of which presents no tangible points for either intelligent acquiescence or dissent.

In the development theory of Lamarck, we meet with something more like reason; facts are not altogether ignored, though evidence is frequently assumed, and more frequently still pressed into service which it cannot accomplish. Small homogeneous gelatinous bodies are the first organic existences; and these. are destined in the course of countless ages to be developed into plants, animals, and man. The means by which this great work is to be accomplished are twofold-first, a "tendency to perfection," which we may pass over as not conveying any distinct meaning, and only called in to supplement the requirements of the other and second, the effect of varying conditions of life, resulting from slow geological changes, causing a change in their wants, and these wants exciting new actions and habits, which in their turn necessitate, and "consequently" produce new organs and new instincts. Of course there is no evidence of any such production; but we shall shortly see of how little consequence is the absence of evidence on any such subject.

;

Having thus assumed the production of new organs, M. Lamarck announces a proposition sufficiently startling, yet coherent enough with the postulate. "It is not the organs, or in other words, the nature and form of the parts of the body of an animal, which have given use to its habits, and its particular faculties; but on the contrary, its habits, its manner of living, and those of its progenitors, have in the course of time determined the form of its body, the number and condition of its organs-in short, the faculties which it enjoys."* Thus web-footed animals were not made web-footed that they might be able to swim; but they became so by their repeated efforts to stretch out their toes in striking the water. The antelope only gained its light and agile form by being obliged to fly frequently before its oppressors; the giraffe acquired its long neck by being compelled to feed off the tops of trees; and the beaver attained its flattened development of tail by using it as a trowel.

The original monad having survived much tribulation through countless ages of transformation, is at least met with in the form of a monkey, most probably the Angola Orang (Simia Troglodytes, Linn.), which is said to be "the most perfect of animals." A tribe of these creatures were deprived, through pressure of unknown circumstances, of the necessity (or power) for climbing trees, and hanging by the boughs. They, therefore, adopted the

* "Lyell's Principles of Geology," 9th edit. p. 571.

upright gait, and from being quadrumana, became bimana. In accordance with newly-acquired habits, their snouts became shorter, their incisors vertical, and the facial angle improved. A desire to rule supervened, and they drove out their brother monkeys into the forests, where their development in intelligence would most likely be impeded. Meanwhile they combined themselves in various ways, and invented language, that they might follow up with greater facility their undertakings, and thus they became MAN. Perhaps it is desirable to mention that this sketch is a grave and correct abstract of a theory, which in its original and modified forms, has made from time to time much sensation amongst students of Natural History.

Almost identical in its ultimate results with the great Lamarckian theory, that of Mr. Darwin differs from it widely in the highly philosophical and ingenious views, which are intended to throw light upon the cause, of the successive modifications of structure which lead to specific and generic differences amongst organic beings. That they fail, in our opinion, to account for these, is to be ascribed, we believe, to the fact, that a development theory of this nature is too opposed to existing phenomena to be supported by any argument whatever. Mr. Darwin's theory in brief, is this. There is a constant struggle for life going on amongst all living creatures, in which struggle, the "weakest go to the wall," and the strongest, that is, the "favoured races," survive. These favoured races are so favoured in virtue of their having been born (in obedience to chance, or some law, the conditions of which are unknown), with a structure in so far differing from that of their species, as to afford them an advantage, however slight, over their brethren in the said struggle. This is Innate. Variability; and when a variation occurs, thus enabling its possessor to survive where others die, there is a prospect of a race being formed with this peculiarity, which, slowly augmenting for thousands of generations, at last gives character to a new species. And the slow accumulation, through countless ages, of similar modifications, by natural selection, forms distinct genera and orders. The same powers which we daily see producing what we call varieties, are on this theory capable of producing species in larger periods, and in still more extended periods, genera, orders, and classes. Part of this theory we will give in Mr. Darwin's own words :

"If during the long course of ages, and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their orga nization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical ratio of increase of each species, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot

be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other, and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation I have called, for the sake of brevity, natural selection; and it leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.”—Origin of Species, chap. iv., p. 127.

In the introduction the author gives the summary and application of these principles thus :-"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not exclusive means of modification."

Thus we perceive that there are three essential elements in this theory-variability, struggle for life, and natural selection of the strongest, or most favoured races. The two former are real phenomena, undoubted by any one; and in their discussion Mr. Darwin evinces much learning and skill, and conveys a great amount of most interesting information. Upon each we shall dwell for a short time before inquiring into the reality of natural selection.

Variability. The offspring, as a rule, is like its parent, but of a likeness more or less modified-not absolute. The form may vary slightly, or the colour, the temperament, or the inherent strength of constitution. The amount of these variations is part of the very essence of the controversy; naturalists in general consider that such variations are bounded by certain limits, which limits are soon reached, and cannot be passed. The progressionists think otherwise that these variations may increase indefinitely, if favoured by selection either natural or artificial. Variety is most frequent under domestication, but is not confined to that state. Wherever occurring, the causes are so obscure as to defy accurate predication, and variety is generally considered accidental. "Our ignorance (says Mr. Darwin) of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part differs, more or less, from the same

part in the parent;"* and again, "variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur." We wish these points to be specially noticed, because we shall shortly see how much more philosophical it appears to Mr. Darwin and his school to trust in an uncertain chance for existence, than in a principle of adaptive creation. The casual nature of this variation is often dwelt upon by Mr. Darwin, and the little effect that external causes can be supposed to have upon it.

"How much direct effect difference of climate, food, &c., produce upon any being is extremely doubtful. My impression is, that the effect is extremely small in the case of animals, but perhaps rather more in that of plants.

"Instances could be given of the same variety being produced under conditions of life as different as can well be conceived; and, on the other hand, of different varieties being produced from the same species under the same conditions.

"Such considerations as these incline me to lay very little weight on the direct action of the conditions of life."-Origin of Species, chap. v., pp. 132-4.

But vague, casual, and uncertain, as is this first principle to which the progressionists ascribe the development of gelatinous spherules into vegetables, animals, and ultimately men, can we arrive at nothing more definite as to its effects? We believe that this is possible; and the result is, that so far as direct testimony goes, species only vary within defined limits, and that these limits continue undisturbed for thousands of years at least. The catacombs of Egypt afford the most irrefragable proof that three thousand years ago many of our domestic animals were precisely identical as to specific characters with those of the present day. Amongst these are the dog, the cat, and the bull; species which have certainly been placed under every circumstance that could favour variation. Mr. Darwin, of course, does not overlook this; his answer to it requires a brief notice.

"Even if this latter fact (identity of the species) were found more strictly and generally true than seems to me to be the case, what does it show, but that some of our breeds originated there four or five thousand years ago? But Mr. Horner's researches have rendered it in some degree probable that man sufficiently civilized to have manufactured pottery, existed in the valley of the Nile thirteen or fourteen thousand years ago.‡

To the progressionist, a few thousands or millions of years more

or less are of no moment; but in this calculation there is a palpable error. Mr. Horner bases his conclusions upon a certain 9 ft. 4 in. of mud sediment over an overthrown statue at Mehahenny, on the site of ancient Memphis. He calculates that this mud has taken 3,215 years to accumulate; and having, from a depth of thirty-nine feet, brought up a piece of pottery, he concludes that this must have been deposited there more than 13,000 years ago. Unfortunately for the theory, this statue is described by an Arab historian, Abdallatiff, aş erect and in its place, not more than six centuries ago; so that the necessary periods for accumulation must at least be divided by five.

But to return ;—leaving out of the question the abstract possibility of species varying sufficiently to form another and different one, there is a total absence of positive evidence on the subject. The naturalist may reason ingeniously enough to show what might be; but if we ask, Did you ever see one species develop into another? or did you ever find one in what you can assert to be a transition stage? They answer honestly, no; but account for this by the shortness of our period for observation. We shall see shortly whether the prolonged geologic periods afford any more conclusive testimony.

Struggle for Existence.-All organic beings have a tendency to multiply in a geometric ratio; and this so rapidly that unless there existed powerful agencies for destruction, the earth would soon be overrun with the progeny of any single pair. The elephant is supposed to breed more slowly than any other known animal, yet at the lowest computation one pair might easily be the ancestors of fifteen millions in five centuries. As to the multiplication of the lower animals, the understanding is baffled in attempting to realise their increase. In five generations, one aphis may be the parent of 5,904,900,000 individuals, and there may be twenty generations in a year. The female flesh-fly will have 20,000 young ones; and in five days any pair of these are qualified to produce as many more; and Linnæus asserts that three flies of the musca romitoria could devour the carcase of a horse sooner than a lion. The unchecked produce of one pair of herrings or mackerel would in a very few years crowd the Atlantic until they had no room to move; and it would not require a century for any pair of birds, or any of our domestic animals, so to stock a continent that not an individual of any other species could exist there.

It is evident, then, that of all the countless myriads of living creatures born within any given period, by far the greater part must be destroyed. The checks upon increase are numerous, but we do not know their full extent or energy. Man does much;