeed, l)y no arrangement of branches from a stem can the difficulty be evaded. Prof. Huxley seems incHned ' to cut the Gordian knot ' "Trocccdings of Geological Society," November, 18G9, p. 38. 86 TIIK GENESIS OF SPECIES. [ClIAl by considering the shoulder structure of the pterodactyl as indej^endcntly educed, iind having relation to physiology only. This conception is one which harmonizes completely with the views here advocated, and with those of Mr. Her- bert Spencer, Avho also calls in direct modification to the aid of " Natural Selection." Tliat merely minute, indefmite variations in all directions should unaided have indej)cn- dently built up the shoulder structure of the plerodaclyls and carinate birds, and have laterally depressed their o])tic lobes, at a time so far back as the deposition of the Oolite THE AECiiEOPTEUYX (of the OoUtc struta). strata,* is a coincidence of the highest improbability ; but that an innate power and evolutionary law, aided by the corrective action of " Natural Selection," should have fur- nished like needs with like aids, is not at all improbable. The dilliculty does not tell against the theory of evolution, but only against the specially Darwinian form of it. Now, this form has never been expressly adopted by Prof. Huxley ; ^ The archeopteryx of the oolite has the true carinate shoulder struct- ure. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 87 SO far from it, in his lecture on tliis subject at the Royal Institution before referred to, he observes: • " I can testify, from personal experience, it is possible to have a comj^lete faith in the general doctrine of evolution, and yet to hesi- tate in accepting the Nebular, or the Uniformitarian, or the Darwinian hypotheses in all their integrity and ful- ness." It is quite consistent, then, in the professor to explain tlie difficulty as he does ; but it would not be similarly so witli an absolute and pure Darwinian. Yet stronger arguments of an analogous kind are, how- ever, to l)e derived from the liighest organs of sense. In the most perfectl3'-organized animals — tliosc, namel}', which, Hkc ourselves, possess a spinal column — the internal organs of hearing consist of two more or less complex membranous sacs (containing calcareous particles — otoliths), which are primitively or permanently lodged in two chambers, one on each side of the cartilaginous skull. The primitive cartila- ginous cranium supports and protects the base of the brain, and the auditory nerves pass from the brain into the cartila- ginous chambers to reach the auditory sacs. These com- plex arrangements of parts could not have been evolved by "Natural Selection," i. e., by minute accidental variations, except by the action of such through a vast period of time ; nevertheless, it was fully evolved at the time of the deposi- tion of the upper Silurian rocks. Cuttlefishes ( Cephalopoda) are animals belonging to the molluscous primary division of the animal kingdom, which division contains animals formed upon a type of structure utterly remote from that on which the animals of the higher division provided with a spinal column are construct- ed. And indeed no transitional form (tending even to bridge over the chasm between these two groups) has ever 9 <« P rroccedings of the Royal Institution," vol. v., p. 270. 88 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. yet been discovered, eitljer living or in a fossilized condi- tion.'" Nevertheless, in the two-gilled Cephalopods {JDibran- cJiiata) we iind the bruin supported and i)rotected by a car- tilaginous cranium. In the base of this cranium are two cartilaginous chambers. In each chamber is a membranous sac containing an otolith, and the auditory nerves pass from B CPTTLE-FISn. A. Ventral aspect. B. Dorsal aspect. the cerebral ganglia into the cartilaginous cliambers to reach the auditory sacs. Moreover, it has been suggested by Prof. Owen that sinuosities between processes projecting from the inner wall of each chamber "seem to be tiie hrst rudiments of those which, in the higher classes (i. e., in animals with a sjiinal column), are extended in the form of "^ Tills remark is niade witliout prejudice to possible aninities in the direetion of the Ascidians — an allinity which, if real, would be irrelevant to the question liere discussed. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 80 c.iiials and spiral cliatnbcrs, within the substance of the dense nidus of the hibyrinth." " Here, then, we have a wonderful coincidence indeed ; two highly-complex auditory organs, marvellousl}' similar in structure, but which must nevertheless have been devel- oped in entire and complete independence one of the other I It woidd be difTicult to calculate the odds against the indcjiendent occurrence and conservation of two such complex series of merely accidental and minute haphazard variations. And it can never be maintained that the sense of hearing could not be eflicicntly subserved otherwise than by snc^h sacs, in cranial cartilaginous capsules so situ- ated in rclalion to the [)rain, etc. Our wonder, moreover, may be increased when we recollect that the two-gilled cephalopods have not yet been found below the lias, where they at once abound ; whereas the four-gilled cephalopods are Silurian forms. Moreover, the absence is in this case significant in spite of the imper- fection of the geological record, because when we consider how many individuals of various kinds of four-gilled cej)hal- opods have been found, it is fair to infer that at the least a certain small percentage of cHbranchs would also have left traces of their presence had they existed. Thus it is probable that sotuc four-gilled form was the progenitor of the dil)ranch cephalopods. Now, the four-gilled kinds (judging from the only existing form, the nautilus) had the auditory organ in a very inferior condition of development to what we find in the dibranch ; thus we have not only evidence of the independent high development of the organ in the former, but also evidence pointing toward a certain degree of comparative rapidity in its development. Such being the case with regard to the organ of hear- ing, we have another yet stronger argument with regard to " " Lectures on llic Comp. Anat. of the Invertebrate Animnls," 2(1 edit., 1855, p. 619 ; and Todd's " Cyclopaedia of Anatomy," vol. i., p. 664. 90 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. the organ of sight, as lias been well pointed out by Mr. J. J. Mur])hy.'" lie eulls attention to the faet that tiie eye must have been perfected in at least " three distinct lines of descent," alluding not only to the molluscous division of the animal kingdom, and the division provided with a spinal colunm, but also to a third primary division, namely, that which includes all insects, spiders, crabs, etc., which are sj)oken of as Annulosa, and the type of whose structure is as distinct from that of the molluscous type on the one hand, as it is from that of the type with a spinal column (i. e., the vertebrate type) on the other. In the cuttle-fishes we find an eye even more complete- ly constructed on the vertebrate type than is the ear. Sclerotic, retina, choroid, vitreous humor, lens, atjueous hu- mor, all are i)re8ent. The correspondencie is wonderfully complete, and there can hardly be any hesitation in saying that for such an exact, prolonged, and correlated series of similar structures to have been brought about in two inde- pendent instances by merely indefinite and minute acci- dental variations, is an improbability which amounts prac- tically to imj)ossibility. Moreover, we have here again the same im})erfection of the four-gilled ceplialopod, as com- pared with the two-gilled, and therefore (if the latter pro- ceeded from the former) a similar indication of a certain comparative rapidity of development. Finally, and this is perhaps one of the most curious circumstances, the process of formation appears to have been, at least in some re- spects, the same in the eyes of these molluscous animals as in the eyes of vertebrates. For in these latter the cornea is at first perforated, while diflerent degree's of perforation of the same part are presented by difierent adult cuttle- fishes — large in the calamaries, smaller in the octopods, and reduced to a minute foramen in the true cuttle-fish sepia. " Sec "Ilabit and luteUigence," vol. i., p. 321. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STllUCTUUE. 91 Some may be disposed to object that the conditions ro(iuisitc for cnbcting vision arc so ri«rid tliat similar results in all cases nuist be independcMitly arrived at. Ikit to this objection it may well be replied that Nature herself has diMuonstrated that there is no such necessity as to the de- tails of tlic process. For in the higher Annulosa, such as the drngon-fl}'^, we meet with an eye of an unc^uestionably very high d("gree of efficiency, but formed on a type of structure only remotely comparable with that of the fish or the cephalopod. The last-named animal might have had an eye as eflicient as that of a vertebrate, but formed on a distinct type, instead of being another edition, as it were, of the very same structure. In the beginning of this chapter examples liave been given of the very diverse mode in which similar results have in many instances been arrived at; on the other hand, we have in the fish and the cephalopod not only the eye, but at one and the same time the ear also similarly evolved, yet with complete independence. Thus it is here contended that the similar and complex structures of ])oth the highest organs of sense, as developed in the vertebrates on the one hand, and in the mollusks on the other, present us with residuary phenomena for which " Natural Selection " alone is quite incompetent to account; and that these same phenomena must therefore be consid- ered as conclusive evidence for the action of some other natural law or laws conditioning the simultaneous and in- dependent evolution of these harmonious and concordant adnptati(ms. Provided with this evidence, it may be now profitable to enumerate other correspondences, which are not perhaps in themselves inexplicable by Natural Selection, but which are more readily to be explained by the action of the un- known law or laws referred to — which action, as its neces- sity has been demonstrated in one case, becomes ajyriori probable in the others. 0-> THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Thus the great oceanic Maininalia — tlie whales — sliow striking resenibhinces to those prodigious, extinct, marine 8KELKT0K OF AN ICUTUYOBAUBUS. reptiles, tlie Ichthyosauria, and this not only in structures readily referable to similarity of habit, but in such matters as greatly elongated premaxillary bones, together with the conceuhnent of certain bones of the skull by other cranial bones. Again, the aerial mammals, the bats, resemble those (ly- ing reptiles of the secondary epoch, the pterodactyls; not only to a certain extent in the breast-bone and mode of sup- porting the flying membrane, but also in the proportions of different parts of the spinal column and the hinder (pelvic) limbs Also bivalve shell-fish (i. e., creatures of the muscle, cockle, and oysttu* class, which receive their name from the body being ])rotected by a double shell, one valve of which is placed on each side) have their two shells united by one or two powerful muscles, which pass directly across from one shell to the other, and Avhich are termed " adductor muscles" because by their contraction they bring together the valves and so close the shell. Now there are certain animals which belong to the crab and lobster class (Crustacea) — a class constructed on an utterly different type from that on which the bivalve shell- fish are constructed — which present a very curious approxi- mation to both the form and, in a certain respect, the structure of true bivalves. Allusion is here made to certain III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTUKE. 93 small Crustacea — certain phjllopodg and ostracods — which have the liard outer coat of their thorax so modified as to look wonderfully like a bivalve shell, although its nature and composition are quite different. But this is by no means all — not only is there this external resemblance CYTIIERIDKA TOROBA. [An ostmcwl (Cnistaccan), externally like a bivalve shellfish (Lamellibranch).] between the thoracic armor of the crustacean and the bivalve shell, but the two sides of the ostracod and phyllo- pod thorax arc connected together also by an adductor muscle ! The pedicellarias of the echinus have been already spo- ken of, and the difTiculty as to their origin from minute, fortuitous, indefinite variations has been stated. But structures essentially similar (called avicularia, or " bird's- head processes") are developed from the surface of the compound masses of certain of the highest of the pol}'])- like animals (viz., the Polyzoa or, as they are sometimes called, the Bryozoa). These compound animals have scattered over the surface of their bodies minute ])rocesses, each of which is like the 94 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [ClIAI' head of a bird, with an upper and lower heak, the wliole supported on a slender neck. The beak opens and shxits at intervals, like the jaws of the pedicellaria3 of the echi- nus, and there is altogether, in general principle, a remark. A POLTZOON WITH OIBD's-HEAD I'BOCESSES. able similarity between the structures. Yet the echiiuis can have, at the best, none but the most distant genetic relationship with the Polyzoa. We have here again. III.J INDI'U'ENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTUKE. 95 tlicrcforc, complex and similar organs of diverse and inde- pendent origin. bird'b-uead processes vert gkeatlt enlarged. In tlie highest class of animals (the Mammalia) we have almost always a placental mode of reproduction, i. e., the hlood of the fcKtns is placed in nutritive relation with the Mood of the mother by means of vascular prominencCvS. No trace of such, a structure exists in any bird or in an}' reptile, and yet it crops out again in certain sharks. There indeed it might well be supposed to end, but, marvellous as it seems, it reappears in very lowly creatures ; namely, in certain of the ascidians, somethnes called tunicaries or sea-squirts. Now, if we were to concede that the ascidians were the common ancestors '^ of both these sharks and of the higher mammals, we should be little, if any, nearer to an explana- tion of the phenomenon by means of " Natural Selection," for in the sharks in question the vascular prominences arc developed from one foetal structure (the umbilical vesicle), while in the the higher mammals they are developed from quite another part, viz., the allantois. • So great, however, is the number of similar, but ap- parently independent structures, that wp suffer from a per- f(;ct emharran do richesses. Thus, for example, we have the convoluted windpipe of the sloth, reminding us of the condition of the windpipe in birds; and in another mammal, '^ A viow roconily propoiindod by'Kownlewsky. 96 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap allied to the sloth, iiainel}', the great ant-eater (Myrme- cophaga), we have again an ornithic ciiaracter in its hornj' gizzard-like stomach. In man and the liighest apes the caiciun has a vermiform ap])endix, as it has also in the wombat 1 Upper Figure — Antechincs minctissimus {imjdacental). Lower Fij,'ure — Mua delioatulub (plueeiital). Also the similar forms presented by the crowns of the teeth in some seals, in certain sharks, and in some extinct Oetacea, niay be referred to; as also the similarity of the beak in birds, some reptiles, in the tad])ole, and cuttle- fishes. As to entire external form, may be adduced the wonderful similarity between a true mouse [Mtis dellcata- lus) and a small marsuj)ial, pointed out by Mr. Andrew in.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. 97 IMurraj in liis work on ilic " Geographical Distributions of Mammals," j). 53, and represented in the frontispiece by figures copied from Gould's "Mammals of Australia;" but instances enough for the present j^urpose have been already quoted. Additional reasons for believing that similarity of struct- ure is ))roduced by other causes than merely by " Natural Selection " are furnished by certain facts of zoological geography, and by a similarity in the mode of variation being sometimes extended to several species of a genus, or even to widely-diHcreht groups ; while the restriction and tlie limitation of such similarity are often not less remarkable. Thus Mr. ^^^allacc saj's,'* as to local influence : "Larger or smaller districts, or even single islands, give a special chiiractcr to the majority of their Papilionidno. For in- stance: 1. The species of the Indian region (Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) are almost invariably smaller than the allied species inhabiting Celebes and the Moluccas. 2. The species of New Guinea and Australia are also, though in a less degree, smaller than the nearest species or varieties of the Moluccas. 3. In the Moluccas themselves the species of Amboyna are the largest. 4. The species of Celebes equal or even surpass in size those of Amboyna. 6. The species and varieties of Celebes possess a striking charac- ter in the form of the anterior wings, different from that of the allied species and varieties of all the surrounding islands. G. Tailed species in India or the Indian region be- come tailless as they spread eastward through the Archi- pelago. 7. In Amboj^na aiul Ceram the femides of several species are dull-colored, while in the adjacent islands they are more brilliant." Again : '' " In Amboyna and Ceram the female of the large and handsome Ornithoptera Jleleim has a large patcli on the hind-wings constantly of a pale dull ochre or buff color; while in the scarcely distinguish- '« "Niltiiral Soloctloii," p. 107. " Ibid., p. 173. 5 98 TIIK CKNKSIS OF SPKCIES. [Cuai'. able varieties from Ihc adjacent islands, of Bonru and New Guinea, it is of a golden yellow, hardly inferior in brilliancy to its color in the male sex. The female of OrnltJioptcra I^ianuts (inhabiting Amboyna and Ceram exclusively) is of a pale dusky-brown tint, while in all the allied species the same sex is nearly black, with eonlra(;ted white mark- ings. As a third example, the female of l\q>ilio XJlysses has the blue color obscured by dull and dusky litits, while in the closely-alUed species from the sunounding islands, the faendes are of almost as brilliant an azure blue as the males. A ])arallel case to this is the occurrence, in the small islands of Goram, ]\bitabello, Ke, and Aru, of several distinct species of Eupla'a and Diadema, having broad bands or patches of white, which do not exist in any of the allied species from the larger islands. These facts seem to indicate some local inlluence in modifying ccjlor, us unintelligible and almost as remarkable as that which has resulted in the modifications of form previously de- scribed." After endeavoring to explain some of the facts in a way to be noticed directly, Mr. ^yallace adds : ^° " But even the conjectural explanation now given fails us in the other cases of local modilication. ANHiy the species of the Western Islands should be snuiller than those farther east; whv those of Amboyna should exceed in size those of Gilolo and New Guinea ; why the tailed species of India should begin to lose that appendage in the islands, and retain no trace of it on the borders of the Pacific; and why, in three separate cases, the females of Amboyna species should be less gayly attired than the corresponding females of the sur- rounding islands, are questions which we cannot at })resent attempt to answer. That they depend, however, on some general principle is certain, because analogous facts have been observed in other parts of the woild. !Mr. Bates in- "5 "Natural Selection," p. 177. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STHUCTURE. 99 forms me that, in three distinct groups, Papilios, which, on tlic Upper Amazon, and in most other parts of South America, have spotless upper wings, obtain pale or white spots at Par/i and on tlie Lower Amazon, and also that the yEneas group of Papilios never have tails in the equatorial regions and the Amazon vallcj'^, but gradually acquire tails in many cases as they range toward the northern or southern tropic. Even in Europe we have somewhat similar facts, for the species and varieties of butterflies peculiar to the Island of Sardinia are generally smaller and more deeply colored than those of the main-land, and the same has been recently shown to be the case witli the common tortoise- shcll butterfly in Ihc Isle of Man ; while Papillo J[of^piton^ peculiar to the former island, has lost the fail, which is a prominent feature of the closely-allied 1\ Machaon. " Facts of a similar nature to those now broujrht for- ward would no doubt be found to occur in other groups of insects, were local faunas carefully studied in relation to those of the surrounding countries ; and they seem to indi- cate that climate and other jihj'sical causes have, in some cases, a very powerful elTect in modifying specific form and color, and thus directly aid in producing the endless Variety of nature." With regard to butterflies of Celebes belonging to dif- ferent families, they present " a peculiarity of outline which distinguishes them at a glance from those of any other part of the world : " " it is that the upper wings are generally more elongated and tlie anterior margin more curved. Moreover, there is, in most instances, near the base, an abru[)t bend or elbow, which in some species is very con- spicuous. Mr. Wallace endeavors to explain this phenoine- non by the supposed presence at some time of special per- secutors of the modified forms, supporting the Ojiinion by the remark that small, obscure, very rapidly flying and mim- " " Malay Archipelago," vol. i., p. 430. 100 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. . [CiiAr. icked kinds have not had the wing modified. Such an ene- my occasioning increased i:)Owers of iliglit, or rapidity in 0DTLINE8 OP WINOS OP BUTTEBFLIES OF CELEBES COMPABED WITH THOSE OF ALLIED U1>ECIK3 KmEWilEUE. Outer outlino, Papilio giyoti, of Colcbca. Inner oiitlluo, P. deinollon, of Blnfjaporo and Juva. — 2. Outer outliiu', I', milctun, of (/'ulchua. Inner outlino, /'. Hiirpedoii India. — 3. Outer outline, Tadii/rU zcirinda^ Celebes. Inner outlino, T. nero. turning, he adds, " one would naturally suppose to be an insectivorous bird ; but it is a remarkable fact that most of the genera of fly-catchers of Borneo and Juva on ihe one III.] INDKrENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STIIUCTUUE. 101 side, and of the Moluccas on tlie other, are ahnost entirely absent from Celebes. Their place seems to be supplied by the caterpillar-catchers, of which six or seven species are known from Celebes, and are very numerous in individuals. Wc have no positive evidence that these birds j)ursue but- terflies on the wing, but it is highly probable that they do so when other food is scarce. Mr. Bates suggested to me that the larger dragon-flies prey upon butterflies, but I did not notice that they were more abundant in Celebes than elsewhere." ** Now, every opinion or conjecture of Mr. Wallace is worthy of respectful and attentive consideration, but the explanation suggested and before referred to hardly seems a satisfactory one. What the past fauna of Celebes may liave been is as yet conjectural. Mr. Wallace tells us that now there is a remarkable scarcity of fly-cat BIRD OF PARADIBIS. yet unobserved) means of preservation. But it is neverthe- less remarkable, not so much that on(; species shouhl mimic, as that no less than four should do so in diHerent ways and degrees, all these four belonging to one and the same genus. In other cases, however, there is not even the help of protective action to account for the phenomenon. Thus we have the wonderful birds of Paradise," which agree in de- ^* See "Malay Archipelago," vol. ii., chap, xxxviii. III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTUKE. 105 veloping plumage imcquallcd in beauty, but a beauty wliicli, as to details, is of different kinds, and produced in different Avays in different species. To develop "beauty and singularity of plumage " is a character of the group, but not of any one definite kind, to be explained merely by inheritance. Again, we have the very curious horned flies," which THE LONO-TAILED niUD OF rARAPISE. agree indeed m a common peculiarity, but in one singularly different in detail, in different species, and not known to have any protecting effect. Among plants, also, we meet with the same peculiarity. The great group of Orchids presents a number of species S6 Loc. cit., p. 3H. 106 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. THE RhD UIKD OF PARADlHt:. whicli olTcr strange and bizarre aj)j)rox- inialions to dillcr- cnt animal Ibrins, and Avliidi liave often the appear- ance of cases of mimicry, as it were in an incipient stage. The nnniber of siinihir instances which conld be brought fur\\artl from among ani- mals and ])lants is vtiry great bnt the examj)les given are, Ul.J INDEPENDENT SlMILAIilTlES OF STRUCTURE. 107 it is liojicd, .'nTij)ly sunicient to point toward tlic conclusion which other facts will, it is thought, establish, viz., that nOKNED KLIKS. there arc causes operatin£r (in the evocation of these har- monious diverging resemblances) other than "Natural Se- THR MAGNIFICENT nmO OF rAEAmSE. Icclion," or liercdity, and other even than merely gcograi)h- ical, climatal, or any sini])ly external conditions. 108 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciui-. Many cases liave been adduced of strikiiirr likenesses between dinbrent animals, not due to inheritance; but this should be the less surprising, in that the very same indi- vidual presents us with likenesses between dill'erent parts of its body (e. g., between the several joints of the back- bone), which are certainly not so explicable. This, how- ever, leads to a rather large subject, wiiich will be s})oken of in the eighth chapter of the present work. Here it will be enough to allirm (leaving the proof of the assertion till later) that parts are often liomologous which have no di- rect genetic relationship — a fact which harmonizes well with the other facts here given, but which " Natural Se- lection," pure and simple, seems unable to explain. But surely the independent appearance of similar or- ganic forms is what we might expect, a j^i'^orl^ from the independent appearance of similar inorganic ones. As Mr. G. II. Lewes well observes:^* " We do not suppose the (;ar- bonates and phosphates found in various parts of the globe — we do not suppose that the families of alkaloids and salts have any nearer kinship than that which consists in the similarity of their elements, and the conditions of their combination. Hence, in organisms, as in salts, morpho- logical identity may be due to a comnumily of casual con- nection, rather than conununity of descent. "Mr. Darwin justly holds it to be incredible that indi- viduals identically the same should have been produced through Natural Selection from parents specl/icallij dis- tinct^ but he will not deny that identical forms may issue from parents genetically distinct^ when these parent forms and the conditions of production are identical. To deny this would be to deny the law of causation." Prof. Huxley has, however, suggested ^^ that such min- eral identity may be explained by ap})lying also to minerals 26 Fortnightly Review, New Series, vol. iii. (April, 18G8), p. 3*72. " " Lay Sermons," p. 339, III.] INDEPENDENT SIMILARITIES OF STRUCTURE. IQO a law of (loscciit; tliat is, by considering such similar forms as the descendants of atoms which inhabited one special part of the j)rimitive nebular cosmos, each considerable space of which may be supposed to have been under the influence of somewhat different conditions. Surely, however, there can be no real parity between the relationship of existing minerals to nebular atoms, and the relationship of existing animals and plants to the ear- liest organisms. In the first place, the latter have pro- duced others by generative multiplication, which mineral atoms nev^er did. In the second, existing animals and plants spring from the living tissues of preceding animals and plants, while existing minerals spring from the chemi- cnl afTinity of separate elements. Carbonate of soda is not formed, by a j)rocess of reproduction, from other carbonate of soda, but directly by the suitable juxtaposition of car- bon, oxygen, and sodium. Instead of approximating animals and minerals in the mode suggested, it may be that they arc to be approx- imated in quite a contrary fashion ; namely, by attributing to mineral species an internal innate power. For, as we must attribute to each elementary atom an innate power and tendency to form (under the requisite external con- ditions) certain unions with other atoms, so we may at- tribute to certain mineral species — as crystals — an innate power and tendency to exhibit (the proper conditions being suj)plicd) a definite and symmetrical external form. The distinction between animals and vegetables on the one hand, and minerals on the other, is that, while in the or- ganic world close similarity is the result sometimes of in- heritance, sometimes of direct production independently of parental action, in the inorganic world the latter is the constant and only mode in which such similarity is jiro- duced. When wc come to consider the relations of species to 110 TIIK GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. space — in other words, the geograj)hicjil distribution of organisms — it will be necessar}'^ to return somewhat to the subject of the independent origin of ch^sely-similar forms, in reirard to which some additional remarks will be found toward the end of the seventh chapter. In this third chapter an effort has been made to show that while on the Darwinian theory concordant variations are extremelj'^ improbable, yet Nature ])resents us with abundant examj)les of such ; the most striking of which are, jierhaps, the higher organs of sense. Also that an im- portant influence is exercised by conditions connected with geographical distribution, but that a deeper-seated influence is at work, which is hinted at by those special tendencies in definite directions, which are the properties of certain groups. Finally, that these facts, when taken together, afford strong evidence that "Natural Selection" has not been the exclusive or predominant cause of the various or- ganic structural peculiarities. This conclusion has also been reiinforced by the consideration of jjlienomena pre- sented to us b}' the inorganic world. IV.] MINUTE MODIFICATIONS. m CHAPTER IV. MINUTE AND GRADUAL MODIFICATIONS. Thorc^nrc DifnctiUios ns to Minuto Modificntlons, ercn if not fortuitous. — Examples of Huddon nrul ConsidoraMo Monl)yrinthodont. — roKo.— Otncen.— .\h to Orlfjln of IMrtl's Wing.— Tendril.s of Cliinl)lnt,' rinnt.**.— Aniiiifils onro supposed to bo Connectlnp LInk.i. — Ktirly Ppoelnll/jition of Structure. — Africmuchenln. — (jlypto8 Ibid., p. 807. IV.] MINUTE MODIFICATIONS. 1x7 yd that thoy show no inclination to become truly " rudi- mentary structures." Accordingly he asserts " that such rudimentary parts are formed "suddenly by arrest of de- velopment " in domesticated animals, but in wild animals slowly. Tlie latter assertion, however, is a me7'e assertion ; necessary, perhaps, for the theory of " Natural Selection," but as yet unj)roved by facts. J3ut why should not these changes take place suddenly in a state of nature? As Mr. Murjihy says," " Jt may l)e true that we have no evidence of the origin of wild species in this way. But this is not a case in which negative evi- dence proves any thing. We have never witnessed the origin of a wild species by any process whatever; and if a species were to come suddenly into being in the wild state, as the Ancon Sheep did under domestication, how could you ascertain the fact? If the first of a newly-begotten species were found, the fact of its discovery would tell nothing about its origin. Naturalists would register it as a very rare species, having been only once met with, but they would have no means of knowing wdiether it were the first or the last of its race." 'Vo this Mr. Wallace has replied (in his review of Mr. Murphy's work in JVafttre^^), by objecting that sudden chajiges could very rarely be useful, because each kind of animal is a nicely-balanced and adjusted whole, any one sudden modification of which would in most cases be hurt- ful unless accompanied by other simultaneous and harmoni- ous modifications, Tf, however, it is not unlikelv that there is an innate tendency to deviate at certain times, and under certain conditions, it is no more unlikely that that innate tendency should be a harmonious one, calculated to simul- taneously adjust the various parts of the organism to their " "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 318. 5" " Habit and Intellifrcnce," vol. i., p. 344. 5' See December 2, 18(50, vol. i., p. 132. 118 THE GExNESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. new relations. Tlie objection as to the sudden abortion of rudimentary organs may be similarly met. Prof. Huxley seems now disposed to accei)t the, at least occasional, intervention of sudden and considerable varia- tions. In his review of Prof. KoUiker's'^"^ criticisms, he MUOM ENLAn'JED HORIZONTAL SECTION OF THE TOOTH OF A I.AUYRINTIIODON. himself says, "" We greatly suspect that she" (i. o., Na- ture) "does make consideiable jumps in ilio way of varia- tion now and then, and Ihat these saltations give rise to ** " O'bcr die Parwin'schc SelKipfunf^stlicorie : " eiii Vortrac^, von Kiillikcr; Leipzi-,', 18t>l. ''•' Se;i " Lay Sennons," p. 31ii. IV.) MINUTE MODIFICATIOXS. 119 some of llio g.'ips which appear to exist in the series of known forms." In addition to the instances brought forward in the second chapter against the minute action of Natural Selec- tion, may be mentioned such structures as the wonderfully folded teeth of the labyrinthodonts. The marvellously com- plex structure of these organs is not merely unaccountable as due to " Natural Selection," but its production by insig- nificant increments of complexity is hardly less dillicult to comprehend. Similarly the aborted index of the Potto [Perodicticiis) is a structure not likely to have been induced by minute changes; wliile, as to "Natural Selection," the reduction of the fore-lingc^r to a mere rudiment is inexplicable in- deed I " How this mutilation can have aided in the strug- HAND OF TUB POTTO (PERODICTICUR), FROM LIFE. gle for life, we must confess, bani<\s our co!ijecturcs on the subject ; for that any very appreciable gain to the individual can have resulted from the slightly-lesseired degree of re- quired nourishment thence resulting (i. e., from the suppres- sion), seems to us to be an almost absurd proposition."" Again, to anticipate somewhat, the great group of whales (Cetacea) was fully developed at the deposition of the Eocene strata. On the other hand, we may pretty safely conclude that these animals were absent as late as '■^ *' Anatomy of the Lcmuroidca," by James Muric, M. D., and St. George Mivart. Trana. Zool. 80c., Marcli, 18G0, p. 01 / 120 THE GENESIS OF SrECIES. [Chai'. the latest sccondury rocks, so tliat their developineut could not have been so very blow, unless geological time is (al- though we shall j^resenlly see there are grounds to believe it is not) practically inilnite. It is quite true that it is, iu general, very unsafe to infer the absence of any animal forms during a certain geological i)eriotl, because no re- mains of them have as yet been found in the strata then de- posited : but in the case of the Cetacea it is safe to do so ; for, as Sir Charles Lyell remarks,'' they are animals, the re- mains of which are singularly likely to have been preserved had they existed, in the same way that the remains were J^"^' BKELETON OF A PLESIOBAVBCB. preserved of the Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri, which ap- pear to have represented the Cetacea during the secondary geological period. As another example, let us take the origin of wings, such as exist in birds. Here we find an arm, the bones of the baud of which are atrophied and reduced in number, as compared with those of most other Vcrt(ibrat(is. Now, if the wing arose from a terrestrial or subaOrial organ, this abortion of the bones could hardly hav(; been scrvi(;(Md)l(; — hardly have j)rcserved individuals iu the struggle for life. If it arose from an aquatic organ, like the wing of the pen- guin, we have then a singular divergence from the ordinary 25 ," p. 147. The untimely death, through a dis5ecting wound, of this most promising young naturalist, was a very great loss to zoological science. 138 TUE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. It remains now to notice in favor of specific stability, that the objection drawn from physiological difference be- tween "species" and "races" still exists mnefuted. Mr. Darwin freely admits dilliculties regarding the ste- rility of different species when crossed, and shows satis- factorily that it could never have arisen from the action of " Natural Selection." He remarks " also : " With some few exceptions, in the case of plants, domesticated varieties, such as those of the dog, fowl, pigeon, several fruit-trees, and culinary vegetables, which diller from each other in ex- ternal characters more than many species, are perfectly fer- tile when crossed, or even fertile in excess, while closely- allied species are almost invariably in some degree sterile." Again, after speaking of " the general law of good being derived from the intercrossing of distinct individuals of the same species," and the evidence of the j)ollen of a distinct variety or race is prepotent over a flower's own pollen, adds the very significant remark, ** " When distinct species are crossed, the case is directly the reverse, for a jilant's own pollen is almost always prepotent over foreign pollen." Again he adds : " "I believe from observations commu- nicated to me by Mr. Hewitt, who has had great exp(;rience in hybridizing j)heasants and fowls, that the early death of the em])ryo is a very frequent cause of sterility in first crosses. Mr. Salter has recently given the results of an examination of about five hundred eggs produ(jed from various crosses between three sj^ecies of Gallus and their hybrids. The majority of these eggs had been fertilized, and in the ma- jority of the fertilized eggs the emluyos "eitiier had been partially developed and had then aborted, or had become nearly mature, but the young chickens had been unable to break through the shell. Of the chickens which were bori», '' "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 189, '8 "Orijriu of Species," 5tli edit., 180'.), p. 115. 13 Ibid., p. 322. v.] SPECIFIC STABILITY. I39 more than four-fifths died within tho first few days, or at latest weeks, ' without any obvious cause, apparently from mere inabihty to live,' so that from five liundred eggs only twelve chickens were reared. The early death of hybrid eml)ryos probably occurs in like manner mtli plants, at least it is known that hybrids raised from very distinct species arc sometimes weak and dw^arfed, and j)crish at an early age, of whicli fact Max Wichura has recently given some striking cases with hybrid willows." Mr. Darwin objects to the notion that there is any special sterility imposed to check specific intermixture and cliangc, saying,"" " To grant to species the special power of jModucing liyl)ri(ls, and then to stop tlicir further propa- gation by difiercnt degrees of sterility, not stri(;tly related to the facility of the first union between their parents, seems a strange arrangement." But this only amounts to saying that the author him- self would not have so acted had he been the Creator. A " strange arrangement " must be admitted anyhow, and all who acknowledge teleology at all, must admit that the strange arrangement was designed. Mr. Darwin says, as to the sterility of species, that the cause lies exclusively in their sexual constitution; but all that need be afiirmed is that sterility is brought about somehow, and it is undenia- ble that " crossing" is checked. All that is contended for is that there is a bar to the intermixture of species, but not of breeds ; and if the conditions of the generative products arc that bar, it is enough for the aigument, no special kind of barring action being contended for. He, however, attempts to account for the modification of the sexual products of species as compared with those of varieties, by the exposure of the former to more uniform conditions during longer periods of time than those to which varieties are exi)osed, and (hat as wild animals, when cap- 20 "Origin of Species," 5th edit., 1809, p. 314. 140 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. tured, are often rendered sterile ])y captivity, so the influ- ence of union with another species may produce a similar effect. It seems to the author an unwarrantable assump- tion that a cross with what, on the Darwinian theory, can only be a slightly-diverging descendant of a common par- ent, should produce an effect equal to that of captivity, and consequent change of habit, as well as considerable modification of food. No clear case has been given by Mr. Darwin in which mongrel animals, descended from the same undoubted spe- cies, have been persistently infertile i?ite)' se / nor any clear case in which hybrids between animals, generally admitted to be distinct species, have been continually fertile inter se. It is true that facts are brought forward tending to establish the probability of the doctrine of Pallas, that spe- cies may sometimes be rendered fertile by domestication. But even if this were true, it would be no approximation toward proving the converse, i. e., that races and varieties may become sterile when wild. And whatever may be the preference occasionally shown by certain breeds to mate with their own variety, no sterility is recorded as resulting from unions with other varieties. Indeed, Mr. Darwin le- marks,'" "With respect to sterility fiom the crossing of domestic races, I know of no well-ascertained case with ani- mals. This fact (seeing the great difference in structure between some breeds of pigeons, fowls, pigs, dogs, etc.) is extraordinary when contrasted with the sterility of many closely-allied natural species when crossed." It has been alleged that the domestic and wild guinea- pig do not breed together, but the spcjcilic identity of these forms is very problematical. Mr. A. D. 15artlett, superin- tendent of the Zoological Gardens, whose experience is so great, and observation so quick, believes them to be de- cidedly distinct species. ^^ " Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 104. v.] SPECIFIC STABILITY. 141 Tlma, tlicn, it seems that a certain normal specific sta- bility in Kpecios, accompanied hy occasional sudden and considerable modifications, miglit be expected a priori from what we know of crystalline inorganic forms and from what we may anticipate with regard to the lowest organic ones. This presumption 13 strengthened by the knowledge of the increasing di/Ticnlties which l:>eset any attempt to indefinitely intensify any race characteristics. The obsta- cles to this indefinite intensification, as well as to certain lines of variation in certain cases, appear to be not only external, but to depend on internal causes or an internal cause. We have seen that Mr. D.'irvvin himself implicitly admits the principle of specific stability in asserting the singular inflexibility of the organization of the goose. We have also seen that it is not fair to conclude that all wild races can vary as much as the most variable domestic ones. It has also been shown that there are grounds for believing in a tendency to reversion generally, as it is distinctly pres- ent in certain instances. Also that specific stability is con- firmed by the j)hysiological obstacles which oppose them- selves to any considerable or continued intermixture of species, while no such barriers oppose themselves to the blending of varieties. All these considerations taken to- gether may fairly be considered as strengthening the belief that specific manifestations are relatively stable. At the same time the view advocated in this book does not depend upon, and is not identified with, any such stability. All that the author contends for is that specific manifestation takes place along certain lines, and according to law, and not in an exceedingly minute, indefinite, and fortuitous manner. Finally, he cannot but feel justified, from all that has been brought forward, in reiterating the open- ing assertion of this chapter that something is still to be said for the view which maintains that species are stable, at least in the intervals of their comparatively rapid suo cossive manifestations. H2 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. JChap. CHAPTER VI. SPECIES AND TIME. \ Two IJelations of Species to Time. — No Kvidence of Tast Existence of Minutely- iiiteniieiliatu Forms when such might bo expoctcd a priori. — Hats, I'toioduc- tyis, DiiiosaurLi, and IJirds. — Ichthyosauria, Ciiolouia, and Anoura. — llwse An- cestry. — Ijibyrinthodonts and Tiiiohitcs. — Twy Subdivisions of the Second lida- tion of Species to 'lime. — Sir William Tiiomson's Views. — rrobable Period re- qiiin;d fur Ultimate Sitecillo JCvolnlion from Primitive Ancestral Forms. — (Jeo- nu'trical Ijicrease of 'I'lme re2. * Ibid., p. 793. VI. 1 SPECIES AND TIME. I49 with more and more complete segmentation and ossifica- tion of the backbone, which, in the earliest forms, w\is (as it is in the lowest fishes now) a soft, continuous rod or Tnii.oniTE. notocliord. Now, however, it is considered probable that the soft backboned Labyrinthodon Archegosaurus was an immature or larval form,^ while Labyrinthodon ts, with com- plet(^ly developed vertcbrrc, have been found to exist among the very earliest forms yet discovered. The same may be said regarding the eyes of the trilobites, some of the oldest forms having been found as w^ell furnished in that respect as the very last of the group which has left its remains ac- cessible to observation. Such instances, however, as well as the way in which marked and special forms (as the Pterodactyls, etc., before referred to) appear at once in and similarly disappear from the geological record, are of course explicable on the Dar- winian tiieory, provided a sufficiently enormous amount of past time be allowed. Tlie alleged extreme, and probably great, imperfection of that record may indeed be pleaded in excuse. But it is an excuse." Nor is it possible to deny ' As a tadpole is the larval form of a frog. ^ Afl Prof. TTnxloy, with his characteristic candor, fully admitted in his lecture on the Dinosauria before referred to. 150 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. the a priori probability of the preservation of at least a few mlnutelt/ transitional forms in some instances if ever)/ species without exception has arisen exclusively by sucli minute and gradual transitions. It remains, then, to turn tto the other considerations with regard to the relation of species to time: namely (1), as to the total amount of time allowable by other sciences for organic evolution ; and (2) the proportion existing, on Darwinian j)rinci})les, between the time anterior to the ear- lier fossils, and the time since ; as evidenced by the pro- portion between the amount of evolutionary change during the latter epoch and that which must have occurred ante- riorly. Sir William Thomson has lately ' advanced arguments from three distinct lines of inquiry, and agreeing in one ap- proximate result. The three lines of incpjiry were — 1. The action of the tides upon the earth's rotation. 2. The prob- able length of time during which the sun has illuminated this planet ; and 3. Tiie temperature of the interior of the earth. The result arrived at by these investigations is a conclusion that the existing state of things on the eartli, life on the earth, all geological history showing continuity of life, must be limited within some such pt;riod of })ast time as one hundred million years. Tiie ilrst question which suggests itself, supposing Sir W. Thomson's views to be correct, is. Is this period any thing like enough for the evolution of all organic forms by "Natural Selection ?" The second is. Is this i)eriod any thing like enough for tlie disposition of the strata whicli nuist have been deposited if all organic forms have been evolved by minute steps, ac- cording to the Darwinian theory ? In the first place, as to Sir William Thomsom's views, the author of this book cannot j^resume to advance any opin- ion ; but the fact that they have not been refuted, pleads ' " Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow," vol. iii. VI.] SPECIES AND TIME. 151 strongly in their favor when we consider liow much they tell against the theory of Mr. Darwin. The last-named author only remarks that " many of the elements in the cal- culation are more or less doubtful." " and Prof. Huxley " does not attempt to refute Sir W. Thomson's arguments, but only to show cause for suspense of judgment, inasmuch as the facts may he capable of other explanations. Mr. Wallace, on the other liand," seems more disposed to accept them, and, after considering Sir William's objec- tions and those of Mr. Croll, puts the probable date of the beginning of the Cambrian deposits '' at only twenty-four million years ago. On the other hand, he seems to consid- er that specific change has been more rapid than generally supposed, and exceptionally stable during the last score or so of thousand years. Now, first, with regard to the time required for the evo- lution of all organic forms by merely accidental, minute, and fortuitous variations, the useful ones of which have been preserved. Mr. Murphy '* is distinctly of opinion that there has not been time enough. He says : " I am inclined to think that geological time is too short for the evolution of the higher forms of life out of the lower by that accumulation of im- perceptibly slow variations, to which alone Darwin as- cribes the whole process." " Darwin justly mentions the greyhound as being equal to any natural species in the perfect coordination of its parts, * all adaj)t(Hl for extreme fleetness and for running down weak prey.' " " Yet it is an artificial species (and not physiologically a species at all)^ formed by long-con- '0 " Origin of Species," 5th edit., p. 354. J' Sec his address to the Geological Society, on February 19, 1869. '2 See Nature, vol. i., p. 399, February 17, 1870. '•'' Ibid., vol. i., p. ATy{. '* " Habit and Intelligence," vol. i., p. 344. 152 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. . [Chap. tinued selection under domestication; and there is no reason to suppose tliat any of the variations whicli liave been selected to form it have been other than gradual and almost imperceptible. Suppose that it has taken five hun- dred years to form the greyhound out of l»is wolf-like an- cestor. This is a mere guess, but it gives the order of the magnitude." Now, if so, " how long would it take to ob- tain an elephant from a protozoon, or even from a tadpole- like fish ? Ought it not to take much more than a million times as long? "" Mr. Darwin " would compare with the natural origin of a species " unconscious selection, that is, the preservation of the most useful or beautiful animals, with no intention of modifying the breed." He adds : " But by this process of unconscious selection, various breeds have been sensibly changed in the course of two or three centuries." " Sensibly changed ! " but not formed into " new spe- cies." Mr. Darwin, of course, could not mean that species generally change so rapidly, which would be strangely at variance with the abundant evidence we have of the stabil- ity of animal forms as represented on Egyptian monuments and as shown by recent deposits. Indeed, he goes on to say : " Species, however, probably change much more slow- ly, and within the same country only a few change at the same time. This slowniess follows from all the inhabitants of the same country being already so well adapted to each other, that places in the polit}- of Nature do not occur until after long intervals, when changes of some kind in the physical conditions, or through immigration, have occurred, and individual differences and variations of the right na- ture, by which some of the inhabitants might be better fitted to their new places under altered circumstances, might not at once occur." This is true, and not only will '5 *' Ilabit and Intelligence," vol. i., p. 345. »« "Origin of Species," 6th edit., p. 353. VI.] SPECIES AND TIME. I53 these cliangcs occur at distant intervals, but it must be borne in mind that in tracing back an animal to a remote anccstrj', we pass through modifications of such rapidly-in- creasing number and importance that a geometrical pro- gression can alone indicate the increase of periods which such profound alterations would require for their evolution through "Natural Selection" only. Thus let us take for an example the proboscis monkey of Borneo {Scmuopitheeiis 7iasalis). According to Mr. Dar- win's own opinion, this form might have been " sensibly clianged " in the course of two or three centuries. Accord- ing lo this, to evolve it as a true ntid perfect species one thousand years would l)e a very moderate period. Let ten thousand years ])c; taken to represent approximately' the period of su])stantially conslant conditif)ns, during wliicli no considerable change would be brought about. Now, it one thousand years may represent the period required for the evolution of the s[)ecies S. nasalis, and of the other species of the genus Semnopithecus, ten times that period should, I think, be allowed for the dilTerentiation of that genus, the Africim Cercopithecus, and th(^ other genera of the family Siniiidir — the differences between the genera being certainly more than tenfold greater than those between the species of the same genus. Again, we may perliaps interpose a period of ten thousand years' com- parative repose. For the differentiation of the families Simiidrc and Cebidas — so verv much more distinct and diflcrent than any two genera of either family — a jieriod ten times greater should, I believe, be allowed than that required for the evolution of the subordinate groups. A similarly increasing ratio should be granted for the successive developments of the difference between the Lemuroid and the higher forms of primates ; for those between the original primate and other root-forms of placental mammals ; for those between 154 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Cr. primary placental and implaccntal mannnals, and perhaps also for the divergence of the most ancient stock of these and of the monotremes, for in all these cases modifications of structure appear to increase in complexity in at least that ratio. Finally, a vast i)eriod must be granted for the development of the lowest mannnalian type from the prim- itive stock of the whole vertebrate sub-kingdom. Sup- posing this priniitive stock to have arisen directly from a very lowly-organized animal indeed (such as a nematoid worm, or an ascidian, or a jelly-fish), yet it is not easy to believe that less than two thousand million years would be required for the totality of animal development by no other means than minute, fortuitous, occasional, and inter- mitting variations in all conceivable directions. If this be even an approximation to the truth, then there seem to be strong reasons for believing that geological time is not sulh- cient for such a process. The second question is, whether there has been time enough for the deposition of the strata which iimst have been deposited, if all organic forms have been evolved according to the Darwinian theory? Now this may at first seem a question for geologists only, but, in fact, in this matter geology must in some re- spects rather take its time from zoology than the reverse; for if Mr. Darwin's theory be true, past time, down to the deposition of the Upper Silurian strata, can have been but a very small fraction of that during which strata have been deposited. For when those Ui)per Silurian strata were formed, organic evolution had alrtjady run a great part of its course, jjcrhaps the longest, slowest, and most dini(;ult part of that course. At that ancient epoch, not only were the verte])rate, molluscous, and arthropod types distinctly and clearly differentiated, but highly-developed forms had been pro- duced in each of these sub-kingdoms. Thus in the Verte- VI.] SPECIES AND TIME. 156 brata there were fishes not belonging to tlie lowest but to the very highest groups which are known to have ever been developed, nmnely, the Elasmobranchs (the highly-organ- ized sharks and rays), and the Ganoids, a group now poorly represented, ])ut for which the sturgeon may stand as a type, and wliich in many important respects more nearly resemble higher Vertebra ta than do the ordinary or B CUTTLE-FISn. A. Ventral nepcct. B. Dorsal n?pcct. osseous fishes. Fislies in which the ventral fins are placed in front of the pectoral ones„(i.e., jugular fishes) have been generally considered to be comparatively modern forms. But Prof. Huxley has kindly informed me that he has dis- covered a jugular fish in the Permian deposits. Amonor tlic molluscous animals we have members of the very higlicst known class, namely, the Cephalopods, or cuttle-fish class ; and among articulated animals we find Trilobites and Eurypterida, which do not belong to a!iy 15G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. incipient worm-like group, but are distinctly differentiated Crustacea of no low form. We have in all these animal types nervous systems differentiated on distinctly different patterns, fully-formed organs of circulation, digestion, excretion, and generation, complexly-constructed eyes and other sense organs; in fact, all the most elaborate and complete animal structures built up, and not only once, for in the fishes and mollusca we have (as described in the third chapter of this work) the coincidence of the independently-developed organs of sense attaining a nearly similar complexity in two quite distinct forms. If, then, so small an advance has been made in fishes, moUusks, and anthropods, since the Upper Silurian deposits, it will probably be within the mark to consider that the period before those deposits (during which all these organs would, on the Darwinian theory, have slowly built up their different perfections and complexities) occupied time at least a hundredfold greater. Now it will be a moderate computation to allow 25,000,000 years for the deposition of the strata down to and includmg the Upper Silurian. If, then, the evolution- ary work done during this deposition only represents a hundredth part of the sum total, we shall require 2,500,000,000 (two thousand five hundred million) years for the complete development of the whole animal kingdom to its present state. Even one-quarter of this, however, would far exceed the time which physics and astronomy seem able to allow for the completion of the process. Finally, a difficulty exists as to the reason of the ab- sence of rich fossiliferous deposits in the oldest strata — if life was then as abundant and varied as, on the Darwinian theory, it must have been. Mr. Darwin himself admits" " the case at present must remain inexplicable ; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views '* entertained in his book. n « Griffin of Species," 5th edit., p. 381. VI.] SPECIES AND TliME. 15'j' Thus, then, we find a wonderful (and, on Darwinian principles, an all but inexplicable) absence of minutely transitional forms. All the most marked groups, bats, pterodactyls, chelonians, ichthyosauria, anoura, etc., appear at once upon the scene. Ev^en the horse, the animal whose pedigree has been probably best preserved, affords no eonchisivc evidence of specific origin by infinitcflinial, fortuitous variations ; while some forms, as the labyrintho- donts and trilobites, which seemed to exhibit gradual change, are shown by further investigation to do nothing of the sort. As regards the time required for evolution (whether estimated by the probably minimum period re- quired for organic change, or for the deposition of strata which accompanied that change), reasons have been sug- gested why it is likely that the past history of the earth does not supply us willi enough : First, because of the prodigious increase in the importance and number of differences and modifications which we meet with as we traverse successively greater and more primary zoological groups ; and, secondly, because of the vast series of strata necessarily deposited if the period since the Lower Silurian marks but a small fraction of the period of organic evolution. Finally, the absence or rarity of fossils in the oldest rocks is a point at present inexplicable, and not to be forgotten or neglected. Now all these difTiculties are avoided if we admit that new forms of animal life of all degrees of complexify ap- pear from time to time with comparative suddenness, be- ing evolved according to laws in part depending on sur- rounding conditions, in part internal — similar to the way in which crystals (and, perhaps from recent researches, the lowest forms of life) build themselves up according to the internal laws of their component substance, and in harmony and correspondence with all environing influences and conditions. 158 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. CnAr. CHAPTER Vir. SPECIES AND SPACE. The Geographical Distribution of Anlmala presents DiUlculties. — These not Insur- mountable in themselves; harmonize with other Difliculties. — Frosh-wuter Fishes. — Forms common to Africa and India; to Africa and South America; to China and Australia; to North America and China; to New Zealand and South America; to South America and Tasmania; to South America and Australia. — Plcurodont Lizards. — Insectivorous Mammals. — Similarity of Euro- pean and South Aniericiin Frogs. — Analogy between Europoan Salmon and Fishes of New Zealand, etc. — An Ancient Antarctic Continent probable. — Other Modes of accounting for Facts of Distribution. — Independent Origin of Closely-similar Forms. — Conclusion. TuE study of the distribution of animals over the earth^s surface presents us with many facts havin- pearance on the shores of New Zealand, Tasmania, etc., of northern forms of fish. Dr. Hooker informs me that twenty-five species of algaa are common to New Zealand and to Europe, but have not been found in the intermedi- ate tropical seas." Many more examples of the kind could easily be broug-lit, but these must suffice. As to the last-mentioned cases, Mr. Darwin explains them by the influence of the glacial epoch, which he would extend actually across the equator, and thus account, among other things, for the appearance in Chili of frogs having close genetic relations with European forms. But it is diilicult to understand the persistence and preservation of such exceptional forms with the extirpation of all the others w^hich j)robably accom- panied them, if so great a migration of northern kinds had been occasioned bv the glacial epoch. Mr. Darwin candidly says,*' " I am far from su})posing that all difficulties in regard to the distribution and atlini- ties of the identical and allied species, which now live so widely separated in the North and South, and sometimes on the intermediate mountain-ranges, are removed." " We cannot say wh}^ certain species and not others have migrated ; why certain species have been modified and have given rise to new forms, while others have remained unaltered." Again he adds : " Various dilfi(;ulties also re- main to be solved ; for instance, the occurrence, as shown by Dr. Hooker, of the same plants at points so enormousl}'' remote as Kerguelen Land, New Zealand, and Fuegia; but icebergs, as suggested by I^yell, may have been concerned in their dispersal. TJie existence, at these and other dis- " "Origin of Species," 5tli edil., p. 459 VII.] SPECIES AND SPACE. 1(55 taut })oints of the southern hemisphere, of species which, though distinct, belong- to genera exclusively confined to the south, is a more remarkable case. Some of these spe- cies are so distinct that we cannot suppose that there has been time since the commencement of the last glacial period for their migration and subsequent modification to the ne- cessary degree." JMr. Darwin goes on to account for these facts by the probable existence of a rich antarctic flora in a warm period anterior to the last glacial epoch. There are indeed many reasons for thinking that a southern conti- nent, rich in living forms, once existed. One such reason is the way in which struthious birds are, or have been, dis- tributed around the antarctic region: as the ostrich in Africa, tlie rhea in South Am(;rica, tiie emeu in Australia, the apteryx, dinornis, etc., in New Zealand, the epiornis in Madagascar. Still the existence of such a land would not alone explain the various geographical cross-relations which have been given above. It would not, for example, account for the resemblance between the Crustacea or fishes of New Zealand and of England. It would, ho\vever, go far to explain the identity (specific or generic) between fresh-water and other forms now simultaneously existing in Australia and South America, or in either or both of these, and New Zealand. Again, mutations of elevation small and gradual (but frequent and intermitting), through enormous periods of time — waves, as it were, of land rolling many times in many directions — might be made to explain many difficul- ties as to geographical distribution, and any cases that re- mained would probably l)e capable of explanation, as being isolated but allied animal forms, now separated indeed, but being merely renniants of extensive groups which, at an earlier period, were spread over the surface of the earth. Thus none of the facts here given are any serious difficulty to the doctrine of "evolution," but it is contended in this IGG THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. book that if oilier considerations render it iin])rol)able tliut the manifestation ^f the successive forms of life has been brought about by minute, indefinite, and fortuitous varia- tions, tlien these facts as to geograpliical distribution in- tensify that im})robability, and are so far worthy of atten- tion. All geographical difhculties of tlie kind would be evaded if we could concede the probability of tlie independent origin, iu different localities, of the same organic forms in animals high in the scale of nature. Similar causes nmst produce similar results, and new reasons have been lately adduced for believing, as regards the lowest oryanlsnis, that the same forms can arise and manifest themselves inde- pendently. The dilliculty as to higher animals is, how- ever, much greater, as (on the theory of evolution) one acting force must always be the ancestral history in each case, and this force must always tend to go on acting in the same groove and direction in the future as it has in the past. So that it is ditlicult to conceive that individuals, the ances- tral history of which is very different, can ho acted upon by all influences, external and internal, in such diverse ways and proportions that the results (unequals being added to unequals) shall be equal and similar. Still, though highly improbable, this cannot be said to be impossible ; and if there is an innate law of any kind heli)ing to determine spe- cific evolution, this may more or less, or entirely, neutralize or even reverse the efl'ect of ancestral habit. Thus, it is quite conceivable that a plenrodont lizard might have arisen in Madagascar in perfect independence of the similarly-formed American lacertilia: just as certain teeth of carnivorous and insectivorous marsupial animals have been seen most closely to resemble those of carnivorous and insectivorous placental beasts ; just as, again, the paddles of the Cetacea resemble in the fact of a multiplication in the number of the phalanges, the many-jointed feet of extinct marine rep- VII.J SPECIES AND SPACE. 1G7 tiles, and as the beak of the cuttle-fish or of the tadpole resembles ihat of birds. We have already seen (in Chapter ITI.) that it is impossible, uj)on any hypothesis, lo escape admittin«r the indej^endent origins of closely-similar forms. It may be that they are both more frequent and more im- ])ortant than is generally thought. That closely-similar structures may arise without a genetic relationship has been lately well urged by Mr. Ray Lankcster." He has brought this notion forward even as regards the bones of the skull in osseous fishes and in mam- mals. He has done so on the ground that the probable common ancestateral Ilomoiopy. — Vertlcnl Homology. — Mr. Herliert Hjiencer's Kxplanations. — An Internal Power necessary, as shown hy Facts of (.'omparativo Anatomy. — Of Teratology. — M. Pt. Ililalro. — Prof. l?iirt Wilder- — Foot-winps.— Faet.s of Patliolopy.— Mr. James Pacet.— Dr. William Hudd.— The Existence of sueh an Internal Powerof Individual Development dlminlshas tho Im- probttbillty of an Anftlojjous Law of Spoclflc Oriylnation. That concrete whole wliich is spoken of as " an indi- vidual " (such, e. g., as a bird or a lobster) is formed of a more or less complex aggregation of parts which are actually (from whatever cause or causes) grouped together in a harmonious intcrdependcncy, and which have a multi- tude of complex relations among themselves. The mind detects a certain- number of these relations as it contemplates the various component parts of an individual in one or other direction — as it follows up different lines of thought. These perceived relations, though subjective, as relatioiis^ have nevertheless an objective foundation as real parts, or conditions of parts, of real wholes ; they are, therefore, true relations — such, e. g., as those between the right and left hand, between the hand and the foot, etc. The component parts of each concrete whole have also a relation of resemblance to the parts of other concrete wholes, whether of the same or of different kinds, as the resemblance between the hands of two men, or that between the hand of a man and the fore-paw of a cat. 8 170 TIIH GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Now, it is licrc contended that tlie relationsliips borne one to another, by various component parts, ini})ly the exist- ence of some innate, internal condition, conveniently spoken of as a i^ower or tendency, which is quite as mysterious as is any innate condition, power, or tendency, resulting in the orderly evolution of successive specific nuinifestations. These relationships, as also this develo])mental power, will doubtless, in a certain sense, be somewhat further explained as science advances. But the result will be merely a shifting of the inexplicability a point backward, by the intercalation of another step between the actioA of the internal condition or power and its external result. In the mean time, even if by " Natural Selection" we could elimi- nate the puzzles of the " origin of species," yet other phenomena, not less remarkable (namely, those noticed in this chapter), would still remain unex]:)lained and as yet inexplicable. It is not improbable that, could we arrive at the causes conditioning all the comi)lex inter-rehitions between the several parts of one animal, we should at the same time obtain the key to unlock the secrets of specific origination. It is desirable, then, to see what facts there are in animal organization which point to innate conditions (powers and tendencies), as yet unexplained, and upon which the theory of " Natural Selection " is unable to throw any explanatory light. The facts to be considered are the phenomena of " homology," and especially of serial, bilateral, and vertical homology. The word "homology" indicates such a relation between two parts tliat they may be said in some sense to be " the same," or at least "of similar nature." This similarity, however, does not relate to the ^^se to which parts arc put, but only to their relative position with regard to other parts, or to their mode of origin. Tliere are many kinds of homol- VIII.] HOMOLOGIES. 171 c>^j/ but it is only necessary to consider the three kinds above enumerated. The term "homologous" may be applied to parts in two individual animals of dilFcrcnt kinds, or to dilTcrent i)arls of the same individual. Thus " the right and left hands," or " joints of the backbone," or " the teeth of the two jaws," are homologous parfs of the same individual. J3ut the arm of a man, the fore-leg of the horse, the paddle of the whale, and the wing of the bat and the bird are all also homolo^^ous ■WINO-UONE8 OF PTERODACTYL, BAT, AND BIRD. parts, yet of another kind, i. e., they are the same parts existing in animals of different species. On the other hand, the wing of the humming-bird and the wing of the humming-bird moth are not homologous at all, or in any sense ; for the resemblance between them consists solely in the use to which they are put, and is therefore only a relation of analogy. Tliere is no relation of homology between them, because they have no common resemblance as to their relations to surrounding parts, or as to their mode of origin. Similarly, there is no homology ' For an enumeration of the more obvious liomolopjical relationships see Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist, for August, 1870, p. 118. 172 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. between the wing of tlie bat and that of the flying-dragon, for the latter is formed of certain ribs, and not of limb- bones. Homology may be further distinguished into (1) a rela- tionship which, on evolutionary principles, would be due to descent from a common ancestor, as the homological rela- tion between the arm-bone of the horse and that of the ox, or between the singular ankle-bones of the two lenunine SKELETON OF THE FL-ilNO-nKAGOK. (Showing the elongated ribs which suppoi* the Hitting organ.) genera, clieirogaleus and galago, and which relation has been termed by Mr. Ray Lankcster " homogeny ; ^ and (2) a relationship induced, not derived — such as exists between parts closely similar in relative position, but with no genetic atfinity, or only a remote one, as the homological relation between the chambers of the heart of a bat and those of a bird, or the similar teeth of the tliylacine and ' Sec Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., July, 1870. vm.j UOJIOLOGIES. 173 the (lo^ bcf(>re spoken of. For this rehiiionship Mr. Hay Laiikester has proposed the term " homophisy." TARSAL nONTS OF DIFFKRENT I.EMlTROmfl. (Eight tirsus of Galogo ; left tarsus of Chcirogalcus.) " Serial liomology " is a relation of resemblance existing between two or more parts placed in series one behind the other in the same individual. , Examples of such homologucs -r^cS^^ A CENTIPEDE. are the ribs, or joints of the backbone of a horse, or the limbs of a centipede. The latter annual is a striking ex- lU THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. ample of serial homology. The body (except at its two ends) consists of a longitudinal series of similar segments Each segment supports a pair of limbs, and the appendages of all the segments (except as before) are completely alike A less complete case of serial homology is })reseuted by Crustacea (animals of the crab class), notably by the squilla and by the common lobster. In the latter animal we have BQUILLA. a six-jointed abdomen (the so-called tail), in front of which is a large solid mass (the cephalo-thorax), terminated ante- riorly by a jointed process (the rostrum). On the under VIII.] IIOMOLOGIES. 175 surface of ilic body wc find a quantity of movable append- ages. Such are, c. g., feelers (Fig. 0), jaAvs (Figs. G, 7 and 8), fool-jaws (Fig. 5), claws and legs (Figs. 3 and 4) beneath the cephalo-thorax ; and flat j)rocesses (Fig. 2) called " swimmerets," beneath the so-called tail or abdo- men. PABT OF THB SKBUFTOW OF TITE L0B8TEK. Now, these various appendages are distinct and differ- ent enough as we see them in the adult, but they all appear in the embryo as buds of similar form and size, and the thoracic limbs at first consist each of two members, as tho swimmerets always do. . 17G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. W '^ This shows what great (lifTerences may exist in size, in form, and in function, between parts wiiich are developnientally the same, for all these appendages are modiiications of one connuon kind of structure, which becomes differently modified in dillerent situations; in other words, they are serial homologues. The segments of the body, as they follow one behind the other, are also serially alike, as is plainly seen in the abdomen or tail. In the cephalo-thorax of the lobster^ however, this is disguised. It is therefore very inter- esting to find that in the other crustacean before mentioned, the squilla, the segmenta- tion of the body is more completely preserved, and even the first three segments, which go to compose the head, remain permanently distinct. Such an obvious and unmistakable serial repetition of parts does not obtain in the highest or back-l)oned animals, the Vertcbrata. 1'hus, in n)an and other mammals, nothing of the kind is externally visible, and avc have to penetrate to his skeleton to find such a series of homologous parts. There, indeed, we discover a number of pairs of bones, each pair so obviously resem- bling the others, that they all re(x;ive a com- mon name — the ribs. TIkmo also (i. e., in the skeleton) we find a still more remarkable series of similar parts, the joints of the s})ine or backbone (vertebne), which are admitted by all to possess a certain community of structure. It is in their limbs, however, that the Vertebrata pre- BPINE or OALAQO ALLKNII. viir.] iioMcn^oGiES. 177 sent the most obvious and strikinfr- serial homology — almost the only serial homolog-y noticeable externally. The facts of serial homology seem hardly to have excited the amount of interest they certainly merit. Very many writers, indeed, have occupied themselves with investigations and speculations as to what portions of the leg and foot answer to what ])arts of the arm and hand, 8 A remarkable woman exhibited in London a few years ago. 13 "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 328. VIII.] HOMOLOGIES. 189 tainly true, but it should be borne in mind at the same time that tlie armadillos, which are much more abnormal than are the American ant-eaters as regards their dermal cover- ing, in their dentition are less so. The Cape ant-eater, on the other hand, the Aard-vark (Orycteropus), has teeth formed on a type quite different from that existing in any other mammal ; yet its hairy coat is not known to cxliibit TUE PANGOLIN (MANIS). any sucli strange peculiarity. Again, those remarkable scaly ant-eaters of the Old World — the pangolins (Manis) — stand alone among mammals as regards their dermal cov- ering; having been classed with lizards by early naturalists on account of their clothing of scales, yet their mouth is like that of the hairy ant-eaters of the New AVorld. On the other hand, the duck-])illed platypus of Australia (Orni- thorhynchus) is the only mammal which has teeth formed of 190 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. horn, yet its furry coat is normal and ordinary. Again, the Dugong and Manatee are dermally ahke, yet extremely dif- ferent as regards the structure and number of their teeth. The porcupine also, in spite of its enormous armature of quills, is furnished with as good a supply of teeth as are the hairy members of the same family, but not with a bet- ter one ; and in spite of the deficiency of teeth in the hair- less dogs, no converse redundancy of teeth has, it is believed, been remarked in Angora cats and rabbits. To say the least, then, this law of correlation presents numerous and remarkable exceptions. To return, however, to the subject of homological rela- tions: it is surely inconceivable that indefinite variation with survival of the fittest can ever have built up these serial, bilateral, and vertical homologies, without the ac- tion of some special innate power or tendency so to build up, possessed by the organism itself in each case. By " special tendency '* is meant one the laws and conditions of which are as yet unknown, but which is analogous to the innate power and tendency possessed by crystals similarly, to build up certain peculiar and very definite forms. First, with regard to comparative anatomy. The cor- respondence between the thoracic and pelvic limbs is no- torious. Prof. Gegenbaur has lately endeavored ^° to explain this resemblance by the derivation of each limb from a primitive form of fin. This fin is supposed to have had a marginal external (radial) series of cartilages, each of which supported a series of secondary cartilages, starting from the inner (ulnar) side of the distal part of the support- ing marginal piece. The root marginal piece would become the humerus or femur, as the case might be : the second marginal piece, with the piece attached to the inner side of the distal end of the root marginal piece, would " " Ueber das Gliedmaassenskelet der Enaliosaurier, Jenaiscbcn Zeit- schrift," Bd. v. Ileft 3, Taf. xiii. VIII.J UOiMOLOGIES. 191 together form cither the radius and uhia or the tibia and fibula, and so on. Now tliore is little doubt (from a jyriori considerations) but that the special difFerentiation of the liml>bones of the higher Vertebrates has been evolved from anterior condi- tions existing in some fish-like form or other. But the ])articular view advocated by the learned professor is open to criticism. Thus, it may be objected against this view, first, that it takes no account of the radial ossicle which becomes so enormous in the mole ; secondly, that it does not explain the extra series of ossicles which are formed on the outer (radial or marginal) side of the paddle in tlie Ich- thyosaurus ; and thirdly, and most imporUinth', that even if this had been tlie way in which the limbs had been dif- ferentiated, it would not be at all inconsistent with the possession of an innate power of producing, and an innate tendency to produce similar and symmetrical homological resemblances. It would not be so because resemblances of the kind are found to exist, which, on the Darwinian theory, must be subsequent and secondary, not primitive and ancestral. Thus we find in animals of the eft kind SKELETON OK AN ICnTHTOSAURtTS. (certain amphibians), in which the tarsus is cartilaginous, that the carpus is cartilaginous likewise. And we shall see in cases of disease and of malformation what a ten- dency there is to a similar affection of homologous parts. 192 Till-] GENESIS OF SPECIES. [ClIAI' In efts, as Prof. Gegenbaur liimsclf lias pointed out,"' there is a striking- correspondence l^ctween tlie bones or cartilages su])porting the arm, wrist, and lingers, and those A, 8KEL£T0N OF ANTERIOB KXTBEMITT OF AN EFT. U. SKELETON OK POSTEUIOE EXTUEMITY OF TUE HAKE. sustaining the leg, ankle, and toes, with the exception that the toes exceed the lingers in number by one. Yet these animals are far from beincr the root-forms from SKELETON OF A PLFiJIOSAUltrS. which all the Vertebrata have diverged, as is evidenced from the degree of specialization which their structure presents. " In his work on the Carpus and Tarsus. Vlir.J HOMOLOGIES. I93 If tliey have descended from such primitive forms as Prof. Gegenbaur imagines, then they have built up a sec- ondary serial homology — a repetition of similar modifica- tions — fully as remarkable as if it were primary. Tlic PIc- siosauria — those extinct marine reptiles of tlie Secondary period, with long necks, small heads, and paddle-like limbs — are of yet higher organization than are the efts and other Amphibia. Nevertheless they present us with a similarity of structure between the fore and hind linib, which is so great as almost to be identity. But the Amj^hibia and Plesiosaurin, though not themselves primitive vertebrate types, may be thought by some to have derived their limb structure by direct descent from such. Tortoises, how- ever, must be admitted to be not only highly differentiated organisms, but to be far indeed removed from primeval vertebrate structure. Yet certain tortoises " (notably Che- lydra Temmmcl'ii) exhibit such a remarkable uniform ity in fore and hind limb structure (extending even up tu the proximal ends of the humerus and femur) that it is impossible to doubt its independent development in these forms. Again, in the Potto (Perodicticus) there is an extra bone in the foot, situated in the transverse ligament enclos- ing the flexor tendons. It is noteworthy that in the ha7id of the same animal a serially homologous structure should also be developed." In the allied form called the slow lemur (Nycticei)us) we have certain arrangements of tlie nniscles and tendons of the hand which reproduce in great measure those of the foot, and vice versa.^* And in the Hyrax another myological resemblance appears." It is, 2' An excellent specimen displaying this resemblance is preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. " Phil. Trans., 18G7, p. 353. " Proc. Zool. Soc, 18G5, p. 255. «5 Ibid., p. 351. 9 194 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [ClIAP. however, needless to multij)ly instances which can easily be produced in large numbers if required. LONG FLEXOR M08CLE9 AND TENDONS OF THE HAND. P.t. Pronator teres. F.s. Flexor Bublimis dipltorum. F.p. Flexor profundus digitoruiu. F.l.p. Flexor longus pollicis. Secondly, with regard to teratology, it is notorious that similar abnormalities are often found to coexist in both the pelvic and thoracic limbs. VIII.] HOMOLOGIES. I95 M. Isidore GeofTroy St-IIilairc remarks/' " L'anomalle se rejKjtc d'un membre thoracique au membrc abdominal dii memc cot($." And lie afterward quotes Weitbrecbt," "vvlio had "observe dans un cas I'absence simultanec aux deux mains ct aux deux })ieds, dc quehiucs doip;ts, de quel- qnes molaoarj)icns ct metatarsicns, cnfm dc quclques os du carpe ct du tarse." Prof. Burt G. Wilder, in his paper on extra dig-its," has recorded no less than twenty-four cases where such excess coexisted in both little fingers ; also one case in which the right little finger and little too were so af- fected ; six in which it was both the little fingers and both the little toes ; and twenty-two other cases more or less the same, but in which the details were not accurately to be obtained. Mr. Darwin cites " a remarkable instance of what he is inclined to regard as the development in the foot of birds of a sort of representation of the wing-feathers of the hand. He says : " In several distinct breeds of the pigeon and fowl the logs and the two outer toes arc heavily feathered, so that, in the trumpeter pigeon, they appear like little wings. In the feather-legged bantam, the ' boots,' or feathers, which grow from the outside of the leg, and gen- erally from the two outer toes, have, according to the ex- cellent authority of Mr. Hewitt, been seen to exceed the wing-feathers in length, and in one case were actually ■gine and a half inches in length I As Mr. Blyth has re- marked to me, these leg-feathers resemble the primary wing- feathers, and are totally unlike the fine down which naturally grows on the legs of some birds, such as grouse and owls. ''^ " Hist. Gc'ii^rale dcs Anomalies," t. i., p. 228. Bruxcllcs, 1837. " Nov. Comment, retrop. t. i.x., p. 269. 58 Read on June 2, 1868, before the Massachusetts Medical Socictj. Sec vol. ii., No. 3. '9 " Animals and Dants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 822. 19G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Hence it may be suspected that excess of food has first given redundancy to the phnnage, and then that the hiw of lioniologous variation lias led to the development of feathers on the legs, in a position corresponding with those on the wing, namely, on the outside of the tarsi and toes. I am strengtiiened in this belief by the following curious case of correlation, which for a long time seemed to me utterly inexplicable — namely, that in pigeons of any breed, if the legs are feathered, the two outer toes are partially connected l^y skin. These two outer toes correspond with our third and fourth toes. Now, in the wing of the pigeon, or any other bird, the first and fifth digits are wholly abort- ed ; the second is rudimentary, and carries the so-called * bastard wing ; ' while the third and fourth digits are completely united and enclosed by skin, together furming the extremity of the wing. So that in feather -footed ])igeons not only does the exterior surface support a row of long feathers like wing-feathei"S, but the very same digits which in the wing are completely united by skin be- come j)artially united by skin in the feet; and thus, by the law of the correlated variation of homologous })arts, we can understand the curious connection of feathered legs and membrane between the outer toes." Irregularities in the circulating system are far from un- common, and sometimes illustrate this homological ten- dency. My friend and colleague Mr. George G. Gascoyen, assistant surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital, has sujiplied me with two instances of synnnetrical affections whicb have come under his observation. In the first of these the brachial artery bifurcated al- most at its origin, the two halves reuniting at the elbow- joint, and then dividing into the radial and ulnar arteries in the usual manner. In the second case an aberrant ar- tery was given olf from the radial side of the brachial artery, again almost at its origin. This aberrant artery VIII.] HOMOLOGIES. I97 anastomosed below the elbow-joint with the radial side of the radial artery. In each of these cases the right and left sides varied in precisely the same manner. Thirdly, as to pathology. Mr. James Paget," speaking of symmetrical diseases, says : " A certain morbid change of structure on one side of the body is repeated in the exactly corresponding part of tlie other side." He then quotes and figures a diseased lion's pelvis from the College of Surgeons Museum, and says of it: "JMultiform as the pattern is in which the new bone, the product of some dis- ease comparable with a human rheumatism, is deposited — a pattern more complex and irregular than the spots upon a map — there is not one spot or line on one side whicli is not represented, as exactly as it would be in a mirror, on the other. The likeness has more than daguerreotype ex- actness." He goes on to observe : " I need not describe many examples of such diseases. Any out-patients' room will furnish abundant instances of exact symmetry in the eruptions of eczema, lepra, and psoriasis ; in the deformi- ties of chronic rheumatism, the paralysis from load ; in the eruplions excited by iodide of polassium or copaiba. And any large museum will contain examples of e(|ual synunc- try in syphilitic ulcerations of the skull ; in rheumatic and syphilitic deposits on the tibire and other bones; in all the cfTects of chronic rheumatic arthritis, whether in the bones, the ligaments, or the cartilages ; in the fatty and earthy de- posits in the coats of arteries." " He also considered it to be proved that, " next to the parts which are symmetrically placed, none are so nearly identical in composition as those which are homologous. For example, the backs of the hands and of the feet, or the palms and soles, are often not only symmetrically, but simi- larly, afTected with psoriasis. So are the elbows and the 8" "Lectures on Surgical Pathologj," 1853, vol i., p. 18. 3' Ibid., p. 22. 198 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. knees ; and similar portions of the thighs and tlie arms may- be found aflected with icthyosis. Sometimes also specimens of fatty and earthy deposits in the arteries occur, in which exact similarity is shown in tlie plan, though not in the de- gree, with which the disease alTects severally the humeral and femoral, the radial and peroneal, the ulnar and pos- terior tibial arteries.'* Dr. William Budd " gives numerous instances of sym- metry in disease, both lateral and serial. Thus, among others, we have one case (William Godfrey), in which the hands and feet were distorted. **The distortion of the right hand is greater than that of the left, of the right foot greater than that of the left foot." In another (Elizabeth Alford) lej)ra affected the extensor surfaces of the thoracic and pelvic limbs. Again, in the case of skin-disease illus- trated in Plate III., "'llie analogy between the elbows and knees is clearly expressed in the fact that these were the only parts affected with the disease." " Prof. Burt Wilder," in his ])aper on " Pathological Po- larities," strongly supports tlie philosophical importance of these peculiar relations, adding arguments in favor of antero-posterior homologies, which it is here unnecessary to discuss, enough having been said, it is believed, to thor- oughly demonstrate the existence of these deep internal relations which are named lateral and serial homologies. What explanation can be offered of these phenomena ? To say that they exhibit a " nutritional relation " brought about by a " balancing of forces" is merely to give a new denomination to the iniexplained fact. The changes are, c>/*co?|iear to show his disposition to sympathize with it. Thus in his M'ork on " Animals and Plants under Domestication," ^ he asserts that " the savages of Australia and South America hold the crime of incest in abhorrence ; " but he considers that this abhorrence has probably arisen by "Natural Selection," tiie ill eft'ects of close interbreeding causing the less numer- ous, and less healthy ollspring of incestuous unions to dis- appear by degrees, in favor of the descendants (greater both in number and strength) or individuals who naturally, from some cause or other, as he suggests, preferred to mate with strangers rather than with close blood-relations; this preference being transmitted and becoming thus instinc- tive, or habitual, in remote descendants. But on Mr. Darwin's own ground, it may be objected that this notion fails to account for " abhorrence " and "moral reprobation ;" for, as no stream can rise higher than its source, the original " slight feeling " which was iiseful would have been perpetuated, but would never have been augmented beyond the degree requisite to insure this beneficial preference, and therefore would not certainly have become magnified into " abhorrence." It will not do to assume that the union of males and females, each pos- sessing the required " slight feeling," must give rise to off- spring with an intensified feeling of the same kind ; for, apart from reversion, Mr. Darwin has called attention to tlie unexpected modifications which sometimes result from the union of sunllarb/ constituted parents. Thus, for ex- ample, he tells us : ' "If two tojvknotted canaries are matched, the young, instead of having very fine loj)-knots, are generally bald." From examples of this kind, it is fair, on Darwinian i)rinciples, to infer that the imion of j)arents « Vol. ii., p. 122. ^ "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i, p. 296. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 205 who possessed a similar inherited aversion might result in plienomcna quite other than the augmentation of such aversion, even if the two aversions should be altogether similar ; while, very probably, they might be so different in their nature as to tend to neutralize each other. Besides, the union of parents so similarly emotional, would be rare indeed among savages, where marriages would be owing to almost any thing ratlier tlian to congeniality of mind be- tween the spouses. Mr. Wallace tells us,* that they choose their Avives for "rude health and pliysical beauty," and this is just what might be naturally supposed. Again, wo must bear in mind the necessity there is that inaiiy mdi- vifhmls should be similarly and simultaneously affected with this aversion from consanguineous unions; as we have seen in the second chapter, how infallibly variations presented by only a few individuals, tend to be eliminated by mere force of numbers. Mr. Darwin indeed would throw back this aversion, if possible, to a pre-human period; since he speculates as to whether the gorillas or orang- utans, in effectitig their matrimonial relations, show any tendency to respect the prohibited degrees of affinity.* No tittle of evidence, however, has yet been adduced point- ing in any such direction, though surely if it were of such importance and efficiency as to result (through tlie aid of " Natural Selection " alone) in that " abhorrence " before spoken of, we might expect to be able to detect unmistak- able evidence of its incipient stages. On the contrary, as regards the ordinary apes (for with regard to the highest there is no evidence of the? kind) as we see them in con- finement, it would be difficult to name any animals less re- stricted, by even a generic bar, in the gratification of the sexual instinct. And although the conditions under which they have l)een observed are abnormal, yet these arc *■ " Natural SclcoHon," p. HaO. 6 " Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. iL 20G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. hardly the animals to present us in a state of nature, with an extraordinary and exceptional sensitiveness in such matters. To take an altogether different case. Care of, and ten- derness toward, the aged and infirm are actions on all hands admitted to be "right; " but it is difficult to see how such actions could ever have been so useful to a connnunity as to have been seized on and developed by the exclusive ac- tion of the law of the "survival of the fittest." On the contrary, it seems probable that on strict utilitarian princi- ples the rigid political economy of Tierra del Fuego would have been eminently favored and diffused by the impartial action of "Natural Selection" alone. B}'^ the rigid politi- cal economy referred to, is meant that destruction and utili- zation of "useless mouths" which Mr. Darwin himself de- scribes in his highly interesting " Journal of Researches." " He says: "It is certainly true, that Avhen pressed in win- ter by hunger, they kill and devour their old women before they kill their dogs. The boy being asked why they did this, answered : * Doggies catch otters, old woman no.' They often run awny into the mountains, but they are pur- sued by the men and brought back to the slaughter-house at their own firesides." JNIr. Edward Bartlett, who has recently returned from the Amazons, reports that at one Indian village where the cholera made its appearance, the whole population immediately dispersed into the woods, leaving the sick to perish uncared for and alone. Now, had the Indians remained, undoubtedly far more would have died; as doubtless, in Tierra del Fuego, the d(!struclion of the comparatively useless old women has often been the means of preserving the healthy and reproductive young. Such acts surely must be greatly favored by the stc^rn and unrelenting action of exclusive " Natural Selection." In the same way that admiration which all feel for acts « See 2d edit., vol. i., p. 214. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 207 of self-denial done for the good of otliers, and tending even toward the destruction of the actor, could hardly be ac- counted for on Darwinian principles alone ; for sclf-innno- lators must but rarclj leave direct descendants, while the comnuinity they benefit must by their destruction tend, so far, to morally deteriorate. But devotion to others of the same conununity is by no means all that has to be account- ed for. Devotion to the whole human race, and devotion to God — in the form of asceticism — have been and are very generally recognized as "good;" and the author contends that it is simply imjiossible to conceive that such ideas and sanctions should have been developed by " Natural Selec- tion " alone, from only that degree of unselfishness neces- sary for the preservation of brutally barbarous communities in the struggle for life. That degree of unselfishness once attained, further improvement would be checked by the mutual opposition of diverging moral tendencies and spon- taneous variations in all directions. Added to which, we have the principle of reversion and atavism, tending power- fully to restore and reproduce the more degraded anterior condition whence the later and better state painfully emerged. Very f(nv, however, dispute the complete distinctness, here and now, of the ideas of "duty" and "interest," what- ever may have been the origin of those ideas. No one pre- tends that ingratitude may, in any past abyss of time, have been a virtue, or that it may be such now in Arcturus or the Pleiades. Indeed, a certain eminent writer of the utili- tarian school of ethics has amusingly and \ery instructively shown how radically distinct even in his own mind are the two ideas which he nevertheless endeavors to identify. Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his examination of " Sir William Ham- ilton's Philosophy," says:' if "I am informed that the world h ruled by a Being whose attributes are infinite, but "» rage 103. 208 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. what they are we cannot learn, nor what the principles of his government, except that ' the higlicst human morality which we are capable of conceiving' does not sanction them; convince me of it, and I will bear my fate as I may. But when I am told that I must believe this, and at the same time call this being by the names which express and allirm the highest human morality, I say in plain terms tliat I will not Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do; he shall not com- pel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow- creatures ; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I Avill go." This is unquestionably an admirable sentiment on the part of Mr. Mill (with which every absolute moralist will agree), but it contains a complete refutation of his own po- sition, and is a capital instance ' of the vigorous life of moral intuition in one who professes to have eliminated any fundamental distinction between the " right " and the " ex- pedient." For if an action is morally good, and to be done, merely in proportion to the amount of pleasure it secures, and morally bad and to be av^oided as tending to misery, and if it could be jyroved that by calling God good— whether He is so or not, in our sense of the term — we could secure a maximum of pleasure, and by, refusing to do so we should incur endless torment, clearly, on utilitarian princi- ples, the flattery would be good. Mr. Mill, of course, must also mean that, in the matter in question, all men would do well to act with him. There- fore, he must mean that it would be well for all to accc[)t (on the hypothesis above given) infuiite and llnal misery for all as the result of the pursuit of happiness as the only end. 8 I have not the merit of having noticed this inconsistency; it was pointed out to mc by my friend the Rev. W, W. Roberts. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETUICS. 209 It must be recollected that in consenting to worship this nnholy God, Mr. Mill is not asked to do harm to his neighbor, so that his refusal reposes simply on his percep- tion of the immorality of the requisition. It is also note- worthy that an omnipotent Deity is supposed incapable of altering Mr. Mill's mind and moral perceptions. Mr. Mill's decision is right, but it is didicult indeed to see how, without the recognition of an "absolute morality," he can justify so utter and final an abandonment of all util- ity in favor of a clear and distinct moral perception. These two ideas, the " right " and the " useful," being so distinct here and now, a greater dilfioulty meets us with regard to their origin from some common source, than met lis before when considering the first begiimings of certain bodily structures. For the distinction between the " right " and the "useful" is so fundamental and essential that not only does the idea of benefit not enter into the idea of duty, but we see that the very fact of an act not being beneficial to us makes it the more praiseworthy, while gain tends to diminish the merit of an action. Yet this idea, "right," thus excluding, as it does, all reference to utility or pleas- ure, has nevertheless to be constructed and evolved from utility and pleasure, and ultimately from jileasurable sensa- tions, if we are to accept pure Darwinianism : if we are to accept, that is, the evolution of man's psychical nature and highest powers by the exclusive action of " Natural Selec- tion," from such faculties as are possessed by brutes ; in other words, if we are to believe that the conceptions of the high- est human morality arose through minute and fortuitous variations of brutal desires and appetites in all conceivable directions. It is here contended, on the other hand, that no conser- vation of any such variations could ever have given rise to the faintest beginning of any such moral percc^ptions; that by " Natural Selection " alone the m:ix\m fat just itia, ruat 210 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. ccelwn could never have been excogitated, still less have liave found a wide-spread acceptance; that it is impotent to suggest even an approach toward an explanation of the Jirst beginning of the idea of " right." It need hardly be remarked that acts may be distinguished not only as pleasurable, useful, or beautiful, but also as good in two dilVerent senses : (1) tnaierially moral acts, and (2) acts which ^xQ fonnally moral. 'I'iie first are acts good in them- selves, as acts^ apart from any intention of tiie agent which may or may not have been directed toward " right." The second are acts winch are good not only in themselves, as acts, but also in the deliberate intention of the agent who recognizes his actions as being " right." Tluis acts may be materially moral or inunoral, in a very high degree, with- out being in the lenst formally so. For example, a person may tend and minister to a sick man with scrupulous care and exactuess, having in view all the time nothing but tlie future reception of a good legacy. Another may, in the dark, shoot his own father, taking him to be an assassin, and so commit what is materially an act of parricide, though formally it is only an act of self-defence of more or less culpable rashness. A woman may imioccntly, because ignorantly, marry a married man, and so connnit a material act of adultery. She may discover the facts, and persist, and so make her act formal also. Actions of brutes, such as those of the bee, the ant, or the beaver, however materially good as regards their rela- lations to the community to which such aniuials belong, arc absolutely destitute of tlic most incipient degree of real, i. e., formal " goodness," because unaccompanied by mental acts of conscious will directed toward the fullUmcnt of duty. Apology is due for thus stating so elementary a distinction, but the statement is not superfluous, for confusion of thought, resulting from confounding together these very distinct things, is unfortunately far from imcommon. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 211 Thus some Darwinians assert that tlic germs of morality exist in brutes, and we liavc seen that Mr. Darwin liitnsclf speculates on the subject as regards the highest apes. It may safely be affirmed, however, that there is no trace in brutes of any action simulating morality which are not ex- plicable by the fear of punishment, by the hope of pleasure, or by personal affection. No sign of moral reprobation is given by any brute, andj^et had such existed in germ through Darwinian abysses of past time, some evidence of its exist- ence must surely have been rendered perceptiljle through " survival of the fittest" in other forms besides man, if that " survival " has alone and exclusively produced it in him. Abundant examples may, indeed, be brought forward of useful acts which sinuilate morality, such as parental care of the young, etc. But did tlie most undeviating ha])its guide all brutes in such matters, were even aged and infirm members of a community of insects or birds carefully tended by young which benefited by their experience, such acts would not indicate even the faintest rudiment of real, i. c., formal, morality. " Natural Selection " would, of course, often lead to the prevalence of acts beneficial to a commu- nity, and to acts materialbj good ; but unless they can be shown to be formally so, they are not in the least to the point, they do not ofler any explanation of the origin of an altogether new and fundamentally different motive and con- ception. It is interesting, on the otlier hand, to note Mr. Darwin's statement as to the existence of a distinct moral feeling, even in, perhaps, the very lowest and most degraded of all the human races known to us. Thus in the same "Journal of Researches " ' before quoted, bearing witness to the exist- ence of moral reprobation on the part of the Fuegians, he says : " The nearest approach to religious feeling which I heard of was shown by York Minster (a Fuegian so named), » Vol. i., p. 215. 212 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciur. who, when Mr, Bynoc sliot some very fine ducklings as specimens, declared in the most solemn manner, * Oil, Mr. Bynoe, much rain, snow, blow nmcli.' Tiiis was evidently a retributive punishment for wasting liuman food." Mr. Wallace gives the most interesting testimony, in his " Malay Archipelago," to the existence of a very distinct, and in some instances highly-developed moral sense in the natives with whom he came in contact. In one case,'" a Papuan, who had been paid in advance for bird-skins, and who had not been able to fulfil his contract before Mr. Wal- hice was on the point of starting, " came running down after us holding up a bird, and saying with great satisfaction, * Now I owe you nothing !' " And this though he could have withheld payment with complete impunity. Mr. Wallace's observations and opinions on this head seem hardly to meet with due appreciation in Sir John Lub- bock's recent work on Primitive Man." But consideiing the acute powers of observation and the industry of Mr. AVal- lace, and especially considering the years he passed in fa- miliar and uninterrupted intercourse with natives, his opin- ion and testimony should surely carry willi it great weight. lie has informed the author that he found a stn^ngly-marked and widely-dilVused modest}', in sexual matters, among all the tribes with which he came in contact. In the same way Mr. Bonwick, in his work on the Tasmanians, testifies to the modesty exhibited by the naked females of that race, wiio by the decorum of their postures gave evidence of tlie possession in germ of what under circumstances would be- come the highest chastity and refinement. Hasty and incomplete observations and inductions are prejudicial enough to physical science, but when their elfect is to degrade untruthfully our common humanity, there is '° " Malay Archipelago," vol. ii., p. 305. " "The Origin of Civilizatiou and the Primitive Condition of Man," p. 261. Longmans, 1870. IX.] EVOLUTIOK AND KTIIICS. 213 an additional motive to rcfrrc.t tlicm. A hurried visit to a tribe, \vliose language, traditions, and customs arc unknown, is sometimes deemed suflicicnt for " smart " remarks as to " ape characters," etc., uhich are as untrue as irrelevant. It should not be forgotten how extremely difhcult it is to enter into the ideas and feelings of an alien race. If in the nine- teenth century a French theatrical audience can witness with acquiescent approval, as a type of English manners and ideas, the representation of a marquis who sells his wife at Smithfield, etc. etc., it is surely no wonder if the ideas of a tribe of newly-visited savages should be more or less misunderstood. To enter into such ideas requires long, and familiar intimac\', like that experienced by the explorer of the Malay Archipelago. From him, and others, we have abundant evidence that moral ideas exist at least in germ, in savage races of men, while they sometimes attain even a highly-developed state. No amount of evidence as to acts of moral depravity is to the point, as the object here aimed at is to cstal)lish that moral intuitions exist in savages, not that their actions are good. Objections, however, are sometimes drawn from the different notions as to the moral value of certain acts, enter- tained by men of various countries or of different epochs ; also from the difficulty of knowing what particular actions in certain cases are the right ones, and from the effects which prejudice, interest, passion, liabit, or even, indirectly', physical conditions, may have upon our moral perceptions. Thus Sir .John lAibbock speaks " of certain Feejeeans, who, according to the testimony of INIr. Hunt,'* have the custom of piously choking their parents imdcr certain circum- stances, in order to insure their happiness in a future life. Should any one take such facts as telling against the belief in an absolute morality, he would show a complete misap- " «'rriinitivc Mnii," \\ 218. >« "Fiji and the Fijians," vol. i., p. 183. 214 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. prohcnsion of the point in dispute j for such facts tell in favor of it. Were it asserted that man possesses a distinct innate power and faculty by which he is made intuitively aware what acts considered in and by themselves are right and what wrong — an infallible and universal internal code — the illustration would be to the point. But all that need be contended for is that the intellect perceives not only truth, but also a quality of "higher" which ought to be followed, and of " lower " which ought to be avoided ; when two lines of conduct are presented to the will for choice, the intellect so acting beinjj the conscience. This has been well put by Mr. James Maitineau in his excellent essay on Whewell's Morality. lie says : '* " If moral good were a quality resident in each action, as whiteness in snow, or sweetness in fruits ; and if the moral faculty was our appointed instrument for detecting its presence ; many consequences would ensue which are at variance with fact. Tlie wide range of dilfercnces observ- able in the ethical judgments of men would not exist ; and even if they did, could no more be reduced and modified by discussion than constitutional ditferences of hearing or of vision. And, as the quality of moral good either must or must not exist in every important operation of the will, we should discern its presence or absence separately in each ; and even though we never had the conception of more than one insulated action, we should be able to pronounce upon its character. This, however, we have plainly no power to do. Every moral judgment is rela- tive, and involves a comparison of two terms. AVHien we praise what has been done, it is with the coexistent con- cej)tion of something else that niujht have been done; and when we resolve on a course as rioht, it is to the exclusion of some other that is wrong. This fact, that " "Essays," Second Series, vol. ii., p. 13. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 215 every ethical decision is in truth a j^refcrence, an election of one act as higher than another, appears of fundamental importance in the analysis of the moral sentiments." From this point of view it is plain how trifling- are arguments drawn from the acts of a savage, since an action higlily immoral in us might be one exceedingly virtuous in him — being the highest presented to his choice in his degraded intellectual condition and peculiar circum- stances. It need only be contended, then, that there is a perception of " right " incapable of further analysis ; not that there is any infallible internal guide as to all the complex actions which present themselves for choice. Tlie princijyle is given in our nature, the applicatioyi of the principle is the result of a thousand educational influences. It is no wonder, then, tliat, in comj)lex " cases of conscience," it is sometimes a matter of exceeding difliculty to determine which of two courses of action is the less objectionable. This ho more invalidates the truth of moral j)rinciples than does the difficulty of a mathematical problem east doubt on mathematical principles. Habit, education, and intellectual gifts, facilitate the correct appli- cation of both. Again, if our moral insight is intensified or blunted by our habitual wishes, or, indirectly, by our physical condition, the same may be said of our perception of the true rela- tions of physical facts one to another. An eager wish for marriage has led many a man to exaggerate the powers of a limited income, and a fit of d^'spepsia has given an unreasonably gloomy aspect to more than one balanco sheet. Considering that moral intuitions have to do with ifisetisihle matters, they cannot be expected to be more clear than the- perception of physical facts. And if the latter joerce2>tions may be influenced by volition, desire, or 21 G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. liealtli, our moral views may also be expected to be so intluenced, and tliis in a higher degree because they so often run counter to our desires. A bottle or two of wine may make a sensible object ajipear double ; Avhat wonder, then, if our moral perceptions are eonietinies warped and distorted by such powerful agencies as an evil education or an habitual absence of self-restraint. In neither case docs occasional distortion invalidate tlie accuracy of normal and habitual perception. The distinctness here and now of the ideas of " right " and " useful " is, however, as before said, fully conceded by Air. Herbert Spencer, although he contends that these con- ceptions are one in root and origin. His utilitarian Genesis of Morals, however, has been recently combated by Mr. Richard Holt Hutton, in a paper which appeared in J/acmillan^s Magazine.^'' This writer aptly objects an aryunientuni ad hominem, applying to morals the same argument that has been ap- plied in this work to our sense of nuisical harmony, and by Mr. Wallace to the vocal organs of man. Mr. Herbert Spencer's notions on the subject are thus expressed by himself : " To make my position fully under- stood, it seems needful to add that, corresjjonding to tiie fundamental propositions of a developed moral science, there have been, and still are, developing in the race certain fundamental intuitions ; and that, though these moral intui- tions are the result of accumulated experiences of utility gradually organized and inherited, they have come to be quite independent of conscious experience. Just in the same way that I believe the intuition of space possessed hy any living individual to have arisen from organized and consolidated exj)eriences of all antecedent individuals, who bequeathed to him their slowly-developed nervous organi- zations; just as I believe that this intuiti(jh, requiring only '5 See No. 117, July, 18G9, p. 272. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 217 to be made definite and coni])lctc hy personal experiences, lias j)racf ically become a form of thought (jiiite independent cf experience; — so do I believe that tlie experiences of utility, organized and consolidated through all j)ast gen- erations of the human race, have been producing corre- Bj)()nding nervous modifications wiu'cli, by continued trans- missions and accumulatidu, have become in us certain faculties of moral intuition, active emotions responding to right and wrong conduct, Avlii(;h have no apparent basis in the individual experiences of utility. I also hold that, just as the space intuition rcsjionds to the exact demonstrations of geometry, and has its rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them, so will moral intuitions respond to the demonstrations of moral science, and will have their rough conclusions interpreted and verified by them." Against this view of Mr. Herbert Spencer, Mr. Hutton objects: "1. That even as regards Mr. Spencer's illustra- tion from geometrical intuitions, his process would be totally inadequate, since you could not deduce the neces- sary space intuition of which he speaks from any possible accumulations of familiarity with sj)ace relations. , . . We cannot inherit more than than our fathers had : no amount of experience of facts, however universal, can give rise to that particular characteristic of intuitions and a priori ideas, which compels us to deny the possibility that in any other world, however otherwise dilTcrent, our experience (as to space relations) could be otherwise. "2. That the case of moral intuitions is very much stronger. " 3. That if Mr. Si)encer's theory accounts for any thing, it accounts not for the deepening of a sense of utility and inutility into right and wrong, but for the drying up of the sense? of utility and inutility into mere inherent tendencies, which would exercise over us not more authority but less, than a rational sense of utilitarian issues. 10 218 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. "4. Tliat ^Ir. Spencer's theory could not account for the intuitional sacreduess now attached to i/uUv Idtcal movnl rules and princii)lcs, without accounting a fortiori for the general claim of tlie greatest-happiness principle over us as the final moral intuition — which is conspicuously contrary to the fact, as not even the utilitarians themselves plead any instinctive or intuitive sanction for their great principle. " 5. That there is no trace of positive evidence of any sinjjle instance of the transformation of a utilitarian rule of right into an intuition, since we find no utilitarian princi])le of the most ancient times which is now an accepted moral intuition, nor any moral intuition, however gacred, which has not been promulgated tliousands of years ago, and which has not constantly had to stop the tide of utilitarian objections to its authority — and this age after age, in our own day quite as much as in days gone by. . . . Surely, if any thing is remarkable in the history of morality, it is the anticipator}/ character, if I may use the expression, of moral princi})les — the intensity and absoluteness with which they are laid down ages before the world has api:>roximated to the ideal thus asserted." Sir John I^nbbock, in his work on Primitive Man before referred to, abandons Mr. Spencer's explanation of the gene- sis of morals while referring to Mr. Hutton's criticisms on the subject. Sir John proposes to substitute " deference to authority" instead of "sense of interest" as the origin of our conception of " duty," saying that what has been found to be beneficial has been traditionally inculcated on the young, and thus has become to be disassociated from "in- terest " in the mind, though the inculcation itself originally sprung from that source. This, however, when analj'^zed, turns out to be a distinction without a diirereiue. It is nothing but utilitarianism, pure and sim})le, after all. For it can never be intended that authority is ol^eyed because of an intuition that it should be deferred to, for that would IX.] EVOLUTIOxV AND ETHICS. 219 be to admit the very princii)le of absolute morality which Sir John combats. It must be meant, then, tliat authority is obeyed through fear of the consequences of disobedience, or through pleasure felt in obeying the authority which commands. In the latter case we have "pleasure" as the end and no rudiment of the conception of " duty." In the former we have fear of punishment, which appeals directly to the sense of " utility to the individual," and no amount of such a sense will produce the least germ of " ought," which is a conception different in /cind, and in which the notion of "punishment" has no place. Thus, Sir John I^ubbo(;k\s explanation only concerns a inode in which the sense of "duty" may be stimulated or appealed to, and makes no aj)proximation to an explanation of its origin. Could the views of Mr. Herbert Spencer, of Mr. Mill, or of Mr. Darwin, on this subject be maintained, or should they come to be generally accepted, the consecjuences would be disastrous indeed I Were it really the case that virtue was a mere hind of'^retrieviiir/^'' then certainly we should have to view with apprehension the spread of intellectual culti- vation, wliich would lead the human "retrievers" to regard from a new point of view their fetching and carrying. We should be logically compelled to acquiesce in the vocifera- tions of some Continental utilitarians, who would banish altogether the senseless words " duty " and " merit ; " and then, one important influence which has aided human prog- ress being w^ithdrawn, we should be reduced to hope that in this case the maxim ccssa?ite causa cessat ij)se effectus might through some incalculable accident fail to a})ply. It is true that Mr. Spencer tries to erect a safeguard against such moral disruption, by asserting that for every immoral act, word, or thought, each man during this life receives miimte and exact retribution, and that thus a re- gard for individual self-interest will eflectually prevent any moral catastrophe. But by what means will he enforce the 220 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. acceptance of a dogma wliich is not only incapable of proof^ but is opposed to the commonly-received opinion of man- kind in all ages? Ancient literature, sacred and profane, teems "with protests against the successful evil-doer, and certainly, as Mr. Hutton observes,*" " Honesty must have been associated by our ancestors with many unliajipy as well as many happy consequences, and we know that in ancient Greece dishonesty was openly and actually asso- ciated with happy consequences. . . . when tlie concen- trated experience of previous generations was lield, not in- deed to justify, but to excuse by utilitarian considerations, craft, dissimulation, sensuality, selfishness." This dogma is opposed to the moral consciousness of many as to the events of their own lives ; and the author, for one, believes that it is absolutely contrary to fact. History aflbrds multitudes of instances, but an example may be selected from one of the most critical periods of modern times. Let it be granted that Louis XVI. of France and his queen had all the defects attributed to them by the most hostile of serious historians; let all the excuses possible be made for his predecessor, Louis XV., and also for Madame de Pompadour, can it be pre- tended that there are grounds for alfirming that the vices of the two former so far exceeded those of the latter, that their respective fates were plainly and evidently just? that while the two former died in their beds, after a life of the most extreme luxury, the others merited to stand forth through coming time as examples of the most appalling and calamitous tragedy ? This theme, however, is too foreign to the immediate matter in hand to be further pursued, tempting as it is. But a passing protest against a superstitious ami deluding dogma may stand — a dogma which may, like any other dogma, be vehemently asserted and maintained, but which " MacmillaiVs Magazine, No. 117, July, 1869. IX.] EVOLUTION AND ETHICS. 221 is remarkable for being destitute, at one and the same time, of both authoritative sanction and the support of reason and observation. To return to the bearing of moral conceptions on " Nat- ural Selection," it seems that, from the reasons given in this chapter, we may safely affirm : 1. That " Natural Se- lection " could not have produced, from the sensations of pleasure and pain experienced by brutes, a higher degree of morality than was useful ; therefore it could have pro- duced any amount of " beneficial habits," but not abhor- rence of certain acts as impure and sinful. 2. That it could not have developed that high esteem for acts of care and tenderness to the aged and infirm which actually exists, but would rather have })erpetuated certain low social conditions which obtain in some savage locali- ties. 3. Tliat it could not have evolved from ape sensations the noble virtue of a Marcus Aurelius, or the loving but manly devotion of a St. I^ouis. 4. That, alone, it could not have given rise to the maxim Jiat justitia^ mat coelum. 5. That the interval between material and formal mo- rality is one altogether beyond its power to traverse. Also, that the anticipatory character of moral principles is a fatal bar to that explanation of their origin which is offered to us by Mr. Herbert Spencer. And, finally, that the solution of that origin proposed recently by Sir John Lubbock is a mere version of simple utilitarianism, appeal- ing to the pleasure or safety of the individual, and there- fore utterly incapable of solving the riddle it attacks. Such appearing to be the case as to the power of " Nat- ural Selection," we, nevertheless, find moral conceptions — formally moral ideas — not only spread over the civilized world, but manifesting themselves unmistakably (in how- ever rudimentary a condition, and however misapplied) 222 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. among the lowest and most degraded of savages. If from among these, individuals can be brought forward who seem to be destitute of any moral conception, similar cases also may easily be found in highly-civilized communities. Such cases tell no more against moral intuitions than do cases of color-blindness or idiotism tell against sight and reason. We have thus a most important and conspicuous fact, the existence of which is fatal to the theory of " Natural Selec- tion," as put forward of late by Mr. Darwin and his most ardent followers. It must be remarked, however, that what- ever force this fact may have against a belief in the origi- nation of man from brutes by minute, fortuitous variations, it has no force whatever against the conception of the or- derl}'^ evolution and successive manifestation of specific forms by ordinary natural law — even if we include among such the upright frame, the ready hand, and massive brain, ^ of man himself. X] PANGENESIS. 223 CHAPTER X PANGENESIS. A rrovlslonnl Hypothesis Bupploinpntinp " Nntiira! Solocflon."— St/itemcnt of the Hy- pothesis.— Diflicnlty ns to MtiltUudo of Gonimulos.— As to Ccrtiiin Moewos nnd Prof. Dolpino. — Difllculty n.s to l)c vclopmcnt.il Force of ricmmnlcs.— As to their Pponfnneous Ussion.— Pniipenesls nnd Vitalism.— Pnmdo.xicnJ Reality.— rnnpcne- flis Pcnrcoly fliipcrior to Anterior Hypothesis. — Huflbn.—0>Ten.— Herbert Spen- cer. — " Ociiuniilea " oa MyBtcrlous tia " Phyaiologlcal Units."— ConcJusion. In addition to the theory of " Natural Selection," by which it has been attempted to account lor the origin of species, Mr. Darwin has also put forward what he modestly terms " a provisional hypothesis" (that of Vangcncsis)^hY which to account for the origin of each and every individ- ual form. Now, though the hypothesis of Pangenesis is no neces- sary part of " Natural Selection," still any treatise on spe- cific origination would be incomplete if it did not take into consideration this last speculation of Mr. Darwin. The liypothesis in question may be stated as follows : That each living organism is ultimately made up of an almost infinite number of minute particles, or organic atoms, termed" gem- mulos," each of which has the power of n^producing i(s kind. Moreover, that these particles circulate freely about the organism which is made up of them, and are derived from all the parts of all the organs of the less remote an- cestors of each such organism during all the states and stages of such several ancestors' existence ; and therefore of the several states of each of such ancestors' organs. That such a com])lete collection of gemmulcs is aggregated in 224 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. each ovum and spermatozoon in most animals, and each part capable of reproducing by gemmation (busolutely or nearly superfluous from the necessarily contiimous absence of certain gemnuiles through so many centuries and so many generations. Yet it is not at all so, and this fact seems to amount almost to an experimental demonstration that the hypothesis of pangenesis is an insufficient explanation of individual evo- lution. Two exceedingly good criticisms of Mr. Darwin^s hy- pothesis have appeared. One of these is by Mr. G. H. Lewes,* the other by Prof. Delpino of Florence." The latter gentleman gives a report of an observation made by him upon a certain plant, which observation adds force to what has just been said about the Jewish race. He says : ' "If we examine and compare the numerous species of the genus Salvia, conunencing with Salvia officinalis, which may pass as the main state of the genus, and concluding < Sec Fnrlnifjflifhf Jfrview, New Scrie.q, vol. ili., April, 1808, p. 352. 6 This appeared in the Revista Contonjyyranca Nozionah Ifn/lana^ nnd was translated and given to the Eni^lish public in SrinUifir. Opinion for September 29, October 0, and October 13, 1809, pp. 305, 391, 407. « See Scientific Opinion, of October 13, 18G9, p. 407. 228 THE GEiVESIS OF SPECKS. [Chap. with Salvia vertlcillata, wliicli may be taken as the most liiglily-tleveloped form, and as the most distant from tiie type, we observe u singuhir ])henomenon. The lower cell of each of the two fertile anthers, which is much reduced and different from the superior even in Salvia ojflci/ialis, is transmuted in other salv'ue into an organ (nectarotheca) having a very difl'erent form and function, and linally dis- appears entirely in Salvia verticillata. " Now, on one occasion, in a flower belonging to an individual of Salvia verticillata, and only on the left stamen, I observed a perfectly-developed and polliniferous lower cell, perfectly homologous with that which is normally developed in Salvia officinalis. This case of atavism is truly singular. According to the theory of Pangenesis, it is necessary to assume that all the gennnules of this anom- alous formation, and therefore the mother-gemmulc of the cell, and the danghter-gemnmles of the special epidermic tissue, and of the very singular subjacent tissue of the endothecium, have been perpetuated, and transmitted from parent to offspring in a dormant stat(j, and through a nund)er of generations, such as startles the imagination, and leads it to refuse its consent to Ihe theory of Pangenesis, however seductive it may be." This seems a strong confir- mation of what has been here advanced. The main objection raised against Mr. Darwin's hy- pothesis is that it (Pangenesis) requires so many subordi- nate hypotheses for its support, and that some of these are not tenable. Professor Delpino considers ' that as many as eight of these subordinate hypotheses are required; namely, that — " 1. Tlie emission of the gemmules takes place, or may take place, in all states of the cell. ' See Scientijic Opinion^ of September 29, 18G9, p. 366. X.] PANGENESIS. 229 " 2. TiiG quantity of gcmmulcs emitted from every cell is very groat. " 3. The minuteness of the gemmules is extreme. " 4. The gemmules possess two sorts of affinity, one of T>'hich miglit be called projyagative, and the other germina- tive allinity. "5. J5y means of tlie propngativc affniity all the gemnniles emitted by all the cells of the individual flow together and become condensed in the cells which compose the sexual organs, -whether male or female (embryonal vesi- cle, cells of the embryo, pollen-grains, fovilla, antherozoids, spermatozoids), and likewise flow together and become con- densed in the cells which constitute the organs of a sexual or agamic reproduction (buds, spores, bulbilli, portions of the body separated by scission, etc.). " G. J3y means of the germinative afTniity, every gem mule (except in cases of anomalies or monstrosities) can be devcl- ojied only in cells homologous Avith the mother-cells of the cell from which they originated. In other words, the gem- mules from any cell can only be developed in unison with the cell preceding it in due order of succession, and while in a nascent state. " 7. Of each kind of gemmule a great number perishes ; a great number remains in a dormant state through many generations in the bodies of descendants ; the remainder germinate and reproduce the mother-cell. " 8. Every gemmule may multiply itself by a process of scission into any number of equivalent gemmules." Mr. Darwin has published a short notice in reply to Prof. Uclpino, in Scientific Opitiion of October 20, 18G9, p. 426. In this reply he admits the justice of Prof. Del- pino's attack, but objects to the alleged necessity of the first subordinate hypothesis, namely, that "the emission of gemnmles takes place in all states of the cell." But if this is not the case, then a great part of the utility and dis- 230 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. tinction of pangenesis is destroyed ; or, as Mr. Lewes justly says,' "If gemmules produce whole cells, we have the very power which was pronounced mysterious in larger organisms." Mr. Darwin also does not see the force of the objection to the power of self-division which must be asserted of the gemmules tliemselvcs if Pangenesis be true. The objection, liowever, appears to many to be formidable. To admit the power of spontaneous division and multii)lication in such rudimentary structures, seems a complete contradiction. The gemmules, by the hypothesis of Pangenesis, are the ultimate organized components of the body, the absolute organic atoms of which each body is composed ; how then can they be divisible ? Any part of a gemmule would be an impossible (because a less than possible) quantity. If it is divisible into still smaller organic wholes, as a germ-cell is, it must be made up, as the germ-cell is, of subordinate component atoms, which are then the true gemmules. Tliis process may be repeated ad injiaitiuii^ unless we get to true organic atoms, the true gemmules, whatever they may be, and they necessarily will be incapable of any process of spontaneous fission. It is remarkable that Mr. Darwin brings forward in support of gemmule fission, the observa- tion that "Thuret has seen the zoospore of an alga divide itself, and both halves germinate." Yet on the hypothesis of Pangenesis, the zoospore of an alga must contain gem- mules from all the cells of tlie parent algic, and from all tlie parts of all their less remote ancestors in all their stages of existence. Wliat wonder then that such an excessively complex body should divide and nuiltiply; and wliat parity is there between such a body and a gemmule ? A steam- engine and a steel-filing might equally well be com2:)ared together. Prof. Delpino makes a further objection which, how- 8 Forlnigfdly Review^ New Series, vol. iii., April, 1868, p. 508. X.] PANGENESIS. 231 ever, will only be of weight in the eyes of Vitalists. He says,' Pangenesis is not to be received because " it leads directly to the negation of a specific vital principle, coor- dinating and regulating all the movements, acts, and func- tions of the individuals in wdiicli it is incarnated. For Pangenesis of the individual is a term without n)eaning. If, in contemplating an animal of high organization, we regard it purely as an aggregation of developed gcmmules, although these gcmmules have been evolved successively one after the other, and one within the other, notwith- standing the}" elude the conception of the real and true m dividual, these problematical and invisible gcmmules must be regarded as so many individuals. Now, that real, true, living individuals exist in Nature, is a truth which is persistently attested to us by our consciousness. But how, then, can we explain that a great quantity of dissimilar elements, like the atoms of matter, can unite to form those perfect unities which we call individuals, if we do not sup- pose the existence of a specific principle, proper to the individual but foreign to the component atoms, which aggregates these said atoms, groups themr into molecules, and then moulds the molecules into cells, the cells into tissues, the tissues into organs, and the organs into appa- ratus ? " " But, it may be urged in opposition by the Pangene- sists, your vital principle is an unknown and irresolute x. This is true ; but, on the other hand, let us see whether Pangenesis produces a clearer formula, and one free from unknown elements. The existence of the gcmmules is a first unknown element ; the propagative aHTmity of the gem- mules is a second ; their germinative afiTmity is a third ; their multiplication by fission is a fourth — and what an unknown element ! " "Thus, in Pangenesis, every thing proceeds by force of » Scicrd'ijic Opinion, of October 13, 18G9, p. 408. 232 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. unknown elements, and we may ask whether it is more logical to prefer a system which assumes a multitude of unknown elements to a system which assumes only a single one ? " i Mr. Darwin appears, by " Natural Selection," to destroy the reality of species, and by Pangenesis that of the indi- vidual. Mr. Lewes observes'" of the indivichial that "this whole is only a subjective conception which summarizes the parts, and that in point of fact it is the parts which are re- produced." But the parts are also, from the same point of view, merely subjective until we come to the absolute or- ganic atoms. These atoms, on the other hand, are utterly invisible, intangible ; indeed, in the words of JNIr. Danvin, inconceivable. Thus, then, it results from the theories in question, that the organic world is reduced to utter imreal- ity as regards all that can be jierceived by the senses or distinctly imagined by the mind ; while the only reality consists of the invisible, the insensible, the inconceivable. In other words, nothing is known tliat really is, and only the non-existent can be known. A somewhat paradoxical outcome of tlie speculations of those who profess to rely exclusively on the testimony of sense. " I^es extremes se touche?it" and extreme sensationalism shakes hands with the " das seyn ist das nichts " of Hegel. Altogether the hypothesis of Pangenesis seems to be little, if at all, superior to anterior hypotheses of a more or less similar nature. Apart from the atoms of Democritus, and apart also from the speculations of mediieval writers, the molecules of Bonnet and of BufTon almost anticipated the hypothesis of Pangenesis. According to the last-named author,'* organic '° Fortnightly Review] New Series, vol. iii., April, 18G8, p. 509. '' "llistoire Naturelle, geii6rale et paiticuliere," tome ii., 17-19, p. 327. " Ces liqueurs suiuiuales sout toutes lieux uu extiait de toutes lea parties du corps," etc. X.] PANGENESIS. 233 particles from every part of the body assemble in the sex- ual secretions, and by their union build up the embryo, each particle taking its due place, and occupying in the ofT- sj)ring a simihir position to that which it occupied in the parents. In 1849, Prof. Owen, in his treatise on " Par- tlienogetiesis," put forward another conception. According to this, the cells resulting from the subdivision of the germ- cell preserve their developmental force, unless employed in building up dcnnite organic structures. In certain crea- tures, and in certain parts of other creatures, germ-cells un- used are stored up, and by their agency lost limbs and other mutilations are repaired. Such unused })roducts of the germ-c(?ll are also su])posed to become located in the gen- erative products. According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his " Principles of Biology," each living organism consists of certain so-called "physiological units." Each of these units has an iiuiate power and capacity, by which it tends to build up and re- produce the entire organism of which it forms a part, unless in the mean time its force is exhausted by its taking part in the production of some distinct and definite tissue — a con- dition somewhat similar to that conceived by Prof. Owen. Now, at first sight, Mr. Darwin's atomic theory appears to be more simple than any of the others. It has been ob- jected that while Mr. Spencer's theory requires the assump- tion of an innate power and tendency in each physiological unit, Mr. Darwin's, on the other hand, requires nothing of the kind, but explains the evolution of each individual by purely mechanical conceptions. In fact, however, it is not so. Each gemmule, according to ]\Ir. Darwin, is really the seat of powers, elective affinities, and special tendencies, as marked and mysterious as those possessed by the physiologi- cal unit of Mr. Spencer, with the single exception that the former has no tendency to build up the whole living, com- plex organism of which it forms a part. Some may think 234 I'nii GENESIS OF SPECIES. [CiiAr. this an important distinction, but it can liardly be so, for Mr. Darwin considers tliat his genimule has tlie innate power and tendency to build up and transform itself into the whole living, complex cell of which it forms a part; and the one tendency is, in princij)le, fully as dillicult to under- stand, fully as mysterious, as is the other. The diflerence is but one of degree, not of kind. Moreover, the one mys- tery in the case of the " physiological unit " explains all, while with regard to the gemmule, as we have seen, it has to be supplemented by other powers and tendencies, each distinct, and each in itself inexplicable and profoundly mysterious. Tiiat there should be physiological imits possessed of the power attributed to them, harmonizes with what has recently been put forward by Dr. II. Charlton Bastian ; who maintains that imder fit conditions the simjilest organisms develop themselves into relatively large and comjilex ones. This is not supposed by him to be due to any inheritance of ancestral genmiules, but to direct growth and transforma- tion of the most minute and the simplest organisms, which themselves, by all reason and analogy, owe tiieir existence to immediate transformation from the inorganic world. Thus, then, there are grave difficulties in the way of the reception of the hypothesis of Pangenesis, which, moreover, if established, would leave the cvohiliou of individual or- ganisms, when thoroughly analyz(Hl, little if at all less mys- terious or really explicable than it is at present. As was said at the beginning of this chapter, " Pangen- esis " and "Natural Selection" are quite sej)arable and distinct hypotheses. The fall of one of these by no means necessarily includes that of the other. Nevertheless, Mr. Darwin has associated them closely together, and, there- fore, the refutation of Pangenesis may render it advisable for those who have hitherto accepted " Natural Selection " to reconsider that theory. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS, 235 CIIArTER XL SrECIFIC GENESIS. Review of the Stiitementfl and Arpuinents of Preceding Clinpters.— Ciinnilntivo Arpn- ment npalnst Predonilnnnt Action of "NntiirnI Pelectlrn."— Whether nny tlilnp positive fts well ns negative can ho enuneiated.— Constancy of I^wa of Nature does not necessarily imply Constancy of Speeiflo Evolution.— Posslhln Kxccptionni PU- Mlity of Kxifltlnff Epoch.— rroimhillty that nn Internal Cnnso of CImnjfo exists.— Innate Powers must bo eonceiven/e of species during that time may be no measure of the rate that has generally obtained in past geological epochs^ 2 " Habit and Intelligence," vol. i., p. 344. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 243 internal power is a great, perhaps the main, determining agent. It will, however, be replied that such an entity is no vera caitsa / that if the conception is accepted, it is no real explanation ; and that it is merely a roundabout way of saying that the facts are as they are, while the cause re- mains unknown. To this it may be rejoined that for all who believ e in the existence of the abstraction " force " at all, otlier than will, this conception of an internal force must be accepted and located somewhere — cannot be elim- inated altogether; and that therefore it may as reasona- bly be accepted in this mode as in any other. It was urged at the end of the third chapter that it is congruous to credit mineral species with an internal power or force. By such a power it may be conceived that crys- tals not only assume their external symmetry, but even repair it when injured. Ultimate chemical elements must also be conceived as possessing an innate tendency to form certain unions, and to cohere in stable aggregations. This was considered toward the end of Chapter VIII. Turning to the organic world, even on the hypothesis of Mr. Herbert Spencer or that of Mr. Darwin, it is imi)os- sible to escape the conception of innate internal forces. With regard to the physiological units of the former, Mr. Spencer himself, as we have seen, distinctly attributes to them " an ijuiate tendency " to evolve the parent-form from which they sprang. With regard to the gemmules of Mr. Darwin, we have seen, in Chapter X., with how many innate powers, tendencies, and capabilities, they must each be severally endowed, to reproduce their kind, to evolve complex organisms or cells, to exercise germinative affin- ity, etc. If then (as was before said at the end of Cliapter VIII.) such innate powers must be attributed to chemical atoms, to mineral species, to gemmules, and to physiological units, 244 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Cuap. it is only reasonal)le to attribute such to each individual organism. The conception of such internal and latent capabilities is somewhat like that of Mr. Galton, before mentioned, ac- cording to which the organic world consists of entities, each of which is, as it were, a spheroid with many facets on its surface, upon one of which it reposes in stable equi- librium. When by the accumulated action of incident forces this equilibrium is disturbed, the spheroid is sup- posed to turn over until it settles on an adjacent facet once more in stable equilibrium. The internal tendency of an organism to certain consid- erable and definite changes would correspond to the facets on the surface of the spheroid. It may be objected that we have no knowledge as to how terrestrial, cosmical, and other forces, can affect organ- isms so as to stimulate and evolve these latent, merely po- tential forms. But we have had evidence that such myste- rious agencies do affect organisms in ways as yet inexj)li- cable, in the very remarkable ell'ects of geographical condi- tions which were detailed in the third chapter. It is quite conceivable that the material organic world may be so constituted that the simultaneous action uj)on it of all known forces, mechanical, physical, chemical, mag- netic, terrestrial, and cosmical, together with other as yet unknown forces which probably exist, may result in changes which are harmonious and symmetrical, just as the internal nature of vibrating plates causes particles of sand scattered over them to assume definite and symmetrical figures when made to oscillate in different ways by the bow of a violin being drawn along their edges. The results of these com- bined internal powers and external influences might be rep- resented under the symbol of complex series of vibrations (analogous to those of sound or light) forming a most com- plex harmony or a display of most varied colors. In such XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 245 a way tlio reparation of local injuries niiglit l)e symbolized as a filling up and completion of an interrupted rhythm. Tlnis also monstrous aberrations from typical structure might correspond to a discord, and sterility from crossing be compared with the darkness resulting from the interfer- ence of waves of light. Stich symbolism will harmonize witli the peculiar repro- duction, before mentioned, of heads in the body of certain annelids, with the facts of serial homology, as well as those of bilateral and vertical symmetry. Also, as the atoms of a resonant body may be made to give out sound by the juxtaposition of a \'ibrating tuning-fork, so it is conceivable that the physiological units of a living organism may be so influenced by surrounding conditions (organic and other) that the accumulation of these conditions may upset the previous rhythm of such units, producing modifications in them — a fresh chord in the harmony of Nature — a new species I But it may be again objected that to say that species arise by the help of an innate power possessed by organ- isms is no explanation, but is a reproduction of the ab- surdity, Vojnum endormit parcequHlaune vertu soporifique. It is contended, however, that this objection does not ap- ply, even if it be conceded that there is that force in Mo- licre's ridicule which is generally attributed to it.' Much, however, might be said in opposition to more than one of that brilliant dramatist's smart philosophical epigrams, just as to the theological ones of Voltaire, or to the biological one of that other Frenchman who for a time discredited ' If nny one were to contend that beside the opium there existed a real distinct objective entity, " its soporific virtue," he wordd bo open to ridicule indeed. But the constitution of our minds is such that we can- not but distinguish ideally a thing from its even essential attributes and qualities. The joke is sufficiently amusing, however, regarded as tho solemu enunciation of a mere truism. 24G THE GENESIS OF SPEtJiES. [Chap. a cranial skeletal theory by the phrase " Vei tebre pen- sante." * In fact, however, it is a real explanation of how a man lives to say that he lives independently, on his own income, instead of being supported by his relatives and friends. In the same way, tliere is fully as real a distinction between the production of new specific manifestations entirely ah externOy and by the production of the same through an in- nate force and tendency, the determination of which into action is occasioned bv external circumstances. To say that organisms possess this innate power, and that by it new species are from time to time produced, is by no means a mere assertion that they a?'e i)roduced, and in an unknown mode. It is the negation of that view whicli deems external forces alone sufficient, and at the same time the assertion of something positive, to be arrived at by the process of reductio ad absurdum. All physical explanations result ultimately in such con- ceptions of innate power, or else in that of will-force. The far-famed explanation of the celestial motions ends in the conception that every particle of matter has the innate power of attracting every other particle directly as the mass, and inversely as the square of the distance. We are logically driven to this positive conception if we do not accept the view that there is no force but voli- tion, and that all j)henomena whatever are the immediate results of the action of intelligent and self-conscious will. We have seen that the notion of sudden changes — salta- tory actions in Nature — has received countenance from Prof. Huxley.* We must conceive that these jumps are orderly, and according to law, inasmuch as the whole cos- * Noticed by Prof. Owen in his *' Archetype," p. 76. Recently it has been attempted to discredit Darwinism in France by speaking of it as " de la science tnousseuse / " « " Lay Sermons," p. 342. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 247 Jnos is sucli. Such orderly evolution harmonizes with a teleology derived, not indeed from external Nature directly, but from the mind of man. On this point, however, more will be said in the next chapter. But, once more, if new sjiecies are not manifested by the action of external condi- tions upon minute indefinite individual dilTerenccs, in what precise way may we conceive that manifestation to have taken place ? Are new species now evolving, as they have been from time to time evolved ? If so, in what way and by wiiat conceivable means ? In the first jilace, they must be produced by natural ac- tion in preC'xisling malerial, or by supernal ural action. For reasons to be given in the next chapter, the second hypothesis need not be considered. If, then, new species are and have been evolved from preexisting material, must that material have been organic or inorganic? As before said, additional arguments have lately been brought forward to show that individual organisms do arise from a basis of e?i-organic material only. As, however, this at the most ajipears to be the case, if at all, only with the lowest and most minute organisms exclusively, the process cannot be observed, though it may perhaps be fairly in- ferred. We may therefore, if for no other reason, dismiss the notion that highly-organized animals and plants can be sud- denly or gradually built up by any combination of physical forces and natural powers acting externally and internally upon and in merely inorganic material as a base. But the question is. How have the highest kinds of ani- mals and plants arisen ? It seems impossible that tiiey can have appeared otherwise than by the agency of antecedent organisms not greatly different from them. A multitude of facts, ever increasing in number and ini- 248 TnE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. portance, all point to such a mode of specific manifesta- tion. One very good example has been adduced by Prof. Flower in tlie introductory lecture of his first Hunteriuu Course.' It is the reduction in size, to a greater or less degree, of the second and tljird digits of tiie foot in Aus- tralian marsupials, and this, in sj)ite of tlie very dillerent form and function of the foot in dillerent groups of those animals. A similarly sigin'ficant evidence of relationship is af- forded by processes of the zygomatic region of the skull in certain edentates existing and extinct. Again, the relation between existing and recent faunas of the dillerent regions of the world, and the predominating (though by no means exclusive) march of organization, from the more general to the more special point in the same direction. Almost all the facts brought forward by the patient industry of Mr. Darwin in support of his theory of "Natu- ral Selection," are of course available as evidence in favor of the agency of preexisting and similar animals in specific evolution. Now tlie new forms must be produced by changes tak- ing place in organisms in, after, or before their birth, either in their embryonic, or toward or in their adult, condition. Examples of strange births are sufficiently common, and they may arise either from direct embryonic modifications or apparently from some obscure change in the parental action. To the former category belong the hosts of in- stances of malformation through arrest of development, and perhaps generally monstrosities of some sort are the result of such alFections of the embryo. To the second category belong all ciises of hybridism, of cross-breed, and in all prob- ' Introductory Lecture of February 14, 1870, pp. 24-30, Figs. 1-4. (Churchill k Sous.) XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 249 ability the now variclics and forms, such as the memorable one of the black-shouldered peacock. In all tliese cases we do not have abortions or monstrosities, but more or less har- monious forms, often of great functional activity, endowed with marked viability and generative prepotency, except in the case of hybrids, when we often find even a more marked generative impotency. It seems probable therefore that new species may arise from some constitutional affection of parental forms — an affection mainly, if not exclusively, of their generative sys- tem. Mr. Darwin has carefully collected' numerous in- stances to show how excessively sensitive to various influ- ences this system is. lie says: * " Sterility is independent of general health, and is often accompanied by excess of size, or great luxuriance," and, " No one can tell, till he tries, whether any particular animal will breed under confinement, or any exotic plant seed freely under culture." Again, " When a new character arises, whatever its nature may be, it generally tends to be inherited, at least in a temporary, and sometimes in a most persistent manner."' Yet the obscure action of conditions will alter characters long inher- ited, as the grandchildren of Aylesbury ducks removed to a distant part of England, completely lost their early habit of incubation, and hatched their eggs at the same time with the common ducks of the same place." " Mr. Darwin quotes Mr. Bartlett as saying : " It is remark- able that lions breed more freely in travelling collections than in the zoological gardens ; probably the constant ex- citement and irritation produced by moving from place to place, or change of air, may have considerable influence iu the matter." " 'See especially "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., chap, xviii. » "Origin of Species," 5th edit., pp. 323, 324. » "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 2. "> Ibid., p. 26. " Ibid., p. 161. 250 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. ' [Chap. Mr. Darwin also says : " There is reason to believe that insects are affected by confinement like the higher animals," and he gives examples.'' Again, he gives examples of change of plumage in the linnet, bunting, oriole, and other birds, and of the tempo- rary modification of the horns of a male deer during a voyage.'* Finally, he adds that these changes cannot be attributed to loss of health or vigor, " when we reflect how healthy, long-lived, and vigorous many animals are under captivity, such as parrots, and hawks when used for hawking, chetahs when used for hunting, and elephants. The reproductive organs themselves are not diseased ; and the diseases from which animals in menageries usually perish, are not those which in any way affect their fertility. No domestic ani- mal is more subject to disease than the sheep, yet it is remarkably prolific. ... It would appear that any change in the habits of life, whatever these habits may be, if great enough, tends to affect in an inexplicable manner the })ow- ers of reproduction." Such, then, is the singular sensitiveness of the genera- tive system. As to the means by which that system is affected, we see that a variety of conditions affect it ; but as to the modes in which they act upon it, we have as yet little if any clew. We have also seen the singular effects (in tailed Lepi- doptera, etc.) of causes connected with geographical distri- bution, the mode of action of which is as yet{iuite inexpli- cable; and we have also seen the innate tendency which there appears to be in certain groups (birds of paradise, etc.) to develop peculiarities of a special kind. It is, to say the least, probable that other influences exist, terrestrial and cosmical, as yet unnoted. The grad- •' "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii., p. 157. » Ibid., p. 158. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 251 ually accumulntiiig or diversely combining actions of all these on liiglily-sensilive structures, Avliicli arc themselves possessed of internal resj)onsive powers and tendencies, may well result in occasional repeated productions of forms harmonious and vigorous, and differing from the parental forms in proportion to the result of the combining or con- flictinn: action of all external and internal influences. If, in the past history of this })lanet, more causes ever intervened, or intervened more energetically tlian at pres- ent, we miglit a priori expect a richer and more various evolution of forms more radically differing than any which could be produced under conditions of more perfect equi- librium. At the same time, if it be true that the last few thousand years have been a ])eriod of remarkable and exceptional uniformity as regards this planet's astronomical relations, there are then some grounds for thinking that organic evolution may have been exceptionally depressed during the same epoch. Now, as to the fact that sudden changes and sudden developments have occurred, and as to the probability that such changes are likely to occur, evidence was given in Chapter IV. In Chapter V. we also saw that minerals become modi- fied suddenly and considerably by the action of incident forces — as, e. g., the production of hexagonal tabular crys- tals of carbonate of copper by sulphuric acid, and of long rectangular i)risms by ammonia, etc. We have thus a certain antec(Hlent j)robability that if changes are produced in specific manifestation through inci- dent forces, these changes will be sensible and considerable, not minute and infinitesimal. Consequently, it is probable that new species have appeared from time to time with comparative suddenness, and that they still continue so to arise if all the conditions necessary for specific evolution now obtain. 252 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. Tills probability will be incrcasccl if the observations of Dr. I5astian are confirined by future investigation. Ao- conling to his report, when the requisite conditions were supplied, the transformations which appeared to take place (from very low to higher organisms) were sudden, definite, and comj)lete. Therefore, if this is so, there must proba])ly exist in higher forms a similar tendency to sucli change. That tendency may indeed be long suppressed, and ultimately modified by the action of heredity — an action which w(juld increase in force with the increase in the j)erfection and complexity of the organism affected. Still we might expect that such changes as do take place would be also sudden, definite, and complete. Moreover, as the same causes produce the same efTects, several individual parent-forms must often have been simi- larly and simultaneously affected. That they should be so afTected — at least that several similarly-jnodified individuals should simultaneously arise — has been seen to be a generally necessary circumstance for the permanent duration of such new modifications. It is also conceivable that such new forms may be en- dowed with excessive constitutional strength and viability, and with generative prepotency, as was the case with the black-shouldered peacock in Sir J. Trevelyan's flock. This flock was entirely composed of the common kind, and yet the new form rapidly developed itself, ^'to the extinction of the previoitsly-exlsting breed?'' " Indeed, the notion accepted by both Mr. l^arwin and Mr. Herbert Spencer, and which is plainly the fact (namely, that changes of conditions and incident forces, within limits, augment the viability and fertility of individuals), harmon- izes well with the suggested possibility as to an augmented viability and prepotency in new organic forms evolved by ** "Auimald and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 291. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. 253 peculiar consonlancous actions of conditions and forces, both external and internal. The remnrkable series of changes noted by Dr. Bastian were certainly not produced by external incident forces 07\bj, but by these 'acting on a peculiar materia^ having special properti(;s and powers. Therefore, the changes were in- duced by the consentaneous action of internal and external forces.** In the same uay, then, we may expect changes in higher forms to be evolved by similar united action of inter- nal and external forces. One other point may here be alluded to. When the re- markable way in which structure and function simultaneously change, is borne in mind ; when those numerous instances in wliich Nature has supplied similar wants by similar means, as detailed in Cliapter III., are remembered ; when also all the wonderful contrivances of orchids, of mimicry, and the strange complexity of certain instinctive actions are consid- ered — then the conviction forces itself on many minds that the organic world is the expression of an intelligence of some kind. This view has been well advocated by Mr. Joseph John Murphy, in his recent work so often here re- ferred to. This intelligence, however, is evidently not altogether such as ours, or else has other ends in view than those most obvious to us. For the end is often attained in singularly roundabout ways, or with a prodigality of means which seems out of all proportion with the result : not with the simple action directed to one end which generally marks human activity. Organic Nature then speaks clearly to man}'^ minds of the action of an intelligence resulting, on the whole and in the main, in order, harmony, and beauty, yet of an intelligence the ways of which are not such as ours. '* Thonpli hardly necessary, it may bo well to remark that the views here advocated in no way depend upon the truth of the doctrine of Spon- taneous (icncration. 254 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. This view of evolution harmonizes well with theistic con- ceptions ; not, of course, that this harmony is brought for- ward as an argument in its favor generally, but it will have weight with those who are convinced that Tlicism rei)oses upon solid grounds of reason as the rational view of the uni- verse. To such it may be observed that, thus conceived, the Divine action has that slight amount of resemblance to, and tliat wide amount of divergence from, what human action would be, which might be expected a priori— might be expected, that is, from a Being whose nature and aims are utterly beyond our power to imagine, however faintly, but whose truth and goodness are the fountain and source of our own perceptions of such qualities. The view of evolution maintained in this work, though arrived at in complete independence, yet seems to agree in many respects with the views advocated by Prof. Owen in the last volume of his " Anatomy of Vertebrates," under the term " derivation." He says : " " Derivation liolds that every species changes in time, by virtue of inherent tenden- cies thereto. * Natural Selection ' holds that no such change can take place without the influence of altered external circumstances." * Derivation ' sees among the eflects of the innate tendency to change irrespective of altered circum- stances, a .^^^lifestation of creative power in the variety and beauty of the results ; and, in the ultimate forthcoming of a being susceptible of appreciating such beauty, evidence of the preordaining of such relation of power to the appre- ciation. ' Natural Selection ' acknowledges that if ornament or beauty, in itself, should be a purpose in creation, it would be absoKitely fatal to it as a hypothesis." " ' Natural Selection ' sees grandeur in the view of life, '« Vol. iii., p. 808. '' Tliis is hardly an exact representation of Mr. Darwin's view. On his theory, if a Hivorable variation happens to arise (the external ciicum- stunces remaining the same), it will yet be preserved. XI.] SPECIFIC GENESIS. or.r. ^vitll its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. * Derivation' sees therein a narrow invocation of a special miracle and an im- worthy limitation of creative power, the grandeur of which is manifested daily, hourly, in calling into life many forms, byconversion of physical and chemical into vital modes of force, under as many diversified conditions of the requisite elements to be so combined." The view propounded in this work allows, however, a greater and more important part to the share of external influences, it being believed by the author, however, that these external influences efjually with the internal ones arc the results of one harmonious action underlying the whole of Nature, organic and inorganic, cosmical, physical, chemi- cal, terrestrial, vital, and social. According to this view, an internal law presides over the actions of every part of every individual, and of every organism as a unit, and of the entire organic world as a whole. It is believed that this conception of an internal innate force will ever remain necessary, however much its subordinate processes and actions may become explicable : That by such a force, from time to time, new species are manifested by ordinary generation just as T*avo 7iigripennis appeared suddenly, these new forms not being monstrosities but harmonious self-consistent wholes. That thus, as spe- cific distinctness is manifested by obscure sexual conditions, so in obscure sexual modifications specific distinctions arise. That these "jumps" are considerable in comparison with the minute variations of " Natural Selection " — are in fact sensible steps, such as discriminate species from spe- cies. Tliat the latent tendency which exists to these sudden evolutions is determined to action by the stimulus of exter- nal conditions. That " Natural Selection " rigorously destroys mon- 25G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. strosities, and abortive and feeble attempts at the perform- ance of the evolutionary process. That " Natural Selection " removes the antecedent spe- cies rapidly when the new one evolved is more in harmony with surrounding conditions. That " Natural Selection " favors and develops useful variations, though it is impotent to originate them or to erect tlie physiological barrier which seems to exist between species. By some such conception as this, the difTicuUies here enumerated, which beset the theory of " Natural Selection " piu-e and simple, are to be got over. Thus, for example, the dilhculties discussed in the first chapter — namely, those as to the origins and first begin- nings of certain structures — are completely evaded. Again, as to the independent origin of closely-similar structures, such as the eyes of the Vertebrata and cuttle- fishes, the difficulty is removed if we may adopt the concep- tion of an innate force similarly directed in each case, and assisted by favorable external conditions. Specific stability, limitation to variability, and the facts of reversion, all harmonize with the view here put forward. Tlie same may be said with regard to the significant facts of homology, and of organic symmetry ; and our consider- ation of the hypothesis of Pangenesis in Chapter X., has seemed to result in a view as to innate powers which accords well with what is here advocated. The evolutionary hypothesis here advocated also serves to explain all those remarkable facts which were stated in the first chapter to be explicable by the theory of Natural Selection, namely, the relation of existing to recent faunas and floras ; the phenomena of homology and of rudimentary structures ; also the processes gone through in develop- ment ; and lastly, the wonderful facts of mimicry. Finally, the view adopted is the synthesis of many dis- XL] SPECIFIC GENESIS. • 357 tinct and, at first sight, conflicting conceptions, cacli of wliicli contains elements of truth, and all of which it ap- pears to be able more or less to harmonize. Thus it has been seen that "Natural Selection" is ac- cepted. It acts and must act, though alone it docs not appear capable of fulfilling the task assigned to it by Mr. Darwin. Pangenesis has probably also much truth in it, and has certainly afforded valuable and pregnant suggestions, but miaided and alone it seems inadequate to explain the evo- lution of the individual organism. Those three conceptions of the organic world which may be spoken of as the teleological, the typical, and the transmutationist, have often been regarded as mutually an- tagonistic and conflicting. The genesis of species as here conceived, however, ac- cepts, locates, and harmonizes all the three. Teleology concerns the ends for which organisms were designed. The recognition, therefore, that their formation took place by an evolution not fortuitous, in no way invali- dates the acknowledgment of their final causes if on other grounds there are reasons for believing that such final causes exist. Conformity to type, or the creation of species according to certain " divine ideas,'* is in no way interfered >vith by such a process of evolution as is here advocated. Such "divine ideas" must be accepted or declined upon quite other grounds than the mode of their realization, and of their manifestation in the world of sensible phenomena. Transmutationism (an old name for the evolutionary hy- pothesis), which was conceived at one time to be the very antithesis to the two preceding conceptions, harmonizes well with them if the evolution be conceived to be onlerly and designed. It will in the next chapter be shown to be completely in harmony with conceptions, upon the accept- 258 • THE GENESIS OF SrECJES. [Ciup. ance of which " final causes " and " divine ideal archetypes '' alike depend. Thus then, if the cumulative argument put forward in this book is valid, we must admit the insulliciency of " Nat- ural Selection " both on account of the residuary phenomena it fails to explain, and on account of certain other phenom- ena which seem actually to conflict with tliat theory. We liave seen that though the laws of Nature are constant, yet some of the conditions which determine specific change may be exceptionally absent at the present epoch of the world's history ; also that it is not only possil)le, but higlily probable, that an internal power or tendency is an important if not the main agent in evoking the manifestation of new species on the scene of realized existence, and that in any case, from the facts of homology, innate internal powers to tlie full as mysterious must anyhow be accepted, whether they act in specific origination or not. ]iesides all this, we have Been that it is probable that the action of this innate power is stimulated, evoked, and determined by external condi- tions, and also that the same external conditions, in the shape of " Natural Selection," play an important part in the evolutionary process : and finally, it has been affirmed that the view here advocated, while it is supported by the facts on which Darwinism rests, is not open to the objections and difTjculties which oppose themsch^es to the reception of " Natural Selection," as the exclusive or even as the main agent in the successive and orderly evolution of or- ganic forms in the genesis of species. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 269 • CIIAPTER XII. THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. PrejiKllcod Opinions on the Ptihjpct.— " Crontion " pomrtimen doniod from ri^jiidiro.— The UnkuownMf.— Mr. Herbert 8ponrer"8 Objections to Theism; to Crontlon.— Mennlnps of Term 'Trontion." — C'onftislon from not dlstlnpiilsbinf^ iK-tween " Pri- mm-)" and " Derlvntlvo" Ocntlon.— Nfr. l)nr\vln> Objections.— Henrlnfr of Clirlg- tlnnlty on the Tlieory of Kvoliitlon.— Supposed Opposition, the IJesiiIt of n Mlscon- ceittlon. — Tlieoloplciil Antliorlty not oppose^l to Kvoliitlon. — St. Aiipnstlne. — Pt. Thomnfl Aqtilnns.— Certnln Consequencos of "Want of Flexibility of Mind.— Ke.rson and Imnplntitlon. — Tbe First C'miso and Demonstration. — Parallel between Clirln- tlnnlty and Natural Theolop)-. — What Evolution of Species Is. — Prof. Apasslz. — In- nate Powers must be recopnlzed.— liearinp of Kvolutlon on Religious Belief— Prof. Huxley. — Prof. Owen. — Mr. AVallace. — Mr. Dnrwln. — A priori Conception of Di- vine Action. — Orlpin of Man.— -.\bsolute Creation and Dopiua. — Mr. "Wallace's View. — A Supernatural Oripin for Man's I?o tions may have any bearing, and if any, what, upon Chris- tian belief. Some readers will consider such an inquiry to be a work of supererogation. Seeing clearly themselves the absurdity of prevalent popular views, and the shallowness of popular objections, they may be impatient of any discussion on the subject. But it is submitted that there are many nu'nds worthy of the highest esteem and of every consideration, which have regained the subject hitherto almost exchisive- ly from one point of view; that there are some persons who 200 THE GI:NESIS of species. [Cuap. nrc opposed to tlic progress (in their own iniiids or in tliat of their children or dependants) of physical scientific trnth — the natural revelation — through a mistaken estimate of its religious bearings, while there are others who are zeal- ous in its promotion from a precisely similar error. For the sake of both these, then, tiie author may perhaps be pardoned for entering slightly on very elementary matters relating to the question whether evolution or Darwinism has any, and if any, what, bearing on tlieology. There are at least two classes of men who will certainly assert that they have a very important and highly-signifi- cant bearing upon it. One of these classes consists of persons zealous for reli gion indeed, but who identify orthodoxy with their own private interpretation of Scripture or with narrow opinions in which they have been brought up — opinions doubtless widely spread, but at the same time destitute of any dis- tinct and authoritative sanction on the part of the Chris- tian Church. The other class is made up of men hostile to religion, and who are glad to make use of any and every argument which they think may possibly be available against it. Some individuals within this latter class may not be- lieve in the existence of God, but may yet abstain from publicly avowing this absence of belief, contenting them- selves with denials of " creation " and " design," though these denials are really consequences of their attitude of mind respecting the most important and fundamental of all beliefs. Without a distinct belief in a personal God it is impos- sible to have any ^-eligion worthy of the name, and no one can at the same time accept the Christian religion and deny the dogma of creation. " I believe in God," " the Creator of Heaven and Earth," the very first clauses of the Apostles' Creed, for- XII.] TUEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 2G1 mally commit tliose avIio accept them to the assertion of tills belief. If, therefore, any theory of })hysical science really conflicts with such an authoritative statement, its importance to Christians is unquestionable. As, however, " creation " forms a part of " revelation," and as " revelation " appeals for its acceptance to " reason," . which has to prepare a basis for it by an intelligent accept- ance of theism on purely rational grounds^ it is necessary to start with a few words as to the reasonableness of belief in God, which indeed are less superfluous than some read- ers may perhaps imagine; "a few words," because this is not the j)lace where the argument can be drawn out, but only one or two hints given in reply to certain modern objections. No better example perhaps can be taken, as a type of these objections, than a passage in Mr. Herbert Spencer's ** First Principles." * This author constantly speaks of the " ultimate cause of things " as " the unknowable," a tenn singularly unfortunate, and, as Mr. James Martineau has pointed out," even self-contradictory: for that entity, the > Sec 2d edit., p. 113, '*' Essays, riillosopliical nnd Tlicological," Triibncr & Co., First Se- ries, ISfifi, p. 100. "Every relative disability may be read two ways. A disqualification in the nature of thought for knowing x is, from the other side, a disqualification in the nature of x from being known. To Bay, then, that the First Cause is wholly removed from our apprehension is not simply a disclaimer of faculty on our part : it is a charge of in- ability against the First Cause too. The dictum about it is this : ' It is a Being that may exist out of knowledge, but that is precluded from en- tering within the sphere of knowledge.' We are told in one breath that this Being must be in every sense ' perfect, complete, total — including in itself all power, and transcending all law ' (p. 38) ; and in another that this perfect omnipotent One is totally incapable of revealing any one of an infinite store of attributes. Need we point out the contradictions -which this position involves ? If you abide by it, you deny the Absolute and Infinite in the very act of afiirming it, for, in debarring the First Cause from self-revelation, you impose a limit on its nature. And, in the 262 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap knowledge of the existence of which presses itself ever more and more upon the cultivated intellect, cannot be the unknown, still less the, unknowable^ because we certainly know it, in that we know for certain that it exists. Nay more, to predicate incognoscibility of it, is even a certain knowledge of the mode of its existence. Mr. H. Spencer says : ' " The consciousness of an Inscrutable Power mani- fested to us through all phenomena has been growing ever clearer; and must eventually be freed fnjm its imperfec- tions. The certainty that on the one hand such a Power exists, while on the other hand its nature transcends intu- ition, and is beyond imagination, is the certainty toward which intelligence has from the first been progressing." One would think, then, that the familiar and accepted word "the Inscrutable" (which is in this passage actually em- ployed, and to which no theologian would object) would be an infinitely better term than " the unknowable." Tlie above extract has, however, such a theistic aspect that some readers may think the opposition here oiTered super- fluous ; it may be well, therefore, to quote two other sen- tences. In another place he observes : * " Passing over the consideration of credibility, and confining ourselves to that of conceivability, we see that atheism, pantheism, and the- ism, when rigorously analyzed, severally prove to be abso- lutely unthinkable ; " and speaking of " every form of reli- gion," he adds,* " The analysis of every possible hypothesis proves, not simply that no hypothesis is suflicient, but that no hypothesis is even thinkable." The unknowable is ad- mitted to bo a power which cannot be regarded as having very act of declaring the First Cause incognizable, you do not permit it to remain unknown. For that only is unknown of which you can neither affirm nor deny any predicate ; here you deny the power of self-disclosure to the ' Absolute,' of which, therefore, something is known — viz., that nothing can be known ! " 8 Loc. cit., p. 108. * Loo. cit., p. 43. ^ Loc. cit., p. 46. XII.J THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 2G3 sympathy with us, but as one to which no emotion wliat- cver can be ascribed, and we are expressly forbidden, " by dut}/,^"* to adinn personality of God as much as to deny it of Ilitn. How such a bein^ can be presented as an object on which to exercise religious emotion it is difiicult indeed to understand.' Aspiration, love, devotion to be poured forth upon what we can never know, upon what we can never alTirm to know, or care for, us, our thoughts or actions, or to possess the attributes of wisdom and goodness ! The worship offered in such a religion must be, as Prof. Huxley says,^ "for the most part of the silent sort" — silent not only as to the spoken word, but silent as to the mental conception also. It will be dillicult to distinguish the fol- lower of this religion from the follower of none, and the man who declines either to assert or to deny the existence of God is practically in tlie position of an atlieist. For theism enjoins the cultivation of sentiments of love and de- votion to God, and the practice of their external expression. Atheism forbids both, while the simply non-thcist abstains in conformity with the prohibition of the atheist, and thus practically sides with him. Moreover, since man cannot imagine that of which he has no experience in any way whatever, and since he has experience only of human per- fections and of the powers and properties of inferior exist- ences, if he be required to deny human perfections and to • Mr. J. Martineau, in his "Essays," vol. i., p. 211, observes : " Mr. Fpeucer's conditions of pious worship arc hard to satisfy ; there must he between the Divine and human no communion of thought, relations of conscience, or approach of afTection." ..." Dut you cannot constitute a religion out of mystery alone, any more than out of knowledge alone ; nor can you measure the relation of doctrines to humility and piety by the mere amount of conscious darkness which they leave. All worship, being directed to what is above us and transcends our comprehension, stands in presence of a mystery. But not all that stands before a mys- tery is worship." ^ " Lay Sermons," p. 20. 264 TUE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. abstain from making use of sucli conceptions, he is thereby necessarily reduced to others of an inferior order. Mr. H. Spencer says,* " Those who espouse this alternative posi- tion make the erroneous assumption that the choice is be- tween personality and something lower than i)ersonality ; whereas the choice is rather between personality and some- thing higher. ]s it not just possible that there is a mode of being as much transcending intelligence and will as these transcend mechanical motion ? " " It is true we are totally unable to conceive any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for ques- tioning its existence ; it is rather the reverse." " May we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to the ' ultimate cause' any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations ? " The way, how- ever, to arrive at the object aimed at (i. e., to obtain the best attainable conception of the First Cause) is not to re- frain from the only concejjtioiis possible to us, hwt to seek the very liighest of these, and then declare their utter inad- equacy; and this is precisely the course which lias been pursued by theologians. It is to be regretted that, before writing on this matter, Mr. Spencer did not more tliorough- ly acquaint himself with the ordinary doctrine on the sub- ject. It is always taught in the Church schools of divinity, that nothing, not even existence, is to be predicated unlvo- cally of " God " and " creatures ; " that, after exhausting ingenuity to arrive at the loftiest possible conceptions, we must declare them to be utterly inadequate ; that, after all, they are but accommodations to human inlirmity; that they are in a sense objectively false (because of their inad- equacy), though subjectively and very practically true. But the difference between this mode of treatment and that adopted by Mr. Spencer is wide indeed ; for the practical ® Loc. cit., p. 109. XII.] TnEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 2G5 result of llie mode inculcated by the Churcli is, that each one may freely afllrin and act upon the higliest human con- cei)tions he can attain of the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, His watchful care, His loving providence for every man, at every moment and in every need; for the Chris- • lian knows that the falseness of his conceptions lies only in their innchfjnary ; he may therefore strengthen and re- fresh himscilf, may rejoice and revel in concej)tions of the goodness of God, drawn from the tendercst human images of fatherly cue and love, or he may cliasten and abase himself by consideration of the awful holiness and unap- proaf^hable majesty of the Divinity derived from analogous sources, knowing that no thought of man can ever be true enovgh^ can ever attain the incompi-chensiblc reality, which nevertheless really ?.9 all that can be conceived, plus an in- conceivable infinity bej^ond. A good illustration of what is here meant, and of the di (Terence between the theistic jwsition and Mr. Spencer's, may be supj^lied by an examj^le he has himself pi\)poscd. Thus,' he imagines an intelligent watch speculating as to its maker, and conceiving of him iir terms of watch-being, and figuring him as furnished with sj^rings, escajiements, cogged wheels, etc., his motions facilitateil bv oil — in a "word, like himself. It is assumed by Mr. Spencer that this necessary watch conception would be completely false, and the illustration is made use of to show " the presumption of theologians " — the absurdity and unreasonableness of those men who figure the incomprehensible cause of all phenom- ena as a Being in some way comparable with man. Now, putting aside for the moment all other considerations, and accepting the illustration, surely the examjile demonstrates rather the unreasonableness of the objector himself f It is true, indeed, that a man is an organism indefinitely more complex and perfect than any w^atch ; but, if the watch • Loc cit., p. Ill 12 266 THE GEXESrS OF SPECIES. [Chap. could only conceive of its maker in watch terms, or else in terms altogetlier inferior, tlie watch woukl plainly be right in speaking of its maker as a, to it, inconcx^ivably perfect kind of watch, acknowledging, at the same time, that this, its conception of him, was utterly inadequate, although the best its inferior nature allowed it to form. For, if, instead of HO conceiving of its maker, it refused to ujake use of tliese relative perfections as a makeshift, and so necessarily thought of him as amorphous metal, or mere oil, or by the help of any other inferior conception which a watch might be imagined capable of entertaining, that watch would be wrong indeed. For man can much more properly be com- l)ared with, and has much more alliuity to, a perfect watch in full activity than to a mere piece of metal, or drop of oi). But the watch is even more in the right still, for its maker, man, virtually Jias the cogged wheels, springs, escapements, oil, etc., which the watch's conception has been supposed to attribute to him ; inasmuch as all these parts must have existed as distinct ideas in the human watclunaker's mind before he could actually construct the ckx^k formed by him. Nor is even this all, for, by the hypothesis, the watch thinks. It must, thendbre, think of its maker as "a thinking being," and in this it is absolutely/ and GOtnpletehj rUjht.^* li^ither, therefore, the hypothesis is absurd, or it actually demon- strates the very 2^ositlon it loas chosen to refute. Unques- tionably, then, on the mere ground taken by Mr. Herbert Spencer himself, if we are compelled to think of the First Cause either in human terms ())ut with human imperfections abstracted and human perfections carried to the highest con- ceivable degree), or, on the other hand, in terms decidedly inferior, such as those are driven to who think of Ilim, but decline to accept as a help the term "personality," there '° In this criticism on Mr, Herbert Spencer, the author tinds he has been anticipated by Mr. James Martineau. (See " Essays," vol. i., p. 208.) XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 2G7 can bo no question but that the first conception is immeas- urably nearer the truth than the second. Yet the latter is the one put forward and advocated by that author in spite of its unreasonableness, and in spite also of its conflicting' with the whole moral nature of man and all his noblest aspirations. Again, Mr. Herbert Spencer objects to the conception of God as "first cause," on the ground that" when our sym- bolic conceptions are such that no cumulative or indirect processes of thought can enable us to ascertain that there are corresponding actualities, nor any predictions be made •whose fulfilment can prove this, then they are altogetlier vicious and illusive, and in no way distinguishable from pure fictions." " Now, it is quit<3 true that " symbolic conceptions," which are not to be justified cither (1) by presentations of sense, or (2) by intuitions, are invalid as representations of real truth. Yet the conception of God referred to is justified by our primary intuitions, and we can assure ourselves tliat it does stand for an actuality by comparing it with (1) our intuitions of free-will and causation, and (2) our intuitions of morality and responsibility. That -we have these intui- tions is a point on which the author joins issue with Mr. Spencer, and confidently afiRrms that they cannot logically be denied without at the same time complete and absolute skepticism resulting from such denial — skepticism wherein vanishes any certainty as to the existence both of Mr. Spencer and his critic, and by which it is equally impossible to have a thought free from doubt, or to go so far as to affirm the existence of that very doubt or of the doubter who doubts it. It may not be amiss here to protest against the intoler- able assumption of a certain school, who are continually talldng in lofty terms of " science," but who actually speak " Loc. cit., p. 29. 268 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. of primary religious conceptions as " unscientific," and habitually em})loy the word " science," when they should limit it by the prefix "physical." This is llie more amazing, as not a few of this school adopt the idealist philosophy, and aflirm that " matter and force " are but names for certain " modes of consciousness." It might be expected of them at least to admit that opinions which repose on primary and fundamental intuitions are especially and ^>ar excelleiice scientific. Such are some of the objecticms to the Christian concep- tion of God.^ We may now turn to those which are directed against God as the Creator, i. e., as the absolute originator of the universe, without the employment of any preexisting means or material. This is again considered by ]\Ir. Spen- cer as a thoroughly illegitimate symbolic conception, as much so as the atheistic one — the difficulty as to a self- existejit Creator being in his opinion equal to that of a self- existent universe. To this it may be replied that both are of course equally luiimar/inabley but that it is not a question of facility of conception — not which is easiest to conceive, but which best accounts for, and accords with, psychological facts; namely, with the above-mentioned intuitions. It is contended that tee have these primary intuitions, and that with these the conception of a self-existent Creator is per- fectly harmonious. On the other hand, the notion of a self-existent universe — that there is no real distinction between the finite and the infinite — that the universe and ourselves are one and the same things with the infinite and the self-existent — these assertions, in addition to being un- imaginable, contradict our primary intuitions. Mr. Darwin's objections to " Creation " are of quite a different kind, and, before entering upon them, it will be well to endeavor clearly to understand what we mean by " Creation," in the various senses in which the term may be used. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 2C9 In the strictest and highest sense " Creation " is the absohitc origination of any tiling by God without preexist- ing means or material, and is a supernatural act." In tlie secondary and lower sense, " Creation " is the formation of any tiling by God derivativehj ; that is, that the preceding matter has been created with the potentiality to evolve from it, under suitable conditions, all the various forms it subsequently assumes. And this power having been conferred by God in the first instance, and those laws and powers having been instituted by Ilim, through the action of which the suitable conditions are supplied. He is said, in this lower sense, to create such various subsequent forms. This is the natural action of God in the physical •world, as distinguished from His direct, or, as it may be here called, supernatural action. In yet a third sense, the word " Creation " may be more or less improperly applied to the construction of any com- plex formation or state b}'^ a voluntary self-conscious being who makes use of the powers and laws which God has im- posed, as when a man is spoken of as the creator of a museum, or of "his own fortune," etc. Such action of a created conscious intelligence is purely natural, but more than physical, and may be conveniently sjx)ken of as hyper- physical. We have thus (1) direct or supernatural action; (2) phys- ical action ; and (3) hyperphysical action — the two latter both belonging to the order of nature." Neither the phys- ical nor the hyperphysical actions, however, exclude the ^"^ The author means by this, that it is dircdhj ami immcdiatcJij the act of God, the word "supernatural" bclnf^ used in a sense convenient for the purposes of this work, and not in its ordinary ihcolopical sense. " The phrase "order of nature" is not hero u.-^cd in its thcolo-rical sense as distinj^uishcd from the " order of grace," but ns a term, hero convenient, to denote actions not due to direct and immediate Divine in- tervention. 270 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. idea of tlie Divine concurrence, and with every consistent tlieist that idea is necessarily included. Dr. Asa Gray has / given exj)ression to this.** lie says, " Agreeing that plants ^ und animals were produced by Oninii)otent iiat does not exclude the idea of natural order and what we call second- ary causes. The record of the fiat — * Let the earth bring forth grass, tlie lierb yielding seed,' etc., Met the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind ' — seems even to imply them," and leads to the conclusion that the various kinds were produced through natural agencies. Now, mucii confusion has arisen from not keeping clearly in view this distinction between absolute creation / und derivative creation. With the first, physical science has plainly notliing whatever to do, and is impotent to prove or to refute it. The second is also safe from any at- tack on the part of physical science, for it is primarily derived from psychical not physical phenomena. The greater part of the apparent force possessed by objectors to creation, like Mr. Darwin, lies in their treating the asser- tion of derivative creation as if it was an assertion of abso- lute creation, or at least of supernatural action. Thus, he asks whether some of his opponents believe " that, at innu- merable periods in the earth's history, certain elemental atoms have been commanded suddenly to flash into living tissues." *' Certain of Mr. Darwin's objections, however, are not physical, but metaphysical^ and really attack the dogma of secondary or derivative creation, though to some perhaps they may appear to be directed against absolute creation only. Tiius he uses, as an illustration, the conception of a man ■who builds an edifice from fragments of rock at the ])ase of a precipice, by selecting, for the construction of the various '^ " A Free Examination of Darwin's Treatise," p. 29, reprinted from the Atlantic Montldy for July, August, and October, 1800. '5 "Origin of Species," 5th edit., p. 671. XII.] .TIIEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 271 parts of tlic building, the i)icccs which aro the most suitable, owing to the shape they happen to have broken into. After- ward, alluding to this illustration, he says : " " The sliape of the fragments of stone at the base of our precipice may be called accidental, but this is not strictly correct, for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of events, all obeying natural laws, on the nature of the rock, on the linens of stratification or cleavage, on the form of the mountain w^hich depends on its upheaval and subseriuent denurlation, and lastly, on the storm and earthquake which threw down the fragments. But, in regard to the use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may strictly be said to ])e accidental. And here we are led to face a great diiliculty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travclhng beyond my proj)er province." " An onmiscient Creator must have foreseen every conse- quence which results from the laws imposed by Ilim ; but can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intention- ally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes, so that the builder might erect his edifice ? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment "Nverc not predetermined for the builder's sake, cnn it with any greater probability be maintained that He specially ordained, for the sake of the breeder, each of the innumera- ble variations in our domestic animals and plants — many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures them- selves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fimtail breeds? Did lie cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to varj', in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal 8j)ort ? " ''Animals and Tlauts under Domestication," vol ii,, p. 431 272 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. Chap. But, if we give up the principle in one case — if we do not mlinit that the variiitions of the primeval tlog were inten- tionally guidetl, in order that the greyiiound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed — no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that the variations, alike in Nature, and the result of the sjxine general laws, which have been the groundwork through " iVatural Selection '* of the formation of the most perfectly-adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Prof. Asa Gray in his belief that 'variation has been led along certain Ijeneiicial lines,' like a stream ' along definite and useful lines of irri- gation.' " " If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, the plasticity of the organiziition, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as that redundant power of re[)r(xluction Avliicli inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the " Natural Selection " and survival of the fittest, must a})|X!ar to us superiluous laws of Nature. On the other hand, an oinni|K)tent and omniscient Creator or- dains every thing and foresees every thing. Thus we are brought face to face with a dilHculty as insoluble as is that ^J of free-will and predestination." Before proceeding to reply to this remarkable passiige, it may be well to remind some readers that belief in the existence of God, in His primary creation of the universe, and in His derivative creation of all kinds of being, inor- ganic and organic, do not repose upon physical phenomena, but, as has been said, on primary intuitions. To deny or ridicule any of these beliefs on phj'sical grounds is to com- mit the fallacy of ujnoratlo elenchi. It is to commit an absurdity analogous to that of saying a blind child could not recognize his father because he could not see him, for- getting that lie could hear and feel him. Yet there are XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 273 some wlio appear to find it unreasonable and absurd ibat men should regard phenomena in a light not furnislied by or dcducible from the very phenomena themselves, although the men so regarding them avow that the light in wliich they do view them comes from quite another source. It is as if a man, A, coming into B's room and finding there a butterfly, should insist that B had no right to believe that the butterfly had not flown in at the open window, inasnuich as there was nothing about the room or insect to lead to any other belief; while B can well sustain his right so to believe, he having met C, who told him he brought in tlic clirysalis, and, having seen the insect emerge, took away the skin. By a similarly narrow and incomplete view, the asser- tion that human conceptions, such as" the vertebrate idea," etc., are ideas in the mind of God, is sometimes ridiculed; as if the assertors either on the one hand pretended to some prodigious acuteness of mind — a far-reaching genius not possessed by most naturalists — or, on the other hand, as if they detected, in the very phenQmena furnishing such special conception, evidences of Divine imaginings. But let the idea of God, according to the highest conceptions of Christianity, be once accepted, and then it becomes simply a truism to say that the mind of the Deity contains all that is good and j^ositive in the mind of man, /)/?/.«?, of course, an absolutely inconceivable infinity beyond. That thus such human conceptions may, nay must, be asserted to be at the same time ideas in the Divine mind also, as every real and separate individual that has been, is, or shall be, is present to the same mind. Nay, more, that such Innnan conceptions are but faint and obscure adujnbrations of cor- responding ideas which exist in the mind of God in j)crfec- tion and fulness. " " The Rev. Baden Powell says: "All sciences approach perfection as they approach to a unity of first principles — in all cases recurring to or 274 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. The tlieist, having arrived at his theistic convictions from quite other sources than a consideration of zoological or botanical plienomena, returns to the consideration of such j)henoniena and views them in a theistic light, without of course asserting or implying that such light has been de- rived from t/ienij or that there is an obligation of reason so to view tijcni on the part of others who refuse to enter upon or to acce])t those otlier sources whence have been derived the tlieistic convictions of the theist. IJut Mr. Darwin is not guilty of arguing against meta- physical ideas on physical grounds only, for he employs very distinctly metaphysical ones ; namely, his conceptions of the nature and attributes of the First Cause. But what conceptions does he offer us ? Nothing but that low an- thropomorphism which, unfortunatel}', he so often seems to treat as the necessary result of Theism. It is again the dununy, helpless and deformed, set up merely for the purpose of being knocked down. tending toward certain high elementary conceptions which are tlie repre- Bcntatives of tlio unity of the great archetypal ideas according to which the whole systeiu is arranged. Inductive conceptions, very i)artially and imperfectly realized and apprehended by human intellect, are the expo- nents in our minds of these great principles of Nature." " All science is but the partial reflection, in the reason of man ^ of the great all-pervading reason of the universe. And thus the tinity of science is the reflection of the xinUy of Nature, and of the unity of that supreme reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over Nature, and from whence all reason and all science is derived." (Unity of Worlds, P^ssay i., § ii. ; Unity of Sciences, pp. 79, 81.) Also he quotes from Oersted's "Soul in Nature" (pp. 12, 10, 18, 87, 02, y77). "If the laws of reason did not exist in Nature, we should vainly attempt to force them upon her: if the laws of Nature did not exist in our reason, we should not be able to comprehend them." ..." We find an agreement between our reason and works which our reason did not produce." ..." All exist- ence is a dominion of reason." " The laws of Nature are laws of reason, and altogether form an endless unity of reason ; . . . one and the same throughout the universe." Xir.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 275 It must once more be insisted on, tlmt, thouf^li man is indeed compelled to conceive of God in human terms, and to speak of Him by epithets objectively false, from their hopeless inadecpiacy, yet nevertheless the Christian thinker declares that inadequacy in the strongest manner, and vehe- mently rejects from his idea of God all terms distinctly im- plying infirmity or limitation. Now, Mr. Darwin speaks as if all who believe in the Almighty were comj)elled to accept as really applicable to the Deity conceptions which aflirm limits and imperfections. Thus he says : " Can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered " " that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes, so that the builder might erect his edifice ? " Why, surely every theist must maintain that in the first foundation of the universe — the primary and absolute crea- tion — God saw and knew every purpose which every atom and particle of matter should ever subserve in all suns and systems, and throughout all coming oions of time. It is almost incredible, but nevertheless it seems necessary to think that the diflieulty thus proposed rests on a sort of notion that amid the boundless profusion of Nature there is too much for God to superintend ; that the number of objects is too great for an infinite and omnipresent being to attend singly to each and all in their due proportions and needs ! In the same way Mr. Darwin asks whether God can have ordered the race variations referred to in the passage last quoted, for the considerations therein mentioned. To this it may be at once rei)lied that even man often has several distinct intentions and motives for a single action, and the theist has no difficulty in supposing that, out of an infinite nu?nber of motives, the motive mentioned in each case may hav^e been an exceedingly subordinnte one. The theist, though ])roperly attributing to God what, for want of a better term, he calls " purpose " and " design," yet 27G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. afTirms that the limitations of human purposes and motives arc by no means applicable to the Divine " purposes." Out of many, say a thousand million, reasons for the institution of the laws of the physical universe, some few are to a certain extent conceivable by us ; and among these the benclits, material and moral, accruing from them to men, and to each individual man in every circumstance of his life, i)lay a certain, perhaps a very subordinate, i)art." As liaden Powell observes, " J low can we undertake to aflirm, umid all the possibilities of things of which we confessedly know so little, that a thousand ends and purposes may not be answered, because we can trace none, or even imagine none, which seem to our short-sighted faculties to be an- swered in these particular arrangements ? " '* Tiie objection to the bull-dog's ferocity in connection '* In the same way Mr. Lewes, in criticising the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law" {Fortnightly Revitw, July, 1807, p. 100), asks whether wc should consider that luan wise who spilt a gallon of wine in order to till a wui(;-glass ? But, because wc should not do so, it by no means ftillows that we can argue from such an action to the action of (Jud in the visible luiiverse. For the man's object, in tlie case supposed, is biniply to (ill the wine-glass, and the wine spilt is so much loss. With Ciod it may be entirely dilVerent in both respects. All these objections are fully met by the principle thus laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas : *' Quod si aliqua causa particularis deficiat a suo elFectu, hoc est propter alicpiam causam particularem impcdiantem quo; continctur sub ordine causae universalis. Untie cHectus ordinem causiE universalis nuUo modo potest exire." . . . " Sicut indigcstio contingit pincter ordinem virtutis nutritivaj ex aliquo impedimento, puta ex grossitie cibi, quam uccesse est rcducere in aliam causam, et sic us(iue ad causam i)rimam univcrsalem. Cum igitur Deus sit prima causa universalis non unius gcneri tantum, hcd universaliter totius entis, impossibile est quod aliipiid contingat prieter ordinem divinie gubernationis ; sed ex hoc ipso (juod alicjuid ex una parte videtur exire ab ordine divina) providentiie, quo consideratur secundam alitjuam particularem causam, necesse est quod in eundem ordinem relabatur secundum aliam causam." — Sum. 27icol., p. i., q. 19, a. 6, and q. 103, a. 7. »» " Unity of Worlds," Essay ii., § ii., p. 2C0. XlfJ THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 277 with "man's brutal sport" opens up the familiar but vast question of the existence of evil, a problem the discussion of wliicli would be out of place here. Considering, however, the very great stress which is laid in the present day on the subject of animal suffering by so many amiable and excel- lent people, one or two remarks on that matter may not be superfluous. To those who accept the belief in God, the soul and moral responsibility ; and recognize the full results of that acceptance — to such, j)hysical suffering and moral evil are simply incommensurable. To them tlie placing of non-moral beings in the same scale with moral agents will be utterly unendurable. But even considering pliysical pain only, all must admit that this depends greatly on the mental condition of the sufferer. Onlv during conscious- ncss does it exist, and only in the most highly-organized men does it reach its acme. The author has been assured that lower races of men appear less keenly sensitive to pliysi- cal pain than do more cultivated and refined human beings. Thus only in man can there really be any intense degree of suffering, because only in him is there that intellectual rec- ollection of past moments and that anticipation of future ones, which constitute in great part the bitteniess of suf- fering."* The momentary p.ang, the present jiain, which beasts endure, though real enough, is yet, doubtless, not to be compared as to its intensity with the suffering which is produced in man through his high prerogative of self-con- sciousness." As to the " beneficial lines" (of Dr. Asa Gray, be- fore referred to), some of the facts noticed in the preceding chapters seem to point very decidedly hi that direction, but 5" See the exceedingly good passage on this pubject by the Rev. Dr. Newman, in his "Discourses for Mixed Congregations," 18r)0, p. 345. " See Mr. G. IL Lewcs's " Sea-Side Studies," for some excellent re- marks, beginning at p. 329, as to the small susccptibUity of certaiu aui- mala to pain. 278 THE fiENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. aM must admit that the actual existing outcome is far more " beneficial " than the reverse. The natural universe has resulted in the development of an unmistakable harmony and beauty, and in a decided preponderance of good and of happiness over their opposites. Even if ^' laws of Nature " did appear, on the thcistio liypotliesis, to be "superfluous" (whicli it is by no means intended here to admit), it wouhl be nothing less than pue- rile to prefer rejecting the hypothesis to conceiving that the appearance of superfluity was probably due to human ignorance ; and this especially might be expected from nat- uralists to whom the interdependence of Nature and the harmony and utility of obscure phenomena are becoming continually more clear, as, e, g., the structure of orchids to their illustrious expositor. Having now cleared the ground somewhat, we may turn to the question what bearing Christian dogma has upon evolution, and whether Christians, as such, need take up any definite attitude concerning it. As has been said, it is plain that physical science and "evolution " can have nothing whatever to do with absolute y/ or primary creation. Theliev. Baden Powell well expresses this, saying : " Science demonstrates incessant past changes, and dimly points to yet earlier links in a more vast series of development of material existence ; but the idea of a 5e- ginning^ or of creation^ in the sense of the original operation of the Divine volition to constitute Nature and matter, is be- yond the province of physical philosophy." " With secoiKlary_Qrj]exi\jrtiye^cr£iition,j)hysicj^^ science is also incapable of conflict ; for the objections drawn by some writers seemingly from physical science are, as has been already argued, rather metaphysical than physical. Derivative creation is not a supernatural act, but is simply the Divine action by and through natural laws. To " " Philosophy of Creatiou," Edsay iii., § iv., jj. 480. XII.] TUEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 279 recognize sucli action in such laws is a religious mode of re- garding phenoniena, which a consistent tlicist must neces- sarily accept, and which an atheistic believer must similarly reject. But this conception, if deemed superfluous by any naturalist, can never be shown to he false by any investiga- tions concerning natural laws, the constant action of which it presupposes. The conflict has arisen through a misunderstanding. Some have supposed that by " creation " was necessarily meant either primary, that is, absolute creation, or, at least, some supernatural action ; they have therefore opposed tlie dogma of " creation " in the imagined interest of pliysical science. Others have supposed that by " evolution " was neces- sarily meant a denial of Divine action, a negation of the providence of God. They have therefore combated the theory of " evolution " in the imagined interest of religion. It appears plain, then, that Christian thinkers are perfectly free to accept the general evolution theory. But are there any theological authorities to justify this view of the mat- ter ? Now, considering how extremely recent are these bio- logical speculations, it might hardly be expected a priori that writers of earlier ages should have given expression to doctrines harmonizing in any degree with such very modem views," nevertheless such most certainly is the case, and it 2' It secmg almost strange tluit modern English thought should so long hold aloof from familiar communion with Christian writers of othor ages and countries. It is rarely indeed that acquaintance i.s shown with such authors, though a bright example to the contrary was set by Sir "Wiiliani Hamilton. Sir Charles Lyell (in his "?nnci[ile3 of Geology," 7th edition, p. 35) speaks with approval of the early Italian geologists. Of Vallisneri he says, " I return with pleasure to the geologists of Italy who preceded, as has been already shown, the naturalists of other coun- tries in their investigations into the ancient history of the earth, and who still maintained a decided preeminence. They refuted and ridiculed the 280 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. would bo easy to give numerous examples. It will be bet- ter, however, only to cite one or tAVO authorities of weight. Now, perhaps no writer of tlie earlier Christian ages could be quoted Avhose authority is more generally recognized than that of St. Augustine. The same may be said of the mediicval period, for St. Thomas Aquinas ; and, since the pliysico-theological systcnis of Burnet, "Whiston, and Woodward ; while Vallisncri, in his coniincuts on the Woodwardian theory, remarked how much the interests of reli}j;ion, as well as tliofie of sound phihisophy, had sulVercd by porpotiuilly mixing up the sacred writinj^s with questions of physical science." Again, he quotes the Carmelite friar Cenerelli, who, illustrating Moro before the Academy of Cremona in 1749, strongly oi)posed those who would introduce the supernatural into the donmin of Nature. " I hold in utter abomination, most learned Academicians ! those systems which are built with their foundations in the air, and can- not be propped up without a miracle, and I undertake, with the assist- ance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine monsters were trans- ported into the mountains by natural causes." Sir Charles Lyell notices with exemplary impartiality the spirit of in- tolerance on both sides. How in France, BufTon, on the one hand, was influenced by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne to recant his theory of the earth, and how Voltaire, on the other, allowed his prejudices to get the better, if not of his judgment, certainly of his expression of it. Thinking that fossil remains of shells, etc., were evidence in favor of or- tbodox views, Voltaire, Sir Charles Lyell (Principles, p. 56) tells us, ''endeavored to inculcate skepticism as to the real nature of such shells, and to recall from contempt the exploded dogma of the sixteenth cen- tury, that they were sports of Nature. He also pretended that vegetable impressions were not those of real plants." ..." He would sometimes, in defiance of all consistency, shift his ground when addressing the vul- gar; and, admitting the true nature of the shells collected in the Al|)S and other places, pretend that they were Eastern species, whieli had fallen from the hats of pilgrims coming from Syria. The numerous essays written by him on geological subjects were all calculated to strengthen prejudices, partly because he was ignorant of the real state of the science, and partly from his bad faith." As to the harmony between many early Church writers of great authority and modern views as regards certain matters of geology, see "Geology and Kevelation," by the liev. Gerald Molloy, D. D., London, 1870. Xir.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 281 movomcnt of Liitlior, Suarcz may be taken as a writer widely venerated as an authority, and one whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. It must be borne in mind that, for a consideral)le time after even the last of these writers, no one had disputed the gcncrally-reeeived view as to the small age of the world or at least of the kinds of animals and plants inhabiting it. It becomes therefore much more striking if views formed under such a condition of opinion are found to harmonize with modern ideas regarding "Creation " and organic life. Now, St. Augustine insists in a very remarkable manner on the merely derivative sense in which God's creation of or- ganic ft)nns is to be understood ; that is, that God created them by conferring on the material world the power to evolve them under suitable conditions. lie says in his book on Genesis : '* " Terrestria animalia, tanquam ex ultimo elc- mento mundi ultima ; nihilominus potentialUer, quorum nu- meros tempus postea visibiliter explicaret." Ag-ain he savs : " Sicut autem in ipso grano invisibiliter crant omnia simul, qune per tempora in arborem surgerent ; ita ipse mun- dus cogitandus est, cum Dcus sumd 0)7i7iia creav it, hahuisso simul omnia qure in illo et cum illo facta sunt quando factus est dies; non solum coelum cum sole et lunA, et sideribus . . . . ; sed etiam ilia qua? aqua et terra produxit potcntialitcr atque causaliter, priusquam per temporum moras its cxori- rcntur, rpiomodo nobis jam nota sunt in eis operibus, quns Deus usque nunc operatur." " " Omnium quippe rerum qure corporaliter visibiliterque nascuntur, occulta quondam semina in istis corporeis mundi liujus dementis latent." " 2^ «' De Gencsi ad Litt.," lib. v., cap. v., No. 14 in Ben. Edition, vol ill,, p. 180. " Lib. cit., cap. xxii., No. 41. «« Lib. cit., " Dc Trinitatc," lib. iii., cap. viii., No. 14. 282 TOE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. And again : " Ista quippe originaliter ac primordialiter in quadam textura elemeutorum cuncta jam creata sunt ; sed acceptis opportunitatibus prodeunt." " St. Tlionias Aquinas, as was said in the first chapter, quotes witli approval the saying of St. Augustine, that in the first institution of Nature we do not look for Miracles^ but for the laws of Nature: "In ])rinui institutione natune non quiuritur niiraculum, sed quid natura reruni habeat, ut Augustinus dicit." " Again, he quotes with approval St. Augustine's asser- tion tliat the kinds were created only derivatively, '''' potentl' aliter tantumy " Also he says : " In prima aiitem rerum institutione fuit principium activaam verbum Dei, quod de materia elementari produxit animalia, vel in actua vol virtute^ secundum Aug. lib. 5 de Gen. ad lit. c. 5." " Speaking of *' kinds " (in scholastic phraseology " sub- stantial forms") latent in matter, he says: "Quas qui- dam posuerunt non incipere per actionem naturai sed prius in materia exstitisse, ponentcs latitat ionem formarum. Et hoc accidit eis ex ignorantia materia^, quia nesciebant distin- guere inter potentiam et actum. Quia enim forniie pra^ex- istunt eas sim})liciter pncexistere." "* Also Cornelius A Lapide " contends that at least certain animals were not absolutely, but only derivatively created, saying of them, " Non fuerunt creata formaliter, sed poten- tiaUter." As to Suarez, it will be enough to refer to Disp. xv. § 2, n. 9, p. 508, t. i. Edition Vioes^ Paris; also Nos. 13-15, " Lib. cit., cap. ix., No. 16. '* St. Thomas, Smiiraa, i., quest. 67, art. 4, ad 3. 2^ Pi-imte I'aitis, vol. ii., quest. 74, art. 2. 30 Lib. eit., quest. 71, art. 1. 2' Lib. cit., quest. 45, art. 8. •^ Vide In (jienesim Commeut., cap. i. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 283 and many other references to the same effect could easily be given, but those may suflice. It is then evident that ancient and most venerable theo- logical authorities distinctly assert derivative creation, and .thus harmonize with all that modern science can possibly require. It may indeed in\]y be said with Roger J^acon, "The saints never condemned many an opinion which the moderns think ought to be condemned." " The various extracts given show clearly how far "evolu- tion " is from any necessary opposition to the most orthodox theology. The same may be said of spontaneous genera- tion. Tlie rtiost recent form of it, latelj- advocated^by Dr. II. Ciiarlton liastiati," teaches that matter exists in two diiferent forms, the crystalline (or statical) and the colloidal (or dynamical) conditions. It also teaches that colloidal matter, when exposed to certain conditions, presents the phenomena of life, and that it can be formed from crystal- line matter, and thus that the prima materia^ of which these are diverse forms, contains potentially all the multitudinous kinds of animal and vegetable existence. This theory, more- over, harmonizes well with the views here advocated, for just as crystalline matter builds itself, under suitable con- ditions, along certain definite li?ies, so analogously colloidal matter has its definite lines and directions of development. It is not collected in haphazard, accidental aggregations, but evolves according to its proper laws and special proper- ties. 88 Roger Bacon, Opus tcrtmm, c. ix., p. 27, quoted in the liambhr for 1859, vol. xii., p. 375. 3» See Nature, June and .Tiily, 1870. Those who, like Profs. Huxley and Tyndnll, do not accept his conclusions, none the less nj^rce with him in principle, though they limit the evolution of the organic world from the inorganic to a very remote period of the world's history. (See Trof. Huxley's address to the British Association at Liverpool, 1870, p. 17.) 284 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Tlie perfect orthodoxy of these views is unquestionable. Nothing is plainer from the venerable writers quoted, as well as from a mass of other authorities, than that " tlie super- natural " is not to be looked for or expected in the sphere of mere Nature. For this statement there is a general con-t/ sensiis of theological authority. The teachin<2: which tiie autiior has received is, that God is indeed inscrutable and incomprehensible to us from the inliiiity of His attributes, so that our minds can, as it were, only take in, in a most fragmentary and indistinct manner (as through a glass darkly), dim conceptions of infinitesimal portions of His inconceivable perfection. In this way the partial glimpses obtained by us in different modes differ from each other; not that God is any thing but the most perfect unity, but that apparently conflicting views arise from our inability to apprehend Him, except in this imper- fect manner, i. e., by successive sliglit approximations along different lines of approach. Sir William Hamilton has said," " Nature conceals God, and man reveals Him." It is not, according to the teaching spoken of, exactly thus ; but rather that pliysical Nature reveals to us one side, one aspect of the Deity, Avhile the moral and religious worlds bring us in contact with another, and at first, to our appro- V hension, a very different one. The difference and discrep- ancy, however, which is at first felt, is soon seen to proceed not from the reason, but from a want of flexibility in the imagination. This want is far from surprising. Not only may a man naturally be expected to be an adept in his own art, but at tlie same time to show an incapacity for a very different mode of activity." We rarely find an artist who " " Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic," vol, i., Lecture ii., p. 40. 2^ In the sume way that an undue cultivation of any one liiiul of knowledge is prejudicial to philosophy. Mr. James Muitineau well ob- serves : "Nothing is more common than to see maxims, which are unex- ceptionable as the assumptions of particular sciences, coerced into the XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 285 takes much interest in jurisprudence, or a prize-fighter who is an acute metaphysician. Nay, more than tliis, a positive distaste may ^row up, whicli, in the intellectual order, may amoimt to a spontaneous and unreasoning disbelief in tliat which appears to be in opposition to the more familiar con- cept, and this at all times. It is often and truly said, tlmt "past ages were preeminently credulous as compared with our own, yet the dilTerence is not so much in the amount of the credulity, as in the direction which it takes." " Dr. Newman observes: "Any one study, of whatever kind, exclusively pursued, deadens in the mind the interest, nay, the perception of any other. Thus Cicero says that Plato and Demosthenes, Aristotle and Isocratcs, might have respectively excelled in each other's province, but that each was absorbed in his own. Specimens of this peculiar- ity occur every day. You can hardly persuade some mnn to talk about any thing but their own pursuit ; they refer tlic whole world to their own centre, and measure all matters by their own rule, like the fisherman in the drama, whose eu- logy on his deceased lord was, * He was so fond of fish.' " " The same author further says:" "When anything, which comes before us, is very unlike what we commonly service of a nnirersal pliiiosophy, and so turned into instruments of mis- chief and distortion. That " we can know nothing but phenomena" — thnt " rausntion is simply constant priority" — tliat '* mon nre povrrnrd invariably by their interests," arc examples of rules allowable as domi- nant hypotheses in physios or political economy, but exercisiiip n deso- lating tyranny wlicn thrust on to the throne of universal empire. Ho ^\lio seizes tipon these and similar maxims, and carries them in triumph on his banner, may boast of his escape from the uncertainties of meta- physics, but is himself all the while the unconscious victim of their very vulgarcst deception." ("Essays," Second Scries, A Flea /or Fhilosophi- cal Studies, p. 421.) " Lecky's "History of Rationalism," vol. i., p. 73. 88 " Lectures on University Subjects," by J. II. Newman, D. D., p. 322. «» Loo. cit., p. 324. 28G THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. experience, we consider it on that account untrue ; not be- cause it really shocks our reason as improbable, but because it startles our imagination as strange. Now, revelation presents to us a perfectly different aspect of the universe from that presented by the sciences. The two informations are like the distinct subjects represented by the lines of the same drawing, which, accordingly as they are read on their concave or convex side, exhibit to us now a group of trees with branches and leaves, and now human faces." .... '• While, then, reason and revelation are consistent in fact, . th(iy often are inconsistent in appearance ; and this seemingr discordance acts most keenly on the imagination, and may suddenly expose a man to the temptation, and even hurry him on to the commission, of definite acts of unbelief, in which reason itself really does not come into exercise at all." " Thus we find in fact just that distinctness between the ideas derived from physical science on the one hand and from religion on the other, which we might a priori expect if there exists that distinctness between the natural and the miraculous which theological authorities lay down. Assuming, for argument's sake, the truth of Christian- ity, it evidently has not been the intention of its author to make the evidence for it so plain that its rejection would be the mark of intellectual incapacity. Conviction is not forced upon men in the way that the knowledge that the government of England is constitutional, or that Paris is tiie capital of France, is forced upon all who choose to in- quire into those subjects. The Christian system is one which puts on the strain, as it were, every faculty of man's 40 Thus Prof. Tyndall, in the Pall Mall Gazette of June 15, 1868, speaking of pliysical science, observes : " Tlie lo(/ical feebleness of science id not suHiciently borne in mind. It keeps down the weed of supersti- tion, not by logic, but by slowly rendering the mental soil unfit for itd cultivation." ' XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTIOxV. 287 nature, and tlic intellect is not (any more than we sliould a priori expect it to be) exempted from takiM«r part in the probationaiy trial. A moral element enters into the ac- ceptance of that system. And so with natural religion — with those ideas of the supernatural, viz., God, Creation, and Morality, which arc anterior to revelation and repose upon reason. Here, again, it evidently has not been the intention of the Creator to make the evidence of His existence so plain that its non- recognition would be the mark of intellectual incapacity.^ Conviction, as to theism, is not forced upon men as is the conviction of the existence of the sun at noonday.*' A moral element also enters here, and the analogy there is in this respect between Christianity and theism speaks elo- quently of their primary derivation from one common author. Thus we might expect that it would be a vain task to seek anywhere in Nature for evidence of Divine action, sucli that Tio one could sanely deny it. God will not allow Himself to be caught at the lx)ttom of any man's crucible, or yield Himself to the experiments of gross-minded and irreverent inquirers. The naturai,J[ikc_thc_si^)cr[iaXiiraJ^ reveljiJbionji^>Qjil§,t9J{4c45Aii^6LP^^iU^ not iojC^jeasgiy^oXone^'^ None, therefore, need feel disappointed that evidence of the direct action of the first cause in merely natural plie- nomena ever eludes our grasp ; for assuredly those same phenomena will ever remain fundamentally inexplicable by physical science alone. There being, then, nothing in either authority or reason <' But this is not, of course, meant to deny that the existence of CJod can be demonstrated, so as to demand the assent of the intellect taken, 80 to speak, by itself. ^' See some excellent remarks in the Rev, Dr. Newman's Parochial Sennons — the new edition (18G9), vol. i., p. 211. 288 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. wliicli makes "evolution" repugnant to Cliristianity, is there any tiling in tlie Cliristian doctrine of "Creation" ^vllicll is repugnant to the theory of " evolution ?" Enouofh has been said as to the distinction between ab- solute and derivative "creation." It remains to consider the successive " evolution " (Darwinian and other) of " spe- cific forms," in a theological light. As to what " evolution " is, we cannot of course hope to explain it completely, but it may be enough to define it as the manifestation to the intellect, by means of sensible impressions, of some ideal entity (power, principle, nature, or activity) which before that manifestation was in a la- tent, unrealized, and merely " potential " state — a state that is capable of becoming realized, actual, or manifest, the requisite conditions being supplied. " Specific forms," kinds or species, are (as was said in the introductory chapter) "peculiar congeries of characters or attributes, innate powers and qualities, and a certain nature realized in individuals." Tims, then, the "evolution of specific forms" means the actual manifestation of special powers, or natures, which before were latent, in such a successive manner that there is in some way a genetic relation between posterior mani- festations and those which preceded them. On the special Darwinian hypothesis, the manifestation of these forms is determined simply by the survival of the fittest of many indefinite variations. On the hypothesis here advocated the manifestation is controlled and helped by such survival, but depends on some unknown internal law or laws which determine varia- tion at special times and in special directions. Prof. Agassiz objects to the evolution theory, on the ground that " species, genera, families, etc., exist as thoughts, individuals as facts, " " and he offers the dilemma, " American Journal of Science, July, 18G0, p. H3, quoted in Dr. Asa Gray's pamphlet, p 47. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 289 "If speciCvS do not exist at all, as tlic snpporlcrs of tlic Irniismutation theory maintain, liow can they. vary ? and if individuals alone exist, how can the difTcrcnccs which may be observed among them prove the variability of species? " But the supporter of "evolution" need only maintain that the several "kinds" become manif(»stcd p^radnallv by slight differences among the various individual embodi- ments of one specific idea. He might reply to the dilem- ma by saying, species do not exist as species in the sense in which they are said to vary (variation applying only to the concrete embodiments of the specific idea), and the evolution of species is demonstrated not by individuals as individuals^ but as embodiments of difi'erent specific ideas. Some persons seem to object to the term " creation " being applied to evolution, because evolution is an "ex- ceedingly slow and gradual process." Now, even if it were demonstrated that such is really the case, it may be asked, what is "slow and gradual ?" The terms are simply rela- tive, and the evolution of a specific form in ten thousand years would be instantaneous to a being whose days were as hundreds of millions of years. There are others, again, who are inclined absolutely to deny the existence of species altogether, on the ground that their evolution is so gradual that if we could see all the stages it would be impossible to say wJien the manifesta- tion of the old specific fonn ceased. and that of the new one began. But surel}' it is no approach to a reason against the existence of a thing that we cannot dctennine the ex- act moment of its first manifestation. When watching " dissolving views," who can tell, while closely observing the gradual changes, exactly at what moment a new ])ic- ture, say St. Mark's, Venice, can be said to have com- menced its manifestation, or have begun to dominate a preceding representation of "Dotheboys Hall?" That, however, is no reason for denying the complete difTcrcnce 13 290 THE GENESrS OF SPECIES. [Chap. between the two pictures and the ideas they respectively embody. The notion of a special nature, a peculiar innate power and activity — what the scholastics called a "substantial form " — will be distasteful to many. Tlie objection to the notion seems, howeveir, to be a futile one, for it is absolute- ly impossible to altogether avoid such a conception and such an assumption. If we refuse it to the indivichials which embody tlie species, we must admit it as regards their component parts — nay, even if we accept the hypoth- esis of pangenesis, wo are nevertheless (JompeUod to at- tribute to each gemmule that j^eculiar power of reproducing its own nature (its own "substantial form"), with its spe- cial activity, and that remarkable }X)wer of annexing itself to certain other well-defined gemmules whose nature it is also to plant themselves in a certain definite vicinity. So that in each individual, instead of one such peculiar power and activity dominating and controlling all the parts, you have an infinity of separate powers and activities limited to the several minute component gemmules. It is possible that, in some minds, the notion may lurk that such powers are simpler and easier to understand, be- cause the bodies they affect are so minute I This absurdity hardly bears stating. We can easily conceive a being so small, that a gemmule would be to it as large as St. Paul's would be to us. Admitting, then, the existence of species, and of their successive evolution, is there any thing in these ideas hostile to Christian belief ? Writers such as Vogt and Buchner will of course con- tend that there is; but naturalists, generally, assume that God acts in and by the various laws of Nature. And this is equivalent to admitting the doctrine of " derivative cre- ation." With very few exceptions, none deny such Divine concurrence. Even " design " and " purpose " are recog- XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 291 nizetl as quite compatible with evolution, and even witli the special " nebular " and Darwinian forms of it. Trof. Iluxlcy well says/* " It is necessary to remark that tliere is a wider teleology, which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of evolution." ..." The teleological and the mechanical views of Nature arc not necessarily mutually exclusive; on the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrange- ment, of which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences ; and the more completely thereby is he at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to dis- prove that this primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe." " Prof. Owen says that natural evolution, through seconrl- ary causes, " by means of slow physical and organic opera- tions through long ages, is not the less clearly recognizal)Ie as the act of all adaptive mind, because we have abandoned the old error of suj)posing it to be the result*' of a prinmrv, direct, and sudden act of creational construction." . . . " Tiie succession of species by continuously-operating law is not necessarily a * blind operation.' Such law however dis- cerned in the properties and successions of natural ol)jects, intimates, nevertheless, a preconceived progress. Organ- isms may be evolved in orderly succession, stage after stage, toward a foreseen goal, and the broad features of the course may still show the unmistakable impress of Divine volition." ** See The Academy for October, 1809, No. 1, p. U. ^' Prof. Iluxlcy goes on to say tliat the mechanist mfiy, in turn, de- mand of the teleologist how the latter knows it was so intended. To this it may be replied he knows it as a necessary truth of reason dcducod from his own primary intuitions, which intuitions cannot be questioned without absohcte skeptici.'sm. *' The professor doubtless means the direct and immediate result. (See Trans. Zool. See, vol. v., p. 90.) 292 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. Mr. Wallace " declares that the opponents of evolution present a less elevated view of the Almighty. He says : " Why should we supi)ose the machine too complicated to have been designed by the Creator so comi)lete that it would necessarily work out harmonious results ? The theory of * continual interference ' is a limitation of the Cre- ator's power. It assumes that He could not work by j)ure law in tlie organic, as Ho has done in the inorganic worhl." Thus, then, there is not only no necessary antagonism be- tween the general theory of "evolution" and a Divine ac- tion, but the compatibility between the two is recognized by naturalists who cannot be susj>ected of any strong theo- loijcical bias. The very same may be said as to the special Darwinian form of the theory of evolution. It is true Mr. Darwin writes sometimes as if he thought that his theory militated against even derioatloe creation.^* This, however, there is no doubt, was not really meant ; and indeed, in the passage before quoted and criticised, the possil)ility of the Divine ordination of each variation is spoken of as a tenable view. He says (" Origin of S])ecies," p. 5G9) : " I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one ; " and he speaks of life "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one," which is '}nore than the dogma of creation actually requires. We find, then, that no z/icompatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers wor- <' " Natural Selection," p. 280. *8 Dr. Asa Gray, e. g., has thus understood Mr. Darwin. The doctor says in hia pamphlet, p. 38: ** Mr. Darwin uses expressions which imply that the natural forms which surround us, because they have a histtny or natural sequence, could have been only generally, but not particularly designed — a view at once superficial and contradictory ; whereas his true line should be, that his hypothesis concerns the order and not tho cause, the how and not the wliy of the phenomena, and so leaves tho question of design just where it was before." XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 293 tliy of mention) between " evolution " and the cooperation of tlic Divine will; wliile the same "evolution" has been shown to be thoroughly acceptable to the most orthodox theologians who repudiate the intrusion of the supernatural into the domain of Nature, A more complete harmony could scarcely be desired, ]3ut, if we may never hope to find, in phj-sical Nature, evidence of supernatural action, what sort of action might we expect to find there, looking at it from a theistic point of view? Surely an action the results of which harmonize with man's reason," which is orderly, which disaccords witii the action of blind chance and with tlie "fortuitious con- conrse of atoms" of Democritus; but at the same time an action -which, as to its modes, ever, in parts, and in ultimate analysis, eludes our grasp, and the modes of which are dif- ferent from those by which we should have attempted to accomplish such ends. Now, this is jnst what we do find. Tlic harmonj^, the beauty, and the order of the physical universe arc tlic themes of continual panegyrics on the part of naturalists, and Mr. Darwin, as the Duke of Argyll remarks," " exhausts every form of words and of illustration by which intention or men- tal purpose can be described," " when speaking of the won- derfully com}>lex adjustments to secure the fertilization of orchids. Also, we find coexisting with this harmony a mode of proceeding so different from that of man as (the direct supernatural action eluding us) to form a stumbling- 4* "All science is but tlic partial reflection, in tlio rrnnnn of man, of the great all-pervading reason of the univrrfie. And tlic unity of Bcioncc is the reflection of the unHy of Nature and of the vnUij of that Rupromc reason and intelligence which pervades and rules over Nature, and from whence all reason and all science is derived." (Rev. Baden Powell, " Unity of the Sciences," Essay i., § ii., p. 81.) w " The Reign of Law," p. 40. •>• Though Mr. Darwin's epithets denoting design are metaphorical, his admiration of the result is unequivocal, nay, enthusiastic I 294 THE GENESIS OF SrECIES. [Chap. block to many in the way of their recog-nition of Divine ac- tion at all : althouoh nothinfif can be more inconsistent than to speak of the first cause as utterly inscrutable and inconi- preiiensible, and at the same time to expect to iind traces of a mode of action exactly similar to our own. It is surely enough if the results harmonize on the whole and prepon- (ler.itingly with the rational, moral, and lesthetic instincts of man. Mr. J. J. ^furphy " has brought strongly forward the evidence of " intelligence " throughout organic Nature. lie believes " that there is something in organic progress which mere " Natural Selection " among spontaneous variations will not account for," and that " this something is that organ- izing intelligence which guides the action of the inorganic forces, and forms structures which neither " Natural Selec- tion " nor any other unintelligent agency could form." This intelligence, however, Mr. Murphy considers may be unconscious, a conception which it is exceedingly dilH- cult to understand, and which to many minds appears to be little less than a contradiction in terms ; the very first con- dition of an intelligence being that, if it knows any thing, it should at least know its own existence. Surely the evidence from physical facts agrees well with the overruling, concurrent action of God in the order of Nature ; which is no miraculous action, but the operation / of hiws which owe their foundation, institution, and main- tenance, to an omniscient Creator of whose intelligence our own is a feeble adumbration, inasmuch as it is created in the " image" and "likeness " of its Maker. This leads to the final consideration, a difliculty by no means to be passed over in silence, namely the Ouigin of Man. To the general theory of Evolution, and to the spe- cial Darwinian form of it, no exception, it has been shown, " See " Habit and Intelligeuce," vol. i., p. 348. XII.] TUEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 295 need be taken on the ground of orthodoxy. But, in sayiug^/^ this, it has not been meant to include the soul of man. It is a generally-received doctrine that the soul of every individual man is absolutely created in the strict and j)ri- niary sense of the word, that it is produced by a direct or supernatural " act, and, of course, that by such an act ^X the soul of the first man was similarly created It is there- fore important to inquire Avhether " evolution " conflicts with this doctrine. Now, the two beliefs are in fact perfectly compatible, and that either on the hypothesis — 1. That man's body was created in a maimer difl'crcnt in kind from that by which the bodies of other animals were created ; or 2. That it was created in a similar manner to theirs. One of the authors of the Darwinian theor}% indeed, con- tends that, even as regards man's body, an action took place different from that by which brute forms were evolved. Mr. Wallace " considers that " Natural Selection " alone could not have produced so large a brain in the savage, in possessing which he is furnished with an organ beyond his needs. Also that it could not have produced that peculiar distribution of hair, especially the nakedness of the back, which is common to all races of men, nor the peculiar con- struction of the feet and hands. He says," after six>aking of the prehensile foot, common without a single exception to all the apes and lemurs, " It is difficult to see why the prehensile power should have been taken away " by the mere operation of " Natural Selection." " It must certainly liave been useful in climbing, and the case of the ba- boons shows that it is quite compatible with terrestrial locomotion. It may not be compatible with perfectly easy " The term, ns before said, not being used in its ordinnry thcolopicftl sense, but to denote an immediate Divine action as distinp.iisl.ed from Go.l'fl' action through the powers conferred on the physical universe. M See "Natural Selection," pp. 832-360. " Loc. c.t, p. 819. 296 THE GENESIS OF SrECIES. [Chap. erect locomotion ; but, then, how can we conceive that early man, as an animal^ gained any thing by purely erect loco- motion ? Again, the hand of man contains latent capaci- ties and powers which are unused by savages, and must have been even less used by palasolithic man and his still ruder predecessors. It has all the appearance of an organ pre])ared for the use of civilized man, and one which was required to render civilisKition possible." Again, speaking of the " wonderful power, range, flexibility, and sweetness of the musical sounds producible by the human larj'nx," he adds : " The habits of savages give no indicalion of how this faculty could have been developed by Natural Selection ; because it is never required or used by them. The singing of savages is a more or less monotonous howling, and the females seldom sing at all. Savages certainly never choose their wives for fine voices, but for rude health, and strength, and physical beauty. Sexual selection could not therefore have developed this wonderful power, which only comes into play among civilized people. It seems as if the organ had been prepared in anticipation of the future progress of man, since it contains latent capacities which are useless to him in his earlier condition. The delicate correlations of structure that give it such marvellous j)owers, could not therefore have been acquired by means of Natural Selection." To this may be added the no less wonderful faculty in the ear of appreciating delicate musical tones, and the harmony of chords. It matters not what part of the organ subserves this function, but it has been supposed that it is ministered to by the fibres of Corti.''^ Now it can hardly be contended that the preservation of any race of men in the struggle for life could have depended on such an extreme delicacy and " See Prof. Huxley's "Lessons in Elementary Physiology," p. 218. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 297 refinement of the internal ear"— .1 perfection only fully ex- ercised in the enjoyment and aj^preciation of the most ex- quisite musical i)erformances. Here, surely, we have an in- stance of an organ preformed, ready beforeliand fur such riDBES or OORTI. action as could never by itself have been the cause of its development — the action havinf^ only been subsequent, not anterior. The author is not aware what may be the mi- nute structure of the internal car in the highest apes, but if (as from analogy is probable) it is much as in man, then a fortiori we have an instance of anticipatory development of a most marked and unmistakable kind. And this is not all. There is no reason to suppose that any animal besides man aj)preciates musical harmony. It is certain tliat no other on(^ produces it. Mr. Wallace also \irgc3 objections drawn from the origin of some of man's mental faculties, such as " the cajiacity to form ideal conceptions of space and time, of eternity and infinity — the capacity for intense artistic feelings of i)len8- ure, in form, color, and composition — and for those abstract notions of form and number which render geometry and " It may be objected, perlmpa, that excessive dclicrtcy of the cnr might have been produced by havlnp; to guard ngainst the approach of enemies, some savages being remarkable for their keenness of hearing at great distances. Ibit the perceptions of inlnisUfj and quaHt;i of sound arc very different. Some jiersons who liavo an extremely acute car for delicate sounds, and who are fond of music, have yet an iucapacily for detecting whether an instrumcat is shghlly out of tunc 298 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. arithmetic possible," also from the origin of the moral sense." The validity of these objections is fully conceded by the author of this book, but he woukl push it nmch further, and contend (as has been now repeatedly said) that another law, or other laws, than " Natural Selection " have deter- niineil the evolution of all organic forms, and of inorganic forms also. And it must be contended tliat Mr. Wallace, in order to be quite self-consistent, should arrive at the very same conclusion, inasmuch as he is inclined to trace all phe- nomena to the action of superhuman avill. He says : ''* If therefore we have traced one force, however minute, to an oiigin in our own will, while we have no knowledge of any other primary cause of force, it does not seem an improbable conclusion that all force may be will-force ; and thus that the whole universe is not merely dependent on, but actually zs, the WILL of higher intelligences, or of one Supreme In- telligence." If there is really evidence, as Mr. Wallace believes, of the action of an overruling intelligence in the evolution of the " human form divine ; " if we may go so far as this, then surely an analogous action may well be traced in the pro- duction of the horse, the camel, or the dog, so largely iden- tified with human wants and requirements. And if from otiier than physical considerations we may believe that such action, though undemonstrable, has been and is ; then (reflecting on sensible phenomena the theistic light derived from psychical facts) we may, in the language of Mr. Wal- lace, " see indications of that power in facts which, by them- selves, would not serve to prove its existence." " Mr. Murphy, as has been said before, finds it necessary to accept the wide-spread action of " intelligence " as the agent by which all organic forms have been called forth " Loc. cit., pp. 351, 352. " Lqc. cit., p. 368. «> Loc. cit., p. 350. XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 209 from tlic inorp^anic. But all science tends to unity, nnd tliis tendency makes it reasonable to extend to all physical ex- istences a mode of formation which we may have evidence for in any one of them. It therefore makes it reasonable to extend, if possible, the very same agency which we find operating in the field of biology, also to the inorganic world. If on the grounds brought forward the action of intelligeiuj^ may be aflirmed in the production of man's ])odily structure, it becomes probable a priori that it may also Ix; prcdicatt'd of the formative action by which has been produced the ani- mals which minister to him, and all .organic life whatsoever. Na}', more, it is then congruous to expect analogous action in the development of crystalline and colloidal structures, and in that of all chemical compositions, in geological evo- lutions, and the formation not only of this earth, but of the solar system and whole sidereal universe. If such really be the direction in which physical science, philosophically considered, points ; if intelligence may thus be seen to preside over the evolution of each system of worlds and the unfolding of every blade of grass — this grand result harmonizes indeed with the teachings of failh that God acts and concurs, in the natural order, with those laws of the material universe which were not only instituted by His will, but are sustained by Ilis concurrence ; and we are thus enabled to discern in the natural order, however darkly, the Divine Author of Nature — Ilitn in whom " wo live, and move, and have our being." But if this view is accepted, then it is no longer abso- -^ lutely necessary to suppose that any action different in kind took place in the production of man's body, from that which took place in the production of the bodies of other animals, and of the whole material universe. Of course, if it ca?i be demonstrated that that difference which Mr. Wallace asserts really exists, it is i)lain that we 300 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. tlien have to do with facts not only harmonizing with re- ligion, but, as it were, preaching and proclaiming it. ^ It is not, however, necessary for Christianity that any such view should prevail, Man, according to the old scho- lastic definition, is "a rational animal " (animal rationale)^ and hisjinimidjty^^s^chs^^ though inseparably joined, during life, in one common ])(jr- sonality. This animal body must have had a dillerent source from that of tlie spiritual soul which informs it, from the distinctness of the two orders to which those two ex- istences severally belong. Scripture seems plainly to indicate this when it says that " God made man from the dust of th6 earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This is a plaint and direct statement that man's body was not created in the primary and absolute sense of the word, but was evolved from prei3xisting material (symbolized by the tenn " dust of the earth"), and was therefore only derivatively created, i. e., by the operation of secondary laws. His soid, on the y other hand, was created in quite a dilferent way, not hy any preexisting means, external to God Himself, but by the direct action of the Almighty, symbolized by the term " breathing : " the very form adopted by Christ, when con- ferring the supernatural powers and graces of the Cln-istian dispensation, and a form still daily used in the rites and ceremonies of the Church. That the first man should have had this double orijrin agrees with what we now experience. For supposing each human soul to be directly and immediately created, yet each human body is evolved by the ordinary operation of natural physical laws. Prof. Flower, in his Introductory Lecture " (p. 20) to liis course of Ilunterian Lectures for 1870, well observes : " Whatever man's place may be, either in or out of Nature, «^ Published by John Churchill XII] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 301 his wliatcvor hopes, or fears, or feelings about liimsclf or h race lie may have, we all of us admit that these are quite uninfluenced by our knowledge of the fact that each indi- vidual man comes into the world by the ordinary processes of generation, according to the same laws which apply to the development of all organic beings wdiatever, that every part of him which can come under the scrutiny of the anat- omist or naturalist, has been evolved according to these regular laws from a simple minute ovum, indistinguishable to our senses from that of any of the inferior animals. If this be so — if man is what he is, notwithstanding tlie cor- poreal mode of origin of the individual man, so he will as- suredly be neither less nor more than man, whatever may be shown regarding the cor}X)real origin of the whole race, whether this was from the dust of the earth, or by the modi- fication of some prei3xisting animal form." Mjjjijsjndjied^omjioundj in him two distinct orders of being impinge and mingle ; and with this an origin from two concurrent modes of action is congruous, and might be expected a priori. At the same time as the " soul " is " the form of the body," the former might be expected to modify the latter into a structure of harmonj- and beauty standing nlonc in the organic world of Nature. Also that, with the full perfection and beauty of that soul, attained l)y . the concurrent action of " Nature " and "Grace," a char- acter would be fonned like nothing else whicli is visil)lc in this world, and having a mode of action difTerent, inas- much as complementary to all inferior modes of action. Something of this is evident even to those who approach the subject from the point of view of physical science only. Thus Mr. Wallace observes," that on his view man is to 1)C placed "apart," as not only the head and culminating point of the grand series of organic Nature, but as in some dcgn^e a new a?id distinct order of being.'*. From those infinitely «2 Natural Selection, p. 324. " The italics are not Mr. WaUace'a. 302 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. remote ages ^vhen the first rudiments of organic life ap- peared upon the earth, every plant and every animal has been subject to one great law of phybicul change. As the earth has gone through its grand cycles of geological, cli- niatal, and organic j)rogTess, every form of life has been subject to its irresistible action, and has been continually but imperceptibly moulded into such new shapes as would preserve their harmony with the ever-changing universe. No living thing could escape this law of its being ; none (except, perhaps, the simplest and most rudimentary organ- isms) could remain unchanged and live amid the universal change around it." " At lengtli, however, there came into existence a being in whom that subtle force we term mind, became of greater importance than his mere bodily structure. Though with a naked and unprotected body, this gave him clothing against the varying inclemencies of the seasons. Though unable to compete with the deer in swiftness, or with the wild- bull in strength, this gave him weapons with which to ca])- ture or overcome both. Though less capable than most other animals of livinfj on the herbs and the fruits that un- aided Nature supplies, this wonderful faculty taught him to govern and direct Nature to his own benefit, and make her produce food for him when and where he pleased. From the moment when the first skin was used as a covering ; when the first rude spear was formed to assist in the chase ; when fire was first used to cook his food ; when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revolution was ellected in Nature, a revolution which in all the i)revious ages of the earth's history had had no parallel, for a being had arisen who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the changing universe, a being who was in some degree superior to Nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her, not by a change in body, but by an ad- vance in mind." XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 303 "On tins view of his special nttributea, \vc may arlrtiit * lliat he is indeed a being apart.' Man has not only csrapod * Natural Selection' himself, but he is actually al)lc to take away some of that power from Nature which before his a|>- pearance she universally exercised. We can anticipate tiie time when the earth will produce only cultivated plants and domestic animals; when man's selection sliall have sii|>- planted * Natural Selection;' and when tlie ocean ^v ill Ixj the only domain in which that power can be exerted." Baden Powell" observes on this subject: "Tiie relation of the animal man to the intellectual, moral, and spiritual man, resembles that of a crystal slumbering in its native quarry to the satne crystal mounted in the jwlarizing appa- ratus of the philosopher. Tlie difference is not in phvsiral Nature, but in investing that Nature with a new and higher application. Its continuity with the material world remains the same, but a new relation is developed in it, and it claims kindred with ethereal matter and with celestial liglit." This well expresses the distinction between the merelv physical and the hyperjihysical natures of man, and the sub- sumption of the former into the latter which dominates it. The same author in speaking of man's moral and spiritual nature says," " The assertion in its very nature and essence refers wholly to a different order of things, apart from and transcending any material ideas whatsoever." Again" he adds, " In proportion as man's moral superiority is held to consist in attributed not of a material or coqwreal kind or origin, it can signify little how his physical nature may have originated." Now physical science, as such, has nothing to do with the soul of man, which is hyperphysicjil. That such an en- tity exists, that the correlated physical forces go through their Protean transformations, have their persistent ebb and " " Unity of Worlds," Essny ii., § ii., p. 247. «5 Ibid., Essay i., § ii., p. 70. " Ibid., Essay iii., § iv., p. 4C6. 301 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Ciup. flow outside of tlie world of will and self-conscious MOHAL BEING, arc propositions the proofs of which have no place in this work. This at least may however be confi- dently afTn-raed, that no reach of physical science in any coming century will ever approach to a demonstration that countless modes of being, as diflerent from each otlier as are the force of gravitation and conscious maternal love, may not coexist. Two such modes are made known to us by our natural faculties only : the physical, which includes the first of these examples ; the hyperphysical, which em- braces the other. For those who accei)t revelation, a third and a distinct mode of being and of action is also made known, namely, the direct and immediate, or, in the sense here given to the term, the supernatural. An analogous re- lationship runs through and connects all these modes of being and of action. The higher mode in each case em- ploys and makes use of the lower, the action of which it occasionally susi)ends or alters, as gravity is suspended by electro-magnetic action, or the living energy of an organic being restrains the inter-actions of the cliemical allinities belonging to its various constituents. Thus conscious will controls and directs the exercise of the vital functions according to desire, and moral conscious- ness tends to control desire in obedience to higher dictates." •^ A good exposition of how an inferior action has to yield to one higher is given by Dr. Newman in his " Lectures on University Subjects," p. 372. " What is true in one science, is dictated to us indeed according to that science, but not according to another science, or in another de- partment. " What is certain in the military art, has force in the military art, but not in statesmanship; and if statesmanship be a higher department of action than war, and enjoins the contrary, it has no force on o\ir re- ception and obedience at all. And so what is true in medical science, might in all cases be carried out, were man a mere animal or brute with- out a soul ; but since he is a rational, responsible being, a thing may bo ever so true in medicine, yet may be unlawful in fact, in consequence of XII.J TDEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 305 The action of living organisms dojicnda upon and subsumes the laws of inorganic matter. Similarly the actions of ani- mal life depend upon and subsume the laws of organic mat- ter. In the same way the actions of a self-conscious moral agent, such as man, depend upon and subsume the laws of animal life. When a part or the whole scries of these natu- ral actions is altered or suspended by the intervention of action of a still higher order, we have then a " mirach\" ]n this way we find a perfect harmony in the double na- ture of man, his rationality making use of and subsuming liis animality ; his soul arising from direct and immediate creation, and his body being formed at first (as now in each separate individual) by derivative or secondary creation, through natural laws. By such secondary creation, i. e., by natural laws, for the most part as yet unknown but con- trolled by " Natural Selection," all the various kinds of ani- mals and plants have been manifested on this planet. That Divine action has concurred and concurs in these laws we know by deductions from our primary intuitions ; and j^hys- ical science, if unable to demonstrate such action, is at least as impotent to disprove it. Disjoined from these deduc- tions, the phenomena of the universe present an as]>cct de- void of all that appeals to the loftiest aspirations of man, that which stimulates his cfibrts after goodness, and pre- sents consolations for unavoidable shortcomings. Conjoined -with these same deductions, all the harmony of physicjil Na- ture and the constancy of its laws are preserved unimpaired, while the reason, the conscience, and the aesthetic instincts, are alike gratified. We have thus a true reconciliation of science and religion, in which each gains and neither loses, one being complementary to the other. Some apology is due to the reader for certain observa- tions and arguments which have been here advanced, and the higher law of morals and rcligiou coming to some dilTcrcnt couclu- slon." 306 THE GENESIS OF SPECIES. [Chap. ■Nvbioh have little in the shape of novelty to recommend them. But, after all, novelty can hardly be predicated of the views here criticised and opposed. Some of these seem almost a return to the "fortuitous concourse of atoms" of Democritus, and even the very theory of *' Natural Se- lection" itself— a "survival of the fittest" — was in part thought out not hundreds but thousands of years ago. Op- ponents of Aristotle maintained that by the accidental oc- currence of combinations, organisms have been preserved and perpetuated such as final causes, did they exist, would have brought about, disadvantageous combinations or vari- ations being speedily exterminated. " For when the very same combinations happened to be produced which the law of final causes would have called into being, those combina- tions which proved to be advantageous to the organism ■were preserved ; while those which were not advantageous perished, and still perished like the miuotaurs and sphinxes of Empedocles." " In conclusion, the author ventures to hope that this treatise may not be deemed useless, but have contributed, however slightly, toward clearing the way for pcnice and conciliation, and for a more ready perception of the harmony which exists between those deductions from our primary intuitions before alluded to, and the teachings of physical science, as far, that is, as concerns the evolution of organic forms — tJie genesis of species. The aim has been to support the doctrine that these species have been evolved by ordinary natural laws (for the V most part unknown) controlled by the subordinate action of "Natural Selection," and at the same time to remind «8 Quoted from tlie Ramhhr of March, 1860, p. 3Gt : ""On-ou p.\v oZv inavTa avvf^r}^ uxrirep k^u el '4viK(i rov iyiviTO, ravra /xeu dcnidi] a-rrh rod avTOfJLoiTov (TvardvTa iniT-qSiiufS, '6(Ta he fir] outws dffa>\€To /col andWvTat^ KadaKfp 'E/iTTtSo/cA^s Keyu to fiouyeyrj /col a.i'Spojrpupa." — AuiST. Phys.^ ii. c. 8. . XII.] THEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION. 307 some tliat there is and can be absolutely nothing in pliypi- cal science which forbids them to regard those natural laws as acting "vvith the Divine concurrence and in obedience to a creative fiat originally imposed on the primeval Cosmos, *' in the beginning," by its Creator, its Upholder, and its Lord. II^DEX. A. Aahd-Vark, 189. Al.soluto (nation, 260. Aniutliouletno, iOl . AcmxmIoiiI teith, 102. Acts lonnerly nionil, 210. Acts inuterially iiionil, 'JIO. Adductor muscles, 1(2. Afj'ussiz, Prof., 2SS. Ajjcd, care o£, 2(H5. A^'grcfnitional thcorj', 177. Al^oa Hay, cat o<^ 112. Allaiit«)Ls, O."). Amazons, butterflies of, 99. Auiazons, cholera iu the, 206. Americmi butterflies, 41. American mai/e, 114. Amcricuji monkeys, 241. Amiuru.s, 101. Amiiiiibia, 123. Analoj,'ical relations, 171. A neon sheep, 114, 117, 242. Andrew Miuiay, Mr., 'JC. Anj,'oi-ft cat.s, lOl). Animal's suflerings, 277. Ankle l)ones, 172. Annelids undergoing fission, 183, 22G. AnnuKisa, eye of, 'JO. Anopiotbeiium, 124. Anteater, 97. Antechinus, 95. Antenna, of or«'ldd, 69. Anllin>|>omorplii.sih, 274. Ape's wxual charaetei-», 01. Apostles' (.'reed, 200. Apjiendages of iol>6ter, 175. Ajiitendages of Normandy pigs, 118. Al)l)endagea of turkey, 114. Ajipendix, vermiform, Wk Ai>preclation of Mr. Darwin, 22. Apterj'x, 19, 8a. Aqueous Immor, 89. Aquinas, St. Thomas, 30, 280, 282. Arclii'gosaurus, 149. Arclieojiteryx, 86. Arcturuji, 207. Argyll, Duko of; 27, 293. Aristotle, 806. Armadillo, extinct kind, 124. Arlhriti.s, rheumatic, 197. Artiodactylo foot, 124. Asa Cray, Dr., 270, 272, 277. Asceticism, 207. Ascidians, placental structure, 93. Assumj>tions of Mr. Darwin, 28. Astronomical objections, 150. Auditory organ, b6. Augustine, St, 30, 281. Auivlius, Marcus, 221. Avian limb, 121. Avicularia. 93. Axolotl, 179. Aye-Aye, 122. Aylesbury ducks, 249. B. Backbone, 149, 176. IJacon, Koger, 2S3. IJaleen, 54. ISaiidioo insect, 45. liandicoot, SO. Bartlett, Mr. A. D.. 140, 2-19. IJaitlett, Mr. E^ 200. liasil, St., 30. Lastiiui, Dr. 11. Charlton, 129, 234, 253, 288. Hat, wing of, 77. iJates, Mr., 41, 98, 101. IJats, 12:}. IJcakh, 96. HeaslM, suifedngs of, 200. ]Jfiles, 83. ]{ird's-liead ]ir(M'iK.ses, 90. IJirds of Panidl.se, KM. IJirlh of individual and species, 14. iJivalves, 92. Hlack sheep, 136. IJlack-shouldered peacock, 114. IJladebone, 83. Bloud-vesseb, 196. INDEX. 309 Blyth, Mr., 114, 11)5. IJoncs of skull. 1G7. IJonnct, M., 'A'li. IJoiwlck, Mr., 212. " JJoots " of pipoon."*, 195. Uroathiifp, iiKKliflod power of^ 118. 15 reeding of lions, 249. « rill, 49. ]{ roecoli, variety of, 114. Jlryozo.a, 93. IJiicluK-r, Dr., 290. Hmld, Dr. \V., 198. IJiitron, 232. Hiill-do-j's itistinrt, 270. I'.nrt. I'rof. Wilder, 195, 198. JJiKtellUes, 41. l{iitter(llea, AriiaTionlan, 99. iliitterlUes, Aiiieric.'iii, 41. lliittortiles of Indinii region, 97. IJnttertlies, tills of, 99. Buttcrtly, Leaf, 48. c. CAOOTTTfl, 103. Ca'cuin, 96. Calamarles, 90. Cambrian deposits, 151. Capo ant-eater, 1S9. Caroofftyed, 200. Carinate binl.s, 83. Carnivora, 81. Carnivorous dentition, 124. Carp fishes, 100. Carpal bones, 120, 194. Carpenter, Dr., 129. Carpus, 192, 193. Cases of conseience, 215. Cassowary, 8!}. Catasetutn, 09. Causes of sjiroad of Darsvinisui, 22. Cebus, 241. Celebes, butterflies of, 99. Centetes, 102. Centipede, 79. 173. Cephalo|>oda, 87. (Jeroxvlus laeerntus, 49. CeUieea, 51,97, 119, 122, 188. (ihanees atralnst few individuals, 70. C'haraelnhlie, 1(>0. Clielro{?aIeus, 172. Clietnlis, 250. (Mdekens, mortality of hybrids, 188. Clilo>,'!ossa, 179. C;iiln>mv8, 122. ClioleriC 200. Choroid, 89. Chrotdc rheum.atisin, 197. Clreiimelslon, 227. Clarlas, 101. Climate, clfeets of. 112. Climblnjf plants. 122. Cl(K'k-tlilnking ihiustration, 266. Col)ra, 02. Cockle, 92. Cod, 51. Colloidal matter, 283. Conceptions. symlM)lie, 207. Conneelleul footsteps, It.'i. Conneetlnp links, suppoH<»aplde, 2'^2. Correlation, laws of. IHS. Corti, llbres of. 06, 290. Corvanthes. fiS. Costa, M., li)2. Cranial segments, ISO. Creation, 201, 2(i9 Creator, 27, 20'^. Crewl, Apostles', 200. Crocodile, 55. Croll, Mr., 151. Crusticeo. 93, 174. Crvptixranthus, 100. Crystalline matter, '1^'i. Crvstals of snow, 2iH). Cuttle-nsbe% 87, 88. CuTler, 124. Cyprlnolds, 100. Cytherldea, 92. Dana, Prof., 103. Darvvln, Mr Charles, 14, 22, 25, 27. S3. .3.5, 89, 40. 48, ^5, 57, 59, 00, 0^, 09. 72, 7s. Uri, 108, 112, 114, 121. i:V<, 140. 143, 152. \:A, 159, 101, 165, 195, 202, 201. 211, 22:<. 224, 229, 2JJ2, 2.'«. 287, 243, 250, 268, 270, 274, 275, 292, 293. Datum tatul.o. 115. Delhi, davsat, 112. Del|)lno, 'Siirnor, 227, 228, 230. Demoerltus, 232. 293. 300. Densltv of air for breathint:, 118. Dentition, carnivorous, 124. Derivation, 2.54. Derivative creaUon, 263, 800. Deslpn. 270. Devotion, 207. Dlbmnrhlat.a, R8. Dllllcultles of problem of sp'vlOc origin, 18. Dl>,'lts, supernumerary, 187, 194. Dlpit.s, turtles, 121. DhuorpbcMlon, 84. Dlnornls, 8:). Dtnosaurla, 8.5. Diseased pelvis, 197. Dissemination of bckIs, 73. Doris, 181. Dotheboys Hall. 2'^9. Dnv,on, the tlying, 77, 172. Dni!,'on-lly, 91. Dmuphts! 37. Duek-bllU^l jilafvpus, 1S9. Dujronp. 5t, 190. Dukeof Arj.'vll,27, 298. Dyspepsia, 215. 810 INDEX. Ear, 8T. luir, formation ol^ 03. Early soecblization, 125. Ki-hliiouermala, 56. Kchiuoldea, 6o. Ethliiops, lOi. Erblnorlilims, 188. Echinus, 55. Eixmoiiiy, Fucglan political, 206. Eciujino, l'J7. EdentJita, ISS. E;;yi>tii>n iiioiiiimcntA, 152. • KliLsiiiobnuiclis, 15.'^. EUmjw uiul kiic'o iiUcctlona, 193. Eiupwloclos, 80C. Eocene uii'^ulutu, 125. Eolls, l!>4. E(|uiis, IGl. Erlculufl, 162. Elides, 202. Elides Dc.sionpchamps, 112. Eurypterlilii, 153, 1S5. Eutroplus, 1G2. Everett, Kov. U., 112. Evolution requires geometrical increaaa of time, 153. Eye. «9. Eye, formation oC, 64. Eye of trilobites, U\). F. Fabrk, M., 69. Feulher-legved breeds, 196. Feejeeaiis, 214. FerlillzatlDri of orchids, 69. " Flat jllstUl!^ mat w^■luu^" 209. Fibres of Cortl, 66, 'JtM. Final misery, 208. Flii(,'er of I'otto, 119. Fish, llylnff, 77. Fishes, frcsh-watcr, 159. FLshes, thoracic and ju<,'ular, 51, 155. Fl.xity of position of limbs, 61. Flat-tlshes, 49, ISO. Flexibility of bodily organization, degrees of; 183. Fle.vlbllity of mind, 2*4. Flies, horned, 107. Fli;,'ht of spiders, 78. Flounder, 50. Flower, Prof., 178, 248, 800. Fly, orchid, 63. Flying-dragon, 77, 172. Flylug-flsh, 77. Fa'tal teeth of whales, 19. Food, effects on pigs, 113. Footsteps of Connecticut, 145. Foramlnifera, 200. Formally moral acts, 210. Formation of eye and oar, 64. Forms, substiintiaL, 200, 290. Four-gilled Oephaloiwds, 89. Fowls, white ailk, 136. French theatrical ondlonco, 218. Fresh-water ILshes, 15'J. Frogs, Chilian and Kuropean, 163. Fucgo, Terra del, 206. C. Oalaqo, 172. Galaxlas, 161. Galeus vulgaris, 186. rof., 177. Hiitton, Mr. U. Jlolt, 210, 21 .. Huxley, Prof., 80, 82, 8-t, 85, \m, 11T, 12-1, 1 H, MT), l.M. IT).'), 177, 180, 187, 240, 2G3. Hyhrldfl, morfjillty of, 188. Hydroeyonina, 100. Jlyperpliwslcal actloD, 209. Uyrax, 193. I. IriTTnTorflinA, 123. lehtlivosftiinis, 92, 120, 140, 191. lehthyosl.s, 199. Imiano>gltlmato BymboUc conccptloDii, 267. l^ns, 90. Le|»idosteu«, 180. Lepra, 197. I^wes, Mr. O. H., 103, 227, 229, 282. Ivoiiis, St., 221. I/)uiR XV., 2'.'0. I»ul9 XVI., 220. Limb genesis, 190. Limb muscles, 19t. I.lmbs, fixity of jxisltlon of, 61. Limbs of lobster, 17."). I^lriks, BU[iposecal Influences, 97. I/)bster, 174. I>ong-tallcd binl of Parndloe, lOS. Lubbllus, 221. Mnrtlneau, Mr. James, 214, 261. Mastacembclus, 159. Materially monil acts, 210. Matter, crvstalllne an-, 20, 41. Miracle, ao.'). Molars, 124. Mole, 190. MolUVe, 245. Mombat, caU at, 113. 312 INDEX. Monkeys, American, 241. M ouster proboscis, 137. Moral uols, -210. Moriliiciu, 101. _ .„« ^„„ Muri.hy, Mr. J. J., W, 66, 90, 117, 123, 129, 161, 200. 2;56, 294, 299. Murray, Mr. Andrew, 96. Mu8 dcllaitulus, 90. MuscU'B of limbs, 194. Mussel, 92. Myrmocophaga, 06. N. NA8AT.18, Semnopitueccs, 153. Nutlmsliis, li;J. Nuturul Selection, shortly stated, IT. Nuudln, M. C, 115. Nautilus, 89. Nebular evolution, 291. Ncckof4rlititris36. Newman, tbe Kev. Dr., 271, 285, 287, 804. New Zt^aland Crustacea, 104. New Zoaliiud llslies, 101. Niata, cattle, 114. Nile llshes, 160. Normandy plff, 118. North American lish, 161. NycUccbua, 193. O. Obxect of book, 17. Objections ftom astronomy, 150. Octopods, 90. Olleiislve remarks of Prof. Vogt, 25. 01.1, care of the, 206. Old Fui^lan women, 206. Omygena. exlt,'ua, 129. Ophiooei>halus, lOO. Optic lobes of pterodactyls, 64. Orchids, 100. Orchids, Bee, etc., 63. Organ of hearing, 86. Organ of sight, 89. Organic polarities. 200. Origin of man, 294. Orioles, lot. Ornithoptera, 97. Ornithorhynchus, 189. Orthocenitidui, 184, Oryctcroi)US, lb9. O-stracods, 92. Ostrlcli, 83. Otoliths, 87. Outlines of butterflies' wings, 100. Owen, Trof., SS, 110, 137, 2;«, 2.M, 291. Oybter of Mediterranean, 102, 112. Oysters, 92. P. Paget, Mr. J., 197. Pala;otlierium, 121. Pallas, 140. Pangenesis, 81, 223. Pangolin, 190. Papilio Hospiton, 99. Papilio Machaon, 99. I'apilio Ulysses, 9S. Papilionldie, 97. P.ipuan morals, 212. I'artlunogenesis, 2iiS. Passilloi-a gracilLs, 121. Pastrana, Julia, 188. Pathological polarities, 199. Pavo nigripennls 114. Peiicock, black-shunldered, 114. Peacock intlexibility of, 133, Pi'diceUariiL', 5T. Pelvis, diseased, 197. Pendulous ai)peudagos of turkey, 114. Peramelcs, 81. Perioi)hthalmu8, 100. Perissodactyl imgulates, 124. Permian, jugular llsh, 165. Perodletlcu.s, 119, 193. Phabngers, 80. Pliasmidie, 103. Phyllopods, 93. Physiciil actions, 269. " Physiological units," 182, 284. Pigeons' " boots," 195. Placental mammals, 81. Placental reproduction, 95. Plants, tendrils of, 121. Plates of baleen, 53. Platypus, lb9. I'leiailes, 207. Pleslosaurus, 120, 147, 192. Pleurodont dentition, 102. Plouronectlduj, 49, 180. Plotosus, 101. Poisoning apparatus, 09. poisonous 8eri)ent.>4, 02. Polarities, organic, 199, 200. Political economy, Fuegian, 206. Polyzoa, 93, 94. Pompadour, Madame de, 220. Poppy, variety of, 115. Porcupine, 190. Porto Santo rabbit, 114, 136. Potto, 119, 193. Pouched bea.st3, SO. Powell, the Uev. liaden, 270, 278, 803. Premolars, 124. Pi-epotency, 133. Primary intuitions, 207. Primitive man, 218. Problem of origin of kinds, 18. Proboscis monk^;y, 15.3. Proboscis of ungulates, 137. Processes, bird's-hcad, 93. Psettus, 100. Psiniasis, 197. Pterodactyls, compared wth buds, 83. IHerodactyla, wing of, 77. Pucclnia, 129. Purpose, '275. QuASi-VEBTEBRAL theory of skull, 186. INDEX. 313 R. I?AnniT of Porto R.infx), 114, 18G. Iladial ossicle, 1!)0. IJareficd air, cfToct on clogs, 118. JJattioHMako, 01. Itcd l)ird of Pnradiso, lOG. liclntioTifl, nridlofriral, 171. ]{o!ati()ii.s, hornoloijical, 170. iJoplilca compared with birds, 83. I^otlna, 80. iJotricvinp, virtue ft kind of^ 203, 219. IJoversion, cases of, 137. lllic.i, m. IMhs of ("ofarea and Slrenia, M. Uihs of tlyin. Seeds, dissemination of, 79. Bcely, Mr., on pfcrodactvls, &i. Pegmentjitlfin of skull, 1H7. Segmenlation of sjilne, 186. Segments, similar, 174. Self-existence, 208. Bomnopithecus, 1.^3. Sense, organ of, C4, 82, 88, 89. Sensitiveness of generative system, 260. Sepia, 90. Serpents, poisonous, C2. Sexual characters of apes, 61. Sexual selection, GO. Sharks, 96. Shellfish, beauty of. G7. Shells of oysters, 102, 112. Shielded grasshopper. 102. Silurian strata, ItA. 156. Simultaneous modifications, 69. Sirenla, 54, Sir John Lubbock, 212, 219. Sir William Thomson, 150. Sitaris, 59. Bix-shftfted bird of Paradise, 104. Skull bones, 167. Bkull segments, 187. Sloth, windpipe of, 90. -i4 Sinlthncld, wifosolling in, 218. Snow, crystals oi; 200. Bole, 4!). Solcnodon, 102. Species, meaning of word, 14. Spelerpcs, 179. P|iencer, see Herbert Spencer. Bidder orchi'l, 0^. Sitlders, fliirlit of. 78. Bpino of tily|)tod()n, 121. Spine, seginenLation of, 186. 8(|nalid(P, 50. Bquilla, 17 1. Sterility of hvbrids, 139. Stings. 79. Straining action of baleen, 64. Struthlous birds, 83, 1G5. Sturgeon, 1^0. Suare?, 31. 2^1. Substnntiai forms, 201, 290. Sutfcrings of beasts, 277. Supernatural action, 209. Suj)ernatural action not to be looked for In Nature, 2S. Supernumerary digits, 187, 196. By (is, 1S3, 220. Symbolic conceptions, 207. Svmmetrical diseases. 197. ByphllJUc deposits, 197. T. TAT>roT,F,'3 beak, 90. Tails of buttcrtlles, 99. Tapir, 137, 148. Tarsal bone.s, 173, 212. Teeth of Celaec.a, 90. Teeth of inseetivora, 81. Teeth of kangaroo and Mocroscelldes, 82. Teeth of seals, 90. Teeth of sharks, 96. Teleoloey and evolution pomnatlble, 291. Tendrils of climbing nianta, 121. Tenia echinococcus, 184. Teratology, 187. Tetragouopterina, 100. Thomson. Sir William, 160. Thoracic fishes, 51. Thorax of crustaceans, 93. Thylncino, 80. Tierra del Fuego, 200. Tiger, sabro-toothod, 121. Time reqiilrcd for evolution, 143. Tope, ISO. Trabecule* cr.anli, I'^O. Transition.!] forms, 1 42. Transmut/itlonism, 2.'')7. Treveivnn, Sir .1. rearock, 114. Tnlobites, 149, 155, 185. TlInicarle^ 95. Turbot, 49. Turkev, effects of climate on, 114. Turkish dog, 57. Two-gllled cephslopodi 89. Typo, conformity to, 257. 314 INDEX. u. UuBiuoAL vesicle, 95. Unj,'uLita, 87, 123. Unguluta eocene, 124. Units, physlolot'lcal, 182, 234. Unknowable, the, 261. TIpjKT Silurian strata, IM, 156. UrutiicLus, 81. V. Vaeiabilitt, different, degrees o^ 188. Ycriniform appendix, 96. Verltln-jo of ekull, 186. Vcrtobral column, 17G, 185. Vertebrate limbs, 60, 177. Vertical homolo{,'y, 179. Vcbicle, umbilical, 95. "Vestiges of Creation," 15. View hero advocated, 17. Vitreous humor, 89. Vo^'t, I'rof., 25, 290. Voiio of man, 07. YoltaU-o, 245. "Waoner, J. A., 26. AVa;:nur, Nicholas, 184. >Valkln(,' leaf. 48. ■Walking-stick insect, 45. Wallace, Mr. Alfred, 14, 22, 38, 41, 42, J8, 48, 67, 97, 98, 100, 103, 117, 131, 205, 212, 241, 292, 297, 302. Weaver lishcs, 51. Weitbrecht, 195. Whale, fictal teeth of, 19. Whale, moutli of, 53. Whalebone, 53. Whales. 92. White silk fowls, 136. Wileselling, 2)3. Wild auimal.s, their variability, 135. Wilder, I'rof. Burt, 195, 198. Windi)ii)e, 95. Wiiif-'s of Lats, birds, and pterodactyls, 77, 144. Wings of birds, origin of, 120. Wings of Imttertlics, outline of, 100. Wings of llying-<]rag()n, 77, 172. Wings of humming-hird, 171. Wings of humming-bird hawk moth, 171. Wings of insects, 78. AVombat, 96. Women, old Fuegian, 206. Worms undergoing lission, 184, 226.' Wyuian, Dr. Jellrios, 199. Y. YoEK MiNSTEH, a Fueglan, 211. Z. Zebras, 143. Zoological Giirdens, Superintendent of. 140. THE END. WORKS OF nERBERT SPENCER, runUSJIED DT D. APPX^ETOISr AND COMPANY. SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY. I.— FIRST PRINCIPLKS. {N'cw and Enlarged Edition.) Part I. — Tfie TJNKNowAnr.F. Paut II.— Laws ok the Knowadle. 659 pages. Price, $2.50 II.— THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY.— VOL, I. Part I. — TtiK Data op Biology. Part II. — Tiik Inductions of Biology. Part III. — The Evolution of Life. 475 pftgcs. Price, - (2.60 PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY.— VOL. II. Part IV. — ^foRrnoLooiCAL Development. Part V. — Physiological Development. Part VI. — Law.s of M'.ltiplication. 665 pages. Price, $2.60 III.— THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY. Part I. — The Data of Psychology. 144 pages. Price, • • (O.TB Part II. — The Inductions of PsYcnoLOOY. 146 pages. Price, • $Uj of Hi- olorrj, two vohiracs, and The Principles qf Psychology, toI. 1., which will bo ehortiy printed. Tills philosophical system dlfTcrs from ail Its prcdcccs«ors In being sniidly bapcd on the sciences of observation and Induction ; In reprenentinp the ortl<^r and course of Nafnre; In bringing Nature and man, life, mind, and inclely. nnder one great law of action ; and in developing a metho<(/. " lie Is as keen an analyst as is known In the history of plillot.oit of Nature and art. THE OrJGIN OF SPECIES, By CHARLES DARWIN. A new American edition of "The Origin of Ppocios," later than the latrM En^'lish edition, lias just been published, with the author's most recent cor- rections nml additions. In the whole history of the proj,'ress of knowledge there is no case «o ro- mnrkable of a system of doctrines, at first generally condoninoin;;ers and the Saler* W6 arc uuublo to ugn-c wllli tliosi- put forth by the iiiithor. Much iimy be Kunuid IVdUi iLbiu lu (lepartmeuls in which our common lulucatioual Bystiui is very deficient. Tba t((ive citizen may derive from Ihem uccurato systematized information concerning ))ia highest duties to society, and the iMinciiiles on which they are based. lie may gain ilsarer notions of the vulue and bearing of eviy giving us fulKT re.iU- tttloas of liberty and justice his writings will tend to increase our self-reliance in th« rrvat mierifency orf civilization to \shich we have been summoueU.— ^f/