: of the whale. This, however, is not to be forgotten, that when the ursine-whale began his career, he must have had his tail to make and this would be just the reverse of the other story. The land-animals derive their tails from the waters, having originally been fishes; but in this case, a land-animal goes into the water to procure a tail, and live like a fish. But we must still for a while keep to our text :'In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas Corpora-' Thus we are told that the penguin, by natural selection, became a swift-flying bird (324); and we are assured, more than once, that the horse and tapir, the camel and the pig, are joined together by family-ties' (324); but whether the pig is descended from the horse or the camel, or the pig is progenitor of the tapirs, or the tapir of the horse, or vice versa, or whether they all sprung from a common progenitor, is not certain. However, this is certain-according to the theory, that not only something of this sort has taken place, but that we are all of the same family, and that we have ties of descent with the elephant, the bat, the porpoise, the giraffe, and the crab-we all spring from one progenitor, and we are branches of one great family. The frame-work of bones being similar, in the hands of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, leg of the horse, the same number of vertebræ for the neck of the giraffe and elephant, and innumerable other such facts at once explain themselves on the theory of descent, with slow and slight successive modifications. The similarity of pattern in the wing and leg of a bat, things used for such different purposes, and in the jaw and leg of a crab, and the petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is intelligible on the view of the gradual modifications of parts and organs, which were alike the progenitors of each class.' Here is a curious assemblage!-men, bats, porpoises, giraffes, horses, crabs, elephants, and flowers all mixed up together. In this medley we may pick and choose our parents or first cousins, according to our inclination; or if the list should appear circumscribed, we may add the tapir and pig and camel-closely joined together by family-ties with the horse; and with this handsome list of ancestors, we may be able perhaps to account for the dif ferent dispositions which we find in ourselves, our friends, and acquaintances. That our origin is aquatic is an established point in the theory, so that when we thoroughly understand this, we need not be so much surprised to find ourselves, as well as giraffes and elephants, associated in genealogy with crabs and porpoises. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or ideally similar, with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals;' hence there seems to me to be no extreme difficulty in believing that Natural Selection has actually converted a swim-bladder into a lung. On this view it may be inferred that all vertebrate animals having true lungs have descended by ordinary generation from an ancient prototype, OF WHICH WE KNOW NOTHING, furnished with a floating apparatus or swim-bladder' (210). The proof drawn from an ideal similarity' leading to a progenitor, of which we know nothing,' and so endowing us all with lungs instead of swim-bladders, which our unknown progenitor possessed, is very convincing; and perhaps we might suggest as corroborating the proof of our aquatic origin, that we are disposed to call an ec centric person 'an odd fish'-doubtless with reference to But if swim-bladders have been transformed into lungs. in the higher vertebrata, the branchia (of the fishes and crustacea) have wholly disappeared . . . and it is conceivable that the now utterly lost branchiæ might have been worked in for some quite distinct purpose. . . it is probable that organs which at a very ancient period served for respiration, have been actually converted into organs of flight' (211). All this, however, relates to anatomical structure and the adaptation of organizations. We now must turn our attention to outward form and comeliness, which has not originated in any design to produce the beautiful; for nature cares nothing for appearances' (87), but it is to be attributed to a cause which never would have been suspected. Beauty amongst birds and beasts, and I suppose fishes and insects too, originates in the preference of the females for handsome males! The birds of Paradise and some others congregate, and successive males display their gorgeous plumage, and perform antics before the females, which, standing by as spectators, at last choose the most attractive partner. Sir R. Heron has described how one pied peacock was eminently attractive to the hen birds. I can see no good reason to doubt that female birds by selecting, during thousands of generations, the most melodious or beautiful males, according to their standard of beauty, might produce a marked effect. Thus, then, I believe, that when males and females of any animal differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such difference has mainly been caused by sexual selection; that is, individual males have had, in successive generations, some slight ad vantages over other males in their weapons, means of defence, or CHARMS, and have transmitted these advantages to their offspring' (94). This romantic origin of beauty is however acknowledged not to be useful, except in a forced sense,' for the displaying of beauty to charm the females,' and thus producing a beautiful progeny is of no real use (219), and yet it is effected according to the theory, so that Natural Selection does, after all, produce both the useful and the ornamental. Here we must for a moment resume the serious tone, to draw attention to the flagrant abuse of words by which the theory is argued. It has already been noticed that both Natural Selection and the Struggle for Existence are avowed metaphors, and now when we have come to nature's most striking attribute, her beauty, we find it explained to us as originating in Natural Selection in ‘a forced sense,' as if it had been selected for its utility, when the author candidly confesses that it is of no direct use. The effect of sexual selection, when displayed in beauty to charm the females, can only be called useful in rather a forced sense' (219). Now mark this, unless it be for the direct use of the animal or plant, nothing can be done by Natural Selection. This is the fundamental proposition on which the whole theory rests, repeated over and over again in many passages; everything is based on this,—take this away and the theory vanishes. Is not then this an instance in which the author has confuted himself? Has he not checkmated himself, and is not this manifest? He has taken pains to show us, that by Natural Selection the female birds are instrumental in producing hand some males. Now the ornament of the male bird is beauty in its stronghold: what can be thought of more exquisite than the plumage of many of these glorious creatures? This is no trifle in Nature, it is the frieze of her splendid temple, one of the most admirable expressions of beauty that she has selected for the decoration of her majestic fabric. Well, this dazzling attribute, said to be of no use, according to the theory, and produced only to please the eye of females, has been elaborated by Natural Selection, which spurns all ornament, and 'cares nothing for appearances,' and never produces anything that is not strictly useful. If then this is not self-contradiction, and self-confutation, there must be an end of logic in the world. Here the Theory ceases to be ridiculous, for it is truly melancholy to see a writer of such large information and superior intellect reduced to the necessity of making this avowal. Some naturalists believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. THIS DOCTRINE, IF TRUE, would BE ABSOLUTELY FATAL TO MY THEORY' (219). Poor, miserable Theory! which, quarrelling with creation, will not allow that the decorations of this terrestrial scene have been sketched and executed by a supreme intelligence that sees beauty in its essence, and from that intuition has turned out myriad graceful forms tinted with refulgent colours, in well-considered contrast, or blended in perfect taste; and for all regions, and for every climate, has prepared endless varieties of elegance, attractiveness, and symmetry, a theory that will not allow an artist to have executed the picture, though it acknowledges its |