124 files changed, 13311 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/24800-h/24800-h.htm b/24800-h/24800-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6f5e4d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/24800-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,13311 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Darwin, and After Darwin, Volume I, by George John Romanes.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+ a {text-decoration:none; color:blue;}
+ a:visited {color:gray;}
+ body {margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%;}
+ h1,h2,h3 {text-align: center; clear: both;}
+ h3 {margin:0 auto 0 auto;}
+ hr {width:65%; margin:2em auto 2em auto; clear:both; text-align:center;}
+ hr.full {width: 100%;}
+ hr.minor {width: 45%; margin:1em auto 1em auto; clear:both;}
+ ins.corr {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray;}
+ p {margin-top:.75em; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:.75em; text-indent:1.5em;}
+ p.noin {text-indent:0;}
+ p.hi {margin-left: 2em; text-indent:-2em;}
+ table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; empty-cells:show;}
+ td.c {text-align:center;}
+ td.r {text-align:right}
+ td.l {text-align:left}
+ td.tdc {margin-left: 1.5em; text-indent:-1.5em;}
+ ul.off {list-style-type:none;}
+ ul.hi li {margin-left: 2em; text-indent:-2em;}
+ .b {font-weight:bold;}
+ .bbox {border:solid 1px; padding:1em; margin:2em 10% 2em 10%;}
+ .blockquot{margin-left:5%; margin-right:10%;}
+ .c {text-align:center;}
+ .caption {font-weight:bold; font-size:75%; text-indent:0;}
+ .captionh {font-weight:bold; font-size:75%; text-align:left; margin-left: 2em; text-indent:-2em;}
+ .figcenter {margin:2em auto auto auto; text-align:center;}
+ .figleft {float:left; clear:left; margin:1em 1em 1em 0; padding:0; text-align:center;}
+ .figright {float:right; clear:right; margin:1em 0 1em 1em; padding:0; text-align:center;}
+ .fnanchor {vertical-align:super; font-size:.8em; text-decoration:none;}
+ .footnote {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; font-size:0.9em;}
+ .footnote p {margin-left: 2em; text-indent:0;}
+ .footnote .label {position:absolute; right:80%; text-align:right;}
+ .footnotes {border:dashed 1px;}
+ .i {font-style:italic;}
+ .lc {text-transform:lowercase;}
+ .linenum  {position:absolute; top:auto; left:4%;}
+ .mt2 {margin-top:2em;}
+ .pagenum {position:absolute; left:95%; font-style:normal; font-size:smaller; text-align:right; text-indent:0;}
+ .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align:left;}
+ .poem br {display:none;}
+ .poem .stanza {margin:1em 0em 1em 0em;}
+ .poem span.i0 {display:block; margin-left:0em; padding-left:3em; text-indent:-3em;}
+ .poem span.i2 {display:block; margin-left:2em; padding-left:3em; text-indent:-3em;}
+ .poem span.i4 {display:block; margin-left:4em; padding-left:3em; text-indent:-3em;}
+ .ralign {position:absolute; right:20%; text-align:right;}
+ .sc {font-variant: small-caps;}
+ .sf30 {font-size:30%;}
+ .sf50 {font-size:50%;}
+ .sf75 {font-size:75%;}
+ .sn {font-style: italic;} /* scientific name */
+ .u {text-decoration:underline;}
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Darwin, and After Darwin (Vol. 1 and 3, of
+3), by George John Romanes
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Darwin, and After Darwin (Vol. 1 and 3, of 3)
+       An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of
+              Post-Darwinian Questions
+
+Author: George John Romanes
+
+Release Date: March 11, 2008 [EBook #24800]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DARWIN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, LN Yaddanapudi and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 411px;">
+<img src="images/i_001_frontispiece.jpg" width="369" height="498" alt="Charles Darwin" title="" /></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_i" id="page_i">[i]</a></p>
+<h1>DARWIN, AND AFTER DARWIN<br /><br />
+
+<span class='i sf75'>AN EXPOSITION OF THE DARWINIAN THEORY
+AND A DISCUSSION OF
+POST-DARWINIAN QUESTIONS</span><br /><br />
+
+<span class='sf50'>BY</span><br /><br />
+
+<span class='sf75'>GEORGE JOHN ROMANES, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.</span><br />
+<span class='i sf50'>Honorary Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge</span><br /><br />
+
+<span class='sf75'>I</span><br />
+<span class='sf75'>THE DARWINIAN THEORY</span><br />
+<span class='sf50'>FOURTH EDITION</span></h1>
+
+<p class='noin c'>Chicago<br />
+THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY.<br />
+1910</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_ii" id="page_ii">[ii]</a></p>
+
+<p class='mt2'>The Illustrations of this book (with the exception of the Frontispiece
+and the colored plate facing page 332) are copyrighted under the title
+&ldquo;Darwinism Illustrated.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p class='noin'><span class="ralign sc">The Open Court Publishing Co.</span><br /></p>
+
+<p class='mt2 noin c sf75'>PRESS OF THE<br />
+BLAKELY-OSWALD PRINTING CO.<br />
+CHICAGO</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_iii" id="page_iii">[iii]</a></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 329px;">
+<img src="images/i_004_letter.jpg" width="329" height="500" alt="Letter from George Romanes to Edward Hageler" title="" />
+<div class='caption' style='text-align:left; font-size:100%;'><pre>
+                     Ch. Ch. Oxford:
+                     March 15th 1892.
+
+    My dear Sir,
+
+          As we have now agreed that
+the Open Court Publishing Company is to
+undertake the American edition of my
+work entitled &ldquo;Darwin and after
+Darwin,&rdquo; I have much pleasure
+in transferring to you the copyright
+thereof, with all that this
+includes.
+
+Thanking you very much for
+the kindness and liberality which
+have marked your conduct of these
+negotiations,
+
+             I remain,
+               Yours very faithfully,
+                  George J. Romanes
+
+To
+Edward C. Hegeler Esq.
+      La Salle, Ill. U. S.</pre></div></div>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_v" id="page_v">[v]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE</h2>
+
+<p>Several years ago Lord Rosebery founded, in the University of Edinburgh,
+a lectureship on &ldquo;The Philosophy of Natural History,&rdquo; and I
+was invited by the Senatus to deliver the lectures. This invitation I
+accepted, and subsequently constituted the material of my lectures the
+foundation of another course, which was given in the Royal Institution,
+under the title &ldquo;Before and after Darwin.&rdquo; Here the course
+extended over three years&mdash;namely from 1888 to 1890. The lectures for
+1888 were devoted to the history of biology from the earliest recorded
+times till the publication of the &ldquo;Origin of Species&rdquo; in
+1859; the lectures for 1889 dealt with the theory of organic evolution
+up to the date of Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s death, in 1882; while those of the
+third year discussed the further developments of this theory from that
+date till the close of the course in 1890.</p>
+
+<p>It is from these two courses&mdash;which resembled each other in
+comprising between thirty and forty lectures, but differed largely in
+other respects&mdash;that the present treatise has grown. Seeing,
+however, that it has <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_vi" id="page_vi">[vi]</a></span>
+Grown much beyond the bulk of the original lectures, I have thought it
+desirable to publish the whole in the form of three separate works. Of
+these the first&mdash;or that which deals with the purely historical
+side of biological science&mdash;may be allowed to stand over for an
+indefinite time. The second is the one which is now brought out and
+which, as its sub-title signifies, is devoted to the general theory of
+organic evolution as this was left by the stupendous labours of darwin.
+as soon as the translations shall have been completed, the third portion
+will follow (probably in the autumn season), under the sub-title,
+&ldquo;post-darwinian questions.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>As the present volume is thus intended to be merely a systematic
+exposition of what may be termed the Darwinism of Darwin, and as on this
+account it is likely to prove of more service to general readers than to
+professed naturalists, I have been everywhere careful to avoid assuming
+even the most elementary knowledge of natural science on the part of
+those to whom the exposition is addressed. The case, however, will be
+different as regards the next volume, where I shall have to deal with
+the important questions touching Heredity, Utility, Isolation, &amp;c.,
+which have been raised since the death of Mr. Darwin, and which are now
+being debated with such salutary vehemence by the best naturalists of
+our time.</p>
+
+<p>My obligations to the Senatus of the University of Edinburgh, and to the
+Board of Management of the Royal Institution, have already been
+virtually <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_vii" id="page_vii">[vii]</a></span>
+expressed; but I should like to take this opportunity of also
+expressing my obligations to the students who attended the lectures in
+the University of Edinburgh. For alike in respect of their large
+numbers, their keen intelligence, and their generous sympathy, the
+members of that voluntary class yielded a degree of stimulating
+encouragement, without which the labour of preparing the original
+lectures could not have been attended with the interest and the
+satisfaction that I found in it. My thanks are also due to Mr. R. E.
+Holding for the painstaking manner in which he has assisted me in
+executing most of the original drawings with which this volume is
+illustrated; and likewise to Messrs. Macmillan and Co. for kindly
+allowing me to reprint&mdash;without special acknowledgment in every
+case&mdash;certain passages from an essay which they published for me
+many years ago, under the title &ldquo;Scientific Evidences of Organic
+Evolution.&rdquo; Lastly, I must mention that I am indebted to the same
+firm for permission to reproduce an excellent portrait of Mr. Darwin,
+which constitutes the frontispiece.</p>
+
+<p class='noin'><span class='ralign'>G. J. R.<br /></span><br /></p>
+
+<p><span class="sc">Christ Church, Oxford,<br /></span>
+&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>April 19th, 1892.</i></p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_ix" id="page_ix">[ix]</a></p>
+
+<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS</h2>
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='l'></td><td class='r'>PAGE</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Introductory</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_1">1</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Classification</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_23">23</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Morphology</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_50">50</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Embryology</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_98">98</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Pal&aelig;ontology</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_156">156</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Geographical Distribution</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_204">204</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">The Theory of Natural Selection</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_251">251</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Evidences of the Theory of Natural Selection</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_285">285</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_x" id="page_x">[x]</a></span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Criticisms of the Theory of Natural Selection</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_333">333</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><a href="#CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">The Theory of Sexual Selection, and Concluding Remarks</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_379">379</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c' colspan='2'><hr class='minor' /></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc"><a href="#APPENDIX_TO_CHAPTER_V">Appendix to Chapter V.</a></span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_421">421</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc"><a href="#Note_A_to_page_257">Note A to Page 257</a></span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_443">443</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc"><a href="#Note_B_to_page_295">Note B to Page 295</a></span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_445">445</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc"><a href="#Note_C_to_page_394">Note C to Page 394</a></span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_448">448</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc"><a href="#INDEX">Index</a></span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_451">451</a></td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_xi" id="page_xi">[xi]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS" id="LIST_OF_ILLUSTRATIONS"></a>LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS</h2>
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='tdc l'><span class="sc">Fig.</span></td><td class='r'><span class="sc lc">PAGE</span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>1. Successive forms of Paludina, from the Tertiary deposits of Slavonia</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_19">19</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>2. Skeleton of Seal</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_52">52</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>3. Skeleton of Greenland Whale</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_53">53</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>4. Paddle of Whale compared with Hand of Man</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_54">54</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>5. Wing of Reptile, Mammal, and Bird</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_56">56</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>6. Skeleton of <span class='sn'>Dinornis gravis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_61">61</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>7. Hermit crabs compared with the cocoa-nut crab</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_64">64</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>8. Rudimentary or vestigial hind-limbs of Python</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_67">67</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>9. <span class='sn'>Apteryx Australis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_69">69</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>10. Illustrations of the nictitating membrane in various animals named</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_75">75</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>11. Rudimentary, or vestigial and useless, muscles of the human ear</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_76">76</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>12. Portrait of a young male gorilla</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_78">78</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>13. Portrait of a young male child</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_79">79</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>14. An infant, three weeks old, supporting its own weight</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_81">81</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>15. Sacrum of Gorilla compared with that of Man, showing the rudimentary tail-bones of each</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_82">82</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>16. Diagrammatic outline of the human embryo when about seven weeks old</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_83">83</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>17. Front and back view of adult human sacrum</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_84">84</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>18. <span class='sn'>Appendix vermiformis</span> in Orang and in Man</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_85">85</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>19. The same, showing variation in the Orang</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_85">85</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>20. Human ear</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_86">86</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>21. F&oelig;tus of an Orang</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_87">87</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>22. Vestigial characters of human ears</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_88">88</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>23. Hair-tracts on the arms and hands of Man, as compared with those on the arms and hands of Chimpanzee</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_90">90</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>24. Molar teeth of lower jaw in Gorilla, Orang, and Man</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_93">93</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>25. Perforation of the humerus (supra-condyloid foramen) in three species of Quadrumana where it normally occurs, and in Man, where it does not normally occur</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_95">95</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>26. Antlers of stag, showing successive addition of branches in successive years</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_100">100</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_xii" id="page_xii">[xii]</a></span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>27. Fission of a Protozo&ouml;n</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_107">107</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>28. <span class='sn'>Hydra viridis</span>, partly in section</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_111">111</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>29. Successive stages in the division of the ovum, or egg-cell, of a worm</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_113">113</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>30. Ovarian ovum of a Mammal</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_121">121</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>31. Am&oelig;boid movements of young egg-cells</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_122">122</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>32. Human ovum, mature and greatly magnified</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_123">123</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>33. Stages in the formation of the polar bodies in the ovum of a star-fish</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_125">125</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>34. Fertilization of the ovum of an echinoderm</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_126">126</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>35. Fertilization of the ovum of a star-fish</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_127">127</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>36. Karyokinesis of a typical tissue-cell (epithelium of Salamander)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_129">129</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>37. Study of successive changes taking place in the nucleus of an epithelium-cell, preparatory to division of the cell</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_131">131</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>38. Formation and conjugation of the pronuclei in <span class='sn'>Ascaris megalocephala</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_132">132</a>,<br /><a href="#page_133">133</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>39. Segmentation of ovum</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_135">135</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>40. The contents of an ovum in an advanced stage of segmentation, drawn in perspective</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_135">135</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>41. Formation of the gastrula of <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_137">137</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>42. Gastrulation</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_138">138</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>43. Gastrula of a Chalk Sponge</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_139">139</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>44. <span class='sn'>Prophysema primordiale</span>, an extant gastr&aelig;a-form</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_140">140</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>45. Ideal primitive vertebrate, seen from the left side</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_143">143</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>46. The same in transverse section through the ovaries</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_144">144</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>47. <span class='sn'>Amphioxus lanceolatus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_145">145</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>48. <span class='sn'>Balanoglossus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_148">148</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>49. A large Sea-lamprey (<span class='sn'>Petromyzon marinus</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_148">148</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>50. Adult Shark (<span class='sn'>Carcharias melanopterus</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_149">149</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>51. Diagram of heart and gill-arches of a fish</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_150">150</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>52. One gill-arch, with branchial fringe attached</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_150">150</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>53. Diagram of heart and gill-arches in a lizard</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_150">150</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>54. Ideal diagram of primitive gill-or aortic-arches</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_151">151</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>55. The same, modified for a bird</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_151">151</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>56. The same, modified for a mammal</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_151">151</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>57. A series of embryos at three comparable and progressive stages of development, representing each of the classes of vertebrated animals below the Mammalia</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_152">152</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>58. Another series of embryos, also at three comparable and progressive stages of development, representing four different divisions of the class Mammalia</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_153">153</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_xiii" id="page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>59. Diagram of geological succession of the classes of the Animal Kingdom</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_165">165</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>60. Skull of <span class='sn'>Oreodon Culbertsoni</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_167">167</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>61,62. Horns of <span class='sn'>Cervus dicrocerus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_168">168</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>63. Horns of <span class='sn'>C. matheronis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_168">168</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>64. Horns of <span class='sn'>C. pardinensis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_168">168</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>65. Horns of <span class='sn'>C. issiodorensis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_168">168</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>66. Horns of <span class='sn'>C. Sedgwickii</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_168">168</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>67. Successive stages in the development of an existing Deer&rsquo;s Antlers</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_169">169</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>68. Homocercal tail</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_169">169</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>69. Heterocercal tail</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_170">170</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>70. Vertebrated but symmetrical fin (diphycercal)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_170">170</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>71. Tail of <span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_171">171</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>72. Tail of modern Bird</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_171">171</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>73. <span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx macura</span>, restored</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_172">172</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>74. Skeleton of Polar Bear</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_174">174</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>75. Skeleton of Lion</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_175">175</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>76. Anterior limb of Man, Dog, Hog, Sheep, and Horse</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_176">176</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>77. Posterior limb of Man, Monkey, Dog, Sheep, and Horse</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_177">177</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>78. Posterior limb of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon discus</span>, and anterior limb of <span class='sn'>Chelydra serpentina</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_179">179</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>79. Paddle of a Whale</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_180">180</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>80. Fossil skeleton of <span class='sn'>Phenacodus prim&aelig;vus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_184">184</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>81. Bones of the foot of four different forms of the perissodactyl type</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_186">186</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>82. Bones of the foot of four different forms of the artiodactyl type</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_187">187</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>83. Feet and teeth In fossil pedigree of the Horse</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_189">189</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>84. <span class='sn'>Pal&aelig;otherium</span>. (Lower Tertiary of Paris Basin)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_190">190</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>85. <span class='sn'>Hipparion</span>. (New World Pliocene)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_192">192</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>86. Comparative series of Brains</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_194">194</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>87. Ideal section through all the above stages</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_195">195</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>88. Skulls of Canadian Stag, <span class='sn'>Cervalces Americanus</span>, and Elk</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_198">198</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>89. Transmutations of <span class='sn'>Planorbis</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_200">200</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>90. Transformation of <span class='sn'>Strombus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_202">202</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>91. Pigeons. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_298">298</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_xiv" id="page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>92. Pigeons (<i>continued</i>). Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_299">299</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>93. Fowls. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_300">300</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>94. Fowls (<i>continued</i>). Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_301">301</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>95. Pair of Japanese Fowls, long-tailed breed</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_302">302</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>96. Canaries. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_303">303</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>97. Sebastopol, or Frizzled Goose</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_304">304</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>98. The Dingo, or wild dog of Australia</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_304">304</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>99. Dogs. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_305">305</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>100. Dogs (<i>continued</i>). Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_306">306</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>101. The Hairless Dog of Japan</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_307">307</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>102. The skull of a Bull-dog compared with that of a Deer-hound</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_307">307</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>103. Rabbits. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_308">308</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>104. Horses. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_309">309</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>105. Sheep. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_310">310</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>106. Cattle. Drawn from life</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_311">311</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>107. Wild Boar contrasted with a modern Domesticated Pig</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_312">312</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>108. Seasonal changes of colour in Ptarmigan (<span class='sn'>Lagopus mutus</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_317">317</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>109.<span class='sn'>&OElig;dicneus crepitans</span>, showing the instinctive attitude of concealment</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_320">320</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>110. Imitative forms and colours in insects</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_322">322</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>111. The larva of Puss Moth (<span class='sn'>Cerura vinula</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_325">325</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>112. The larva of Puss Moth in disturbed attitude</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_326">326</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>113. Three cases of mimicry</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_328">328</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>114. Two further cases of mimicry; flies resembling a wasp in the one and a bee in the other</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_329">329</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>115. A case of mimicry where a non-venomous species of snake resembles a venomous one</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_330">330</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>116. A case of mimicry where a homopterous resembles a leaf-cutting ant</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_332">332</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>117. Feather-footed pigeon</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_359">359</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>118. <span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_368">368</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>119. Electric organ of the Skate</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_369">369</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>120. Electric cells of <span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_370">370</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>121. The Garden Bower-bird (<span class='sn'>Amblyornis inornata</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_382">382</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>122. Courtship of Spiders</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_388">388</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>123. Courtship of Spiders (<i>continued</i>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_389">389</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>124. The Bell-bird (<span class='sn'>Chasmorhynchus niveus</span>)</td><td class='r'><a href="#page_396">396</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='tdc l'>125. <span class='sn'>C. tricarunculatus</span></td><td class='r'><a href="#page_397">397</a></td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_1" id="page_1">[1]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="SECTION_I" id="SECTION_I"></a>SECTION I<br /><br />
+<i>EVOLUTION</i></h2>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Introductory.</span></h2>
+
+<p>Among the many and unprecedented changes that have been wrought by Mr.
+Darwin&rsquo;s work on the <i>Origin of Species</i>, there is one which,
+although second in importance to no other, has not received the
+attention which it deserves. I allude to the profound modification which
+that work has produced on the ideas of naturalists with regard to
+method.</p>
+
+<p>Having had occasion of late years somewhat closely to follow the history
+of biological science, I have everywhere observed that progress is not
+so much marked by the march of discovery <i>per se</i>, as by the altered
+views of method which the march has involved. If we except what
+Aristotle called &ldquo;the first start&rdquo; in himself, I think one
+may fairly say that from the rejuvenescence of biology in the sixteenth
+century to the stage of growth which it has now reached in the
+nineteenth, there is a direct proportion to be found between the value
+of work done and the degree in which the worker has thereby advanced the
+true conception of scientific working. Of course, up to a <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_2" id="page_2">[2]</a></span>
+certain point, it is notorious that the revolt against the purely
+&ldquo;subjective methods&rdquo; in the sixteenth century revived the
+spirit of <i>inductive</i> research as this had been left by the Greeks; but
+even with regard to this revolt there are two things which I should like
+to observe.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, it seems to me, an altogether disproportionate value
+has been assigned to Bacon&rsquo;s share in the movement. At most, I
+think, he deserves to be regarded but as a literary exponent of the
+<i>Zeitgeist</i> of his century. Himself a philosopher, as distinguished from
+a man of science, whatever influence his preaching may have had upon the
+general public, it seems little short of absurd to suppose that it could
+have produced any considerable effect upon men who were engaged in the
+practical work of research. And those who read the <i>Novum Organon</i> with
+a first-hand knowledge of what is required for such research can
+scarcely fail to agree with his great contemporary Harvey, that he wrote
+upon science like a Lord Chancellor.</p>
+
+<p>The second thing I should like to observe is, that as the revolt against
+the purely subjective methods grew in extent and influence it passed to
+the opposite extreme, which eventually became only less deleterious to
+the interests of science than was the bondage of authority, and
+addiction to <i>a priori</i> methods, from which the revolt had set her free.
+For, without here waiting to trace the history of this matter in detail,
+I think it ought now to be manifest to everyone who studies it, that up
+to the commencement of the present century the progress of science in
+general, and of natural history in particular, was seriously retarded by
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_3" id="page_3">[3]</a></span>
+what may be termed the Bugbear of Speculation. Fully awakened to the
+dangers of web-spinning from the ever-fertile resources of their own
+inner consciousness, naturalists became more and more abandoned to the
+idea that their science ought to consist in a mere observation of facts,
+or tabulation of phenomena, without attempt at theorizing upon their
+philosophical import. If the facts and phenomena presented any such
+import, that was an affair for men of letters to deal with; but, as men
+of science, it was <i>their</i> duty to avoid the seductive temptations of
+the world, the flesh, and the devil, in the form of speculation,
+deduction, and generalization.</p>
+
+<p>I do not allege that this ideal of natural history was either absolute
+or universal; but there can be no question that it was both orthodox and
+general. Even Linn&aelig;us was express in his limitations of true scientific
+work in natural history to the collecting and arranging of species of
+plants and animals. In accordance with this view, the <i>status</i> of a
+botanist or a zoologist was estimated by the number of specific names,
+natural habitats, &amp;c., which he could retain in his memory, rather than
+by any evidences which he might give of intellectual powers in the way
+of constructive thought. At the most these powers might legitimately
+exercise themselves only in the direction of taxonomic work; and if a
+Hales, a Haller, or a Hunter obtained any brilliant results in the way
+of observation and experiment, their merit was taken to consist in the
+discovery of facts <i>per se</i>: not in any endeavours they might make in
+the way of combining their facts under general principles. Even as late
+in the day as Cuvier this ideal was upheld as the strictly <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_4" id="page_4">[4]</a></span>
+legitimate one for a naturalist to follow; and although Cuvier himself
+was far from being always loyal to it, he leaves no doubt regarding the
+estimate in which he held the still greater deviations of his
+colleagues, St. Hilaire and Lamarck.</p>
+
+<p>Now, these traditional notions touching the severance between the facts
+of natural history and the philosophy of it, continued more or less to
+dominate the minds of naturalists until the publication of the <i>Origin
+of Species</i>, in 1859. Then it was that an epoch was marked in this
+respect, as in so many other respects where natural history is
+concerned. For, looking to the enormous results which followed from a
+deliberate disregard of such traditional canons by Darwin, it has long
+since become impossible for naturalists, even of the strictest sect, not
+to perceive that their previous bondage to the law of a mere ritual has
+been for ever superseded by what verily deserves to be regarded as a new
+dispensation. Yet it cannot be said, or even so much as suspected, that
+Darwin&rsquo;s method in any way resembled that of pre-scientific days,
+the revolt against which led to the straight-laced&mdash;and for a long time
+most salutary&mdash;conceptions of method that we have just been noticing.
+Where, then, is the difference? To me it seems that the difference is as
+follows; and, if so, that not the least of our many obligations to
+Darwin as the great organizer of biological science arises from his
+having clearly displayed the true principle which ought to govern
+biological research.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with, he nowhere loses sight of the primary distinction between
+fact and theory; so that, thus far, he loyally follows the spirit of
+revolt against subjective methods. But, while always holding this
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_5" id="page_5">[5]</a></span>
+distinction clearly in view, his idea of the scientific use of facts is
+plainly that of furnishing legitimate material for the construction of
+theories. Natural history is not to him an affair of the herbarium or
+the cabinet. The collectors and the species-framers are, as it were, his
+diggers of clay and makers of bricks: even the skilled observers and the
+trained experimentalists are his mechanics. Valuable as the work of all
+these men is in itself, its principal value, as he has finally
+demonstrated, is that which it acquires in rendering possible the work
+of the architect. Therefore, although he has toiled in all the trades
+with his own hands, and in each has accomplished some of the best work
+that has ever been done, the great difference between him and most of
+his predecessors consists in this,&mdash;that while to them the discovery or
+accumulation of facts was an end, to him it is the means. In their eyes
+it was enough that the facts should be discovered and recorded. In his
+eyes the value of facts is due to their power of guiding the mind to a
+further discovery of principles. And the extraordinary success which
+attended his work in this respect of <i>generalization</i> immediately
+brought natural history into line with the other inductive sciences,
+behind which, in this most important of all respects, she has so
+seriously fallen. For it was the <i>Origin of Species</i> which first clearly
+revealed to naturalists as a class, that it was the duty of their
+science to take as its motto, what is really the motto of natural
+science in general,</p>
+
+<p class='noin c'>Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.</p>
+
+<p class='noin'>Not facts, then, or phenomena, but causes or principles, are the
+ultimate objects of scientific quest. It remains to ask, How ought this
+quest to be prosecuted?</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_6" id="page_6">[6]</a></span>
+Well, in the second place, Darwin has shown that next only to the
+importance of clearly distinguishing between facts and theories on the
+one hand, and of clearly recognising the relation between them on the
+other, is the importance of not being scared by the Bugbear of
+Speculation. The spirit of speculation is the same as the spirit of
+science, namely, as we have just seen, a desire to know the causes of
+things. The <i>hypotheses non fingo</i> of Newton, if taken to mean what it
+is often understood as meaning, would express precisely the opposite
+spirit from that in which all scientific research must necessarily take
+its origin. For if it be causes or principles, as distinguished from
+facts or phenomena, that constitute the final aim of scientific
+research, obviously the advancement of such research can be attained
+only by the framing of hypotheses. And to frame hypotheses is to
+speculate.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, the difference between science and speculation is not a
+difference of spirit; nor, thus far, is it a difference of method. The
+only difference between them is in the subsequent process of verifying
+hypotheses. For while speculation, in its purest form, is satisfied to
+test her explanations only by the degree in which they accord with our
+subjective ideas of probability&mdash;or with the &ldquo;Illative
+Sense&rdquo; of Cardinal Newman,&mdash;science is not satisfied to rest in
+any explanation as final until it shall have been fully verified by an
+appeal to objective proof. This distinction is now so well and so
+generally appreciated that I need not dwell upon it. Nor need I wait to
+go into any details with regard to the so-called canons of verification.
+My only object is to make perfectly clear, first, that <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_7" id="page_7">[7]</a></span>
+in order to have any question to put to the test of objective
+verification, science must already have so far employed the method of
+speculation as to have framed a question to be tested; and, secondly,
+that the point where science parts company with speculation is the point
+where this testing process begins.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if these things are so, there can be no doubt that Darwin was
+following the truest method of inductive research in allowing any amount
+of latitude to his speculative thought in the direction of scientific
+theorizing. For it follows from the above distinctions that the danger
+of speculation does not reside in the width of its range, or even in the
+impetuosity of its vehemence. Indeed, the wider its reach, and the
+greater its energy, the better will it be for the interests of science.
+The only danger of speculation consists in its momentum being apt to
+carry away the mind from the more laborious work of adequate
+verification; and therefore a true scientific judgment consists in
+giving a free rein to speculation on the one hand, while holding ready
+the break of verification with the other. Now, it is just because Darwin
+did both these things with so admirable a judgment, that he gave the
+world of natural history so good a lesson as to the most effectual way
+of driving the chariot of science.</p>
+
+<p>This lesson we have now all more or less learnt to profit by. Yet no
+other naturalist has proved himself so proficient in holding the balance
+true. For the most part, indeed, they have now all ceased to confound
+the process of speculation <i>per se</i> with the danger of inadequate
+verification; and therefore the old ideal of natural history as
+concerned merely with collecting species, classifying affinities, and,
+in general, tabulating <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_8" id="page_8">[8]</a></span>
+Facts, has been well-nigh universally superseded. But this great gain
+has been attended by some measure of loss. For while not a few
+naturalists have since erred on the side of insufficiently
+distinguishing between fully verified principles of evolution and merely
+speculative deductions therefrom, a still larger number have formed for
+themselves a darwinian creed, and regard any further theorizing on the
+subject of evolution as <i>ipso facto</i> unorthodox.</p>
+
+<p>Having occupied the best years of my life in closely studying the
+literature of Darwinism, I shall endeavour throughout the following
+pages to avoid both these extremes. No one in this generation is able to
+imitate Darwin, either as an observer or a generalizer. But this does
+not hinder that we should all so far endeavour to follow his <i>method</i>,
+as always to draw a clear distinction, not merely between observation
+and deduction, but also between degrees of verification. At all events,
+my own aim will everywhere be to avoid dogmatism on the one hand, and
+undue timidity as regards general reasoning on the other. For everything
+that is said justification will be given; and, as far as prolonged
+deliberation has enabled me to do so, the exact value of such
+justification will be rendered by a statement of at least the main
+grounds on which it rests. The somewhat extensive range of the present
+treatise, however, will not admit of my rendering more than a small
+percentage of the facts which in each case go to corroborate the
+conclusion. But although a great deal must thus be necessarily lost on
+the one side, I am disposed to think that more will be gained on the
+other, by presenting, in a terser form than would otherwise be
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_9" id="page_9">[9]</a></span>
+possible, the whole theory of organic evolution as I believe that it
+will eventually stand. My endeavour, therefore, will be to exhibit the
+general structure of this theory in what I take to be its strictly
+logical form, rather than to encumber any of its parts by a lengthy
+citation of facts. Following this method, I shall in each case give only
+what I consider the main facts for and against the positions which have
+to be argued; and in most cases I shall arrange the facts in two
+divisions, namely, first those of largest generality, and next a few of
+the most special character that can be found.</p>
+
+<p>As explained in the Preface, the present instalment of the treatise is
+concerned with the theory of evolution, from the appearance of the
+<i>Origin of Species</i> in 1859, to the death of its author in 1882; while
+the second part will be devoted to the sundry post-Darwinian questions
+which have arisen in the subsequent decade. To the possible criticism
+that a disproportionate amount of space will thus be allotted to a
+consideration of these post-Darwinian questions, I may furnish in
+advance the following reply.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, besides the works of Darwin himself, there are a
+number of others which have already and very admirably expounded the
+evidences, both of organic evolution as a fact, and of natural selection
+as a cause. Therefore, in the present treatise it seemed needless to go
+beyond the ground which was covered by my original lectures, namely, a
+condensed and connected, while at the same time a critical statement of
+the main evidences, and the main objections, which have thus far been
+published with reference to the distinctively Darwinian theory.
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_10" id="page_10">[10]</a></span>
+Indeed while re-casting this portion of my lectures for the present
+publication, I have felt that criticism might be more justly urged from
+the side of impatience at a reiteration of facts and arguments already
+so well known. But while endeavouring, as much as possible, to avoid
+overlapping the previous expositions, I have not carried this attempt to
+the extent of damaging my own, by omitting any of the more important
+heads of evidence; and I have sought to invest the latter with some
+measure of novelty by making good what appears to me a deficiency which
+has hitherto obtained in the matter of pictorial illustration. In
+particular, there will be found a tolerably extensive series of
+woodcuts, serving to represent the more important products of artificial
+selection. These, like all the other original illustrations, have been
+drawn either direct from nature or from a comparative study of the best
+authorities. Nevertheless, I desire it to be understood that the first
+part of this treatise is intended to retain its original character, as a
+merely educational exposition of Darwinian teaching&mdash;an exposition,
+therefore, which, in its present form, may be regarded as a compendium,
+or hand-book, adapted to the requirements of a general reader, or
+biological student as distinguished from those of a professed
+naturalist.</p>
+
+<p>The case, however, is different with the second instalment, which will
+be published at no very distant date. Here I have not followed with
+nearly so much closeness the material of my original lectures. On the
+contrary, I have had in view a special class of readers; and, although I
+have tried not altogether to sacrifice the more general class, I shall
+desire it to be <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_11" id="page_11">[11]</a></span>
+understood that I am there appealing to naturalists who are specialists
+in Darwinism. One must say advisedly, naturalists who are specialists in
+Darwinism, because, while the literature of Darwinism has become a
+department of science in itself, there are nowadays many naturalists
+who, without having paid any close attention to the subject, deem
+themselves entitled to hold authoritative opinions with regard to it.
+These men may have done admirable work in other departments of natural
+history, and yet their opinions on such matters as we shall hereafter
+have to consider may be destitute of value. As there is no necessary
+relation between erudition in one department of science and soundness of
+judgment in another, the mere fact that a man is distinguished as a
+botanist or zoologist does not in itself qualify him as a critic where
+specially Darwinian questions are concerned. Thus it happens now, as it
+happened thirty years ago, that highly distinguished botanists and
+zoologists prove themselves incapable as judges of general reasoning. It
+was Darwin&rsquo;s complaint that for many years nearly all his
+scientific critics either could not, or would not, understand what he
+had written&mdash;and this even as regarded the fundamental principles
+of his theory, which with the utmost clearness he had over and over
+again repeated. Now the only difference between such naturalists and
+their successors of the present day is, that the latter have grown up in
+a Darwinian environment, and so, as already remarked, have more or less
+thoughtlessly adopted some form of Darwinian creed. But this scientific
+creed is not a whit less dogmatic and intolerant than was the more
+theological one which it <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_12" id="page_12">[12]</a></span>
+has supplanted; and while it usually incorporates the main elements of
+Darwin&rsquo;s teaching, it still more usually comprises gross
+perversions of their consequences. All this I shall have occasion more
+fully to show in subsequent parts of the present work; and allusion is
+made to the matter here merely for the sake of observing that in future
+I shall not pay attention to unsupported expressions of opinion from any
+quarter: I shall consider only such as are accompanied with some
+statement of the grounds upon which the opinion is held. And, even as
+thus limited, I do not think it will be found that the following
+exposition devotes any disproportional amount of attention to the
+contemporary movements of Darwinian thought, seeing, as we shall see,
+how active scientific speculation has been in the field of Darwinism
+since the death of Mr. Darwin.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Leaving, then, these post-Darwinian questions to be dealt with
+subsequently, I shall now begin a systematic <i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> of the evidences
+in favour of the Darwinian theory, as this was left to the world by
+Darwin himself.</p>
+
+<p>There is a great distinction to be drawn between the fact of evolution
+and the manner of it, or between the evidence of evolution as having
+taken place somehow, and the evidence of the causes which have been
+concerned in the process. This most important distinction is frequently
+disregarded by popular writers on Darwinism; and, therefore, in order to
+mark it as strongly as possible, I will effect a complete separation
+between the evidence which we have of evolution as a fact, and the
+evidence which we have <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_13" id="page_13">[13]</a></span>
+as to its method. In other words, not until I shall have fully
+considered the evidence of organic evolution as a process which somehow
+or another <i>has</i> taken place, will I proceed to consider <i>how</i> it has
+taken place, or the causes which Darwin and others have suggested as
+having probably been concerned in this process.</p>
+
+<p>Confining, then, our attention in the first instance to a proof of
+evolution considered as a fact, without any reference at all to its
+method, let us begin by considering the antecedent standing of the
+matter.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>First of all we must clearly recognise that there are only two
+hypotheses in the field whereby it is possible so much as to suggest an
+explanation of the origin of species. Either all the species of plants
+and animals must have been supernaturally created, or else they must
+have been naturally evolved. There is no third hypothesis possible; for
+no one can rationally suggest that species have been eternal.</p>
+
+<p>Next, be it observed, that the theory of a continuous transmutation of
+species is not logically bound to furnish a full explanation of <i>all</i>
+the natural causes which it may suppose to have been at work. The
+radical distinction between the two theories consists in the one
+assuming an immediate action of some supernatural or inscrutable cause,
+while the other assumes the immediate action of natural&mdash;and therefore
+of possibly discoverable&mdash;causes. But in order to sustain this latter
+assumption, the theory of descent is under no logical necessity to
+furnish a full proof of <i>all</i> the natural causes which may have been
+concerned in working out the observed results. We do not <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_14" id="page_14">[14]</a></span>
+know the natural causes of many diseases; but yet no one nowadays
+thinks of reverting to any hypothesis of a supernatural cause, in order
+to explain the occurrence of any disease the natural causation of which
+is obscure. The science of medicine being in so many cases able to
+explain the occurrence of disease by its hypothesis of natural causes,
+medical men now feel that they are entitled to assume, on the basis of a
+wide analogy, and therefore on the basis of a strong antecedent
+presumption, that all diseases are due to natural causes, whether or not
+in particular cases such causes happen to have been discovered. And from
+this position it follows that medical men are not logically bound to
+entertain any supernatural theory of an obscure disease, merely because
+as yet they have failed to find a natural theory. And so it is with
+biologists and their theory of descent. Even if it be fully proved to
+them that the causes which they have hitherto discovered, or suggested,
+are inadequate to account for all the facts of organic nature, this
+would in no wise logically compel them to vacate their theory of
+evolution, in favour of the theory of creation. All that it would so
+compel them to do would be to search with yet greater diligence for the
+natural causes still undiscovered, but in the existence of which they
+are, by their independent evidence in favour of the theory, bound to
+believe.</p>
+
+<p>In short, the issue is not between the theory of a supernatural cause
+and the theory of any one particular natural cause, or set of
+causes&mdash;such as natural selection, use, disuse, and so forth. The issue
+thus far&mdash;or where only the <i>fact</i> of evolution is concerned&mdash;is between
+the theory of a supernatural cause as <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_15" id="page_15">[15]</a></span>
+operating immediately in numberless acts of special creation, and the
+theory of natural causes as a whole, whether these happen, or do not
+happen, to have been hitherto discovered.</p>
+
+<p>This much by way of preliminaries being understood, we have next to
+notice that whichever of the two rival theories we choose to entertain,
+we are not here concerned with any question touching the origin of life.
+We are concerned only with the origin of particular forms of life&mdash;that
+is to say, with the origin of species. The theory of descent starts from
+life as a <i>datum</i> already granted. How life itself came to be, the
+theory of descent, as such, is not concerned to show. Therefore, in the
+present discussion, I will take the existence of life as a fact which
+does not fall within the range of our present discussion. No doubt the
+question as to the origin of life is in itself a deeply interesting
+question, and although in the opinion of most biologists it is a
+question which we may well hope will some day fall within the range of
+science to answer, at present, it must be confessed, science is not in a
+position to furnish so much as any suggestion upon the subject; and
+therefore our wisdom as men of science is frankly to acknowledge that
+such is the case.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>We are now in a position to observe that the theory of organic evolution
+is strongly recommended to our acceptance on merely antecedent grounds,
+by the fact that it is in full accordance with what is known as the
+principle of continuity. By the principle of continuity is meant the
+uniformity of nature, in virtue of which the many and varied processes
+going on in nature are due to the same kind of method, i. e. the method
+of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_16" id="page_16">[16]</a></span>
+natural causation. This conception of the uniformity of nature is one
+that has only been arrived at step by step through a long and arduous
+course of human experience in the explanation of natural phenomena. The
+explanations of such phenomena which are first given are always of the
+supernatural kind; it is not until investigation has revealed the
+natural causes which are concerned that the hypotheses of superstition
+give way to those of science. Thus it follows that the hypotheses of
+superstition which are the latest in yielding to the explanations of
+science, are those which refer to the more recondite cases of natural
+causation; for here it is that methodical investigation is longest in
+discovering the natural causes. Thus it is only by degrees that
+fetishism is superseded by what now appears a common-sense
+interpretation of physical phenomena; that exorcism gives place to
+medicine; alchemy to chemistry; astrology to astronomy; and so forth.
+Everywhere the miraculous is progressively banished from the field of
+explanation by the advance of scientific discovery; and the places where
+it is left longest in occupation are those where the natural causes are
+most intricate or obscure, and thus present the greatest difficulty to
+the advancing explanations of science. Now, in our own day there are but
+very few of these strongholds of the miraculous left. Nearly the whole
+field of explanation is occupied by naturalism, so that no one ever
+thinks of resorting to supernaturalism except in the comparatively few
+cases where science has not yet been able to explore the most obscure
+regions of causation. One of these cases is the origin of life; and,
+until quite recently, another of these cases was the origin of
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_17" id="page_17">[17]</a></span>
+Species. But now that a very reasonable explanation of the origin of
+species has been offered by science, it is but in accordance with all
+previous historical analogies that many minds should prove themselves
+unable all at once to adjust themselves to the new ideas, and thus still
+linger about the more venerable ideas of supernaturalism. But we are now
+in possession of so many of these historical analogies, that all minds
+with any instincts of science in their composition have grown to
+distrust, on merely antecedent grounds, any explanation which embodies a
+miraculous element. Such minds have grown to regard all these
+explanations as mere expressions of our own ignorance of natural
+causation; or, in other words, they have come to regard it as an <i>a
+priori</i> truth that nature is everywhere uniform in respect of method or
+causation; that the reign of law universal; the principle of continuity
+ubiquitous.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it must be obvious to any mind which has adopted this attitude of
+thought, that the scientific theory of natural descent is recommended by
+an overwhelming weight of antecedent presumption, as against the
+dogmatic theory of supernatural design.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with, we must remember that the fact of evolution&mdash;or, which is
+the same thing, the fact of continuity in natural causation&mdash;has now
+been unquestionably proved in so many other and analogous departments of
+nature, that to suppose any interruption of this method as between
+species and species becomes, on grounds of such analogy alone, well-nigh
+incredible. For example, it is now a matter of demonstrated fact that
+throughout the range of <i>inorganic</i> nature the principles of evolution
+have obtained. It is no longer <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_18" id="page_18">[18]</a></span>
+possible for any one to believe with our forefathers that the
+earth&rsquo;s surface has always existed as it now exists. For the
+science of geology has proved to demonstration that seas and lands are
+perpetually undergoing gradual changes of relative
+positions&mdash;continents and oceans supplanting each other in the
+course of ages, mountain-chains being slowly uplifted, again as slowly
+denuded, and so forth. Moreover, and as a closer analogy, within the
+limits of animate nature we know it is the universal law that every
+individual life undergoes a process of gradual development; and that
+breeds, races, or strains, may be brought into existence by the
+intentional use of natural processes&mdash;the results bearing an
+unmistakeable resemblance to what we know as natural species. Again,
+even in the case of natural species themselves, there are two
+considerations which present enormous force from an antecedent point of
+view. The first is that organic forms are only then recognised as
+species when intermediate forms are absent. If the intermediate forms
+are actually living, or admit of being found in the fossil state,
+naturalists forthwith regard the whole series as varieties, and name all
+the members of it as belonging to the same species. Consequently it
+becomes obvious that naturalists, in their work of naming species, may
+only have been marking out the cases where intermediate or connecting
+forms have been lost to observation. For example, here we have a diagram
+representing a very unusually complete series of fossil shells, which
+within the last few years has been unearthed from the Tertiary lake
+basins of Slavonia. Before the series was completed, some six or eight
+of the then <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_19" id="page_19">[19]</a></span>
+disconnected forms were described as distinct species; but as soon as
+the connecting forms were found&mdash;showing a progressive modification
+from the older to the newer beds,&mdash;the whole were included as
+varieties of one species.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 481px;">
+<img src="images/i_036_001.jpg" width="481" height="500" alt="Successive forms of Paludina." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 1.&mdash;Successive forms of Paludina, from the Tertiary
+deposits of Slavonia (after Neumayr).</div></div>
+
+<p>Of course, other cases of the same kind might be adduced, and therefore,
+as just remarked, in their work of naming species naturalists may only
+have been marking out the cases where intermediate forms <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_20" id="page_20">[20]</a></span>
+have been lost to observation. And this possibility becomes little less
+than a certainty when we note the next consideration which I have to
+adduce, namely, that in all their systematic divisions of plants and
+animals in groups higher than species&mdash;such as genera, families,
+orders, and the rest&mdash;naturalists have at all times recognised the
+fact that the one shades off into the other by such imperceptible
+gradations, that it is impossible to regard such divisions as other than
+conventional. It is important to remember that this fact was fully
+recognised before the days of Darwin. In those days the scientifically
+orthodox doctrine was, that although species were to be regarded as
+fixed units, bearing the stamp of a special creation, all the higher
+taxonomic divisions were to be considered as what may be termed the
+artificial creation of naturalists themselves. In other words, it was
+believed, and in many cases known, that if we could go far enough back
+in the history of the earth, we should everywhere find a tendency to
+mutual approximation between allied <i>groups of species</i>; so that, for
+instance, birds and reptiles would be found to be drawing nearer and
+nearer together, until eventually they would seem to become fused in a
+single type; that the existing distinctions between herbivorous and
+carnivorous mammals would be found to do likewise; and so on with all
+the larger group-distinctions, at any rate within the limits of the same
+sub-kingdoms. But although naturalists recognised this even in the
+pre-Darwinian days, they stoutly believed that a great exception was to
+be made in the case of species. These, the lowest or initial members of
+their taxonomic series, they supposed to be permanent&mdash;the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_21" id="page_21">[21]</a></span>
+miraculously created units of organic nature. Now, all that I have at
+present to remark is, that this pre-Darwinian exception which was made
+in favour of species to the otherwise recognised principle of gradual
+change, was an exception which can at no time have been recommended by
+any antecedent considerations. At all times it stood out of analogy with
+the principle of continuity; and, as we shall fully find in subsequent
+chapters, it is now directly contradicted by all the facts of biological
+science.</p>
+
+<p>There remains one other fact of high generality to which prominent
+attention should be drawn from the present, or merely antecedent, point
+of view. On the theory of special creation no reason can be assigned why
+distinct specific types should present any correlation, either in time
+or in space, with their nearest allies; for there is evidently no
+conceivable reason why any given species, A, should have been specially
+created on the same area and at about the same time as its nearest
+representative, B,&mdash;still less, of course, that such should be a general
+rule throughout all the thousands and millions of species which have
+ever inhabited the earth. But, equally of course, on the theory of a
+natural evolution this is so necessary a consequence, that if no
+correlation of such a two-fold kind were observable, the theory would be
+negatived. Thus the question whether there be any indication of such a
+two-fold correlation may be regarded as a test-question as between the
+two theories; for although the vast majority of extinct species have
+been lost to science, there are a countless number of existing species
+which furnish ample material for answering the question. And the answer
+is so unequivocal <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_22" id="page_22">[22]</a></span>
+that Mr. Wallace, who is one of our greatest authorities on
+geographical distribution, has laid it down as a general law, applicable
+to all the departments of organic nature, that, so far as observation
+can extend, &ldquo;every species has come into existence coincident both
+in space and time with a pre-existing and closely allied species.&rdquo;
+As it appears to me that the significance of these words cannot be
+increased by any comment upon them, I will here bring this introductory
+chapter to a close.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_23" id="page_23">[23]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Classification.</span></h2>
+
+<p>The first line of direct evidence in favour of organic evolution which I
+shall open is that which may be termed the argument from Classification.</p>
+
+<p>It is a matter of observable fact that different forms of plants and
+animals present among themselves more or less pronounced resemblances.
+From the earliest times, therefore, it has been the aim of philosophical
+naturalists to classify plants and animals in accordance with these
+resemblances. Of course the earliest attempts at such classification
+were extremely crude. The oldest of these attempts with which we are
+acquainted&mdash;namely, that which is presented in the books of Genesis and
+Leviticus&mdash;arranges the whole vegetable kingdom in three simple
+divisions of Grass, Herbs, and Trees; while the animal kingdom is
+arranged with almost equal simplicity with reference, first to habitats
+in water, earth, or air, and next as to modes of progression. These, of
+course, were what may be termed common-sense classifications, having
+reference merely to external appearances and habits of life. But when
+Aristotle laboriously investigated the comparative anatomy of animals,
+he could not fail to perceive that their entire structures had to be
+taken into account in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_24" id="page_24">[24]</a></span>
+Order to classify them scientifically; and, also, that for this purpose
+the internal parts were of quite as much importance as the external.
+indeed, he perceived that they were of greatly more importance in this
+respect, inasmuch as they presented so many more points for comparison;
+and, in the result, he furnished an astonishingly comprehensive, as well
+as an astonishingly accurate classification of the larger groups of the
+animal kingdom. On the other hand, classification of the vegetable
+kingdom continued pretty much as it had been left by the book of
+genesis&mdash;all plants being divided into three groups, herbs, shrubs,
+and trees. Nor was this primitive state of matters improved upon till
+the sixteenth century, when gesner (1516-1565), and still more
+c&aelig;salpino (1519-1603), laid the foundations of systematic botany.</p>
+
+<p>But the more that naturalists prosecuted their studies on the anatomy of
+plants and animals, the more enormously complex did they find the
+problem of classification become. Therefore they began by forming what
+are called artificial systems, in contradistinction to natural systems.
+An artificial system of classification is a system based on the more or
+less arbitrary selection of some one part, or set of parts; while a
+natural classification is one that is based upon a complete knowledge of
+all the structures of all the organisms which are classified.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the object of classification has been that of arranging organisms
+in accordance with their natural affinities, by comparing organism with
+organism, for the purpose of ascertaining which of the constituent
+organs are of the most invariable occurrence, and therefore of the most
+typical signification. A porpoise, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_25" id="page_25">[25]</a></span>
+for instance, has a large number of teeth, and in this feature
+resembles most fish, while it differs from all mammals. But it also
+gives suck to its young. Now, looking to these two features alone,
+should we say that a porpoise ought to be classed as a fish or as a
+mammal? Assuredly as a mammal; because the number of teeth is a very
+variable feature both in fish and mammals, whereas the giving of suck is
+an invariable feature among mammals, and occurs nowhere else in the
+animal kingdom. This, of course, is chosen as a very simple
+illustration. Were all cases as obvious, there would be but little
+distinction between natural and artificial systems of classification.
+But it is because the lines of natural affinity are, as it were, so
+interwoven throughout the organic world, and because there is, in
+consequence, so much difficulty in following them, that artificial
+systems have to be made in the first instance as feelers towards
+eventual discovery of the natural system. In other words, while forming
+their artificial systems of classification, it has always been the aim
+of naturalists&mdash;whether consciously or unconsciously&mdash;to admit
+as the bases of their systems those characters which, in the then state
+of their knowledge, seemed most calculated to play an important part in
+the eventual construction of the natural system. If we were dealing with
+the history of classification, it would here be interesting to note how
+the course of it has been marked by gradual change in the principles
+which naturalists adopted as guides to the selection of characters on
+which to found their attempts at a natural classification. Some of these
+changes, indeed, I shall have to mention later on; but at present what
+has to be specially noted is, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_26" id="page_26">[26]</a></span>
+that through all these changes of theory or principle, and through all
+the ever-advancing construction of their taxonomic science, naturalists
+themselves were unable to give any intelligible reason for the faith
+that was in them&mdash;or the faith that over and above the artificial
+classifications which were made for the mere purpose of cataloguing the
+living library of organic nature, there was deeply hidden in nature
+itself a truly natural classification, for the eventual discovery of
+which artificial systems might prove to be of more or less assistance.</p>
+
+<p>Linn&aelig;us, for example, expressly says&mdash;&ldquo;You ask me for the
+characters of the natural orders; I confess that I cannot give
+them.&rdquo; Yet he maintains that, although he cannot define the
+characters, he knows, by a sort of naturalist&rsquo;s instinct, what in
+a general way will subsequently be found to be the organs of most
+importance in the eventual grouping of plants under a natural system.
+&ldquo;I will not give my reasons for the distribution of the natural
+orders which I have published,&rdquo; he said: &ldquo;you, or some other
+person, after twenty or after fifty years, will discover them, and see
+that I was right.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Thus we perceive that in forming their provisional or artificial
+classifications, naturalists have been guided by an instinctive belief
+in some general principle of natural affinity, the character of which
+they have not been able to define; and that the structures which they
+selected as the bases of their classifications when these were
+consciously artificial, were selected because it seemed that they were
+the structures most likely to prove of use in subsequent attempts at
+working out the natural system.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_27" id="page_27">[27]</a></span>
+This general principle of natural affinity, of which all naturalists
+have seen more or less well-marked evidence in organic nature, and after
+which they have all been feeling, has sometimes been regarded as
+natural, but more often as supernatural. Those who regarded it as
+supernatural took it to consist in a divine ideal of creation according
+to types, so that the structural affinities of organisms were to them
+expressions of an archetypal plan, which might be revealed in its
+entirety when all organisms on the face of the earth should have been
+examined. Those, on the other hand, who regarded the general principle
+of affinity as depending on some natural causes, for the most part
+concluded that these must have been utilitarian causes; or, in other
+words, that the fundamental affinities of structure must have depended
+upon fundamental requirements of function. According to this view, the
+natural classification would eventually be found to stand upon a basis
+of physiology. Therefore all the systems of classification up to the
+earlier part of the present century went upon the apparent axiom, that
+characters which are of most importance to the organisms presenting them
+must be characters most indicative of natural affinities. But the truth
+of the matter was eventually found to be otherwise. For it was
+eventually found that there is absolutely no correlation between these
+two things; that, therefore, it is a mere chance whether or not organs
+which are of importance to organisms are likewise of importance as
+guides to classification; and, in point of fact, that the general
+tendency in this matter is towards an inverse instead of a direct
+proportion. More often than not, the greater the value of a structure
+for the purpose of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_28" id="page_28">[28]</a></span>
+indicating natural affinities, the less is its value to the creatures
+presenting it.</p>
+
+<p>Enough has now been said to show three things. First, that long before
+the theory of descent was entertained by naturalists, naturalists
+perceived the fact of natural affinities, and did their best to
+construct a natural system of classification for the purpose of
+expressing such affinities. Second, that naturalists had a kind of
+instinctive belief in some one principle running through the whole
+organic world, which thus served to bind together organisms in groups
+subordinate to groups&mdash;that is, into species, genera, orders, families,
+classes, sub-kingdoms, and kingdoms. Third, that they were not able to
+give any very intelligible reason for this faith that was in them;
+sometimes supposing the principle in question to be that of a
+supernatural plan of organization, sometimes regarding it as dependent
+on conditions of physiology, and sometimes not attempting to account for
+it at all.</p>
+
+<p>Of course it is obvious that the theory of descent furnishes the
+explanation which is required. For it is now evident to evolutionists,
+that although these older naturalists did not know what they were doing
+when they were tracing these lines of natural affinity, and thus helping
+to construct a natural classification&mdash;I say it is now evident to
+evolutionists that these naturalists were simply tracing the lines of
+genetic relationship. The great principle pervading organic nature,
+which was seen so mysteriously to bind the whole creation together as in
+a nexus of organic affinity, is now easily understood as nothing more or
+less than the principle of Heredity. Let us, therefore, look a little
+more closely at the character of this network, in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_29" id="page_29">[29]</a></span>
+order to see how far it lends itself to this new interpretation.</p>
+
+<p>The first thing that we have to observe about the nexus is, that it is a
+nexus&mdash;not a single line, or even a series of parallel lines. In other
+words, some time before the theory of descent was seriously entertained,
+naturalists for the most part had fully recognised that it was
+impossible to arrange either plants or animals, with respect to their
+mutual affinities, in a ladder-like series (as was supposed to be the
+type of classification by the earlier systematists), or even in map-like
+groups (as was supposed to be the type by Linn&aelig;us). And similarly, also,
+with respect to grades of organization. In the case of the larger
+groups, indeed, it is usually possible to say that the members of this
+group as a whole are more highly organized than the members of that
+group as a whole; so that, for instance, we have no hesitation in
+regarding the Vertebrata as more highly organized than the Invertebrata,
+Birds than Reptiles, and so on. But when we proceed to smaller
+subdivisions, such as genera and species, it is usually impossible to
+say that the one type is more highly organized than another type. A
+horse, for instance, cannot be said to be more highly organized than a
+zebra or an ass; although the entire horse-genus is clearly a more
+highly organized type than any genus of animal which is not a mammal.</p>
+
+<p>In view of these facts, therefore, the system of classification which
+was eventually arrived at before the days of Darwin, was the system
+which naturalists likened to a tree; and this is the system which all
+naturalists now agreed upon as the true one. According to this system, a
+short trunk may be taken <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_30" id="page_30">[30]</a></span>
+to represent the lowest organisms which cannot properly be termed
+either plants or animals. This short trunk soon separates into two large
+trunks, one of which represents the vegetable and the other the animal
+kingdom. Each of these trunks then gives off large branches signifying
+classes, and these give off smaller, but more numerous branches,
+signifying families, which ramify again into orders, genera, and finally
+into the leaves, which may be taken to represent species. Now, in such a
+representative tree of life, the height of any branch from the ground
+may be taken to indicate the grade of organization which the leaves, or
+species, present; so that, if we picture to ourselves such a tree, we
+may understand that while there is a general advance of organization
+from below upwards, there are many deviations in this respect. Sometimes
+leaves growing on the same branch are growing at a different
+level&mdash;especially, of course, if the branch be a large one,
+corresponding to a class or sub-kingdom. And sometimes leaves growing on
+different branches are growing at the same level: that is to say,
+although they represent species belonging to widely divergent families,
+orders, or even classes, it cannot be said that the one species is more
+highly organized than the other.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this tree-like arrangement of species in nature is an arrangement
+for which Darwin is not responsible. For, as we have seen, the detecting
+of it has been due to the progressive work of naturalists for centuries
+past; and even when it was detected, at about the commencement of the
+present century, naturalists were confessedly unable to explain the
+reason of it, or what was the underlying principle that they were
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_31" id="page_31">[31]</a></span>
+engaged in tracing when they proceeded ever more and more accurately to
+define these ramifications of natural affinity. But now, as just
+remarked, we can clearly perceive that this underlying principle was
+none other than Heredity as expressed in family
+likeness,&mdash;likeness, therefore, growing progressively more unlike
+with remoteness of ancestral relationship. For thus only can we obtain
+any explanation of the sundry puzzles and apparent paradoxes, which a
+working out of their natural classifications revealed to botanists and
+zoologists during the first half of the present century. It will now be
+my endeavour to show how these puzzles and paradoxes are all explained
+by the theory that natural affinities are merely the expression of
+genetic affinities.</p>
+
+<p>First of all, and from the most general point of view, it is obvious
+that the tree-like system of classification, which Darwin found already
+and empirically worked out by the labours of his predecessors, is as
+suggestive as anything could well be of the fact of genetic
+relationship. For this is the form that every tabulation of family
+pedigree must assume; and therefore the mere fact that a scientific
+tabulation of natural affinities was eventually found to take the form
+of a tree, is in itself highly suggestive of the inference that such a
+tabulation represents a <i>family</i> tree. If all species were separately
+created, there can be no assignable reason why the ideas of earlier
+naturalists touching the form which a natural classification would
+eventually assume should not have represented the truth&mdash;why, for
+example, it should not have assumed the form of a ladder (as was
+anticipated in the seventeenth century), or of a map (as was anticipated
+in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_32" id="page_32">[32]</a></span>
+the eighteenth), or, again, of a number of wholly unrelated lines,
+circles, &amp;c. (as certain speculative writers of the present century
+have imagined). But, on the other hand, if all species were separately
+and independently created, it becomes virtually incredible that we
+should everywhere observe this progressive arborescence of characters
+common to larger groups into more and more numerous, and more and more
+delicate, ramifications of characters distinctive only of smaller and
+smaller groups. A man would be deemed insane if he were to attribute the
+origin of every branch and every twig of a real tree to a separate act
+of special creation; and although we have not been able to witness the
+growth of what we may term in a new sense the Tree of Life, the
+structural relations which are now apparent between its innumerable
+ramifications bear quite as strong a testimony to the fact of their
+having been due to an organic growth, as is the testimony furnished by
+the branches of an actual tree.</p>
+
+<p>Or, to take another illustration. Classification of organic forms, as
+Darwin, Lyell, and H&auml;ckel have pointed out, strongly resembles the
+classification of languages. In the case of languages, as in the case of
+species, we have genetic affinities strongly marked; so that it is
+possible to some extent to construct a Language-tree, the branches of
+which shall indicate, in a diagrammatic form, the progressive divergence
+of a large group of languages from a common stock. For instance, Latin
+may be regarded as a fossil language, which has given rise to a group of
+living languages&mdash;Italian, Spanish, French, and, to a large extent,
+English. Now what would be thought of a philologist who should maintain
+that English, French, Spanish, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_33" id="page_33">[33]</a></span>
+and Italian were all specially created languages&mdash;or languages
+separately constructed by the Deity, and by as many separate acts of
+inspiration communicated to the nations which now speak them&mdash;and
+that their resemblance to the fossil form, Latin, must be attributed to
+special design? Yet the evidence of the natural transmutation of species
+is in one respect much stronger than that of the natural transmutation
+of languages&mdash;in respect, namely, of there being a vastly greater
+number of cases all bearing testimony to the fact of genetic
+relationship.</p>
+
+<p>But, quitting now this most general point of view&mdash;or the suggestive
+fact that what we have before us is a <i>tree</i>&mdash;let us next approach this
+tree for the purpose of examining its structure more in detail. When we
+do this, the fact of next greatest generality which we find is as
+follows.</p>
+
+<p>In cases where a very old form of life has continued to exist
+unmodified, so that by investigation of its anatomy we are brought back
+to a more primitive type of structure than that of the newer forms
+growing higher up <i>upon the same branch</i>, two things are observable. In
+the first place, the old form is less differentiated than the newer
+ones; and, in the next place, it is seen much more closely to resemble
+types of structure belonging to some of the other and larger branches of
+the tree. The organization of the older form is not only <i>simpler</i>; but
+it is, as naturalists say, more <i>generalized</i>. It comprises within
+itself characters belonging to its own branch, and also characters
+belonging to neighbouring branches, or to the trunk from which allied
+branches spring. Hence it becomes a general rule of classification, that
+it is by the lowest, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_34" id="page_34">[34]</a></span>
+or by the oldest, forms of any two natural groups that the affinities
+between the two groups admit of being best detected. And it is obvious
+that this is just what ought to be the case on the theory of descent
+with divergent modification; while, upon the alternative theory of
+special creation, no reason can be assigned why the lowest or the oldest
+types should thus combine the characters which afterwards become
+severally distinctive of higher or newer types.</p>
+
+<p>Again, I have already alluded to the remarkable fact that there is no
+correlation between the value of structures to the organisms which
+present them, and their value to the naturalist for the purpose of
+tracing natural affinity; and I have remarked that up to the close of
+the last century it was regarded as an axiom of taxonomic science, that
+structures which are of most importance to the animals or plants
+possessing them must likewise prove of most importance in any natural
+system of classification. On this account, all attempts to discover the
+natural classification went upon the supposition that such a direct
+proportion must obtain&mdash;with the result that organs of most
+physiological importance were chosen as the bases of systematic work.
+And when, in the earlier part of the present century, De Candolle found
+that instead of a direct there was usually an inverse proportion between
+the functional and the taxonomic value of a structure, he was unable to
+suggest any reason for this apparently paradoxical fact. For, upon the
+theory of special creation, no reason can be assigned why organs of
+least importance to organisms should prove of most importance as marks
+of natural affinity. But on the theory of descent with progressive
+modification <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_35" id="page_35">[35]</a></span>
+the apparent paradox is at once explained. For it is evident that
+organs of functional importance are, other things equal, the organs
+which are most likely to undergo different modifications in different
+lines of family descent, and therefore in time to have their genetic
+relationships in these different lines obscured. On the other hand,
+organs or structures which are of no functional importance are never
+called upon to change in response to any change of habit, or to any
+change in the conditions of life. They may, therefore, continue to be
+inherited through many different lines of family descent, and thus
+afford evidence of genetic relationship where such evidence fails to be
+given by any of the structures of vital importance, which in the course
+of many generations have been required to change in many ways according
+to the varied experiences of different branches of the same family.
+Here, then, we have an empirically discovered rule in the science of
+classification, the <i>raison d&rsquo;&ecirc;tre</i> of which we are at once
+able to appreciate upon the theory of evolution, whereas no possible
+explanation of why it should ever have become a rule could be furnished
+upon the theory of special creation.</p>
+
+<p>Here, again, is another empirically determined rule. The larger the
+<i>number</i>, as distinguished from the <i>importance</i>, of structures which
+are found common to different groups, the greater becomes their value as
+guides to the determination of natural affinity. Or, as Darwin puts it,
+&ldquo;the value of an aggregate of characters, even when none are
+important, alone explains the aphorism enunciated by Linn&aelig;us, namely,
+that the characters do not give the genus, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_36" id="page_36">[36]</a></span>
+but the genus gives the characters; for this seems founded on the
+appreciation of many trifling points of resemblance, too slight to be
+defined<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Now it is evident, without comment, of how much value aggregates of
+characters ought to be in classification, if the ultimate meaning of
+classification be that of tracing lines of pedigree; whereas, if this
+ultimate meaning were that of tracing divine ideals manifested in
+special creation, we can see no reason why single characters are not
+such sure tokens of a natural arrangement as are aggregates of
+characters, even though the latter be in every other respect
+unimportant. For, on the special creation theory, we cannot explain why
+an assemblage, say of four or five trifling characters, should have been
+chosen to mark some unity of plan, rather than some one character of
+functional importance, which would have served at least equally well any
+such hypothetical purpose. On the other hand, as Darwin remarks,
+&ldquo;we care not how trifling a character may be&mdash;let it be the mere
+inflection of the angle of the jaw, the manner in which an
+insect&rsquo;s wing is folded, whether the skin be covered with hair or
+feathers&mdash;if it prevail throughout many and different species,
+especially those having very different habits of life, it assumes high
+value; for we can account for its presence in so many forms, with such
+different habits, only by inheritance from a common parent. We may err
+in this respect in regard to single points of structure, but when
+several characters, let them be ever so trifling, concur throughout a
+large group of beings having different habits, we may feel almost sure,
+on the theory of descent, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_37" id="page_37">[37]</a></span>
+that these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor; and
+we know that such aggregated characters have especial value in
+classification<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>It is true that even a single character, if found common to a large
+number of forms, while uniformly absent from others, is also regarded by
+naturalists as of importance for purposes of classification, although
+they recognise it as of a value subordinate to that of aggregates of
+characters. But this also is what we should expect on the theory of
+descent. If even any one structure be found to run through a number of
+animals presenting different habits of life, the readiest explanation of
+the fact is to be found in the theory of descent; but this does not
+hinder that if several such characters always occur together, the
+inference of genetic relationship is correspondingly confirmed. And the
+fact that before this inference was ever drawn, naturalists recognised
+the value of single characters in proportion to their constancy, and the
+yet higher value of aggregates of characters in proportion to their
+number&mdash;this fact shows that in their work of classification naturalists
+empirically observed the effects of a cause which we have now
+discovered, to wit, hereditary transmission of characters through
+ever-widening groups of changing species.</p>
+
+<p>There is another argument which appears to tell strongly in favour of
+the theory of descent. We have just seen that non-adaptive structures,
+not being required to change in response to change of habits or
+conditions of life, are allowed to persist unchanged through many
+generations, and thus furnish exceptionally good guides in the science
+of classification&mdash;or, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_38" id="page_38">[38]</a></span>
+according to our theory, in the work of tracing lines of pedigree. But
+now, the converse of this statement holds equally true. For it often
+happens that adaptive structures are required to change in different
+lines of descent in analogous ways, in order to meet analogous needs;
+and, when such is the case, the structures concerned have to assume more
+or less close resemblances to one another, even though they have
+severally descended from quite different ancestors. The paddles of a
+whale, for instance, most strikingly resemble the fins of a fish as to
+their outward form and movements; yet, on the theory of descent, they
+must be held to have had a widely different parentage. Now, in all such
+cases where there is thus what is called an analogous (or adaptive)
+resemblance, as distinguished from what is called an homologous (or
+anatomical) resemblance&mdash;in all such cases it is observable that
+the similarities do not extend further into the structure of the parts
+than it is necessary that they should extend, in order that the
+structures should both perform the same functions. The whole anatomy of
+the paddles of a whale is quite unlike that of the fins of a
+fish&mdash;being, in fact, that of the fore-limb of a mammal. The
+change, therefore, which the fore-limb has here undergone to suit it to
+the aquatic habits of this mammal, is no greater than was required for
+that purpose: the change has not extended to any one feature of
+<i>anatomical</i> significance. This, of course, is what we should expect on
+the theory of descent with modification of ancestral characters; but on
+the theory of special creation it is not intelligible why there should
+always be so marked a distinction between resemblances as analogical or
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_39" id="page_39">[39]</a></span>
+adaptive, and resemblances as homological or of meaning in reference to
+a natural classification. To take another and more detailed instance,
+the Tasmanian wolf is an animal separated from true wolves in a natural
+system of classification. Yet its jaws and teeth bear a strong general
+resemblance to those of all the dog tribe, although there are
+differences of anatomical detail. In particular, while the dogs all have
+on each side of the upper jaw four pre-molars and two molars, the
+Tasmanian wolf has three pre-molars and four molars. Now there is no
+reason, so far as their common function of dealing with flesh is
+concerned, why the teeth of the Tasmanian wolf should not have resembled
+homologically as well as analogically the teeth of a true wolf; and
+therefore we cannot assign any intelligible reason why, if all the
+species of the dog genus were separately created with one pattern of
+teeth, the unallied Tasmanian wolf should have been furnished with what
+is practically the same pattern from a functional point of view, while
+differing from a structural point of view. But, of course, on the theory
+of descent with modification, we can well understand why similarities of
+habit should have led to similarities of structural appearance of an
+adaptive kind in different lines of descent, without there being any
+trace of such real or anatomical similarities as could possibly point to
+genetic relationship.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, to adduce the only remaining argument from classification which
+I regard as of any considerable weight, naturalists have found it
+necessary, while constructing their natural classifications, to set
+great store on what Mr. Darwin calls &ldquo;chains of
+affinities.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_40" id="page_40">[40]</a></span>&rdquo;
+Thus, for instance, &ldquo;nothing can be easier than to define
+a number of characters common to all birds; but with crustaceans any
+such definition has hitherto been found impossible. There are
+crustaceans at the opposite ends of the series, which have hardly a
+character in common; yet the species at both ends, from being plainly
+allied to others, and these to others, and so onwards, can be recognised
+as unequivocally belonging to this, and to no other class of the
+articulata<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>.&rdquo;
+Now it is evident that this progressive modification of specific
+types&mdash;where it cannot be said that the continuity of resemblance
+is anywhere broken, and yet terminates in modification so great that but
+for the connecting links no one could divine a natural relationship
+between the extreme members of the series,&mdash;it is evident that such
+chains of affinity speak most strongly in favour of a transmutation of
+the species concerned, while it is impossible to suggest any explanation
+of the fact in terms of the rival theory. For if all the links of such a
+chain were separately forged by as many acts of special creation, we can
+see no reason why B should resemble A, C resemble B, and so on, but with
+ever slight though accumulating differences, until there is no
+resemblance at all between A and Z.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>I hope enough has now been said to show that all the general principles
+and particular facts appertaining to the natural classification of
+plants and animals, are precisely what they ought to be according to the
+theory of genetic descent; while no one of them is such as might
+be&mdash;and, indeed, used to be&mdash;expected <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_41" id="page_41">[41]</a></span>
+upon the theory of special creation. Therefore, the only possible way
+in which all this uniform body of direct evidence can be met by a
+supporter of the latter theory, is by falling back upon the argument
+from ignorance. We do not know, it may be said, what hidden reasons
+there may have been for following all these general principles in the
+separate creation of specific types. Now, it is evident that this is a
+form of argument which admits of being brought against all the
+actual&mdash;and even all the possible&mdash;lines of evidence in favour
+of evolution. Therefore I deem it desirable thus early in our
+proceedings to place this argument from ignorance on its proper logical
+footing.</p>
+
+<p>If there were any independent evidence in favour of special creation as
+a <i>fact</i>, then indeed the argument from ignorance might be fairly used
+against any sceptical cavils regarding the <i>method</i>. In this way, for
+example, Bishop Butler made a legitimate use of the argument from
+ignorance when he urged that it is no reasonable objection against a
+revelation, <i>otherwise accredited</i>, to show that it has been rendered in
+a form, or after a method, which we should not have antecedently
+expected. But he could not have legitimately employed this argument,
+except on the supposition that he had some independent evidence in
+favour of the revelation; for, in the absence of any such independent
+evidence, appeal to the argument from ignorance would have become a mere
+begging of the question, by simply assuming that a revelation had been
+made. And thus it is in the present case. A man, of course, may quite
+legitimately say, <i>Assuming that the theory of special creation is
+true</i>, it is not for us to anticipate the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_42" id="page_42">[42]</a></span>
+form or method of the process. But where the question is as to whether
+or not the theory <i>is</i> true, it becomes a mere begging of this question
+to take refuge in the argument from ignorance, or to represent in effect
+that there is no question to be discussed. And if, when the form or
+method is investigated, it be found everywhere charged with evidence in
+favour of the theory of descent, the case becomes the same as that of a
+supposed revelation, which has been discredited by finding that all
+available evidence points to a natural growth. In short, the argument
+from ignorance is in any case available only as a negative foil against
+destructive criticism: in no case has it any positive value, or value of
+a constructive kind. Therefore, if a theory on any subject is destitute
+of positive evidence, while some alternative theory is in possession of
+such evidence, the argument from ignorance can be of no logical use to
+the former, even though it maybe of such use to the latter. For it is
+only the possession of positive evidence which can furnish a logical
+justification of the argument from ignorance: in the absence of such
+evidence, even the negative value of the argument disappears, and it
+then implies nothing more than the gratuitous assumption of a theory.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>I will now sum up the various considerations which have occupied us
+during the present chapter.</p>
+
+<p>First of all we must take note that the classification of plants and
+animals in groups subordinate to groups is not merely arbitrary, or
+undertaken only for a matter of convenience and nomenclature&mdash;such, for
+instance, as the classification of stars in constellations. On the
+contrary, the classification of a naturalist <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_43" id="page_43">[43]</a></span>
+differs from that of an astronomer, in that the objects which he has to
+classify present structural resemblances and structural differences in
+numberless degrees; and it is the object of his classification to
+present a tabular statement of these facts. Now, long before the theory
+of evolution was entertained, naturalists became fully aware that these
+facts of structural resemblances running through groups subordinate to
+groups were really facts of nature, and not merely poetic imaginations
+of the mind. No one could dissect a number of fishes without perceiving
+that they were all constructed on one anatomical pattern, which differed
+considerably from the equally uniform pattern on which all mammals were
+constructed, even although some mammals bore an extraordinary
+resemblance to fish in external form and habits of life. And similarly
+with all the smaller divisions of the animal and vegetable kingdoms.
+Everywhere investigation revealed the bonds of close structural
+resemblances between species of the same genus, resemblance less close
+between genera of the same family, resemblance still less close between
+families of the same order, resemblance yet more remote between orders
+of the same class, and resemblance only in fundamental features between
+classes of the same sub-kingdom, beyond which limit all anatomical
+resemblance was found to disappear&mdash;the different sub-kingdoms
+being formed on wholly different patterns. Furthermore, in tracing all
+these grades of structural relationship, naturalists were slowly led to
+recognise that the form which a natural classification must eventually
+assume would be that of a tree, wherein the constituent branches would
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_44" id="page_44">[44]</a></span>
+display a progressive advance of organization from below upwards.</p>
+
+<p>Now we have seen that although this tree-like arrangement of natural
+groups was as suggestive as anything could well be of all the forms o&pound;
+life being bound together by the ties of genetic relationship, such was
+not the inference which was drawn from it. Dominated by the theory of
+special creation, naturalists either regarded the resemblance of type
+subordinate to type as expressive of divine ideals manifested in such
+creation, or else contented themselves with investigating the facts
+without venturing to speculate upon their philosophical import. But even
+those naturalists who abstained from committing themselves to any theory
+of archetypal plans, did not doubt that facts so innumerable and so
+universal must have been due to some one co-ordinating principle&mdash;that,
+even though they were not able to suggest what it was, there must have
+been some hidden bond of connexion running through the whole of organic
+nature. Now, as we have seen, it is manifest to evolutionists that this
+hidden bond can be nothing else than heredity; and, therefore, that
+these earlier naturalists, although they did not know what they were
+doing, were really tracing the lines of genetic descent as revealed by
+degrees of structural resemblance,&mdash;that the <ins class='corr'
+title="Transcriber&rsquo;s Note: The original showed
+&lsquo;arboresent&rsquo;.">arborescent</ins> grouping of organic forms which
+their labours led them to begin, and in large measure to execute, was in
+fact a family tree of life.</p>
+
+<p>Here, then, is the substance of the argument from classification. The
+mere fact that all organic nature thus incontestably lends itself to a
+natural arrangement <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_45" id="page_45">[45]</a></span>
+of group subordinate to group, when due regard is paid to degrees of
+anatomical resemblance&mdash;this mere fact of itself tells so weightily
+in favour of descent with progressive modification in different lines,
+that even if it stood alone it would be entitled to rank as one of our
+strongest pieces of evidence. But, as we have seen, it does not stand
+alone. When we look beyond this large and general fact of all the
+innumerable forms of life being thus united in a tree-like system by an
+unquestionable relationship of some kind, to those smaller details in
+the science of classification which have been found most useful as
+guides for this kind of research, then we find that all these details,
+or empirically discovered rules, are exactly what we should have
+expected them to be, supposing the real meaning of classification to
+have been that of tracing lines of pedigree.</p>
+
+<p>In particular, we have seen that the most archaic types are both simpler
+in their organization and more generalized in their characters than are
+the more recent types&mdash;a fact of which no explanation can be given on
+the theory of special creation. But, upon the theory of natural
+evolution, we can without difficulty understand why the earlier forms
+should have been the simpler forms, and also why they should have been
+the most generalized. For it is out of the older forms that the newer
+must have grown; and, as they multiplied, they must have become more and
+more differentiated.</p>
+
+<p>Again, we have seen that there is no correlation between the importance
+of any structure from a classificatory point of view, and the importance
+of that structure to the organism which presents it. On the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_46" id="page_46">[46]</a></span>
+contrary, it is a general rule that &ldquo;the less any part of the
+organization is concerned with special habits, the more important it
+becomes for classification.&rdquo; Now, from the point of view of
+special creation it is unintelligible why unity of ideal should be most
+manifested by least important structures, whereas from the point of view
+of evolution it is to be expected that these life-serving structures
+should have been most liable to divergent modification in divergent
+lines of descent, or in adaptation to different conditions of life,
+while the trivial or less important characters should have been allowed
+to remain unmodified. Thus we can now understand why all primitive
+classifications were wrong in principle when they went upon the
+assumption that divine ideals were best exhibited by resemblances
+between life-serving (and therefore adaptive) structures, with the
+result that whales were classed with fishes, birds with bats, and so on.
+Nevertheless, these primitive naturalists were quite logical; for, from
+the premises furnished by the theory of special creation, it is much
+more reasonable to expect that unity of ideal should be shown in plainly
+adaptive characters than in trivial and more or less hidden anatomical
+characters. Moreover, long after biological science had ceased
+consciously to follow any theological theory, the apparent axiom
+continued to be entertained, that structures of most importance to
+organisms must also be structures of most importance to systematists.
+And when at last, in the present century, this was found not to be the
+case, no reason could be suggested why it was not the case. But now we
+are able fully to explain this apparent anomaly.</p>
+
+<p>Once more, we have seen that aggregates of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_47" id="page_47">[47]</a></span>
+characters presenting resemblances to one another have always been
+found to be of special importance as guides to classification. This, of
+course, is what we should have expected, if the real meaning of
+classification be that of tracing lines of pedigree; but on the theory
+of special creation no reason can be assigned why single characters are
+not such sure tokens of a natural arrangement as are aggregates of
+characters, however trivial the latter may be. For it is obvious that
+unity of ideal might have been even better displayed by everywhere
+maintaining the pattern of some one important structure, than by doing
+so in the case of several unimportant structures. Take an analogous
+instance from human contrivances. Unity of ideal in the case of
+gun-making would be shown by the same principles of mechanism running
+through all the different sizes and shapes of gun-locks, rather than by
+the ornamental patterns engraved upon the outside. Yet it must be
+supposed that in the mechanisms assumed to have been constructed by
+special creation, it was the trivial details rather than the fundamental
+principles of these mechanisms which were chosen by the Divinity to
+display his ideals.</p>
+
+<p>And this leads us to the next consideration&mdash;namely, that when in two
+different lines of descent animals happen to adopt similar habits of
+life, the modifications which they undergo in order to fit them for
+these habits often induces striking resemblances of structure between
+the two animals, as in the case of whales and fish. But in all such
+instances it is invariably found that the resemblance is only
+superficial and apparent: not anatomical or real. In other words, the
+resemblance does not extend further than <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_48" id="page_48">[48]</a></span>
+it is necessary that it should, if both sets of organs are to be
+adapted to perform the same functions. Now this, again, is just what one
+would expect to find as the universal rule on the theory of descent,
+with modification of ancestral characters. But, on the opposite theory
+of special creation, I know not how it is to be explained that among so
+many instances of close superficial resemblance between creatures
+belonging to different branches of the tree of life, there are no
+instances of any real or anatomical resemblance. So far as their
+structures are adapted to perform a common function, there is in all
+such cases what may be termed a deceptive appearance of some unity of
+ideal; but, when carefully examined, it is always found that two
+apparently identical structures occurring on different branches of the
+classificatory tree are in fact fundamentally different in respect of
+their structural plan.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, we have seen that one of the guiding principles of
+classification has been empirically found to consist in setting a high
+value on &ldquo;chains of affinities.&rdquo; That is to say, naturalists
+not unfrequently meet with a long series of progressive modifications of
+type, which, although it cannot be said that the continuity is anywhere
+broken, at last leads to so much divergence of character that, but for
+the intermediate links, the members at each end of the chain could not
+be suspected of being in any way related. Well, such cases of chains of
+affinity obviously tell most strongly in favour of descent with
+continuous modification; while it is impossible to suggest why, if all
+the links were separately forged by as many acts of special creation,
+there should have been this gradual transmutation of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_49" id="page_49">[49]</a></span>
+characters carried to the point where the original creative ideal has
+been so completely transformed that, but for the accident of the chain
+being still complete, no one of nature&rsquo;s interpreters could
+possibly have discovered the connexion. For, as we have seen, this is
+not a case in which any appeal can be logically made to the argument
+from ignorance of divine method, unless some independent evidence could
+be adduced in favour of special creation. And that no such independent
+evidence exists, it will be the object of future chapters to show.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_50" id="page_50">[50]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Morphology.</span></h2>
+
+<p>The theory of evolution supposes that hereditary characters admit of
+being slowly modified wherever their modification will render an
+organism better suited to a change in its conditions of life. Let us,
+then, observe the evidence which we have of such adaptive modifications
+of structure, in cases where the need of such modification is apparent.
+We may begin by again taking the case of the whales and porpoises. The
+theory of evolution infers, from the whole structure of these animals,
+that their progenitors must have been terrestrial quadrupeds of some
+kind, which gradually became more and more aquatic in their habits. Now
+the change in the conditions of their life thus brought about would have
+rendered desirable great modifications of structure. These changes would
+have begun by affecting the least typical&mdash;that is, the least strongly
+inherited&mdash;structures, such as the skin, claws, and teeth. But, as time
+went on, the adaptation would have extended to more typical structures,
+until the shape of the body would have become affected by the bones and
+muscles required for terrestrial locomotion becoming better adapted for
+aquatic locomotion, and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_51" id="page_51">[51]</a></span>
+the whole outline of the animal more fish-like in shape. This is the
+stage which we actually observe in the seals, where the hind legs,
+although retaining all their typical bones, have become shortened up
+almost to rudiments, and directed backwards, so as to be of no use for
+walking, while serving to complete the fish-like taper of the body.
+(Fig. 2.) But in the whales the modification has gone further than this
+so that the hind legs have ceased to be apparent externally, and are
+only represented internally&mdash;and even this only in some
+species&mdash;by remnants so rudimentary that it is difficult to make
+out with certainty the homologies of the bones; moreover, the head and
+the whole body have become completely fish-like in shape. (Fig. 3.) But
+profound as are these alterations, they affect only those parts of the
+organism which it was for the benefit of the organism to have altered,
+so that it might be adapted to an aquatic mode of existence. Thus the
+arm, which is used as a fin, still retains the bones of the shoulder,
+fore-arm, wrist, and fingers, although they are all enclosed in a
+fin-shaped sack, so as to render them useless for any purpose other than
+swimming (Fig. 4.) Similarly, the head, although it so closely resembles
+the head of a fish in shape, still retains the bones of the mammalian
+skull in their proper anatomical relations to one another; but modified
+in form so as to offer the least possible resistance to the water. In
+short, it may be said that all the modifications have been effected with
+the least possible divergence from the typical mammalian type, which is
+compatible with securing so perfect an adaptation to a purely aquatic
+mode of life.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_52" id="page_52">[52]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_069_002.jpg" width="600" height="360" alt="Skeleton of Seal." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 2.&mdash;Skeleton of Seal, 1/8 nat. size. Drawn from
+nature (R. Coll. Surg. Mus.).</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_53" id="page_53">[53]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_070_003.jpg" width="600" height="277" alt="Skeleton of Greenland Whale" title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 3.&mdash;Skeleton of Greenland Whale, 1/100 nat. size.
+The rudimentary bones of the pelvis are shown on a larger scale in the
+upper drawing. (From Prof. Flower.)</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_54" id="page_54">[54]</a></span>
+Now I have chosen the case of the whale and porpoise group, because they
+offer so extreme an example of profound modification of structure in
+adaptation to changed conditions of life. But the same thing may be seen
+in hundreds and hundreds of other cases. For instance, to confine our
+attention to the arm, not only is the limb modified in the whale for
+swimming, but in another mammal&mdash;the bat&mdash;it is modified for flying, by
+having the fingers enormously elongated and overspread with a membranous
+web.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 485px;">
+<img src="images/i_071_004.jpg" width="485" height="389" alt="Paddle of Whale compared with Hand of Man." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 4.&mdash;Paddle of Whale compared with Hand of Man. Drawn
+from nature (R. Coll. Surg. Mus.).</div></div>
+
+<p>In birds, again, the arm is modified for flight in a wholly different
+way&mdash;the fingers here being very <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_55" id="page_55">[55]</a></span>
+Short and all run together, while the chief expanse of the wing is
+composed of the shoulder and fore-arm. In frogs and lizards, again, we
+find hands more like our own; but in an extinct species of flying
+reptile the modification was extreme, the wing having been formed by a
+prodigious elongation of the fifth finger, and a membrane spread over it
+and the rest of the hand. (Fig. 5.) lastly, in serpents the hand and arm
+have disappeared altogether.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_56" id="page_56">[56]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 318px;">
+<img src="images/i_073_005.jpg" width="318" height="500" alt="Wing of Reptile, Mammal, and Bird." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 5.&mdash;Wing of Reptile, Mammal, and Bird. Drawn from
+nature (Brit. Mus.).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_55c" id="page_55c">[55c.]</a></span>
+Thus, even if we confine our attention to a single organ, how wonderful
+are the modifications which it is seen to undergo, although never losing
+its typical character. Everywhere we find the distinction between
+homology and analogy which was explained in the last chapter&mdash;the
+distinction, that is, between correspondence of structure and
+correspondence of function. On the one hand, we meet with structures
+which are perfectly homologous and yet in no way analogous: the
+structural elements remain, but are profoundly modified so as to perform
+wholly different functions. On the other hand, we meet with structures
+which are perfectly analogous, and yet in no way homologous: totally
+different structures are modified to perform the same functions. How,
+then, are we to explain these things? By design manifested in special
+creation, or by descent with adaptive modification? If it is said by
+design manifested in special creation, we must suppose that the Deity
+formed an archetypal plan of certain structures, and that he determined
+to adhere to this plan through all the modifications which those
+structures exhibit. But, if so, why is it that some structures are
+selected<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_57" id="page_57">[57]</a></span>
+as typical and not others? Why should the vertebral skeleton, for
+instance, be tortured into every conceivable variety of modification in
+order to subserve as great a variety of functions; while another
+structure, such as the eye, is made in different sub-kingdoms on
+fundamentally different plans, notwithstanding that it has throughout to
+perform the same function? Will any one have the hardihood to assert
+that in the case of the skeleton the Deity has endeavoured to show his
+<i>ingenuity</i>, by the manifold functions to which he has made the same
+structure subservient; while in the case of the eye he has endeavoured
+to show his <i>resources</i>, by the manifold structures which he has adapted
+to serve the same function? If so, it becomes a most unfortunate
+circumstance that, throughout both the vegetable and animal kingdoms,
+all cases which can be pointed to as showing ingenious adaptation of the
+same typical structure to the performance of widely different
+functions&mdash;or cases of homology without analogy,&mdash;are cases
+which come within the limits of the same natural group of plants and
+animals, and therefore admit of being equally well explained by descent
+from a common ancestry; while all cases of widely different structures
+performing the same function&mdash;or cases of analogy without
+homology,&mdash;are to be found in different groups of plants or
+animals, and are therefore suggestive of independent variations arising
+in the different lines of hereditary descent.</p>
+
+<p>To take a specific illustration. The octopus, or devil-fish, belongs to
+a widely different class of animals from a true fish; and yet its eye,
+in general appearance, looks wonderfully like the eye of a true fish.
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_58" id="page_58">[58]</a></span>
+Now, Mr. Mivart pointed to this fact as a great difficulty in the way of
+the theory of evolution by natural selection, because it must clearly be
+a most improbable thing that so complicated a structure as the eye of a
+fish should happen to be arrived at through each of two totally
+different lines of descent. And this difficulty would, indeed, be a
+formidable one to the theory of evolution, if the similarity were not
+only analogical but homological. Unfortunately for the objection,
+however, Darwin clearly showed in his reply that in no one anatomical or
+homologous feature do the two structures resemble one another; so that,
+in point of fact, the two organs do not resemble one another in any
+particular further than it is necessary that they should, if both are to
+be analogous, or to serve the same function as organs of sight. But now,
+suppose that this had not been the case, and that the two structures,
+besides presenting the necessary superficial or analogical resemblance,
+had also presented an anatomical or homologous resemblance, with what
+force might it have then been urged,&mdash;Your hypothesis of hereditary
+descent with progressive modification being here excluded by the fact
+that the animals compared belong to two widely different branches of the
+tree of life, how are we to explain the identity of type manifested by
+these two complicated organs of vision? <ins class='corr' title="Transcriber&rsquo;s Note: The original showed &lsquo;the&rsquo;.">The</ins>
+only hypothesis open to us is intelligent adherence to an ideal plan or
+mechanism. But as this cannot now be urged in any comparable case
+throughout the whole organic world, we may on the other hand present it
+as a most significant fact, that while within the limits of the same
+large branch of the tree of life we constantly find the same <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_59" id="page_59">[59]</a></span>
+typical structures modified so as to perform very different functions,
+we never find any of these particular types of structure in other large
+branches of the tree. That is to say, we never find typical structures
+appearing except in cases where their presence may be explained by the
+hypothesis of hereditary descent; while in thousands of such cases we
+find these structures undergoing every conceivable variety of adaptive
+modification.</p>
+
+<p>Consequently, special creationists must fall back upon another position
+and say,&mdash;Well, but it may have pleased the Deity to form a certain
+number of ideal types, and never to have allowed the structures
+occurring in one type to appear in any of the others. We
+answer,&mdash;Undoubtedly such may have been the case; but, if so, it is a
+most unfortunate thing for your theory, because the fact implies that
+the Deity has planned his types in such a way as to suggest the
+counter-theory of descent. For instance, it would seem most capricious
+on the part of the Deity to have made the eyes of an innumerable number
+of fish on exactly the same ideal type, and then to have made the eye of
+the octopus so exactly like these other eyes in superficial appearance
+as to deceive so accomplished a naturalist as Mr. Mivart, and yet to
+have taken scrupulous care that in no one ideal particular should the
+one type resemble the other. However, adopting for the sake of argument
+this great assumption, let us suppose that God did lay down these
+arbitrary rules for his own guidance in creation, and then let us see to
+what the assumption leads. If the Deity formed a certain number of ideal
+types, and determined that on no account should he allow any part of one
+type <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_60" id="page_60">[60]</a></span>
+to appear in any part of another, surely we should expect that within
+the limits of the same type the same typical structures should always be
+present. Thus, remember what efforts, so to speak, have been made to
+maintain the uniformity of type in the case of the fore-limb as
+previously explained, and should we not expect that in other and similar
+cases a similar method should have been followed? Yet we repeatedly find
+that this is not the case. Even in the whale, as we have seen, the
+hind-limbs are either altogether absent or dwindled almost to nothing;
+and it is impossible to see in what respect the hind-limbs are of any
+less ideal value than the fore-limbs&mdash;which are carefully preserved
+in all vertebrated animals except the snakes, and the extinct <span class='sn'>Dinornis</span>,
+where again we meet in this particular with a sudden and sublime
+indifference to the maintenance of a typical structure. (Fig. 6.)<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>
+Now I say that if the theory of ideal types is true, we have in these
+facts evidence of a most unreasonable inconsistency. But the theory of
+descent with continued adaptive modification fully explains all the
+known cases; for in every case the degree of divergence from the typical
+structure which an organism presents corresponds, in a general way, with
+the length of time during which the divergence has been going on. Thus
+we scarcely ever meet with any great departure from the typical form
+with respect to one of the organs, without some of the other organs
+being so far modified as of themselves to indicate, on the supposition
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_62" id="page_62">[62]</a></span>
+of descent with modification, that the animal or plant must have been
+subject to the modifying influences for an enormously long series of
+generations. And this combined testimony of a number of organs in the
+same organism is what the theory of descent would lead us to expect,
+while the rival theory of design can offer no explanation of the fact,
+that when one organ shows a conspicuous departure from the supposed
+ideal type, some of the other organs in the same organism should tend to
+keep it company by doing likewise.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_61" id="page_61">[61]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 372px;">
+<img src="images/i_078_006.jpg" width="372" height="500" alt="Skeleton of Dinornis gravis." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 6.&mdash;Skeleton of Dinornis gravis, 1/16 nat. size.
+Drawn from nature (Brit. Mus.). As separate cuts on a larger scale are
+shown, 1st, the sternum, as this appears in mounted skeletons, and, 2nd,
+the same in profile, with its (hypothetical) scapulo-coracoid attached.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_62c" id="page_62c">[62c.]</a></span>
+As an illustration both of this and of other points which have been
+mentioned, I may draw attention to what seems to me a particularly
+suggestive case. So-called soldier-or hermit-crabs, are crabs which have
+adopted the habit of appropriating the empty shells of mollusks. In
+association with this peculiar habit, the structure of these animals
+differs very greatly from that of all other crabs. In particular, the
+hinder part of the body, which occupies the mollusk-shell, and which
+therefore has ceased to require any hard covering of its own, has been
+suffered to lose its calcareous integument, and presents a soft fleshy
+character, quite unlike that of the more exposed parts of the animal.
+Moreover, this soft fleshy part of the creature is specially adapted to
+the particular requirements of the creature by having its lateral
+appendages&mdash;i. e. appendages which in other crustacea perform the
+function of legs&mdash;modified so as to act as claspers to the inside of the
+mollusk-shell; while the tail-end of the part in question is twisted
+into the form of a spiral, which fits into the spiral of the
+mollusk-shell. Now, in Keeling Island there is a large kind of crab
+called<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_63" id="page_63">[63]</a></span>
+<span class='sn'>Birgus latro</span>, which lives upon land and there feeds upon cocoa-nuts.
+The whole structure of this crab, it seems to me, unmistakeably
+resembles the structure of a hermit-crab (see drawings on the next page,
+Fig. 7). Yet this crab neither lives in the shell of a mollusk, nor is
+the hinder part of its body in the soft and fleshy condition just
+described: on the contrary, it is covered with a hard integument like
+all the other parts of the animal. Consequently, I think we may infer
+that the ancestors of <span class='sn'>Birgus</span> were hermit-crabs living in mollusk-shells;
+but that their descendants gradually relinquished this habit as they
+gradually became more and more terrestrial, while, concurrently with
+these changes in habit, the originally soft posterior parts acquired a
+hard protective covering to take the place of that which was formerly
+supplied by the mollusk-shell. So that, if so, we now have, within the
+limits of a single organism, evidence of a whole series of morphological
+changes in the past history of its species. First, there must have been
+the great change from an ordinary crab to a hermit-crab in all the
+respects previously pointed out. Next, there must have been the change
+back again from a hermit-crab to an ordinary crab, so far as living
+without the necessity of a mollusk-shell is concerned. From an
+evolutionary point of view, therefore, we appear to have in the existing
+structure of <span class='sn'>Birgus</span> a morphological record of all these changes, and one
+which gives us a reasonable explanation of why the animal presents the
+extraordinary appearance which it does. But, on the theory of special
+creation, it is inexplicable why this land-crab should have been formed
+on the pattern of a hermit-crab, when it never has need to enter the
+shell <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_65" id="page_65">[65]</a></span>
+of a mollusk. In other words, its peculiar structure is not specially
+in keeping with its present habits, although so curiously allied to the
+similar structure of certain other crabs of totally different habits, in
+relation to which the peculiarities are of plain and obvious
+significance.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_64" id="page_64">[64]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_081_007.jpg" width="600" height="377" alt="Hermit-crabs compared with the cocoa-nut crab." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 7.&mdash;Hermit-crabs compared with the cocoa-nut crab.
+On the left of the illustration one hermit-crab is represented as
+occupying a mollusk-shell, and another (larger specimen) as it appears
+when withdrawn from such a shell. On the right of the illustration the
+cocoa-nut crab is represented in its natural habitat on land. When
+full-grown, however, it is much larger than our hermit-crabs. The latter
+are drawn from life, natural size, the former from a specimen in the
+British Museum, 1/6 natural size.</div></div>
+
+<hr class='minor' /><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_65c" id="page_65c">[65c.]</a></span>
+
+<p>I will devote the remainder of this chapter to considering another
+branch of the argument from morphology, to which the case of <span class='sn'>Birgus</span>
+serves as a suitable introduction: I mean the argument from rudimentary
+structures.</p>
+
+<p>Throughout both the animal and vegetable kingdoms we constantly meet
+with dwarfed and useless representatives of organs, which in other and
+allied kinds of animals and plants are of large size and functional
+utility. Thus, for instance, the unborn whale has rudimentary teeth,
+which are never destined to cut the gums; and throughout its life this
+animal retains, in a similarly rudimentary condition, a number of organs
+which never could have been of use to any kind of creature save a
+terrestrial quadruped. The whole anatomy of its internal ear, for
+example, has reference to hearing in air&mdash;or, as Hunter long ago
+remarked, &ldquo;is constructed upon the same principle as in the
+quadruped"; yet, as Owen says, &ldquo;the outer opening and passage
+leading therefrom to the tympanum can rarely be affected by sonorous
+vibrations of the atmosphere, and indeed they are reduced, or have
+degenerated, to a degree which makes it difficult to conceive how such
+vibrations can be propagated to the ear-drum during the brief moments in
+which the opening may be raised above the water.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_67" id="page_67">[67]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_084_008.jpg" width="500" height="341" alt="Rudimentary or vestigial hind-limbs of Python." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 8.&mdash;Rudimentary or vestigial hind-limbs of Python,
+as exhibited in the skeleton and on the external surface of the animal.
+Drawn from nature, &frac14; nat. size (Zoological Gardens).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_66" id="page_66">[66]</a></span>
+Now, rudimentary organs of this kind are of such frequent occurrence,
+that almost every species presents one or more of them&mdash;usually, indeed,
+a considerable number. How, then, are they to be accounted for? Of
+course the theory of descent with adaptive modification has a simple
+answer to supply&mdash;namely, that when, from changed conditions of life, an
+organ which was previously useful becomes useless, it will be suffered
+to dwindle away in successive generations, under the influence of
+certain natural causes which we shall have to consider in future
+chapters. On the other hand, the theory of special creation can only
+maintain that these rudiments are formed for the sake of adhering to an
+ideal type. Now, here again the former theory appears to be triumphant
+over the latter; for, without waiting to dispute the wisdom of making
+dwarfed and useless structures merely for the whimsical motive assigned,
+surely if such a method were adopted in so many cases, we should expect
+that in consistency it would be adopted in all cases. This reasonable
+expectation, however, is far from being realized. We have already seen
+that in numberless cases, such as that of the fore-limbs of serpents, no
+vestige of a rudiment is present. But the vacillating policy in the
+matter of rudiments does not end here; for it is shown in a still more
+aggravated form where within the limits of the same natural group of
+organisms a rudiment is sometimes present and sometimes absent. For
+instance, although in nearly all the numerous species of snakes there
+are no vestiges of limbs, in the Python we find very tiny rudiments of
+the hind-limbs. (Fig. 8.) Now, is it a worthy conception of Deity that,
+while neglecting to maintain his unity of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_67c" id="page_67c">[67c.]</a></span>
+ideal in the case of nearly all the numerous species of snakes, he
+should have added a tiny rudiment in the case of the Python&mdash;and
+even in that case should have maintained his ideal very inefficiently,
+inasmuch as only two limbs, instead of four, are represented? How much
+more reasonable is the naturalistic interpretation; for here the very
+irregularity of their appearance in different species, which constitutes
+rudimentary structures one of the crowning difficulties to the theory of
+special design, furnishes the best possible evidence in favour of
+hereditary descent; seeing that this irregularity then becomes what may
+be termed the anticipated expression of progressive <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_68" id="page_68">[68]</a></span>
+dwindling due to inutility. Thus, for example, to return to the case of
+wings, we have already seen that in an extinct genus of bird, <span class='sn'>Dinornis</span>,
+these organs were reduced to such an extent as to leave it still
+doubtful whether so much as the tiny rudiment hypothetically supplied to
+Fig. 6 (p. <a href="#page_61">61</a>) was present in all the species. And here is another
+well-known case of another genus of still existing bird, which, as was
+the case with <span class='sn'>Dinornis</span>, occurs only in New Zealand. (Fig. 9.) Upon this
+island there are no four-footed enemies&mdash;either existing or
+extinct&mdash;to escape from which the wings of birds would be of any
+service. Consequently we can understand why on this island we should
+meet with such a remarkable dwindling away of wings.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_69" id="page_69">[69]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_086_009.jpg" width="500" height="403" alt="Apteryx Australis." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 9.&mdash;Apteryx Australis. Drawn from life in the
+Zoological Gardens, 1/8 nat. size. The external wing is drawn to a scale
+in the upper part of the cut. The surroundings are supplied from the
+most recent descriptions.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_68c" id="page_68c">[68c.]</a></span>
+Similarly, the logger-headed duck of South America can only flap along
+the surface of the water, having its wings considerably reduced though
+less so than the <span class='sn'>Apteryx</span> of New Zealand. But here the interesting fact
+is that the young birds are able to fly perfectly well. Now, in
+accordance with a general law to be considered in a future chapter, the
+life-history of an individual organism is a kind of condensed
+recapitulation of the life-history of its species. Consequently, we can
+understand why the little chickens of the logger-headed duck are able to
+fly like all other ducks, while their parents are only able to flap
+along the surface of the water.</p>
+
+<p>Facts analogous to this reduction of wings in birds which have no
+further use for them, are to be met with also in insects under similar
+circumstances. Thus, there are on the island of Madeira somewhere
+between 500 and 600 species of beetles, which are in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_69c" id="page_69c">[69c.]</a></span>
+large part peculiar to that island, though related to other&mdash;and
+therefore presumably parent&mdash;species on the neighbouring continent.
+Now, no less than 200 species&mdash;or nearly half the whole
+number&mdash;are so far deficient in wings that they cannot fly. And, if
+we disregard the species which are not peculiar to the island&mdash;that
+is to say, all the species which likewise occur on the neighbouring
+continent, and therefore, as evolutionists conclude, have but <i>recently</i>
+migrated to the island,&mdash;we find this very remarkable proportion.
+There are altogether 29 peculiar genera, and out of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_70" id="page_70">[70]</a></span>
+these no less than 23 have <i>all</i> their species in this condition.</p>
+
+<p>Similar facts have been recently observed by the Rev. A. E. Eaton with
+respect to insects inhabiting Kerguelen Island. All the species which he
+found on the island&mdash;viz. a moth, several flies, and numerous
+beetles&mdash;he found to be incapable of flight; and therefore, as Wallace
+observes, &ldquo;as these insects could hardly have reached the islands
+in a wingless state, even if there were any other known land inhabited
+by them, which there is not, we must assume that, like the Madeiran
+insects, they were originally winged, and lost their power of flight
+because its possession was injurious to them"&mdash;Kerguelen Island being
+&ldquo;one of the stormiest places on the globe,&rdquo; and therefore a
+place where insects could rarely afford to fly without incurring the
+danger of being blown out to sea.</p>
+
+<p>Here is another and perhaps an even more suggestive class of facts.</p>
+
+<p>It is now many years ago since the editors of <i>Silliman&rsquo;s Journal</i>
+requested the late Professor Agassiz to give them his opinion on the
+following question. In a certain dark subterranean cave, called the
+Mammoth cave, there are found some peculiar species of blind fishes. Now
+the editors of <i>Silliman&rsquo;s Journal</i> wished to know whether Prof.
+Agassiz would hold that these fish had been specially created in these
+caves, and purposely devoided of eyes which could never be of any use to
+them; or whether he would allow that these fish had probably descended
+from other species, but, having got into the dark cave, gradually lost
+their eyes through disuse. Prof. Agassiz, who was a believer in special
+creation, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_71" id="page_71">[71]</a></span>
+allowed that this ought to constitute a crucial test as between the two
+theories of special design and hereditary descent. &ldquo;If physical
+circumstances,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;ever modified organized beings, it
+should be easily ascertained here.&rdquo; And eventually he gave it as
+his opinion, that these fish &ldquo;were created under the circumstances
+in which they now live, within the limits over which they now range, and
+with the structural peculiarities which now characterise them.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Since then a great deal of attention has been paid to the fauna of this
+Mammoth cave, and also to the faunas of other dark caverns, not only in
+the New, but also in the Old World. In the result, the following general
+facts have been fully established.</p>
+
+<p>(1) Not only fish, but many representatives of other classes, have been
+found in dark caves.</p>
+
+<p>(2) Wherever the caves are totally dark, all the animals are blind.</p>
+
+<p>(3) If the animals live near enough to the entrance to receive some
+degree of light, they may have large and lustrous eyes.</p>
+
+<p>(4) In all cases the species of blind animals are closely allied to
+species inhabiting the district where the caves occur; so that the blind
+species inhabiting American caves are closely allied to American
+species, while those inhabiting European caves are closely allied to
+European species.</p>
+
+<p>(5) In nearly all cases structural remnants of eyes admit of being
+detected, in various degrees of obsolescence. In the case of some of the
+crustaceans of the Mammoth cave the foot-stalks of the eyes are present,
+although the eyes themselves are entirely absent.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it is evident that all these general facts are in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_72" id="page_72">[72]</a></span>
+full agreement with the theory of evolution, while they offer serious
+difficulties to the theory of special creation. As Darwin remarks, it is
+hard to imagine conditions of life more similar than those furnished by
+deep limestone caverns under nearly the same climate in the two
+continents of America and Europe; so that, in accordance with the theory
+of special creation, very close similarity in the organizations of the
+two sets of faunas might have been expected. But, instead of this, the
+affinities of these two sets of faunas are with those of their
+respective continents&mdash;as of course they ought to be on the theory
+of evolution. Again, what would have been the sense of creating useless
+foot-stalks for the imaginary support of absent eyes, not to mention all
+the other various grades of degeneration in other cases? So that, upon
+the whole, if we agree with the late Prof. Agassiz in regarding these
+cave animals as furnishing a crucial test between the rival theories of
+creation and evolution, we must further conclude that the whole body of
+evidence which they now furnish is weighing on the side of evolution.</p>
+
+<p>So much, then, for a few special instances of what Darwin called
+rudimentary structures, but what may be more descriptively
+designated&mdash;in accordance with the theory of descent&mdash;obsolescent or
+vestigial structures. It is, however, of great importance to add that
+these structures are of such general occurrence throughout both the
+vegetable and animal kingdoms, that, as Darwin has observed, it is
+almost impossible to point to a single species which does not present
+one or more of them. In other words, it is almost impossible to find a
+single species which does not in this <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_73" id="page_73">[73]</a></span>
+way bear some record of its own descent from other species; and the
+more closely the structure of any species is examined anatomically, the
+more numerous are such records found to be. Thus, for example, of all
+organisms that of man has been most minutely investigated by anatomists;
+and therefore I think it will be instructive to conclude this chapter by
+giving a list of the more noteworthy vestigial structures which are
+known to occur in the human body. I will take only those which are found
+in adult man, reserving for the next chapter those which occur in a
+transitory manner during earlier periods of his life. But, even as thus
+restricted, the number of obsolescent structures which we all present in
+our own persons is so remarkable, that their combined testimony to our
+descent from a quadrumanous ancestry appears to me in itself conclusive.
+I mean, that even if these structures stood alone, or apart from any
+more general evidences of our family relationships, they would be
+sufficient to prove our parentage. Nevertheless, it is desirable to
+remark that of course these special evidences which I am about to detail
+do not stand alone. Not only is there the general analogy furnished by
+the general proof of evolution elsewhere, but there is likewise the more
+special correspondence between the whole of our anatomy and that of our
+nearest zoological allies. Now the force of this latter consideration is
+so enormous, that no one who has not studied human anatomy can be in a
+position to appreciate it. For without special study it is impossible to
+form any adequate idea of the intricacy of structure which is presented
+by the human form. Yet it is found that this enormously intricate
+organization is repeated in all its <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_74" id="page_74">[74]</a></span>
+details in the bodies of the higher apes. There is no bone, muscle,
+nerve, or vessel of any importance in the one which is not answered to
+by the other. Hence there are hundreds of thousands of instances of the
+most detailed correspondence, without there being any instances to the
+contrary, if we pay due regard to vestigial characters. The entire
+corporeal structure of man is an exact anatomical copy of that which we
+find in the ape.</p>
+
+<p>My object, then, here is to limit attention to those features of our
+corporeal structure which, having become useless on account of our
+change in attitude and habits, are in process of becoming obsolete, and
+therefore occur as mere vestigial records of a former state of things.
+For example, throughout the vertebrated series, from fish to mammals,
+there occurs in the inner corner of the eye a semi-transparent eye-lid,
+which is called the nictitating membrane. The object of this structure
+is to sweep rapidly, every now and then, over the external surface of
+the eye, apparently in order to keep the surface clean. But although the
+membrane occurs in all classes of the sub-kingdom, it is more prevalent
+in some than in others&mdash;e.g. in birds than in mammals. Even, however,
+where it does not occur of a size and mobility to be of any use, it is
+usually represented, in animals above fishes, by a functionless
+rudiment, as here depicted in the case of man. (Fig. 10.)</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_75" id="page_75">[75]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 282px;">
+<img src="images/i_092_010.jpg" width="282" height="500" alt="Nictitating membrane in various animals." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 10.&mdash;Illustrations of the nictitating membrane in
+the various animals named drawn from nature. The letter N indicates the
+membrane in each case. In man it is called the plica semilunaris, and is
+represented in the two lower drawings under this name. In the case of
+the shark (Galeus) the muscular mechanism is shown as dissected.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_74c" id="page_74c">[74c.]</a></span>
+Now the organization of man presents so many vestigial structures thus
+referring to various stages of his long ancestral history, that it would
+be tedious so much as to enumerate them. Therefore I will yet further
+limit the list of vestigial structures to be given <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_76" id="page_76">[76]</a></span>
+as examples, by not only restricting these to cases which occur in our
+own organization; but of them I shall mention only such as refer us to
+the very last stage of our ancestral history&mdash;viz. structures which
+have become obsolescent since the time when our distinctively human
+branch of the family tree diverged from that of our immediate
+forefathers, the Quadrumana.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 363px;">
+<img src="images/i_093_011.jpg" width="363" height="500" alt="Rudimentary muscles
+of the human ear." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 11.&mdash;Rudimentary, or vestigial and useless, muscles
+of the human ear. (From Gray&rsquo;s Anatomy.)</div></div>
+
+<p>(1) <i>Muscles of the external ear.</i>&mdash;These, which are of large size and
+functional use in quadrupeds, we <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_77" id="page_77">[77]</a></span>
+Retain in a dwindled and useless condition (Fig. 11). this is likewise
+the case in anthropoid apes; but in not a few other quadrumana (e.g.
+baboons, macacus, magots, &amp;c.) degeneration has not proceeded so
+far, and the ears are voluntarily moveable.</p>
+
+<p>(2) <span class='sn'>Panniculus carnosis.</span>&mdash;A large number of the mammalia are able to
+move their skin by means of sub-cutaneous muscle&mdash;as we see, for
+instance, in a horse, when thus protecting himself against the sucking
+of flies. We, in common with the Quadrumana, possess an active remnant
+of such a muscle in the skin of the forehead, whereby we draw up the
+eyebrows; but we are no longer able to use other considerable remnants
+of it, in the scalp and elsewhere,&mdash;or, more correctly, it is rarely
+that we meet with persons who can. But most of the Quadrumana (including
+the anthropoids) are still able to do so. There are also many other
+vestigial muscles, which occur only in a small percentage of human
+beings, but which, when they do occur, present unmistakeable homologies
+with normal muscles in some of the Quadrumana and still lower
+animals<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>.</p>
+
+<p>(3) <i>Feet.</i>&mdash;It is observable that in the infant the feet have a strong
+deflection inwards, so that the soles in considerable measure face one
+another. This peculiarity, which is even more marked in the embryo than
+in the infant (see p. <a href="#page_153">153</a>), and which becomes gradually less and less
+conspicuous even before the child begins to walk, appears to me a highly
+suggestive peculiarity. For it plainly refers to the condition <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_78" id="page_78">[78]</a></span>
+of things in the Quadrumana, seeing that in all these animals the feet
+are similarly curved inwards, to facilitate the grasping of branches.
+And even when walking on the ground apes and monkeys employ to a great
+extent the outside edges of their feet, as does also a child when
+learning to walk. The feet of a young child are also extraordinarily
+mobile in all directions, as are those of apes. In order to show these
+points, I here introduce comparative drawings of a young ape and the
+portrait of a young male child. These drawings, moreover, serve at the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_79" id="page_79">[79]</a></span>
+same time to illustrate two other vestigial characters, which have
+often been previously noticed with regard to the infant&rsquo;s foot. I
+allude to the incurved form of the legs, and the lateral extension of
+the great toe, whereby it approaches the thumb-like character of this
+organ in the Quadrumana. As in the case of the incurved position of the
+legs and feet, so in this case of the lateral extensibility of the great
+toe, the peculiarity is even more marked in embryonic than in infant
+life. For, as Prof. Wyman has remarked with regard to the f&oelig;tus
+when about an inch in length,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_80" id="page_80">[80]</a></span>
+&ldquo;The great toe is shorter than the others; and, instead of being
+parallel to them, is projected at an angle from the side of the foot,
+thus corresponding with the permanent condition of this part in the
+Quadrumana<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>.&rdquo;
+So that this organ, which, according to Owen, &ldquo;is perhaps the most
+characteristic peculiarity in the human structure,&rdquo; when traced
+back to the early stages of its development, is found to present a
+notably less degree of peculiarity.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_78i" id="page_78i">[78i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_095_012.jpg" width="400" height="477" alt="Young male gorilla." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 12.&mdash;Portrait of a young male gorilla (after
+Hartmann).</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_79i" id="page_79i">[79i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_096_013.jpg" width="400" height="378" alt="Young male child." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 13.&mdash;Portrait of a young male child. Photographed
+from life, when the mobile feet were for a short time at rest in a
+position of extreme inflection.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_80c" id="page_80c">[80c.]</a></span>
+(4) <i>Hands.</i>&mdash;Dr. Louis Robinson has recently observed that the grasping
+power of the whole human hand is so surprisingly great at birth, and
+during the first few weeks of infancy, as to be far in excess of present
+requirements on the part of a young child. Hence he concludes that it
+refers us to our quadrumanous ancestry&mdash;the young of anthropoid apes
+being endowed with similar powers of grasping, in order to hold on to
+the hair of the mother when she is using her arms for the purposes of
+locomotion. This inference appears to me justifiable, inasmuch as no
+other explanation can be given of the comparatively inordinate muscular
+force of an infant&rsquo;s grip. For experiments showed that very young
+babies are able to support their own weight, by holding on to a
+horizontal bar, for a period varying from one half to more than two
+minutes<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a>.
+With his kind permission I here reproduce one of Dr. Robinson&rsquo;s
+instantaneous, and hitherto unpublished, photographs of a very young
+infant. This photograph was taken after the above paragraph (3) was
+written, and I introduce it here because it serves to show
+incidentally&mdash;and perhaps <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_81" id="page_81">[81]</a></span>
+even better than the preceding figure&mdash;the points there mentioned
+with regard to the feet and great toes. Again, as Dr. Robinson observes,
+the attitude, and the disproportionately large development of the arms
+as compared with the legs, give all the photographs a striking
+resemblance to a picture of the chimpanzee &ldquo;Sally&rdquo; at the
+Zoological Gardens. For &ldquo;invariably the thighs are bent nearly at
+right angles to the body, and in no case did the lower limbs hang down
+and take the attitude of the erect position.&rdquo; He adds, &ldquo;In
+many cases no sign of distress is evinced, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_82" id="page_82">[82]</a></span>
+and no cry uttered, until the grasp begins to give way.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_81i" id="page_81i">[81i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 332px;">
+<img src="images/i_098_014.jpg" width="332" height="400" alt="3 weeks old infant supporting its own weight." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 14.&mdash;An infant, three weeks old, supporting its own
+weight for over two minutes. The attitude of the lower limbs, feet, and
+toes, is strikingly simian. Reproduced from an instantaneous photograph,
+kindly given for the purpose by Dr. L. Robinson.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_82c" id="page_82c">[82c.]</a></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 450px;">
+<img src="images/i_099_015.jpg" width="450" height="413" alt="Sacrum of Gorilla and Man." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 15.&mdash;Sacrum of Gorilla compared with that of Man,
+showing the rudimentary tail-bones of each. Drawn from nature (R. Coll.
+Surg. Mus.).</div></div>
+
+<p>(5) <i>Tail.</i>&mdash;The absence of a tail in man is popularly supposed to
+constitute a difficulty against the doctrine of his quadrumanous
+descent. As a matter of fact, however, the absence of an external tail
+in man is precisely what this doctrine would expect, seeing that the
+nearest allies of man in the quadrumanous series are likewise destitute
+of an external tail. Far, then, from this deficiency in man constituting
+any difficulty to be accounted for, if the case were not so&mdash;i. e. if
+man <i>did</i> possess an external tail,&mdash;the difficulty would be
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_83" id="page_83">[83]</a></span>
+to understand how he had managed to retain an organ which had been
+renounced by his most recent ancestors. Nevertheless, as the anthropoid
+apes continue to present the rudimentary vestiges of a tail in a few
+caudal vertebr&aelig; below the integuments, we might well expect to
+find a similar state of matters in the case of man. And this is just
+what we do find, as a glance at these two comparative illustrations will
+show. (Fig. 15.) Moreover, during embryonic life, both of the anthropoid
+apes and of man, the tail much more closely resembles that of the lower
+kinds of quadrumanous animals from which these higher representatives of
+the group have descended. For at a certain stage of embryonic life the
+tail, both of apes and of human beings, is actually longer than the legs
+(see Fig. 16). And at this stage of development, also, the tail admits
+of being moved by muscles which later on dwindle away. Occasionally,
+however, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_84" id="page_84">[84]</a></span>
+these muscles persist, and are then described by anatomists as
+abnormalities. The following illustrations serve to show the muscles in
+question, when thus found in adult man.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_83i" id="page_83i">[83i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 350px;">
+<img src="images/i_100_016.jpg" width="350" height="204" alt="Human embryo,
+about seven weeks old." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 16.&mdash;Diagrammatic outline of the human embryo when
+about seven weeks old, showing the relations of the limbs and tail to
+the trunk (after Allen Thomson), <i>r</i>, the radial, and <i>u</i>, the ulnar,
+border of the hand and fore-arm; <i>t</i>, the tibial, and <i>f</i>, the fibular,
+border of the foot and lower leg; <i>au</i>, ear; <i>s</i>, spinal cord; <i>v</i>,
+umbilical cord; <i>b</i>, branchial gill-slits; <i>c</i>, tail.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_84c" id="page_84c">[84c.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_101_017.jpg" width="500" height="379" alt="Front and back of adult human sacrum." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 17.&mdash;Front and back view of adult human sacrum,
+showing abnormal persistence of vestigial tail-muscles. (The first
+drawing is copied from Prof. Watson&rsquo;s paper in Journl. Anat. and
+Physiol., vol. 79: the second is compiled from different specimens.)</div></div>
+
+<p>(6) <i>Vermiform Appendix of the C&aelig;cum.</i>&mdash;This is of large size and
+functional use in the process of digestion among many herbivorous
+animals; while in man it is not only too small to serve any such
+purpose, but is even a source of danger to life&mdash;many persons dying
+every year from inflammation set up by the lodgement in this blind tube
+of fruit-stones, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>In the orang it is longer than in man (Fig. 18), as <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_86" id="page_86">[86]</a></span>
+it is also in the human f&oelig;tus proportionally compared with the
+adult. (Fig. 19.) In some of the lower herbivorous animals it is longer
+than the entire body.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_85" id="page_85">[85]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_102_018.jpg" width="500" height="193" alt="Appendix vermiformis in Orang and in Man." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 18.&mdash;Appendix vermiformis in Orang and in Man. Drawn
+from dried inflated specimens in the Cambridge Museum by Mr. J. J.
+Lister. <i>Il</i>, ilium; <i>Co</i>, colon; <i>C</i>, c&aelig;cum; W, a window cut in the
+wall of the c&aelig;cum; X X X, the appendix.</div></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_102_019.jpg" width="500" height="398" alt="The same, showing variation in the Orang." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 19.&mdash;The same, showing variation in the Orang. Drawn
+from a specimen in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_86c" id="page_86c">[86c.]</a></span>
+Like vestigial structures in general, however, this one is highly
+variable. Thus the above cut (Fig. 19) serves to show that it may
+sometimes be almost as short in the orang as it normally is in man&mdash;both
+the human subjects of this illustration having been normal.</p>
+
+<p>(7) <i>Ear.</i>&mdash;Mr. Darwin writes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>The celebrated sculptor, Mr. Woolner, informs me of one little
+peculiarity in the external ear, which he has often observed both
+<span class="figleft" style="width: 184px;">
+<img src="images/i_103_020.jpg" width="184" height="250" alt="Human ear." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 20.&mdash;Human ear, modelled and drawn by Mr. Woolner.
+<i>a</i>, the projecting point.</span></span>
+in men and women.... The peculiarity consists in a little blunt
+point, projecting from the inwardly folded margin, or helix. When
+present, it is developed at birth, and, according to Prof. Ludwig
+Meyer, more frequently in man than in woman. Mr. Woolner made an
+exact model of one such case, and sent me the accompanying
+drawing.... The helix obviously consists of the extreme margin of
+the ear folded inwards; and the folding appears to be in some
+manner connected with the whole external ear being permanently
+pressed backwards. In many monkeys, which do not stand high in the
+order, as baboons and some species of macacus, the upper portion of
+the ear is slightly pointed, and the margin is not at all folded
+inwards; but if the margin were to be thus folded, a slight point
+would necessarily project towards the centre.... The following
+wood-cut is an accurate copy of a photograph of the f&oelig;tus of an
+orang (kindly sent me by Dr. Nitsche), in which it may be seen how
+different the pointed outline of the ear is at this period from its
+adult condition, when it bears a close <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_87" id="page_87">[87]</a></span>
+general resemblance to that of man [including even the occasional
+appearance of the projecting point shown in the preceding woodcut]. It
+is evident that the folding over of the tip of such an ear, unless it
+changed greatly during its further development, would give rise to a
+point projecting inwards<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_104_021.jpg" width="300" height="292" alt="F&oelig;tus of an Orang." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 21.&mdash;F&oelig;tus of an Orang. Exact copy of a
+photograph, showing the form of the ear at this early stage.</div></div>
+
+<p>The following woodcut serves still further to show vestigial
+resemblances between the human ear and that of apes. The last two
+figures illustrate the general resemblance between the normal ear of
+f&oelig;tal man and the ear of an adult orang-outang. The other two figures
+on the lower line are intended to exhibit occasional modifications of
+the adult human ear, which approximate simian characters somewhat more
+closely than does the normal type. It will be observed that in their
+comparatively small lobes these ears resemble those of all the apes; and
+that while the outer margin of one is not unlike that of the Barbary
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_89" id="page_89">[89]</a></span>
+ape, the outer margin of the other follows those of the chimpanzee and
+orang. Of course it would be easy to select individual human ears which
+present either of these characters in a more pronounced degree; but
+these ears have been chosen as models because they present both
+characters in conjunction. The upper row of figures likewise shows the
+close similarity of hair-tracts, and the direction of growth on the part
+of the hair itself, in cases where the human ear happens to be of an
+abnormally hirsute character. But this particular instance (which I do
+not think has been previously noticed) introduces us to the subject of
+hair, and hair-growth, in general.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_88" id="page_88">[88]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_105_022.jpg" width="500" height="305" alt="Vestigial characters of human ears." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 22.&mdash;Vestigial characters of human ears. Drawn from
+nature.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_89c" id="page_89c">[89c.]</a></span>
+(8) <i>Hair.</i>&mdash;Adult man presents rudimentary hair over most parts of the
+body. Wallace has sought to draw a refined distinction between this
+vestigial coating and the useful coating of quadrumanous animals, in the
+absence of the former from the human back. But even this refined
+distinction does not hold. On the one hand, the comparatively hairless
+chimpanzee which died last year in the Zoological Gardens (<span class='sn'>T. calvus</span>)
+was remarkably denuded over the back; and, on the other hand, men who
+present a considerable development of hair over the rest of their bodies
+present it also on their backs and shoulders. Again, in all men the
+rudimentary hair on the upper and lower arm is directed towards the
+elbow&mdash;a peculiarity which occurs nowhere else in the animal kingdom,
+with the exception of the anthropoid apes and a few American monkeys,
+where it presumably has to do with arboreal habits. For, when sitting in
+trees, the orang, as observed by Mr. Wallace, places its hands above its
+head with its elbows pointing downwards:<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_91" id="page_91">[91]</a></span>
+the disposition of hair on the arms and fore-arms then has the effect
+of thatch in turning the rain. Again, I find that in all species of
+apes, monkeys, and baboons which I have examined (and they have been
+numerous), the hair on the backs of the hands and feet is continued as
+far as the first row of phalanges; but becomes scanty, or disappears
+altogether, on the second row; while it is invariably absent on the
+terminal row. I also find that the same peculiarity occurs in man. We
+all have rudimentary hair on the first row of phalanges, both of hands
+and feet: when present at all, it is more scanty on the second row; and
+in no case have I been able to find any on the terminal row. In all
+cases these peculiarities are congenital, and the total absence or
+partial presence of hair on the second phalanges is constant in
+different species of Quadrumana. For instance, it is entirely absent in
+all the chimpanzees, which I have examined, while scantily present in
+all the orangs. As in man, it occurs in a patch midway between the
+joints.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_90" id="page_90">[90]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 296px;">
+<img src="images/i_107_023.jpg" width="296" height="500" alt="Hair-tracts on the arms and hands of Man and Chimpanzee." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 23.&mdash;Hair-tracts on the arms and hands of Man, as
+compared with those on the arms and hands of Chimpanzee. Drawn from
+life.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_91c" id="page_91c">[91c.]</a></span>
+Besides showing these two features with regard to the disposition of
+hair on the human arm and hand, the above woodcut illustrates a third.
+By looking closely at the arm of the very hairy man from whom the
+drawing was taken, it could be seen that there was a strong tendency
+towards a whorled arrangement of the hairs on the backs of the wrists.
+This is likewise, as a general rule, a marked feature in the arrangement
+of hair on the same places in the gorilla, orang, and chimpanzee. In the
+specimen of the latter, however, from which the drawing was taken, this
+characteristic was not well marked. The downward direction of the hair
+on the backs of the hands <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_92" id="page_92">[92]</a></span>
+is exactly the same in man as it is in all the anthropoid apes. Again,
+with regard to hair, Darwin notices that occasionally there appears in
+man a few hairs in the eyebrows much longer than the others; and that
+they seem to be representative of similarly long and scattered hairs
+which occur in the chimpanzee, macacus, and baboons.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, it may be here more conveniently observed than in the next
+chapter on Embryology, that at about the sixth month the human f&oelig;tus
+is often thickly coated with somewhat long dark hair over the entire
+body, except the soles of the feet and palms of the hands, which are
+likewise bare in all quadrumanous animals. This covering, which is
+called the lanugo, and sometimes extends even to the whole forehead,
+ears, and face, is shed before birth. So that it appears to be useless
+for any purpose other than that of emphatically declaring man a child of
+the monkey.</p>
+
+<p>(9) <i>Teeth.</i>&mdash;Darwin writes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending
+to become rudimentary in the more civilized races of man. These
+teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the
+case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and
+they have only two separate fangs.... They are also much more
+liable to vary, both in structure and in the period of their
+development, than the other teeth. In the Melanian races, on the
+other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three
+separate fangs, and are usually sound [i. e. not specially liable
+to decay]; they also differ from the other molars in size, less
+than in the Caucasian races.</p></div>
+
+<p>Now, in addition to these there are other respects in which the
+dwindling condition of wisdom-teeth is manifested&mdash;particularly with
+regard to the pattern of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_93" id="page_93">[93]</a></span>
+their crowns. Indeed, in this respect it would seem that even in the
+anthropoid apes there is the beginning of a tendency to degeneration of
+the molar teeth from behind forwards. For if we compare the three molars
+in the lower jaw of the gorilla, orang, and chimpanzee, we find that the
+gorilla has five well-marked cusps on all three of them; but that in the
+orang the cusps are not so pronounced, while in the chimpanzee there are
+only four of them on the third molar. Now in man it is only the first of
+these three teeth which normally presents five cusps, both the others
+presenting only four. So that, comparing all <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_94" id="page_94">[94]</a></span>
+these genera together, it appears that the number of cusps is being
+reduced from behind forwards; the chimpanzee having lost one of them
+from the third molar, while man has not only lost this, but also one
+from the second molar,&mdash;and, it may be added, likewise partially
+(or even totally) from the first molar, as a frequent variation among
+civilized races. But, on the other hand, variations are often met with
+in the opposite direction, where the second or the third molar of man
+presents five cusps&mdash;in the one case following the chimpanzee, in
+the other the gorilla. These latter variations, therefore, may fairly be
+regarded as reversionary. For these facts I am indebted to the kindness
+of Mr. C. S. Tomes.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_93i" id="page_93i">[93i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_110_024.jpg" width="500" height="419" alt="Molar teeth of lower jaw in Gorilla, Orang, and
+Man." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 24.&mdash;Molar teeth of lower jaw in Gorilla, Orang, and
+Man. Drawn from nature, nat. size (<i>R. Mus. Coll. Surg.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_94c" id="page_94c">[94c.]</a></span>
+(10) <i>Perforations of the humerus.</i>&mdash;The peculiarities which we have to
+notice under this heading are two in number. First, the supra condyloid
+foramen is a normal feature in some of the lower Quadrumana (Fig. 25),
+where it gives passage to the great nerve of the fore-arm, and often
+also to the great artery. In man, however, it is not a normal feature.
+Yet it occurs in a small percentage of cases&mdash;viz., according to Sir W.
+Turner, in about one per cent., and therefore is regarded by Darwin as a
+vestigial character. Secondly, there is inter-condyloid foramen, which
+is also situated near the lower end of the humerus, but more in the
+middle of the bone. This occurs, but not constantly, in apes, and also
+in the human species. From the fact that it does so much more frequently
+in the bones of ancient&mdash;and also of some savage&mdash;races of mankind (viz.
+in 20 to 30 per cent. of cases), Darwin is disposed to regard it also as
+a vestigial feature. On the other hand, Prof. Flower tells me that in
+his opinion it is but an expression <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_95" id="page_95">[95]</a></span>
+of impoverished nutrition during the growth of the bone.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_112_025.jpg" width="500" height="379" alt="Perforation of the humerus
+in three species of Quadrumana and in Man." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 25.&mdash;Perforation of the humerus (supra-condyloid
+foramen) in three species of Quadrumana where it normally occurs, and in
+Man, where it does not normally occur. Drawn from nature (<i>R. Coll.
+Surg. Mus.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p>(11) <i>Flattening of tibia.</i>&mdash;In some very ancient human skeletons, there
+has also been found a lateral flattening of the tibia, which rarely
+occurs in any existing human beings, but which appears to have been
+usual among the earliest races of mankind hitherto discovered. According
+to Broca, the measurements of these fossil human tibi&aelig; resemble those of
+apes. Moreover, the bone is bent and strongly convex forwards, while its
+angles are so rounded as to present the nearly oval section seen in
+apes. It is in association with these ape-like human tibi&aelig; that
+perforated humeri of man are found in greatest abundance.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_96" id="page_96">[96]</a></span>
+On the other hand, however, there is reason to doubt whether this form
+of tibia in man is really a survival from his quadrumanous ancestry.
+For, as Boyd-Dawkins and Hartmann have pointed out, the degree of
+flattening presented by some of these ancient human bones is <i>greater</i>
+than that which occurs in any existing species of anthropoid ape. Of
+course the possibility remains that the unknown species of ape from
+which man descended may have had its tibia more flattened than is now
+observable in any of the existing species. Nevertheless, as some doubt
+attaches to this particular case, I do not press it&mdash;and, indeed, only
+mention it at all in order that the doubt may be expressed.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly, I will conclude by remarking that several other instances of
+the survival of vestigial structures in man have been alleged, which are
+of a still more doubtful character. Of such, for example, are the
+supposed absence of the genial tubercle in the case of a very ancient
+jaw-bone of man, and the disposition of valves in human veins. From the
+former it was argued that the possessor of this very ancient jaw-bone
+was probably speechless, inasmuch as the tubercle in existing man gives
+attachment to muscles of the tongue. From the latter it has been argued
+that all the valves in the veins of the human body have reference, in
+their disposition, to the incidence of blood-pressure when the attitude
+of the body is horizontal, or quadrupedal. Now, the former case has
+already broken down, and I find that the latter does not hold. But we
+can well afford to lose such doubtful and spurious cases, in view of all
+the foregoing unquestionable and genuine cases of vestigial structures
+which are <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_97" id="page_97">[97]</a></span>
+to be met with even within the limits of our own organization&mdash;and
+even when these limits are still further limited by selecting only those
+instances which refer to the very latest chapter of our long ancestral
+history.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_98" id="page_98">[98]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Embryology.</span></h2>
+
+<p>We will next consider what of late years has become the most important
+of the lines of evidence, not only in favour of the general fact of
+evolution, but also of its history: I mean the evidence which has been
+yielded by the newest of the sciences, the science of Embryology. But
+here, as in the analogous case of adult morphology, in order to do
+justice to the mass of evidence which has now been accumulated, a whole
+volume would be necessary. As in that previous case, therefore, I must
+restrict myself to giving an outline sketch of the main facts.</p>
+
+<p>First I will display what in the language of Paley we may call
+&ldquo;the state of the argument.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>It is an observable fact that there is often a close correspondence
+between developmental changes as revealed by any chronological series of
+fossils which may happen to have been preserved, and developmental
+changes which may be observed during the life-history of now existing
+individuals belonging to the same group of animals. For instance, the
+successive development of prongs in the horns of deer-like animals,
+which is so clearly shown in the geological history of this tribe, is
+closely reproduced <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_99" id="page_99">[99]</a></span>
+in the life-history of existing deer. Or, in other words, the antlers
+of an existing deer furnish in their development a kind of
+<i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i>, or recapitulation, of the successive phases
+whereby the primitive horn was gradually superseded by horns presenting
+a greater and greater number of prongs in successive species of extinct
+deer (Fig. 26). Now it must be obvious that such a recapitulation in the
+life-history of an existing animal of developmental changes successively
+distinctive of sundry allied, though now extinct species, speaks
+strongly in favour of evolution. For as it is of the essence of this
+theory that new forms arise from older forms by way of <i>hereditary</i>
+descent, we should antecedently expect, if the theory is true, that the
+phases of development presented by the individual organism would follow,
+in their main outlines, those phases of development through which their
+long line of ancestors had passed. The only alternative view is that as
+species of deer, for instance, were separately created, additional
+prongs were successively added to their antlers; and yet that, in order
+to be so added to successive species every individual deer belonging to
+later species was required to repeat in his own lifetime the process of
+successive additions which had previously taken place in a remote series
+of extinct species. Now I do not deny that this view is a possible view;
+but I do deny that it is a probable one. According to the evolutionary
+interpretation of such facts, we can see a very good <i>reason</i> why the
+life-history of the individual is thus a condensed
+<i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> of the life-history of its ancestral species. But
+according to the opposite view no reason can be assigned why such should
+be the case. In a previous chapter&mdash;the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_101" id="page_101">[101]</a></span>
+chapter on Classification&mdash;we have seen that if each species were
+created separately, no reason can be assigned why they should all have
+been turned out upon structural patterns so strongly suggestive of
+hereditary descent with gradual modifications, or slow
+divergence&mdash;the result being group subordinated to group, with the
+most generalized (or least developed) forms at the bottom, and the
+highest products of organization at the top. And now we see&mdash;or
+shall immediately see&mdash;that this consideration admits of being
+greatly fortified by a study of the developmental history of every
+individual organism. If it would be an unaccountable fact that every
+separately created species should have been created with close
+structural resemblances to a certain limited number of other species,
+less close resemblances to certain further species, and so backwards;
+assuredly it would be a still more unaccountable fact that every
+individual of every species should exhibit in its own person a history
+of developmental change, every term of which corresponds with the
+structural peculiarities of its now extinct predecessors&mdash;and this
+in the exact historical order of their succession in geological time.
+The more that we think about this antithesis between the naturalistic
+and the non-naturalistic interpretations, the greater must we feel the
+contrast in respect of rationality to become; and, therefore, I need not
+spend time by saying anything further upon the antecedent standing of
+the two theories in this respect. The evidence, then, which I am about
+to adduce from the study of development in the life-histories of
+individual organisms, will be regarded by me as so much unquestionable
+evidence in favour of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_102" id="page_102">[102]</a></span>
+similar processes of development in the life-histories of their
+respective species&mdash;in so far, I mean, as the two sets of changes
+admit of being proved parallel.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_100" id="page_100">[100]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 307px;">
+<img src="images/i_117_026.jpg" width="307" height="500" alt="Antlers of Stag." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 26.&mdash;Antlers of Stag, showing successive addition of
+branches in successive years. Drawn from nature (<i>Brit. Mus.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_102c" id="page_102c">[102c.]</a></span>
+In the only illustration hitherto adduced&mdash;viz. that of deers&rsquo;
+horns&mdash;the series of changes from a one-pronged horn to a fully
+developed arborescent antler, is a series which takes place during the
+adult life of the animal; for it is only when the breeding age has been
+attained that horns are required to appear. But seeing that every animal
+passes through most of the phases of its development, not only before
+the breeding age has been attained, but even before the time of its own
+birth, clearly the largest field for the study of individual development
+is furnished by embryology. For instance, there is a salamander which
+differs from most other salamanders in being exclusively terrestrial in
+its habits. Now, the young of this salamander before their birth are
+found to be furnished with gills, which, however, they are never
+destined to use. Yet these gills are so perfectly formed, that if the
+young salamanders be removed from the body of their mother shortly
+before birth, and be then immediately placed in water, the little
+animals show themselves quite capable of aquatic respiration, and will
+merrily swim about in a medium which would quickly drown their own
+parent. Here, then, we have both morphological and physiological
+evidence pointing to the possession of gills by the ancestors of the
+land salamander.</p>
+
+<p>It would be easy to devote the whole of the present chapter to an
+enumeration of special instances of the kinds thus chosen for purposes
+of illustration; but as it is desirable to take a deeper, and therefore
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_103" id="page_103">[103]</a></span>
+a more general view of the whole subject, I will begin at the
+foundation, and gradually work up from the earliest stages of
+development to the latest. Before starting, however, I ask the reader to
+bear in mind one consideration, which must reasonably prevent our
+anticipating that in <i>every case</i> the life-history of an individual
+organism should present a <i>full</i> recapitulation of the life-history of
+its ancestral line of species. Supposing the theory of evolution to be
+true, it must follow that in many cases it would have been more or less
+disadvantageous to a developing type that it should have been obliged to
+reproduce in its individual representatives all the phases of
+development previously undergone by its ancestry&mdash;even within the
+limits of the same family. We can easily understand, for example, that
+the waste of material required for building up the useless gills of the
+embryonic salamanders is a waste which, sooner or later, is likely to be
+done away with; so that the fact of its occurring at all is in itself
+enough to show that the change from aquatic to terrestrial habits on the
+part of this species must have been one of comparatively recent
+occurrence. Now, in as far as it is detrimental to a developing type
+that it should pass through any particular ancestral phases of
+development, we may be sure that natural selection&mdash;or whatever
+other adjustive causes we may suppose to have been at work in the
+adaptation of organisms to their surroundings&mdash;will constantly seek
+to get rid of this necessity, with the result, when successful, of
+dropping out the detrimental phases. Thus the foreshortening of
+developmental history which takes place in the individual lifetime may
+be expected often to take place, not only in the way of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_104" id="page_104">[104]</a></span>
+condensation, but also in the way of excision. Many pages of ancestral
+history may be recapitulated in the paragraphs of embryonic development,
+while others may not be so much as mentioned. And that this is the true
+explanation of what embryologists term &ldquo;direct&rdquo;
+development&mdash;or of a more or less sudden leap from one phase to
+another, without any appearance of intermediate phases&mdash;is proved
+by the fact that in some cases both direct and indirect development
+occur within the same group of organisms, some genera or families having
+dropped out the intermediate phases which other genera or families
+retain.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>The argument from embryology must be taken to begin with the first
+beginning of individual life in the ovum. And, in order to understand
+the bearings of the argument in this its first stage, we must consider
+the phenomena of reproduction in the simplest form which these phenomena
+are known to present.</p>
+
+<p>The whole of the animal kingdom is divided into two great groups, which
+are called the Protozoa and the Metazoa. Similarly, the whole of the
+vegetable kingdom is divided into the Protophyta and the Metaphyta. The
+characteristic feature of all the Protozoa and Protophyta is that the
+organism consists of a single physiological cell, while the
+characteristic of all the Metazoa and Metaphyta is that the organism
+consists of a plurality of physiological cells, variously modified to
+subserve different functions in the economy of the animal or plant, as
+the case may be. For the sake of brevity, I shall hereafter deal only
+with the case of animals (Protozoa and Metazoa); but it may throughout
+be understood that everything <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_105" id="page_105">[105]</a></span>
+which is said applies also to the case of plants (Protophyta and
+Metaphyta).</p>
+
+<p>A Protozo&ouml;n (like a Protophyton) is a solitary cell, or a
+&ldquo;unicellular organism,&rdquo; while a Metazo&ouml;n (like a Metaphyton)
+is a society of cells, or a &ldquo;multicellular organism.&rdquo; Now,
+it is only in the multicellular organisms that there is any observable
+distinction of sex. In all the unicellular organisms the phenomena of
+reproduction appear to be more or less identical with those of growth.
+Nevertheless, as these phenomena are here in some cases suggestively
+peculiar, I will consider them more in detail.</p>
+
+<p>A Protozo&ouml;n is a single corpuscle of protoplasm which in different
+species of Protozoa varies in size from more than one inch to less than
+1/1000 of an inch in diameter. In some species there is an enveloping
+cortical substance; in other species no such substance can be detected.
+Again, in most species there is a nucleus, while in other species no
+such differentiation of structure has hitherto been observed.
+Nevertheless, from the fact that the nucleus occurs in the majority of
+Protozoa, coupled with the fact that the demonstration of this body is
+often a matter of extreme difficulty, not only in some of the Protozoa
+where it has been but recently detected, but also in the case of certain
+physiological cells elsewhere,&mdash;from these facts it is not unreasonable
+to suppose that all the Protozoa possess a nucleus, whether or not it
+admits of being rendered visible by histological methods thus far at our
+disposal. If this is the case, we should be justified in saying, as I
+have said, that a Protozo&ouml;n is an isolated physiological cell, and, like
+cells in general, multiplies by means of what Spencer and H&auml;ckel
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_106" id="page_106">[106]</a></span>
+have aptly called a process of discontinuous growth. That is to say,
+when a cell reaches maturity, further growth takes place in the
+direction of a severance of its substance&mdash;the separated portion
+thus starting anew as a distinct physiological unit. But,
+notwithstanding the complex changes which have been more recently
+observed to take place in the nucleus of some Protozoa prior to their
+division, the process of multiplication by division may still be
+regarded as a process of growth, which differs from the previous growth
+of the individual cell in being attended by a severance of continuity.
+If we take a suspended drop of gum, and gradually add to its size by
+allowing more and more gum to flow into it, a point will eventually be
+reached at which the force of gravity will overcome that of cohesion,
+and a portion of the drop will fall away from the remainder. Here we
+have a rough physical simile, although of course no true analogy. In
+virtue of a continuous assimilation of nutriment, the protoplasm of a
+cell increases in mass, until it reaches the size at which the forces of
+disruption overcome those of cohesion&mdash;or, in other words, the
+point at which increase of size is no longer compatible with continuity
+of substance. Nevertheless, it must not be supposed that the process is
+thus merely a physical one. The phenomena which occur even in the
+simplest&mdash;or so-called &ldquo;direct"&mdash;cell-division, are of
+themselves enough to prove that the process is vital, or physiological;
+and this in a high degree of specialization. But so, likewise, are all
+processes of growth in organic structures; and therefore the simile of
+the drop of gum is not to be regarded as a true analogy: it serves only
+to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_107" id="page_107">[107]</a></span>
+indicate the fact that when cell-growth proceeds beyond a certain point
+cell-division ensues. The size to which cells may grow before they thus
+divide is very variable in different kinds of cells; for while some may
+normally attain a length of ten or twelve inches, others divide before
+they measure 1/1000 of an inch. This, however, is a matter of detail,
+and does not affect the general physiological principles on which we are
+at present engaged.</p>
+
+<p>Now, as we have seen, a Protozo&ouml;n is a single cell; for even although in
+some of the higher forms of protozoal life a colony of cells may be
+bound together in organic connexion, each of these cells is in itself an
+&ldquo;individual,&rdquo; capable of self-nourishment, reproduction,
+and, generally, of independent existence. Consequently, when the growth
+of a Protozo&ouml;n ends in a division of its substance, the two parts wander
+away from each other as separate organisms. (Fig. 27.)</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_124_027.jpg" width="400" height="226" alt="Fission of a Protozo&ouml;n." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 27.&mdash;Fission of a Protozo&ouml;n. In the left-hand
+drawing the process is represented as having advanced sufficiently far
+to have caused a division and segregation both of the nucleus and the
+vesicle. In the right-hand drawing the process is represented as
+complete. <i>n</i>, N, severed nucleus; <i>vc</i>, severed vesicle; <i>ps</i>,
+pseudopodia; <i>f</i>, ingested food.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_108" id="page_108">[108]</a></span>
+The next point we have to observe is, that in all cases where a cell or
+a Protozo&ouml;n multiplies by way of fissiparous division, the process
+begins in the nucleus. If the nucleus divides into two parts, the whole
+cell will eventually divide into two parts, each of which retains a
+portion of the original nucleus, as represented in the above figure. If
+the nucleus divides into three, four, or even, as happens in the
+development of some embryonic tissues, into as many as six parts, the
+cell will subdivide into a corresponding number, each retaining a
+portion of the nucleus. Therefore, in all cases of fissiparous division,
+the seat or origin of the process is the nucleus.</p>
+
+<p>Thus far, then, the phenomena of multiplication are identical in all the
+lowest or unicellular organisms, and in the constituent cells of all the
+higher or multicellular. And this is the first point which I desire to
+make apparent. For where the object is to prove a continuity between the
+phenomena of growth and reproduction, it is of primary importance to
+show&mdash;1st, that there is such a continuity in the case of all the
+unicellular organisms, and, 2nd, that there are all the above points of
+resemblance between the multiplication of cells in the unicellular and
+in the multicellular organisms.</p>
+
+<p>It remains to consider the points of difference, and, if possible, to
+show that these do not go to disprove the doctrine of continuity which
+the points of resemblance so forcibly indicate.</p>
+
+<p>The first point of difference obviously is, that in the case of all the
+multicellular organisms the two or more &ldquo;daughter-cells,&rdquo;
+which are produced by division of the &ldquo;mother-cell,&rdquo; do not
+wander away from one <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_109" id="page_109">[109]</a></span>
+another; but, as a rule, they continue to be held in more or less close
+apposition by means of other cells and binding membranes,&mdash;with the
+result of giving rise to those various &ldquo;tissues,&rdquo; which in
+turn go to constitute the material of &ldquo;organs.&rdquo; I cannot
+suppose, however, that any advocate of discontinuity will care to take
+his stand at this point. But, if any one were so foolish as to do so, it
+would be easy to dislodge him by describing the state of matters in some
+of the Protozoa where a number of unicellular &ldquo;individuals&rdquo;
+are organically united so as to form a &ldquo;colony.&rdquo; These cases
+serve to bridge this distinction between Protozoa and Metazoa, of which
+therefore we may now take leave.</p>
+
+<p>In the second place, there is the no less obvious distinction that the
+result of cell-division in the Metazoa is not merely to multiply cells
+all of the same kind: on the contrary, the process here gives rise to as
+many different kinds of cells as there are different kinds of tissue
+composing the adult organism. But no one, I should think, is likely to
+oppose the doctrine of continuity on the ground of this distinction. For
+the distinction is clearly one which must necessarily arise, if the
+doctrine of continuity between unicellular and multicellular organisms
+be true. In other words, it is a distinction which the theory of
+evolution itself must necessarily pre-suppose, and therefore it is no
+objection to the theory that its pre-supposition is realized. Moreover,
+as we shall see better presently, there is no difficulty in
+understanding why this distinction should have arisen, so soon as it
+became necessary (or desirable) that individual cells, when composing a
+&ldquo;colony,&rdquo; should <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_110" id="page_110">[110]</a></span>
+conform to the economic principle of the division of labour&mdash;a
+principle, indeed, which is already foreshadowed in the constituent
+parts of a single cell, since the nucleus has one set of functions and
+its surrounding protoplasm another.</p>
+
+<p>But now, in the third place, we arrive at a more important distinction,
+and one which lies at the root of the others still remaining to be
+considered. I refer to sexual propagation. For it is a peculiarity of
+the multicellular organisms that, although many of them may likewise
+propagate themselves by other means (Fig. 28), they all propagate
+themselves by means of sexual congress. Now, in its essence, sexual
+congress consists in the fusion of two specialized cells (or, as now
+seems almost certain, of the nuclei thereof), so that it is out of such
+a combination that the new individual arises by means of successive
+cell-divisions, which, beginning in the fertilized ovum, eventually
+build up all the tissues and organs of the body.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_111" id="page_111">[111]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 302px;">
+<img src="images/i_128_028.jpg" width="302" height="450" alt="Hydra viridis." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 28.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Hydra viridis</span>, partly in section. M, mouth; O,
+ovary, or bud containing female reproductive cells; T, testis, or bud
+containing male reproductive cells. In addition to these buds containing
+germinal elements alone, there is another which illustrates the process
+of &ldquo;gemmation&quot;&mdash;i. e. the direct out-growth of a fully formed
+offspring.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_110c" id="page_110c">[110c.]</a></span>
+This process clearly indicates very high specialization on the part of
+germ-cells. For we see by it that although these cells when young
+resemble all other cells in being capable of self-multiplication by
+binary division (thus reproducing cells exactly like themselves), when
+older they lose this power; but, at the same time, they acquire an
+entirely new and very remarkable power of giving rise to a vast
+succession of many different kinds of cells, all of which are mutually
+correlated as to their several functions, so as to constitute a
+hierarchy of cells&mdash;or, to speak literally, a multicellular
+<i>co-organization</i>. Here it is that we touch the really important
+distinction between the Protozoa and the Metazoa; for although I have
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_111c" id="page_111c">[111c.]</a></span>
+said that some of the higher Protozoa foreshadow this state of matters
+in forming cell-colonies, it must now be noted that the cells composing
+such colonies are all of the same kind; and, therefore, that the
+principle of producing different kinds of cells which, by mutual
+co-adaptation of functions, shall be capable of constructing a
+multicellular Metazo&ouml;n,&mdash;this great principle of <i>co-organization</i> is
+but dimly nascent in the cell-colonies <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_112" id="page_112">[112]</a></span>
+of Protozoa. And its marvellous development in the Metazoa appears
+ultimately to depend upon the highly specialized character of
+germ-cells. Even in cases where multicellular organisms are capable of
+reproducing their kind without the need of any preceding process of
+fertilization (parthenogenesis), and even in the still more numerous
+cases where complete organisms are budded forth from any part of their
+parent organism (gemmation, Fig. 28), there is now very good reason to
+conclude that these powers of a-sexual reproduction on the part of
+multicellular organisms are all ultimately due to the specialized
+character of their germ-cells. For in all these cases the tissues of the
+parent, from which the budding takes place, were ultimately derived from
+germ-cells&mdash;no matter how many generations of budded organisms may
+have intervened. And that propagation by budding, &amp;c., in
+multicellular organisms is thus ultimately due to their propagation by
+sexual methods, seems to be further shown by certain facts which will
+have to be discussed at some length in my next volume. Here, therefore,
+I will mention only one of them&mdash;and this because it furnishes what
+appears to be another important distinction between the Protozoa and the
+Metazoa.</p>
+
+<p>In nearly all cases where a Protozo&ouml;n multiplies itself by fission, the
+process begins by a simple division of the nucleus. But when a Metazo&ouml;n
+is developed from a germ-cell, although the process likewise begins by a
+division of the nucleus, this division is not a simple or direct one; on
+the contrary, it is inaugurated by a series of processes going on within
+the nucleus, which are so enormously complex, and withal so <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_113" id="page_113">[113]</a></span>
+beautifully ordered, that to my mind they constitute the most
+wonderful&mdash;if not also the most suggestive&mdash;which have ever
+been revealed by microscopical research. It is needless to say that I
+refer to the phenomena of karyokinesis. A few pages further on they will
+be described more fully. For our present purposes it is sufficient to
+give merely a pictorial illustration of their successive phases; for a
+glance at such a representation serves to reveal the only point to which
+attention has now to be drawn&mdash;namely, the immense complexity of
+the processes in question, and therefore the contrast which they furnish
+to the simple (or &ldquo;direct") division of the nucleus preparatory to
+cell-division in the unicellular organisms. Here, then<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_114" id="page_114">[114]</a></span>
+(Fig. 29), we see the complex processes of karyokinesis in the first
+two stages of egg-cell division. But similar processes continue to
+repeat themselves in subsequent stages; and this, there is now good
+reason to believe, throughout <i>all</i> the stages of cell-division, whereby
+the original egg-cell eventually constructs an entire organism. In other
+words, all the cells composing all the tissues of a multicellular
+organism, at all stages of its development, are probably originated by
+these complex processes, which differ so much from the simple process of
+direct division in the unicellular organisms<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a>.
+In this important respect, therefore, it does at first sight appear that
+we have a distinction between the Protozoa and the Metazoa of so
+pronounced a character, as fairly to raise the question whether
+cell-division is fundamentally identical in unicellular and in
+multicellular organisms.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_113i" id="page_113i">[113i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_130_029.jpg" width="500" height="288" alt="Stages in the division of the ovum
+of a worm." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 29.&mdash;Successive stages in the division of the ovum,
+or egg-cell, of a worm. (After Strasburger.) <i>a</i> to <i>d</i> show the changes
+taking place in the nucleus and surrounding cell-contents, which result
+in the first segmentation of the ovum at <i>e</i>; <i>f</i> and <i>g</i> show a
+repetition of these changes in each of the two resulting cells, leading
+to the second segmentation stage at <i>h</i>.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_114c" id="page_114c">[114c.]</a></span>
+Lastly, the only other distinction of a physiologically significant kind
+between a single cell when it occurs as a Protozo&ouml;n and when it does so
+as the unfertilized ovum of a Metazo&ouml;n is, that in the latter case the
+nucleus discharges from its own substance two minute protoplasmic masses
+("polar bodies"), which are then eliminated from the cell altogether.
+This process, which will be more fully described later on, appears to be
+of invariable occurrence in the case of all egg-cells, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_115" id="page_115">[115]</a></span>
+while nothing resembling it has ever been observed in any of the
+Protozoa.</p>
+
+<p>We must now consider these several points of difference <i>seriatim</i>.</p>
+
+<p>First, with regard to sexual propagation, we have already seen that this
+is by no means the only method of propagation among the multicellular
+organisms; and it now remains to add that, on the other hand, there is,
+to say the least, a suggestive foreshadowing of sexual propagation among
+the unicellular organisms. For although simple binary fission is here
+the more usual mode of multiplication, very frequently two (rarely three
+or more) Protozoa of the same species come together, fuse into a single
+mass, and thus become very literally &ldquo;one flesh.&rdquo; This
+process of &ldquo;conjugation&rdquo; is usually (though by no means
+invariably) followed by a period of quiescent &ldquo;encystation"; after
+which the contents of the cyst escape in the form of a number of minute
+particles, or &ldquo;spores,&rdquo; and these severally develope into
+the parent type. Obviously this process of conjugation, when it is thus
+a preliminary to multiplication, appears to be in its essence the same
+as fertilization. And if it be objected that encystation and
+spore-formation in the Protozoa are not always preceded by conjugation,
+the answer would be that neither is oviparous propagation in the Metazoa
+invariably preceded by fertilization.</p>
+
+<p>Nevertheless, that there are great distinctions between true sexual
+propagation and this foreshadowing of it in conjugation I do not deny.
+The question, however, is whether they be so great as to justify any
+argument against an historical continuity between them. What, then, are
+these remaining <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_116" id="page_116">[116]</a></span>
+distinctions? Briefly, as we have seen, they are the extrusion from
+egg-cells of polar bodies, and the occurrence, both in egg-cells and
+their products (tissue-cells), of the process of karyokinesis. But, as
+regards the polar bodies, it is surely not difficult to suppose that,
+whatever their significance may be, it is probably in some way or
+another connected with the high specialization of the functions which an
+egg-cell has to discharge. Nor is there any difficulty in further
+supposing that, whatever purpose is served by getting rid of polar
+bodies, the process whereby they are got rid of was originally one of
+utilitarian development&mdash;i. e. a process which at its commencement
+did not betoken any difference of kind, or breach of continuity, between
+egg-cells and cells of simpler constitution.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, with respect to karyokinesis, although it is true that the
+microscope has in comparatively recent years displayed this apparently
+important distinction between unicellular and multicellular organisms,
+two considerations have here to be supplied. The first is, that in some
+of the Protozoa processes very much resembling those of karyokinesis
+have already been observed taking place in the nucleus preparatory to
+its division. And although such processes do not present quite the same
+appearances as are to be met with in egg-cells, neither do the
+karyokinetic processes in tissue-cells, which in their sundry kinds
+exhibit great variations in this respect. Moreover, even if such were
+not the case, the bare fact that nuclear division is not invariably of
+the simple or direct character in the case of all Protozoa, is
+sufficient to show that the distinction now before us&mdash;like the one last
+dealt with&mdash;is by no means <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_117" id="page_117">[117]</a></span>
+absolute. As in the case of sexual propagation, so in that of
+karyokinesis, processes which are common to all the Metazoa are not
+wholly without their foreshadowings in the Protozoa. And seeing how
+greatly exalted is the office of egg-cells&mdash;and even of
+tissue-cells&mdash;as compared with that of their supposed ancestry in
+protozoal cells, it seems to me scarcely to be wondered at if their
+specializations of function should be associated with corresponding
+peculiarities of structure&mdash;a general fact which would in no way
+militate against the doctrine of evolution. Could we know the whole
+truth, we should probably find that in order to endow the most primitive
+of egg-cells with its powers of marshalling its products into a living
+army of cell-battalions, such an egg-cell must have been passed through
+a course of developmental specialization of so elaborate a kind, that
+even the complex processes of karyokinesis are but a very inadequate
+expression thereof.</p>
+
+<p>Probably I have now said enough to show that, remarkable and altogether
+exceptional as the properties of germ-cells of the multicellular
+organisms unquestionably show themselves to be, yet when these
+properties are traced back to their simplest beginnings in the
+unicellular organisms, they may fairly be regarded as fundamentally
+identical with the properties of living cells in general. Thus viewed,
+no line of real demarcation can be drawn between growth and
+reproduction, even of the sexual kind. The one process is, so to speak,
+physiologically continuous with the other; and hence, so far as the
+pre-embryonic stage of life-history is concerned, the facts cannot
+fairly be regarded as out of keeping with the theory of evolution.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_118" id="page_118">[118]</a></span>
+I will now pass on to consider the embryogeny of the Metazoa, beginning
+at its earliest stage in the fertilization of the ovum. And here it is
+that the constructive argument in favour of evolution which is derived
+from embryology may be said properly to commence. For it is surely in
+itself a most suggestive fact that all the Metazoa begin their life in
+the same way, or under the same form and conditions. <i>Omne vivum ex
+ovo.</i> This is a formula which has now been found to apply throughout the
+whole range of the multicellular organisms. And seeing, as we have just
+seen, that the ovum is everywhere a single cell, the formula amounts to
+saying that, physiologically speaking, every Metazo&ouml;n begins its life as
+a Protozo&ouml;n, and every Metaphyton as a Protophyton<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if the theory of evolution is true, what should we expect to happen
+when these germ-cells are fertilized, and so enter upon their severally
+distinct processes of development? Assuredly we should expect to find
+that the higher organisms pass through the same phases of development as
+the lower organisms, up to the time when their higher characters begin
+to become apparent. If in the life-history of species these higher
+characters were gained by gradual improvement upon lower characters, and
+if the development of the higher individual is now a general
+recapitulation of that of its ancestral species, in studying this
+recapitulation we should expect to find the higher organism successively
+unfolding its higher characters from the lower ones through which its
+ancestral species had previously passed. And this is just what we do
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_119" id="page_119">[119]</a></span>
+find. Take, for example, the case of the highest organism, Man. Like
+that of all other organisms, unicellular or multicellular, his
+development starts from the nucleus of a single cell. Again, like that
+of all the Metazoa and Metaphyta, his development starts from the
+specially elaborated nucleus of an egg-cell, or a nucleus which has been
+formed by the fusion of a male with a female element<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a>.
+When his animality becomes established, he exhibits the fundamental
+anatomical qualities which characterize such lowly animals as polyps and
+jelly-fish. And even when he is marked off as a Vertebrate, it cannot be
+said whether he is to be a fish, a reptile, a bird, or a beast. Later on
+it becomes evident that he is to be a Mammal; but not till later still
+can it be said to which order of mammals he belongs.</p>
+
+<p>Here, however, we must guard against an error which is frequently met
+with in popular expositions of this subject. It is not true that the
+embryonic phases in the development of a higher form always resemble so
+many adult stages of lower forms. This may or may not be the case; but
+what always is the case <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_120" id="page_120">[120]</a></span>
+is, that the embryonic phases of the higher form resemble the
+corresponding phases of the lower forms. Thus, for example, it would be
+wrong to suppose that at any stage of his development a man resembles a
+jelly-fish. What he does resemble at an early stage of his development
+is the essential or groundplan of the jelly-fish, which that animal
+presents in <i>its</i> embryonic condition, or before it begins to assume its
+more specialized characters fitting it for its own particular sphere of
+life. The similarities, therefore, which it is the function of
+comparative embryology to reveal are the similarities of type or
+morphological plan: not similarities of specific detail. Specific
+details may have been added to this, that, and the other species for
+their own special requirements, after they had severally branched off
+from the common ancestral stem; and so could not be expected to recur in
+the life-history of an independent specific branch. The comparison
+therefore must be a comparison of embryo with embryo; not of embryos
+with adult forms.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>In order to give a general idea of the results thus far yielded by a
+study of comparative embryology in the present connexion, I will devote
+the rest of this chapter to giving an outline sketch of the most
+important and best established of these results.</p>
+
+<p>Histologically the ovum, or egg-cell, is nearly identical in all
+animals, whether vertebrate or invertebrate. Considered as a cell it is
+of large size, but actually it is not more than 1/100, and may be less
+than 1/200 of an inch in diameter. In man, as in most mammals, it is
+about 1/120. It is a more or less spherical body, presenting a thin
+transparent envelope, called <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_121" id="page_121">[121]</a></span>
+the <span class='sn'>zona pellucida</span>, which contains&mdash;first, the protoplasmic
+cell-substance or &ldquo;yolk,&rdquo; within which lies, second, the
+nucleus or germinal vesicle, within which again lies, third, the
+nucleolus or germinal spot. This description is true of the egg-cells of
+all animals, if we add that in the case of the lowest animals&mdash;such
+as sponges, &amp;c.&mdash;there is no enveloping membrane: the egg-cell
+is here a naked cell, and its constituent protoplasm, being thus
+unconfined, is free to perform protoplasmic movements, which it does
+after the manner, and with all the activity, of an am&oelig;ba. But even
+with respect to this matter of an enveloping membrane, there is no
+essential difference between an ovum of the lowest and an ovum of the
+highest animals. For in their early stages of development within the
+ovary the ova of the highest animals are likewise in the condition of
+naked cells, exhibiting am&oelig;biform movements; the enveloping
+membrane of an ovum being the product of a later development.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_123" id="page_123">[123]</a></span>
+Moreover this membrane, when present, is usually provided with one or
+more minute apertures, through which the spermatozo&ouml;n passes when
+fertilizing the ovum. It is remarkable that the spermatozoa know, so to
+speak, of the existence of these gate-ways,&mdash;their snake-like
+movements being directed towards them, presumably by a stimulus due to
+some emanation therefrom<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a>.
+In the mammalian ovum, however, these apertures are exceedingly minute,
+and distributed <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_124" id="page_124">[124]</a></span>
+all round the circumference of the pellucid envelope, as represented in
+this illustration (Fig. 32).</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_121i" id="page_121i">[121i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_138_030.jpg" width="300" height="229" alt="Ovarian ovum of a Mammal." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 30.&mdash;Ovarian ovum of a Mammal, (<i>a</i>) magnified and
+viewed under pressure, (<i>b</i>) burst by increased pressure, with yolk and
+nucleus escaping: (<i>c</i>) the nucleus more freed from yolk-substance.
+(From <i>Quain&rsquo;s Anatomy</i>, after Allen Thomson.)</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_122" id="page_122">[122]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 328px;">
+<img src="images/i_139_031.jpg" width="328" height="500" alt="Am&oelig;boid movements of young egg-cells." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 31.&mdash;Am&oelig;boid movements of young egg-cells, <i>a</i>,
+Am&oelig;boid ovum of <span class='sn'>Hydra</span> (from Balfour, after Kleitnenberg); <i>b</i>, early
+ovum of <span class='sn'>Toxopneustes variegatus</span>, with pseudopodia-like processes (from
+Balfour, after Selenka); <i>c</i>, ovum of <span class='sn'>Toxopneustes lividus</span>, more nearly
+ripe (from Balfour, Hertwig). A1 to A4, the primitive egg-cell of a
+Chalk-Sponge (<span class='sn'>Leuculmis echinus</span>), in four successive conditions of
+motion. B1 to B8, ditto of a Hermit-Crab (<span class='sn'>Chondracanthus cornutus</span>), in
+eight successive stages (after E. von Beneden). C1 to C5, ditto of a
+Cat, in five successive stages (after Pfl&uuml;ger). D, ditto of Trout; E, of
+a Hen; F, of Man. The first series is taken from the <i>Encycl. Brit.</i>;
+the second from H&auml;ckel&rsquo;s <i>Evolution of Man</i>.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_123i" id="page_123i">[123i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_140_032.jpg" width="400" height="401" alt="Human ovum, mature and greatly magnified." title="" />
+<div class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 32.&mdash;Human ovum, mature and greatly magnified.
+(After H&auml;ckel.)</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_124c" id="page_124c">[124c.]</a></span>
+In thus saying that the ova of all animals are, so far as microscopes
+can reveal, <i>substantially</i> similar, I am of course speaking of the
+egg-cell proper, and not of what is popularly known as the egg. The egg
+of a bird, for example, is the egg-cell, <i>plus</i> an enormous aggregation
+of nutritive material, an egg-shell, and sundry other structures suited
+to the subsequent development of the egg-cell when separated from the
+parent&rsquo;s body. But all these accessories are, from our present
+point of view, accidental or adventitious. What we have now to
+understand by the ovum, the egg, or the egg-cell, is the microscopical
+germ which I have just described. So far then as this germ is concerned,
+we find that all multicellular organisms begin their existence in the
+same kind of structure, and that this structure is anatomically
+indistinguishable from that of the permanent form presented by the
+lowest, or unicellular organisms. But although anatomically
+indistinguishable, physiologically they present the sundry peculiarities
+already mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>Now I have endeavoured to show that none of these peculiarities are such
+as to exclude&mdash;or even so much as to invalidate&mdash;the supposition of
+developmental continuity between the lowest egg-cells and the highest
+protozoal cells. It remains to show in this place, and on the other
+hand, that there is no breach of continuity between the lowest and the
+highest egg-cells; but, on the contrary, that the remarkable uniformity
+of the complex processes whereby their peculiar characters are exhibited
+to the histologist, is such as of itself to sustain the doctrine of
+continuity <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_125" id="page_125">[125]</a></span>
+in a singularly forcible manner. On this account, therefore, and also
+because the facts will again have to be considered in another connexion
+when we come to deal with Weismann&rsquo;s theory of heredity, I will
+here briefly describe the processes in question.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_142_033.jpg" width="500" height="293" alt="Polar bodies in
+the ovum of a star-fish." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 33.&mdash;Stages in the formation of the polar bodies in
+the ovum of a star-fish. (After Hertwig.) <i>g.v.</i>, germinal vesicle
+transformed into a spindle-shaped system of fibres; <i>p.</i>&#8242;, the first
+polar body becoming extruded; <i>p.</i>, <i>p.</i>, both polar bodies fully
+extruded; <i>f. pn.</i>, female pronucleus, or residue of the germinal
+vesicle.</div></div>
+
+<p>We have already seen that the young egg-cell multiplies itself by simple
+binary division, after the manner of unicellular organisms in
+general&mdash;thereby indicating, as also by its am&oelig;biform movements, its
+fundamental identity with such organisms in kind. But, as we have
+likewise seen, when the ovum ceases to resemble these organisms, by
+taking on its higher degree of functional capacity, it is no longer able
+to multiply itself in this manner. On the contrary, its cell-divisions
+are now of an endogenous character, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_126" id="page_126">[126]</a></span>
+and result in the formation of many different kinds of cells, in the
+order required for constructing the multicellular organism to which the
+whole series of processes eventually give rise. We have now to consider
+these processes <i>seriatim</i>.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_143_034.jpg" width="500" height="241" alt="Fertilization of the ovum of an echinoderm." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 34.&mdash;Fertilization of the ovum of an echinoderm.
+(From <i>Quain&rsquo;s Anatomy</i>, after Selenka.) S, spermatozo&ouml;n; <i>m.
+pr.</i>, male pronucleus; <i>f. pr.</i>, female pronucleus. 1 to 4 correspond to
+D to G in the next figure.</div></div>
+
+<p>First of all the nucleus discharges its polar bodies, as previously
+mentioned, and in the manner here depicted on the previous page. (Fig.
+33.) It will be observed that the nucleus of the ovum, or the germinal
+vesicle as it is called, gets rid first of one and afterwards of the
+other polar body by an &ldquo;indirect,&rdquo; or karyokinetic, process
+of division. (Fig. 33.) Extrusion of these bodies from the ovum (or it
+may be only from the nucleus) having been accomplished, what remains of
+the nucleus retires from the circumference of the ovum, and is called
+the female pronucleus. (Fig. 33. <i>f. pn.</i>) The ovum is now ready for
+fertilization. A similar emission of nuclear substance is said by some
+good <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_127" id="page_127">[127]</a></span>
+observers to take place also from the male germ-cell, or
+spermatozo&ouml;n, at or about the close of <i>its</i> development. The
+theories to which these facts have given rise will be considered in
+future chapters on Heredity.</p>
+
+<p>Turning now to the mechanism of fertilization, the diagrams (Figs. 34,
+35) represent what happens in the case of star-fish.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 450px;">
+<img src="images/i_144_035.jpg" width="450" height="147" alt="Fertilization of the ovum of a star-fish." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 35.&mdash;Fertilization of the ovum of a star-fish. (From
+the <i>Encycl. Brit.</i> after Fol.) A, spermatozoa in the mucilaginous coat
+of the ovum; a prominence is rising from the surface of the ovum towards
+a spermatozo&ouml;n; B, they have almost met; C, they have met; D, the
+spermatozo&ouml;n enters the ovum through a distinct opening; H, the entire
+ovum, showing extruded polar bodies on its upper surface, and the moving
+together of the male and female pronuclei; E, F, G, meeting and
+coalescence of the pronuclei.</div></div>
+
+<p>The sperm-cell, or spermatozo&ouml;n, is seen in the act of penetrating the
+ovum. In the first figure it has already pierced the mucilaginous coat
+of the ovum, the limit of which is represented by a line through which
+the tail of the spermatozo&ouml;n is passing: the head of the spermatozo&ouml;n is
+just entering the ovum proper. It may be noted that, in the case of many
+animals, the general protoplasm of the ovum becomes aware, so to speak,
+of the approach of a spermatozo&ouml;n, and sends up a process to meet it.
+(Fig. 35, A, B, C.) Several&mdash;or even many&mdash;spermatozoa may thus enter
+the coat of the ovum; but normally only one proceeds further, or right
+into the substance of the ovum, for the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_128" id="page_128">[128]</a></span>
+purpose of effecting fertilization. This spermatozo&ouml;n, as soon as
+it enters the periphery of the yolk, or cell-substance proper, sets up a
+series of remarkable phenomena. First, its own head rapidly increases in
+size, and takes on the appearance of a cell-nucleus: this is called the
+male pronucleus. At the same time its tail begins to disappear, and the
+enlarged head proceeds to make its way directly towards the nucleus of
+the ovum which, as before stated, is now called the female pronucleus.
+The latter in its turn moves towards the former, and when the two meet
+they fuse into one mass, forming a new nucleus. Before the two actually
+meet, the spermatozo&ouml;n has lost its tail altogether; and it is
+noteworthy that during its passage through the protoplasmic
+cell-contents of the ovum, it appears to exercise upon this protoplasm
+an attractive influence; for the granules of the latter in its vicinity
+dispose themselves around it in radiating lines. All these various
+phenomena are depicted in the above wood-cuts. (Figs. 34, 35.)</p>
+
+<p>Fertilization having been thus effected by fusion of the male and female
+pronuclei into a single (or new) nucleus, this latter body proceeds to
+exhibit complicated processes of karyokinesis, which, as before shown,
+are preliminary to nuclear division in the case of egg-cells. Indeed the
+karyokinetic process may begin in both the pronuclei before their
+junction is effected; and, even when their junction is effected, it does
+not appear that complete fusion of the so-called chromatin elements of
+the two pronuclei takes place. For the purpose of explaining what this
+means, and still more for the purpose of giving a general idea of the
+karyokinetic processes as a whole,<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_129" id="page_129">[129]</a></span>
+I will quote the following description of them, because, for terseness
+combined with lucidity, it is unsurpassable.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 450px;">
+<img src="images/i_146_036.jpg" width="450" height="293" alt="Karyokinesis of a typical tissue-cell
+(epithelium of Salamander)." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 36.&mdash;Karyokinesis of a typical tissue-cell
+(epithelium of Salamander). (After Flemming and Klein.) The series from
+A to I represents the successive stages in the movement of the chromatin
+fibres during division, excepting G, which represents the
+&ldquo;nucleus-spindle&rdquo; of an egg-cell. A, resting nucleus; D,
+wreath-form; E, single star, the loops of the wreath being broken; F,
+separation of the star into two groups of U-shaped fibres; H, diaster or
+double star; I, completion of the cell-division and formation of two
+resting nuclei. In G the chromatin fibres are marked <i>a</i>, and correspond
+to the &ldquo;equatorial plate&quot;; <i>b</i>, achromatin fibres forming the
+nucleus-spindle; <i>c</i>, granules of the cell-protoplasm forming a
+&ldquo;polar star.&rdquo; Such a polar star is seen at each end of the
+nucleus-spindle, and is not to be confused with the diaster H, the two
+ends of which are composed of <span class='sn'>chromatin</span>.</div></div>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Researches, chiefly due to Flemming, have shown that the nucleus in
+very many tissues of higher plants and animals consists of a
+capsule containing a plasma of &ldquo;achromatin,&rdquo; not deeply
+stained by re-agents, ramifying in which is a reticulum of
+&ldquo;chromatin&rdquo; consisting of fibres which readily take a
+deep stain. (Fig. 36, A). Further it is demonstrated that, when the
+cell is about to divide into two, definite and very remarkable
+movements take place in the nucleus, resulting in the disappearance
+of the capsule and in the arrangement of its fibres first in the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_130" id="page_130">[130]</a></span>
+form of a wreath (D), and subsequently (by the breaking of the loops
+formed by the fibres) in the form of a star (E). A further movement
+within the nucleus leads to an arrangement of the broken loops in two
+groups (F), the position of the open ends of the broken loops being
+reversed as compared with what previously obtained. Now the two groups
+diverge, and in many cases a striated appearance of the achromatin
+substance between the two groups of chromatin loops is observable (H).
+In some cases (especially egg-cells) this striated arrangement of the
+achromatin is then termed a &ldquo;nucleus-spindle,&rdquo; and the group
+of chromatin loops (G, <i>a</i>) is known as &ldquo;the equatorial
+plate.&rdquo; At each end of the nucleus-spindle in these cases there is
+often seen a star consisting of granules belonging to the general
+protoplasm of the cell (G, <i>c</i>). These are known as &ldquo;polar
+stars.&rdquo; After the separation of the two sets of loops (H) the
+protoplasm of the general substance of the cell becomes constricted, and
+division occurs, so as to include a group of chromatin loops in each of
+the two fission products. Each of these then rearranges itself together
+with the associated chromatin into a nucleus such as was present in the
+mother cell to commence with (I)<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Since the above was published, however, further progress has been made.
+In particular it has been found that the chromatin fibres pass from
+phase D to phase F by a process of longitudinal splitting (Fig. 37 <i>g</i>,
+<i>h</i>; Fig. 38, VI, VII)&mdash;which is a point of great importance for
+Weismann&rsquo;s theory of heredity,&mdash;and that the protoplasm outside
+the nucleus seems to take as important a part in the karyokinetic
+process as does the nuclear substance. For the so-called
+&ldquo;attraction-spheres&rdquo; (Fig. 38 II <i>a</i>, III, III <i>a</i>, VIII to
+XII), which were at first supposed to be of subordinate importance in
+the process as a whole, are now known to take an exceedingly active part
+in it (see especially IX to XI). Lastly, it may be added that there is a
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_134" id="page_134">[134]</a></span>
+growing consensus of authoritative opinion, that the chromatin
+fibres are the seats of the material of heredity, or, in other words,
+that they contain those essential elements of the cell which endow the
+daughter-cells with their distinctive characters. Therefore, where the
+parent-cell is an ovum, it follows from this view that all hereditary
+qualities of the future organism are potentially present in the
+ultra-microscopical structure of the chromatin fibres.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_131" id="page_131">[131]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 469px;">
+<img src="images/i_148_037.jpg" width="469" height="500" alt="Successive changes in the
+nucleus of an epithelium cell, preparatory to division of the cell." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 37.&mdash;Study of successive changes taking place in the
+nucleus of an epithelium cell, preparatory to division of the cell.
+(From <i>Quain&rsquo;s Anatomy</i>, after Flemming.) <i>a</i>, resting cell,
+showing the nuclear network; <i>b</i>, first stage of division, the
+chromatoplasm transformed into a skein of closely contorted filaments;
+<i>c</i> to <i>f</i>, further stages in the growth and looping arrangement of the
+filaments; <i>g</i>, stellate phase, or aster; <i>h</i>, completion of the
+splitting of the filaments, already begun in <i>f</i> and <i>g</i>; <i>i</i>, <i>j</i>, <i>k</i>,
+successive stages in separation of the filaments into two groups; <i>l</i>,
+the final result of this (diaster); <i>m</i> to <i>q</i>, stages in the division
+of the whole cell into two, showing increasing contortion of the
+filaments, until they reach the resting stage at <i>q</i>.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_132" id="page_132">[132]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 438px;">
+<img src="images/i_149_038a.jpg" width="438" height="500" alt="Formation and conjugation of the pronuclei in
+Ascaris megalocephala." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><p class='hi'><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 38.&mdash;Formation and conjugation of the pronuclei in
+<span class='sn'>Ascaris megalocephala</span>. (From <i>Quain&rsquo;s Anatomy</i>, after E. von
+Beneden.) <i>f</i>, female pronucleus; <i>m</i>, male pronucleus; <i>p</i>, one of the
+polar bodies.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>I. The second polar body has just been extruded; both male and female
+pronuclei contain two chromatin particles; those of the male pronucleus
+are becoming transformed into a skein. II. The chromatin in both
+pronuclei now forms into a skein.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>II <i>a</i>. The skeins are more distinct. Two attraction (or protoplasmic)
+spheres, each with a central particle united with a small spindle of
+achromatic fibres, have made their appearance in the general substance
+of the egg close to the mutually approaching pronuclei. The male
+pronucleus has the remains of the body of the spermatozo&ouml;n adhering to
+it.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>III. Only the female pronucleus is shown in this figure. The skein is
+contracted and thickened. The attraction-spheres are near one side of
+the ovum, and are connected with its periphery by a cone of fibres
+forming a polar circle, <i>p.c.</i>; <i>e.c.</i>, equatorial circle.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>III <i>a</i>. The pronuclei have come into contact, and the spindle-system is
+now arranged across their common axis.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>IV. Contraction of the skein, and formation of two U-or V-shaped
+chromatin fibres in each pronucleus.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>V. The V-shaped chromatin filaments are now quite distinct: the male and
+female pronuclei are in close contact.</p></div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_133" id="page_133">[133]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_150_038b.jpg" width="500" height="411" alt="Previous figure continued." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><p class='hi'>VI., VII. The V-shaped filaments are splitting longitudinally; their
+structure of fine granules of chromatin is apparent in VII., which is
+more highly magnified. The conjugation of the pronuclei is apparently
+complete in VII. The attraction-spheres and achromatic spindle, although
+present, are not depicted in IV., V., VI., and VII.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>VIII. Equatorial arrangement of the four chromatin loops in the middle
+of the now segmenting ovum: the achromatic substance forming a
+spindle-shaped system of granules with fibres radiating from the poles
+of the spindle (attraction-spheres); the chromatin forms an equatorial
+plate. (Compare Fig. 36 G.)</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>IX. Shows diagrammatically the commencing separation of the chromatin
+fibres of the conjugated nuclei, and the system of fibres radiating from
+the attraction-spheres. (Compare again Fig. 36 G.) <i>p.c.</i>, polar circle;
+<i>e.c.</i>, equatorial circle; <i>c.c.</i>, central particle.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>X. Further separation of the chromatin filaments. Each of the central
+particles of the attraction-spheres has divided into two.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>XI. The chromatin fibres are becoming developed into the skeins of the
+two daughter-nuclei. These are still united by fibres of achromatin. The
+general protoplasm of the ovum is becoming divided.</p>
+
+<p class='hi'>XII. The two daughter-nuclei exhibit a chromatin network. Each of the
+attraction-spheres has divided into two, which are joined by fibres of
+achromatin, and connected with the periphery of the cell in the same way
+as in the original or parent sphere, III.</p></div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_134c" id="page_134c">[134c.]</a></span>
+As I shall have more to say about these processes in the next volume,
+when we shall see the important part which they bear in Weismann&rsquo;s
+theory of heredity, it is with a double purpose that I here introduce
+these yet further illustrations of them upon a somewhat larger scale.
+The present purpose is merely that of showing, more clearly than
+hitherto, the great complexity of these processes on the one hand, and,
+on the other, the general similarity which they display in egg-cells and
+in tissue-cells. But as in relation to this purpose the illustrations
+speak for themselves, I may now pass on at once to the history of
+embryonic development, which follows fertilization of the ovum.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>We have seen that when the new nucleus of the fertilized ovum (which is
+formed by a coalescence of the male pronucleus with the female) has
+completed its karyokinetic processes, it is divided into two equal
+parts; that these are disposed at opposite poles of the ovum; and that
+the whole contents of the ovum are thereupon likewise divided into two
+equal parts, with the result that there are now two nucleated cells
+within the spherical wall of the ovum where before there had only been
+one. Moreover, we have also seen that a <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_135" id="page_135">[135]</a></span>
+precisely similar series of events repeat themselves in each of these
+two cells, thus giving rise to four cells (see Fig. 29). It must now be
+added that such duplication is continued time after time, as shown in
+the accompanying illustrations (Figs. 39, 40).</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_152_039.jpg" width="500" height="157" alt="Segmentation of ovum." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 39.&mdash;Segmentation of ovum. (After H&auml;ckel.)
+Successive stages are marked by the letters A, B, C. D represents
+several stages in advance of C.</div></div>
+
+<p>All<span class="figright" style="width: 150px;">
+<img src="images/i_152_040.jpg" width="150" height="157" alt="The contents of an ovum in an advanced stage of
+segmentation." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 40.&mdash;The contents of an ovum in an advanced stage of
+segmentation, drawn in perspective. (After H&auml;ckel.)</span></span>
+this, it will be noticed, is a case of cell-multiplication, which
+differs from that which takes place in the unicellular organisms only in
+its being <i>invariably</i> preceded (as far as we know) by karyokinesis, and
+in the resulting cells being all confined within a common envelope, and
+so in not being free to separate. Nevertheless, from what has already
+been said, it will also be noticed that this feature makes all the
+difference between a Metazo&ouml;n and a Protozo&ouml;n; so that already the ovum
+presents the distinguishing character of a Metazo&ouml;n.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_136" id="page_136">[136]</a></span>
+I have dealt thus at considerable length upon the processes whereby the
+originally unicellular ovum and spermatozo&ouml;n become converted into the
+multicellular germ, because I do not know of any other exposition of the
+argument from Embryology where this, the first stage of the argument,
+has been adequately treated. Yet it is evident that the fact of all the
+processes above described being so similar in the case of sexual (or
+metazoal) reproduction among the innumerable organisms where it occurs,
+constitutes in itself a strong argument in favour of evolution. For the
+mechanism of fertilization, and all the processes which even thus far we
+have seen to follow therefrom, are hereby shown to be not only highly
+complex, but likewise highly specialized. Therefore, the remarkable
+similarity which they present throughout the whole animal kingdom&mdash;not
+to speak of the vegetable&mdash;is expressive of organic continuity, rather
+than of absolute discontinuity in every case, as the theory of special
+creation must necessarily suppose. And it is evident that this argument
+is strong in proportion to the uniformity, the specialization, and the
+complexity of the processes in question.</p>
+
+<p>Having occupied so much space with supplying what appear to me the
+deficiencies in previous expositions of the argument from Embryology, I
+can now afford to take only a very general view of the more important
+features of this argument as they are successively furnished by all the
+later stages of individual development. But this is of little
+consequence, seeing that from the point at which we have now arrived
+previous expositions of the argument are both good and numerous. The
+following then is to be regarded as a mere sketch <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_137" id="page_137">[137]</a></span>
+Of the evidences of phyletic (or ancestral) evolution, which are so
+abundantly furnished by all the subsequent phases of ontogenetic (or
+individual) evolution.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_154_041.jpg" width="500" height="313" alt="Formation of the gastrula of Amphioxus." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 41.&mdash;Formation of the gastrula of <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>. (After
+Kowalevsky.) A, wall of the ovum, composed of a single layer of cells;
+B, a stage in the process of gastrulation; C, completion of the process;
+S, original or segmentation cavity of ovum; <i>al</i>, alimentary cavity of
+gastrula; <i>ect</i>, outer layer of cells; <i>ent</i>, inner layer of cells; <i>b</i>,
+orifice, constituting the mouth in permanent forms.</div></div>
+
+<p>The multicellular body which is formed by the series of segmentations
+above described is at first a sphere of cells (Fig. 40). Soon, however,
+a watery fluid gathers in the centre, and progressively pushes the cells
+towards the circumference, until they there constitute a single layer.
+The ovum, therefore, is now in the form of a hollow sphere containing
+fluid, confined within a continuous wall of cells (Fig. 41 A). The next
+thing that happens is a pitting in of one portion of the sphere (B). The
+pit becomes deeper and deeper, until there is a complete invagination of
+this part of the sphere&mdash;the cells which constitute it being
+progressively <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_138" id="page_138">[138]</a></span>
+pushed inwards until they come into contact with those at the opposite
+pole of the ovum. Consequently, instead of a hollow sphere of cells, the
+ovum now becomes an open sac, the walls of which are composed of a
+double layer of cells (C). The ovum is now what has been called a
+gastrula; and it is of importance to observe that probably all the
+Metazoa pass through <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_139" id="page_139">[139]</a></span>
+this stage. At any rate it has been found to occur in all the main
+divisions of the animal kingdom, as a glance at the accompanying figures
+will serve to show (Fig. 42)<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>.
+Moreover many of the lower kinds of Metazoa never pass beyond it; but
+are all their lives nothing else than gastrul&aelig;, wherein the
+orifice becomes the mouth of the animal, the internal or invaginated
+layer of cells the stomach, and the outer layer the skin. So that if we
+take a child&rsquo;s india-rubber ball, of the hollow <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_140" id="page_140">[140]</a></span>
+kind with a hole in it, and push in one side with our fingers till
+internal contact is established all round, by then holding the indented
+side downwards we should get a very fair anatomical model of a
+gastr&aelig;a form, such as is presented by the adult condition of many
+of the most primitive Metazoa&mdash;especially the lower <span class='sn'>C&oelig;lenterata</span>.
+The preceding figures represent two <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_141" id="page_141">[141]</a></span>
+other such forms in nature, the first locomotive and transitory, the
+second fixed and permanent (Figs. 43, 44).</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_138i" id="page_138i">[138i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_155_042.jpg" width="500" height="416" alt="Gastrulation." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 42.&mdash;Gastrulation. A, Gastrula of a Zoophyte (<span
+class='sn'>Gastrophysema</span>). (After H&auml;ckel.) B, Gastrula of a Worm (<span
+class='sn'>Sagitta</span>). (After Kowalevsky.) C, Gastrula of an Echinoderm
+(<span class='sn'>Uraster</span>). (After A. Agassiz.) D, Gastrula of an Arthropod (<span class='sn'>Nauplius</span>).
+(After H&auml;ckel.) E, Gastrula of a Mollusk (<span class='sn'>Limn�us</span>). (After Rabl.) F, Gastrula of a Vertebrate (<span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>). (After Kowalevsky.) In all, <i>d</i>,
+indicates the intestinal cavity; <i>o</i>, the primitive mouth; <i>s</i>, the
+cleavage-cavity; <i>i</i>, the endoderm, or intestinal layer; <i>e</i>, the
+ectoderm or skin-layer.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_139i" id="page_139i">[139i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_156_043.jpg" width="500" height="289" alt="Gastrula of a Chalk Sponge." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 43.&mdash;Gastrula of a Chalk Sponge. (After H&auml;ckel.) A,
+External view. B, Longitudinal section. <i>g</i>, digestive cavities; <i>o</i>,
+mouth; <i>i</i>, endoderm; <i>e</i>, ectoderm.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_140i" id="page_140i">[140i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 411px;">
+<img src="images/i_157_044.jpg" width="411" height="500" alt="Prophysema primordiale, an extant gastr&aelig;a-form." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 44.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Prophysema primordiale</span>, an extant gastr&aelig;a-form.
+(After H&auml;ckel.) (A). External view of the whole animal, attached by its
+foot to seaweed. (B). Longitudinal section of the same. The digestive
+cavity (<i>d</i>) opens at its upper end in the mouth (<i>m</i>). Among the cells
+of the endoderm (<i>g</i>) lie am&oelig;boid egg-cells of large size (<i>e</i>). The
+ectoderm (<i>h</i>) is encrusted with grains of sand, above the sponge
+spicules.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_141c" id="page_141c">[141c.]</a></span>
+Here, then, we leave the lower forms of Metazoa in their condition of
+permanent gastrul&aelig;. They differ from the transitory stage of other
+Metazoa only in being enormously larger (owing to greatly further
+<i>growth</i>, without any further <i>development</i> as to matters of fundamental
+importance), and in having sundry tentacles and other organs added later
+on to meet their special requirements. The point to remember is, that in
+all cases a gastrula is an open sac composed of two layers of cells&mdash;the
+outer layer being called the ectoderm, and the inner the endoderm. They
+have also been called the animal layer and the vegetative layer, because
+it is the outer layer (ectoderm) that gives rise to all the organs of
+sensation and movement&mdash;viz. the skin, the nervous system, and the
+muscular system; while it is the inner layer (endoderm) that gives rise
+to all the organs of nutrition and reproduction. It is desirable only
+further to explain that gastrulation does not take place in all the
+Metazoa after exactly the same plan. In different lines of descent
+various and often considerable modifications of the original and most
+simple plan have been introduced; but I will not burden the present
+exposition by describing these modifications<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>.
+It is enough for us that they always end in the formation of the two
+primary layers of ectoderm and endoderm.</p>
+
+<p>The next stage of differentiation is common to all the Metazoa, except
+those lowest forms which, as we <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_142" id="page_142">[142]</a></span>
+Have just seen, remain permanently as large gastrul&aelig;, with sundry
+specialized additions in the way of tentacles, &amp;c. This stage of
+differentiation consists in the formation of either a pouch or an
+additional layer between the ectoderm and the endoderm, which is called
+the mesoderm. It is probably in most cases derived from the endoderm,
+but the exact mode of its derivation is still somewhat obscure.
+sometimes it has the appearance of itself constituting two layers; but
+it is needless to go into these details; for in any case the ultimate
+result is the same&mdash;viz. that of converting the metazo&ouml;n into
+the form of a tube, the walls of which are composed of concentric layers
+of cells. The outermost layer afterwards gives rise to the epidermis
+with its various appendages, and also to the central nervous system with
+its organs of special sense. The median layer gives rise to the
+voluntary muscles, bones, cartilages, &amp;c., the nutritive systems of
+the blood, the chyle, the lymph, and the muscular tube of the intestine.
+lastly, the innermost layer developes into the epithelium lining of the
+intestine, with its various appendages of liver, lungs, intestinal
+glands, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>I have just said that this three or four layered stage is shared by all
+the Metazoa, except those very lowest forms&mdash;such as sponges and
+jelly-fish&mdash;which do not pass on to it. But from this point the
+developmental histories of all the main branches of the Metazoa
+diverge&mdash;the Vermes, the Echinodermata, the Mollusca, the Articulata,
+and the Vertebrata, each taking a different road in their subsequent
+evolution. I will therefore confine attention to only one of these
+several roads or methods, namely, that which is <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_143" id="page_143">[143]</a></span>
+followed by the Vertebrata&mdash;observing merely that, if space
+permitted, the same principles of progressive though diverging histories
+of evolution would equally well admit of being traced in all the other
+sub-kingdoms which have just been named.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_160_045.jpg" width="500" height="170" alt="Ideal primitive vertebrate, seen from the left side." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 45.&mdash;Ideal primitive vertebrate, seen from the left
+side. (After H&auml;ckel.) <i>na</i>, nose; <i>au</i>, eye; <i>g</i>, ear; <i>md</i>, mouth; <i>ks</i>,
+gill-openings; <i>x</i>, notochord; <i>mr</i>, spinal tube; <i>kg</i>, gill-vessels;
+<i>k</i>, gill-intestine; <i>hz</i>, heart; <i>ms</i>, muscles; <i>ma</i>, stomach; <i>v</i>,
+intestinal vein; <i>c</i>, body-cavity; <i>a</i>, aorta; <i>l</i>, liver; <i>d</i>, small
+intestine; <i>e</i>, ovary; <i>h</i>, testes; <i>n</i>, kidney canal; <i>af</i>, anus; <i>lh</i>,
+true or leather-skin; <i>oh</i>, outer-skin (epidermis); <i>f</i>, skin-fold,
+acting as a fin.</div></div>
+
+<p>In order to trace these principles in the case of the Vertebrata, it is
+desirable first of all to obtain an idea of the anatomical features
+which most essentially distinguish the sub-kingdom as a whole.
+<span class="figleft" style="width: 169px;">
+<img src="images/i_161_046.jpg" width="169" height="179" alt="Fig. 46.&mdash;The same in transverse section through the
+ovaries; lettering as in the preceding Fig." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 46.&mdash;The same in transverse section through the
+ovaries; lettering as in the preceding Fig.</span></span>
+The following, then, is what may be termed the ideal plan of vertebrate
+organization, as given by Prof. H&auml;ckel. First, occupying the major
+axis of body we perceive the primitive vertebral column. The parts lying
+above this axis are those which have been developed from the ectoderm
+and mesoderm&mdash;viz. voluntary muscles, central nervous system, and
+organs of special sense. The parts lying below this axis are for the
+most part those which have been developed from the
+endoderm&mdash;namely, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_144" id="page_144">[144]</a></span>
+the digestive tract with its glandular appendages, the circulating
+system and the respiratory system. In transverse section, therefore, the
+ideal vertebrate consists of a solid axis, with a small tube occupied by
+the nervous system above, and a large tube, or body-cavity, below. This
+body-cavity contains the viscera, breathing organs, and heart, with its
+prolongations into the main blood-vessels of the organism. Lastly, on
+either side of the central axis are to be found large masses of
+muscle&mdash;two on the dorsal and two on the ventral. As yet, however,
+there are no limbs, nor even any bony skeleton, for the primitive
+vertebral column is hitherto unossified cartilage. This ideal animal,
+therefore, is to all appearance as much like a worm as a fish, and swims
+by means of a lateral undulation of its whole body, assisted, perhaps,
+by a dorsal fin formed out of skin.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_145" id="page_145">[145]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_162_047.jpg" width="600" height="136" alt="Amphioxus lanceolatus." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 47.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Amphioxus lanceolatus</span>. (After H&auml;ckel.) <i>a</i>,
+anus; <i>au</i>, eye; <i>b</i>, ventral muscles; <i>c</i>, body-cavity; <i>ch</i>,
+notochord; <i>d</i>, intestine; <i>do</i> and <i>du</i>, dorsal and ventral walls of
+intestine; <i>f</i>, fin-seam; <i>h</i>, skin; <i>k</i>, gills; <i>ka</i>, gill-artery;
+<i>lb</i>, liver; <i>lv</i>, liver-vein; <i>m 1</i>, brain-bladder; <i>m 2</i>, spinal
+marrow; <i>mg</i>, stomach; <i>o</i>, mouth; <i>p</i>, ventral pore; <i>r</i>, dorsal
+muscle; <i>s</i>, tail-fin; <i>t</i>, aorta; <i>v</i>, intestinal vein; <i>x</i>, boundary
+between gill-intestine and stomach-intestine; <i>y</i>, hypobranchial
+groove.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_144c" id="page_144c">[144c.]</a></span>
+Now I should not have presented this ideal representation of a primitive
+vertebrate&mdash;for I have very little faith in the &ldquo;scientific use of
+the imagination&rdquo; where it aspires to discharge the functions of a
+Creator in the manufacture of archetypal forms&mdash;I say I should not have
+presented this ideal representative of a primitive vertebrate, were it
+not that the ideal is actually realized in a still existing animal. For
+there still survives what must be an immensely archaic form of
+vertebrate, whose anatomy is almost identical with that of the imaginary
+type which has just been <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_146" id="page_146">[146]</a></span>
+described. I allude, of course, to <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>, which is by far the most
+primitive or generalized type of vertebrated animal hitherto discovered.
+Indeed, we may say that this remarkable creature is almost as nearly
+allied to a worm as it is to a fish. For it has no specialized head, and
+therefore no skull, brain, or jaws: it is destitute alike of limbs, of a
+centralized heart, of developed liver, kidneys, and, in short, of most
+of the organs which belong to the other Vertebrata. It presents,
+however, a rudimentary backbone, in the form of what is called a
+notochord. Now a primitive dorsal axis of this kind occurs at a very
+early period of embryonic life in all vertebrated animals; but, with the
+exception of <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>, in all other existing Vertebrata this structure
+is not itself destined to become the permanent or bony vertebral column.
+On the contrary, it gives way to, or is replaced by, this permanent bony
+structure at a later stage of development. Consequently, it is very
+suggestive that so distinctively embryonic a structure as this temporary
+cartilaginous axis of all the other known Vertebrata should be found
+actually persisting to the present day as the permanent axis of <span
+class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>. In many other respects, likewise, the early
+embryonic history of other Vertebrata refers us to the permanent
+condition of <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>. In particular, we must notice that the wall of
+the neck is always perforated by what in <span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span> are the
+gill-openings, and that the blood-vessels as they proceed from the heart
+are always distributed in the form of what are called gill-arches,
+adapted to convey the blood round or through the gills for the purpose
+of aeration. In all existing fish and other gill-breathing Vertebrata,
+this <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_147" id="page_147">[147]</a></span>
+arrangement is permanent. It is likewise met with in a peculiar kind of
+worm, called <span class='sn'>Balanoglossus</span>&mdash;a creature so peculiar, indeed, that it
+has been constituted by Gegenbaur a class all by itself. We can see by
+the wood-cuts that it presents a series of gill-slits, like the
+homologous parts of the fishes with which it is compared&mdash;i. e.
+fishes of a comparatively low type of organization, which dates from a
+time before the development of external gills. (Figs. 48, 49, 50.) Now,
+as I have already said, these gill-<i>slits</i> are supported internally by
+the gill-<i>arches</i>, or the blood-vessels which convey the blood to be
+oxygenized in the branchial apparatus (see below, Figs. 51, 52, 53); and
+the whole arrangement is developed from the anterior part of the
+intestine&mdash;as is likewise the respiratory mechanism of all the
+gill-breathing Vertebrata. That so close a parallel to this peculiar
+mechanism should be met with in a worm, is a strong additional piece of
+evidence pointing to the derivation of the Vertebrata from the Vermes.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_148" id="page_148">[148]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_165_048.jpg" width="600" height="163" alt="Balanoglossus." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 48.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Balanoglossus</span>. (After A. Agassiz.) <i>r</i>,
+proboscis; <i>h</i>, collar; <i>k</i>, gill-slits; <i>d</i>, digestive posterior
+intestine; <i>v</i>, intestinal vessel; <i>a</i>, anus.</span></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_165_049.jpg" width="600" height="80" alt="A large Sea-lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)" title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 49.&mdash;A large Sea-lamprey (<span class='sn'>Petromyzon marinus</span>), much
+reduced in size. (After Cuvier and H&auml;ckel.) A series of seven gill-slits
+are visible.</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_149" id="page_149">[149]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 600px;">
+<img src="images/i_166_050.jpg" width="600" height="216" alt="Adult Shark (Carcharias melanopterus)." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 50&mdash;Adult Shark (<span class='sn'>Carcharias melanopterus</span>). (After
+Cuvier and H&auml;ckel.)</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_150" id="page_150">[150]</a></p>
+<div class='center'><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_167_051.jpg" width="200" height="298" alt="Heart and gill-arches of a fish." title="" />
+<div class='captionh'><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 51.&mdash;Diagram of heart and gill-arches of a fish.
+(After Owen.)</div></div></td>
+<td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_167_052.jpg" width="200" height="245" alt="One gill-arch, with branchial fringe attached." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 52.&mdash;One gill-arch, with branchial fringe attached.
+(After Owen.) H, Heart.</div></div></td>
+<td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_167_053.jpg" width="200" height="357" alt="Heart and gill-arches in a lizard." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 53.&mdash;Diagram of heart and gill-arches in a lizard.
+(After Owen.) The gill-arches, <i>a a' a''</i>, and <i>b b' b''</i>, are called
+aortic arches in air-breathing vertebrata.</div></div></td></tr></table></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_147c" id="page_147c">[147c.]</a></span>
+Well, I have just said that in all the gill-breathing Vertebrata, this
+mechanism of gill-slits and vascular gill-arches in the front part of
+the intestinal tract is permanent. But in the air-breathing Vertebrata
+such an arrangement would obviously be of no use. Consequently, the
+gill-slits in the sides of the neck (see Figs. 16 and 57, 58), and the
+gill-arches of the large blood-vessels (Figs. 54, 55, 56), are here
+exhibited only as transitory phases of development. But as such they
+occur in all air-breathing Vertebrata. And, as if to make the homologies
+as striking as possible, at the time when the gill-slits and the
+gill-arches are developed in the embryonic young of air-breathing<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_154" id="page_154">[154]</a></span>
+Vertebrata, the heart is constructed upon the fish-like type. That is to
+say, it is placed far forwards, and, from having been a simple tube as
+in Worms, is now divided into two chambers, as in Fish. Later on it
+becomes progressively pushed further back between the developing lungs,
+while it progressively acquires the three cavities distinctive of
+Amphibia, and finally the four cavities belonging only to the complete
+double circulation of Birds and Mammals. Moreover, it has now been
+satisfactorily shown that the lungs of air-breathing Vertebrata, which
+are thus destined to supersede the function of gills, are themselves the
+modified swim-bladder or float, which belongs to Fish. Consequently, all
+these progressive modifications in the important organs of circulation
+and respiration in the air-breathing Vertebrata, together make up as
+complete a history of their aquatic pedigree as it would be possible for
+the most exacting critic to require.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_151" id="page_151">[151]</a></p>
+<div class='center'><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_168_054.jpg" width="200" height="316" alt="Ideal diagram of primitive gill- or
+aortic-arches." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 54.&mdash;Ideal diagram, of primitive gill- or
+aortic-arches. (After Rathke.) H, outline of heart. The arrows show the
+course of the blood.</div></div></td>
+<td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_168_055.jpg" width="200" height="292" alt="The same, modified for a bird." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 55.&mdash;The same, modified for a bird. (After Le
+Conte.) The dark lines show the aortic arches which persist. A, aorta;
+<span class='sn'>p</span>, pulmonary arches; SC, S'C', sub-clavian; C, C', carotids.</div></div></td>
+<td class='c'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_168_056.jpg" width="200" height="302" alt="The same, modified for a mammal." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 56.&mdash;The same, modified for a mammal. (After Le
+Conte.)</div></div></td></tr></table></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_152" id="page_152">[152]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 296px;">
+<img src="images/i_169_057.jpg" width="296" height="500" alt="A series of embryos
+of the classes of vertebrated animals below the Mammalia" title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 57.&mdash;A series of embryos at three comparable and
+progressive stages of development (marked I, II, III), representing each
+of the classes of vertebrated animals below the Mammalia (After
+H&auml;ckel.)</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_153" id="page_153">[153]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 307px;">
+<img src="images/i_170_058.jpg" width="307" height="500" alt="Another series of embryos
+representing four different divisions of the class Mammalia." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 58.&mdash;Another series of embryos, also at three
+comparable and progressive stages of development (marked I, II, III),
+representing four different divisions of the class Mammalia. (After
+H&auml;ckel.)</div></div>
+
+<p>If space permitted, it would be easy to present abundance of additional
+evidence to the same effect from the development of the skeleton, the
+skull, the brain, the sense-organs, and, in short, of every constituent
+part of the vertebrate organization. Even without any anatomical
+dissection, the similarity of all vertebrated embryos at comparable
+stages of development admits of being strikingly shown, if we merely
+place the embryos one beside the other. Here, for instance, are the
+embryos of a fish, a salamander, a tortoise, a bird, and four different
+mammals. In each case three comparable stages of development are
+represented. Now, if we read the series horizontally, we can see that
+there is very little difference between <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_155" id="page_155">[155]</a></span>
+the eight animals at the earliest of the three stages
+represented&mdash;all having fish-like tails, gill-slits, and so on. In
+the next stage further differentiation has taken place, but it will be
+observed that the limbs are still so rudimentary that even in the case
+of Man they are considerably shorter than the tail. But in the third
+stage the distinctive characters are well marked.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>So much then for an outline sketch of the main features in the embryonic
+history of the Vertebrata. But it must be remembered that the science of
+comparative embryology extends to each of the other three great branches
+of the tree of life, where these take their origin, through the worms,
+from the still lower, or gastr&aelig;a, forms. And in each of these three
+great branches&mdash;namely, the Echinodermata, the Mollusca, and the
+Arthropoda&mdash;we have a repetition of just the same kind of evidence in
+favour of continuous descent, with adaptive modification in sundry
+lines, as that which I have thus briefly sketched in the case of the
+Vertebrata. The roads are different, but the method of travelling is the
+same. Moreover, when the embryology of the Worms is closely studied, the
+origin of these different roads admits of being clearly traced. So that
+when all this mass of evidence is taken together, we cannot wonder that
+evolutionists should now regard the science of comparative embryology as
+the principal witness to their theory.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_156" id="page_156">[156]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Pal&aelig;ontology.</span></h2>
+
+<p>The present Chapter will be devoted to a consideration of the evidence
+of organic evolution which has been furnished by the researches of
+geologists. On account of its direct or historical nature, this branch
+of evidence is popularly regarded as the most important&mdash;so much so,
+indeed, that in the opinion of most educated persons the whole doctrine
+of organic evolution must stand or fall according to the so-called
+&ldquo;testimony of the rocks.&rdquo; Now, without at all denying the
+peculiar importance of this line of evidence, I must begin by remarking
+that it does not present the denominating importance which popular
+judgment assigns to it. For although popular judgment is right in
+regarding the testimony of the rocks as of the nature of a history, this
+judgment, as a rule, is very inadequately acquainted with the great
+imperfections of that history. Knowing in a general way what magnificent
+advances the science of geology has made during the present century, the
+public mind is more or less imbued with the notion, that because we now
+possess a tolerably complete record of the chronological succession of
+geological formations, we must therefore possess a correspondingly
+complete <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_157" id="page_157">[157]</a></span>
+record of the chronological succession of the forms of life which from
+time to time have peopled the globe. Now in one sense this notion is
+partly true, but in another sense it is profoundly false. It is partly
+true if we have regard only to those larger divisions of the vegetable
+or animal kingdoms which naturalists designate by the terms classes and
+orders. But the notion becomes progressively more untrue when it is
+applied to families and genera, while it is most of all untrue when
+applied to species. That this must be so may be rendered apparent by two
+considerations.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, it does not follow that because we have a tolerably
+complete record of the succession of geological formations, we have
+therefore any correspondingly complete record of their fossiliferous
+contents. The work of determining the relative ages of the rocks does
+not require that every cubic mile of the earth&rsquo;s surface should be
+separately examined, in order to find all the different fossils which it
+may contain. Were this the case, we should hitherto have made but very
+small progress in our reading of the testimony of the rocks. The
+relative ages of the rocks are determined by broad comparative surveys
+over extensive areas; and although the identification of widely
+separated deposits is often greatly assisted by a study of their
+fossiliferous contents, the mere pricking of a continent here and there
+is all that is required for this purpose. Hence, the accuracy of our
+information touching the relative ages of geological strata does not
+depend upon&mdash;and, therefore, does not betoken&mdash;any equivalent accuracy
+of knowledge touching the fossiliferous material which these strata may
+at the present time actually contain. And, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_158" id="page_158">[158]</a></span>
+as we well know, the opportunities which the geologist has of
+discovering fossils are extremely limited, if we consider these
+opportunities in relation to the area of geological formations. The
+larger portion of the earth&rsquo;s surface is buried beneath the sea;
+and much the larger portion of the fossiliferous deposits on shore are
+no less hopelessly buried beneath the land. Therefore it is only upon
+the fractional portion of the earth&rsquo;s surface which at the present
+time happens to be actually exposed to his view that the geologist is
+able to prosecute his search for fossils. But even here how miserably
+inadequate this search has hitherto been! With the exception of a
+scratch or two in the continents of Asia and America, together with a
+somewhat larger number of similar scratches over the continent of
+Europe, even that comparatively small portion of the earth&rsquo;s
+surface which is available for the purpose has been hitherto quite
+unexplored by the pal&aelig;ontologist. How enormously rich a store of
+material remains to be unearthed by the future scratchings of this
+surface, we may dimly surmise from the astonishing world of bygone life
+which is now being revealed in the newly discovered fossiliferous
+deposits on the continent of America.</p>
+
+<p>But, besides all this, we must remember, in the second place, that all
+the fossiliferous deposits in the world, even if they could be
+thoroughly explored, would still prove highly imperfect, considered as a
+history of extinct forms of life. In order that many of these forms
+should have been preserved as fossils, it is necessary that they should
+have died upon a surface neither too hard nor too soft to admit of their
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_159" id="page_159">[159]</a></span>
+leaving an impression; that this surface should afterwards have
+hardened sufficiently to retain the impression; that it should then have
+been protected from the erosion of water, as well as from the
+disintegrating influence of the air; and yet that it should not have
+sunk far enough beneath the surface to have come within the no less
+disintegrating influence of subterranean heat. Remembering thus, as a
+general rule, how many conditions require to have met before a fossil
+can have been both formed and preserved, we must conclude that the
+geological record is probably as imperfect in itself as are our
+opportunities of reading even the little that has been recorded. If we
+speak of it as a history of the succession of life upon the planet, we
+must allow, on the one hand, that it is a history which merits the name
+of a &ldquo;chapter of accidents"; and, on the other hand, that during
+the whole course of its compilation pages were being destroyed as fast
+as others were being formed, while even of those that remain it is only
+a word, a line, or at most a short paragraph here and there, that we are
+permitted to see. With so fragmentary a record as this to study, I do
+not think it is too much to say that no conclusions can be fairly based
+upon it, merely from the absence of testimony. Only if the testimony
+were positively opposed to the theory of descent, could any argument be
+fairly raised against that theory on the grounds of this testimony. In
+other words, if any of the fossils hitherto discovered prove the order
+of succession to have been incompatible with the theory of genetic
+descent, then the record may fairly be adduced in argument, because we
+should then be in possession of definite information <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_160" id="page_160">[160]</a></span>
+of a positive kind, instead of a mere absence of information of any
+kind. But if the adverse argument reaches only to the extent of
+maintaining that the geological record does not furnish us with so
+complete a series of &ldquo;connecting links&rdquo; as we might have
+expected, then, I think, the argument is futile. Even in the case of
+human histories, written with the intentional purpose of conveying
+information, it is an unsafe thing to infer the non-occurrence of an
+event from a mere silence of the historian&mdash;and this especially in
+matters of comparatively small detail, such as would correspond (in the
+present analogy) to the occurrence of <i>species</i> and <i>genera</i> as
+connecting links. And, of course, if the history had only come down to
+us in fragments, no one would attach any importance at all to what might
+have been only the <i>apparent</i> silence of the historian.</p>
+
+<p>In view, then, of the unfortunate imperfection of the geological record
+<i>per se</i>, as well as of the no less unfortunate limitation of our means
+of reading even so much of the record as has come down to us, I conclude
+that this record can only be fairly used in two ways. It may fairly be
+examined for positive testimony against the theory of descent, or for
+proof of the presence of organic remains of a high order of development
+in a low level of strata. And it may be fairly examined for negative
+testimony, or for the absence of connecting links, if the search be
+confined to the larger taxonomic divisions of the fauna and flora of the
+world. The more minute these divisions, the more restricted must have
+been the areas of their origin, and hence the less likelihood of their
+having been preserved in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_161" id="page_161">[161]</a></span>
+fossil state, or of our finding them even if they have been. Therefore,
+if the theory of evolution is true, we ought not to expect from the
+geological record a full history of <i>specific</i> changes in any but at
+most a comparatively small number of instances, where local
+circumstances happen to have been favourable for the writing and
+preservation of such a history. But we might reasonably expect to find a
+general concurrence of geological testimony to the larger
+fact&mdash;namely, of there having been throughout all geological time a
+uniform progression as regards the larger taxonomic divisions. And, as I
+will next proceed to show, this is, in a general way, what we do find,
+although not altogether without some important exceptions, with which I
+shall deal in an Appendix.</p>
+
+<p>There is no <i>positive</i> proof <i>against</i> the theory of descent to be drawn
+from a study of pal&aelig;ontology, or proof of the presence of any kind of
+fossils in strata where the fact of their presence is incompatible with
+the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there is an enormous body of
+uniform evidence to prove two general facts of the highest importance in
+the present connexion. The first of these general facts is, that an
+increase in the diversity of types both of plants and animals has been
+constant and progressive from the earliest to the latest times, as we
+should anticipate that it must have been on the theory of descent in
+ever-ramifying lines of pedigree. And the second general fact is, that
+through all these branching lines of ever-multiplying types, from the
+first appearance of each of them to their latest known conditions, there
+is overwhelming evidence of one great law of organic nature&mdash;the law of
+gradual advance from the general <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_162" id="page_162">[162]</a></span>
+to the special, from the low to the high, from the simple to the
+complex.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the importance of these large and general facts in the present
+connexion must be at once apparent; but it may perhaps be rendered more
+so if we try to imagine how the case would have stood supposing
+geological investigation to have yielded in this matter an opposite
+result, or even so much as an equivocal result. If it had yielded an
+opposite result, if the lower geological formations were found to
+contain as many, as diverse, and as highly organized types as the later
+geological formations, clearly there would have been no room at all for
+any theory of progressive evolution. And, by parity of reasoning, in
+whatever degree such a state of matters were found to prevail, in that
+degree would the theory in question have been discredited. But seeing
+that these opposite principles do not prevail in any (relatively
+speaking) considerable degree<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a>,
+we have so far positive testimony of the largest and most massive
+character in favour of this theory. For while all these large and
+general facts are very much what they ought to be according to this
+theory, they cannot be held to lend any support at all to the rival
+theory. In other words, it is clearly no essential part of the theory of
+special creation that species should everywhere exhibit this gradual
+multiplication as to number, coupled with a gradual diversification and
+general elevation of types, in all the growing branches of the tree of
+life. No one could adopt seriously the jocular lines of Burns, to the
+effect that the Creator required to practise his <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_164" id="page_164">[164]</a></span>
+prentice hand on lower types before advancing to the formation of
+higher. Yet, without some such assumption, it would be impossible to
+explain, on the theory of independent creations, why there should have
+been this gradual advance from the few to the many, from the general to
+the special, from the low to the high.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_163" id="page_163">[163]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='l'></td><td class='c'><i>Epochs and Formations.</i></td><td class='c'><i>Faunal Characters.</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l' rowspan='5'><span class="sc">Cainozoic</span> or <span class="sc">Tertiary</span></td><td class='l'><span class="sc">Post-Pliocene.</span><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Glacial Period.</td><td class='l'>Man. Mammalia principally of living species. Mollusca exclusively recent.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Pliocene</span>, 3,000 feet.</td><td class='l'>Mammalia principally of recent genera&mdash;living species rare. Mollusca very modern.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Miocene</span>, 4,000 ft.</td><td class='l' rowspan='2'>Mammalia principally of living families; extinct genera numerous; species all extinct. Mollusca largely of recent species.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Oligocene</span>, 8,000 ft.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Eocene</span>, 10,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Mammalia with numerous extinct families and orders; all the species and most of the genera extinct. Modern type Shell-Fish.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l' rowspan='4'><span class="sc">Mesozoic</span> or <span class="sc">Secondary</span></td><td class='l'><span class="sc">Laramie</span>, 4,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Passage beds.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Cretaceous</span>, 12,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Dinosaurian (bird-like) Reptiles; Pterodactyls (flying Reptiles); toothed Birds; earliest Snake; bony Fishes; Crocodiles; Turtles; Ammonites.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Jurassic</span>, 6,000 ft.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oolite.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lias.</td><td class='l'>Earliest Birds; giant Reptiles (Ichthyosaurs, Dinosaurs, Pterodactyls); Ammonites; Clam- and Snail-Shells very abundant; decline of Brachiopods; Butterfly.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Trias</span>, 5,000 ft.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;New Red Sandstone.</td><td class='l'>First Mammalian (Marsupial); 2-gilled Cephalopods (Cuttle-Fishes, Belemnites); reptilian Foot-Prints.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l' rowspan='5'><span class="sc">Paleozoic</span> or <span class="sc">Primary</span></td><td class='l'><span class="sc">Permian</span>, 5,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Earliest true Reptiles.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Carboniferous</span>, 26,000 ft.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Coal.</td><td class='l'>Earliest Amphibian (Labyrinthodont); extinction of Trilobites; first Cray-fish; Beetles; Cockroaches; Centipedes; Spiders.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Devonian</span>, 18,000 ft.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Old Red Sandstone.</td><td class='l'>Cartilaginous and Ganoid Fishes; earliest and (snail) and freshwater Shells; Shell-Fish abundant; decline of Trilobites; May-flies; Crab.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Silurian</span>, 33,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Earliest Fish; the first Air-Breathers (Insect, Scorpion); Brachiopods and 4-gilled Cephalopods very abundant; Trilobites; Corals; Graptolites.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Cambrian</span>, 24,000 ft.</td><td class='l'>Trilobites; Brachiopod Mollusks.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l' rowspan='2'><span class="sc">Azoic</span></td><td class='l'><span class="sc">Arch&aelig;an</span>, 30,000 ft.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Huronian.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Laurentian.</td><td class='l'>Eozo&ouml;n, (probably not a fossil).</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'><span class="sc">Primeval</span>.</td><td class='l'>Non-sedimentary.</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_164c" id="page_164c">[164c.]</a></span>
+I submit, then, that so far as the largest and most general principles
+in the matter of pal&aelig;ontology are concerned, we have about as strong and
+massive a body of evidence as we could reasonably expect this branch of
+science to yield; for it is at once enormous in amount and positive in
+character. Therefore, if I do not further enlarge upon the evidence
+which we here have, as it were <i>en masse</i>, it is only because I do not
+feel that any words could add to its obvious significance. It may best
+be allowed to speak for itself in the millions of facts which are
+condensed in this tabular statement of the order of succession of all
+the known forms of animal life, as presented by the eminent
+pal&aelig;ontologist, Professor Cope<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Or, taking a still more general survey, this tabular statement may be
+still further condensed, and presented in a diagrammatic form, as it has
+been by another eminent American pal&aelig;ontologist, Prof. Le Conte, in his
+excellent little treatise on <i>Evolution and its Relations to Religious
+Thought</i>. The following is his diagrammatic representation, with his
+remarks thereon.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>When each ruling class declined in importance, it did not perish,
+but continued in a subordinate position. Thus, the whole organic
+kingdom became not only higher and higher in its highest forms, but
+also more and more complex in its structure <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_165" id="page_165">[165]</a></span>
+and in the interaction of its correlated parts. The whole process and
+its result is roughly represented in the accompanying diagram, in which
+A B represents the course of geological time, and the curve, the rise,
+culmination, and decline of successive dominate classes.</p></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_182_059.jpg" width="500" height="82" alt="Geological Succession of the Classes of the Animal Kingdom." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 59.&mdash;Diagram of Geological Succession of the Classes
+of the Animal Kingdom. (After Le Conte.)</span></div>
+
+<p>I will here leave the evidence which is thus yielded by the most general
+principles that have been established by the science of pal&aelig;ontology;
+and I will devote the rest of this chapter to a detailed consideration
+of a few highly special lines of evidence. By thus suddenly passing from
+one extreme to the other, I hope to convey the best idea that can be
+conveyed within a brief compass of the minuteness, as well as the
+extent, of the testimony which is furnished by the rocks.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>When Darwin first published his <i>Origin of Species</i>, adverse critics
+fastened upon the &ldquo;missing-link&rdquo; argument as the strongest
+that they could bring against the theory of descent. Although Darwin had
+himself strongly insisted on the imperfection of the geological record,
+and the consequent precariousness of any negative conclusions raised
+upon it, these critics maintained that he was making too great a demand
+upon the argument from ignorance&mdash;that, even allowing for the
+imperfection of the record, they would certainly have expected at least
+a few cases of testimony to <i>specific</i> transmutation. For, they urged in
+effect, looking to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_166" id="page_166">[166]</a></span>
+the enormous profusion of the extinct species on the one hand, and to
+the immense number of known fossils on the other, it was incredible that
+no satisfactory instances of specific transmutation should ever have
+been brought to light, if such transmutation had ever occurred in the
+universal manner which the theory was bound to suppose. But since Darwin
+first published his great work pal&aelig;ontologists have been very
+active in discovering and exploring fossiliferous beds in sundry parts
+of the world; and the result of their labours has been to supply so many
+of the previously missing links that the voice of competent criticism in
+this matter has now been well-nigh silenced. Indeed, the material thus
+furnished to an advocate of evolution at the present time is so abundant
+that his principal difficulty is to select his samples. I think,
+however, that the most satisfactory result will be gained if I restrict
+my exposition to a minute account of some few series of connecting
+links, rather than if I were to take a more general survey of a larger
+number. I will, therefore, confine the survey to the animal kingdom, and
+there mention only some of the cases which have yielded well-detailed
+proof of continuous differentiation.</p>
+
+<p>It is obvious that the parts of animals most likely to have been
+preserved in such a continuous series of fossils as the present line of
+evidence requires, would have been the hard parts. These are horns,
+bones, teeth, and shells. Therefore I will consider each of these four
+classes of structures separately.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Horns wherever they occur, are found to be of high importance for
+purposes of classification. They are <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_167" id="page_167">[167]</a></span>
+restricted to the Ruminants, and appear under three different forms or
+types&mdash;namely solid, as in antelopes; hollow, as in sheep; and
+deciduous, as in deer. Now, in each of these divisions we have a
+tolerably complete pal&aelig;ontological history of the evolution of
+horns. The early ruminants were altogether hornless (Fig. 60). Then, in
+the middle Miocene, the first antelopes appeared with tiny horns, which
+progressively increased in size among the ever-multiplying species of
+antelopes until the present day. But it is in the deer tribe that we
+meet with even better evidence touching the progressive evolution of
+horns; because here not only size, but shape, is concerned. For
+deer&rsquo;s horns, or antlers, are arborescent; and hence in their case
+we have an opportunity of reading the history, not only of a progressive
+growth in size, but also of an increasing development of form. Among the
+older members of the tribe, in the lower Miocene, there are no horns at
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_168" id="page_168">[168]</a></span>
+all. In the mid-Miocene we meet with two-pronged horns (<span class='sn'>Cervus
+dicrocerus</span>, Figs. 61, 62, 1/5 nat. size). Next, in the upper Miocene
+(<span class='sn'>C. matheronis</span>, Fig. 63, 1/8 nat. size), and extending into the Pliocene
+(<span class='sn'>C. pardinensis</span>, Fig. 64, 1/18 nat. size), we meet with three-pronged
+horns. Then, in the Pliocene we find also four-pronged horns (<span class='sn'>C.
+issiodorensis</span>, Fig. 65, 1/16 nat. size), leading us to five-pronged
+(<span class='sn'>C. tetraceros</span>). Lastly, in the Forest-bed of Norfolk we meet with
+arborescent horns (<span class='sn'>C. Sedgwickii</span>, Fig. 66, 1/35 nat. size). The
+life-history of existing stags furnishes a parallel development (Fig.
+67), beginning with a single horn (which has not yet been found
+pal&aelig;ontologically), going on to two prongs, three prongs, four
+prongs, and afterwards branching.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_167i" id="page_167i">[167i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_184_060.jpg" width="400" height="288" alt="Fig. 60.&mdash;Skull of Oreodon Culbertsoni. (After Leidy.)" title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 60.&mdash;Skull of Oreodon Culbertsoni. (After Leidy.)</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_168i" id="page_168i">[168i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_185_061-6.jpg" width="500" height="275" alt="Evolution of horns." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Figs.</span> 61-6. The series is reduced from Gaudry&rsquo;s illustrations, after Farge,
+Croizet, Jobert and Boyd Dawkins.</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_169i" id="page_169i">[169i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_186_067.jpg" width="400" height="199" alt="Successive stages in the development of an
+existing Deer&rsquo;s Antlers." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig.</span> 67. Successive stages in the development of an
+existing Deer&rsquo;s Antlers. (After Gaudry, but a better illustration
+has already been given on p. 100.)</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_168c" id="page_168c">[168c.]</a></p><hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Coming now to bones, we have a singularly complete record of transition
+from one type or pattern of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_169" id="page_169">[169]</a></span>
+structure to another in the phylogenetic history of tails. This has
+been so clearly and so tersely conveyed by Prof. Le Conte, that I cannot
+do better than quote his statement.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_170" id="page_170">[170]</a></p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>It has long been noticed that there are among fishes two styles of
+tail-fins. These are the even-lobed, or homocercal (Fig. 68), and
+the uneven-lobed, or heterocercal (Fig. 69). The one is
+characteristic of ordinary fishes (teleosts), the other of sharks
+and some other orders. In structure the difference is even more
+fundamental than in form. In the former style the backbone stops
+abruptly in a series of short, enlarged joints, and thence sends
+off rays to form the tail-fin (Fig. 68); in the latter the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_171" id="page_171">[171]</a></span>
+backbone runs through the fin to its very point, growing slenderer by
+degrees, and giving off rays above and below from each joint, but the
+rays on the lower side are much longer (Fig. 69). This type of fin is,
+therefore, <i>vertebrated</i>, the other <i>non-vertebrated</i>. Figs. 68 and 69
+show these two types in form and structure. But there is still another
+type found only in the lowest and most generalized forms of fishes. In
+these the tail-fin is vertebrated and yet symmetrical. This type is
+shown in Fig. 70.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_186_068.jpg" width="200" height="328" alt="Homocercal Tail." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 68.&mdash;Homocercal Tail, showing (A) external form
+and (B) internal structure.</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_170i" id="page_170i">[170i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_187_069.jpg" width="300" height="266" alt="Heterocercal Tail." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 69.&mdash;Heterocercal Tail, showing (A) external
+form and (B) internal structure.</span></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_187_070.jpg" width="300" height="146" alt="Diphycercal fin." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 70.&mdash;Vertebrated but symmetrical fin
+(diphycercal), showing (A) external form and (B) internal
+structure.</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_171c" id="page_171c">[171c.]</a></span>
+Now, in the development of a teleost fish (Fig. 68), as has been
+shown by Alexander Agassiz, the tail-fin is first like Fig. 70;
+then becomes heterocercal, like Fig. 69; and, finally, becomes
+homocercal like Fig. 68. Why so? Not because there is any special
+advantage in this succession of forms; for the changes take place
+either in the egg or else in very early embryonic states. The
+answer is found in the fact that <i>this is the order of change in
+the phylogenetic series</i>. The earliest fish-tails were either like
+Fig. 69 or Fig. 70; never like Fig. 68. The <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_173" id="page_173">[173]</a></span>
+earliest of all were almost certainly like Fig. 70; then they became
+like Fig. 69; and, finally, only much later in geological history
+(Jurassic or Cretaceous), they became like Fig. 68. This order of change
+is still retained in the embryonic development of the last introduced
+and most specialized order of existing fishes. The family history is
+repeated in the individual history.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_171i" id="page_171i">[171i.]</a></p>
+<div class='center'><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td style='vertical-align: bottom;'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 150px;">
+<img src="images/i_188_071.jpg" width="150" height="374" alt="Fig. 71.&mdash;Tail of Arch&aelig;opteryx." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 71.&mdash;Tail of <span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx</span>. A indicates origin
+of simply-jointed tail.</div></div></td>
+<td style='vertical-align: bottom;'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_188_072.jpg" width="200" height="301" alt="Fig. 72.&mdash;Tail of modern Bird." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 72.&mdash;Tail of modern Bird. The numerals indicate
+the foreshortened, enlarged, and consolidated joints; <i>f</i>, terminal
+segment of the vertebral column; D, shafts of feathers.</div></div></td></tr></table></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_172" id="page_172">[172]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 292px;">
+<img src="images/i_189_073.jpg" width="292" height="500" alt="Fig. 73.&mdash;Arch&aelig;opteryx macura, restored." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 73.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx macura</span>, restored, &frac12; nat.
+size. (After Flower.) The section of the tail is copied from Owen,
+nat. size.</span></div>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_173c" id="page_173c">[173c.]</a></span>
+Similar changes have taken place in the form and structure of
+birds&rsquo; tails. The earliest bird known&mdash;the Jurassic <span
+class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx</span>&mdash;had a long reptilian tail of twenty-one
+joints, each joint bearing a feather on each side, right and left
+(Fig. 71): [see also Fig. 73]. In the typical modern bird, on the
+contrary, the tail-joints are diminished in number, shortened up,
+and enlarged, and give out long feathers, fan-like, to form the
+so-called tail (Fig. 72). The <span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx&rsquo;</span> tail is
+<i>vertebrated</i>, the typical bird&rsquo;s <i>non-vertebrated</i>. This
+shortening up of the tail did not take place at once, but
+gradually. The Cretaceous birds, intermediate in time, had tails
+intermediate in structure. The <span class='sn'>Hesperornis</span> of Marsh had twelve
+joints. At first&mdash;in Jurassic strata&mdash;the tail is fully a half of
+the whole vertebral column. It then gradually shortens up until it
+becomes the aborted organ of typical modern birds. Now, in
+embryonic development, the tail of the modern typical bird <i>passes
+through all these stages</i>. At first the tail is nearly one half the
+whole vertebral column; then, as development goes on, while the
+rest of the body grows, the growth of the tail stops, and thus
+finally becomes the aborted organ we now find. The ontogeny still
+passes through the stages of the phylogeny. The same is true of all
+tailless animals.</p>
+
+<p>The extinct <span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx</span> above alluded to presents throughout its whole
+organization a most interesting assemblage of &ldquo;generalized
+characters.&rdquo; For example, its teeth, and its still unreduced
+digits of the wings (which, like those of the feet, are covered with
+scales), refer us, with almost as much force as does the vertebrated
+tail, to the Sauropsidian type&mdash;or the trunk from which birds and
+reptiles have diverged.</p>
+
+<p>We will next consider the pal&aelig;ontological evidence
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_175" id="page_175">[175]</a></span>
+which we now possess of the evolution of mammalian limbs, with special
+reference to the hoofed animals, where this line of evidence happens to
+be most complete.</p>
+
+<p>I may best begin by describing the bones as these <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_176" id="page_176">[176]</a></span>
+occur in the sundry branches of the mammalian type now living. As we
+shall presently see, the modifications which the limbs have undergone in
+these sundry branches chiefly consist in the suppression of some parts
+and the exaggerated development of others. But, by comparing all
+mammalian limbs together, it is easy to obtain a generalized type of
+mammalian limb, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_177" id="page_177">[177]</a></span>
+which in actual life is perhaps most nearly conformed to in the case of
+bears. I will therefore choose the bear for the purpose of briefly
+expounding the bones of mammalian limbs in general&mdash;merely asking
+it to be <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_178" id="page_178">[178]</a></span>
+understood, that although in the case of many other mammalia some of
+these bones may be dwindled or altogether absent, while others may be
+greatly exaggerated as to relative size, in no case do any <i>additional</i>
+bones appear.</p>
+
+<p>On looking, then, at the skeleton of a bear (Fig. 74), the first thing
+to observe is that there is a perfect serial homology between the bones
+of the hind legs and of the fore legs. The thigh-bone, or femur,
+corresponds to the shoulder-bone, or humerus; the two shank bones (tibia
+and fibula) correspond to the two arm-bones (radius and ulna); the many
+little ankle-bones (tarsals) correspond to the many little wrist-bones
+(carpals); the foot-bones (meta-tarsals) correspond to the hand-bones
+(meta-carpals); and, lastly, the bones of each of the toes correspond to
+those of each of the fingers.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_174" id="page_174">[174.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_191_074.jpg" width="500" height="321" alt="Skeleton of Polar Bear." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 74.&mdash;Skeleton of Polar Bear, drawn from nature
+(<i>Brit. Mus.</i>).</span></div>
+
+<p>The next thing to observe is, that the disposition of bones in the case
+of the bear is such that the animal walks in the way that has been
+called plantigrade. That is to say, all the bones of the fingers, as
+well as those of the toes, feet, and ankles, rest upon the ground, or
+help to constitute the &ldquo;soles.&rdquo; Our own feet are constructed
+on a closely similar pattern. But in the majority of living mammalian
+forms this is not the case. For the majority of mammals are what has
+been called digitigrade. That is to say, the bones of the limb are so
+disposed that both the foot and hand bones, and therefore also the ankle
+and wrist, are removed from the ground altogether, so that the animal
+walks exclusively upon its toes and fingers&mdash;as in the case of this
+skeleton (Fig. 75), which is the skeleton of a lion. The next figures
+display a series of limbs, showing the progressive passage of a
+completely <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_179" id="page_179">[179]</a></span>
+plantigrade into a highly digitigrade type&mdash;the curved lines of
+connexion serving to indicate the homologous bones (Figs. 76, 77).</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_175i" id="page_175i">[175i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_192_075.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Skeleton of Lion." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class='sc'>Fig</span>. 75.&mdash;Skeleton of Lion. (After Huxley.)</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_176i" id="page_176i">[176i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_193_076.jpg" width="500" height="344" alt="Anterior limb of Man, Dog, Hog, Sheep, and
+Horse." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 76.&mdash;Anterior limb of Man, Dog, Hog, Sheep, and
+Horse. (After Le Conte.) <i>Sc</i>, shoulder-blade; <i>c</i>, coracoid; <i>a</i>, <i>b</i>,
+bones of fore-arm; 5, bones of the wrist; 6, bones of the hand; 7, bones
+of the fingers.</div></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_194_077.jpg" width="500" height="323" alt="Posterior limb of Man, Monkey, Dog, Sheep and
+Horse." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 77.&mdash;Posterior limb of Man, Monkey, Dog, Sheep and
+Horse. (After Le Conte.) 1, Hip-joint; 2, thigh-bone; 3, knee-joint; 4,
+bones of leg; 5, ankle-joint; 6, bones of foot; 7, bones of toes.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_179c" id="page_179c">[179c.]</a></span>
+I will now proceed to detail the history of mammalian limbs, as this has
+been recorded for us in fossil remains.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_196_078.jpg" width="400" height="387" alt="Posterior limb of Baptanodon discus
+and anterior limb of Chelydra serpentina." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 78.&mdash;A, posterior limb of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon discus</span>. (After
+Marsh.) F, thigh-bone; I to VI, undifferentiated bones of the leg and
+foot. B, anterior limb of <span class='sn'>Chelydra serpentina</span>. (After Gegenbaur.) U and
+R, bones of the fore-arm; I to V, fully differentiated bones of the
+hand, following those of the wrist.</div></div>
+
+<p>The most generalized or primitive types of limb hitherto discovered in
+any vertebrated animal above the class of fishes, are those which are
+met with in some of the extinct aquatic reptiles. Here, for instance, is
+a diagram of the left hind limb of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon discus</span> (Fig. 78). It has
+six rows of little symmetrical bones springing from a leg-like origin.
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_180" id="page_180">[180]</a></span>
+<span class="figleft" style="width: 200px;">
+<img src="images/i_197_079.jpg" width="200" height="357" alt="Paddle of a Whale." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 79.&mdash;Paddle of a Whale.</span></span>
+But the whole structure resembles the fin of a fish about as nearly as
+it does the leg of a mammal. For not only are there six rows of bones,
+instead of five, suggestive of the numerous rays which characterise the
+fin of a fish; but the structure as a whole, having been covered over
+with blubber and skin, was throughout flexible and unjointed&mdash;thus in
+function, even more than in structure, resembling a fin. In this
+respect, also, it must have resembled the paddle of a whale (see Fig.
+79); but of course the great difference will be noted, that the paddle
+of a whale reveals the dwindled though still clearly typical bones of a
+true mammalian limb; so that although in outward form and function these
+two paddles are alike, their inward structure clearly shows that while
+the one testifies to the absence of evolution, the other testifies to
+the presence of degeneration. If the paddle of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon</span> had occurred
+in a whale, or the paddle of a whale had occurred in <span class='sn'>Baptanodon</span>, either
+fact would in itself have been well-nigh destructive of the whole theory
+of evolution.</p>
+
+<p>Such, then, is the most generalized as it is the most ancient type of
+vertebrate limb above the class of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_181" id="page_181">[181]</a></span>
+fishes. Obviously it is a type suited only to aquatic life.
+Consequently, when aquatic Vertebrata began to become terrestrial, the
+type would have needed modification in order to serve for terrestrial
+locomotion. In particular, it would have needed to gain in consolidation
+and in firmness, which means that it would have needed also to become
+jointed. Accordingly, we find that this archaic type gave place in
+land-reptiles to the exigencies of these requirements. Here for example
+is a diagram, copied from Gegenbaur, of the right fore-foot of <span class='sn'>Chelydra
+serpentina</span> (Fig. 78). As compared with the homologous limb of its purely
+aquatic predecessor, there is to be noticed the disappearance of one of
+the six rows of small bones, a confluence of some of the remainder in
+the other five rows, a duplication of the arm-bone into a radius and
+ulna, in order to admit of jointed rotation of the hand, and a general
+disposition of the small bones below these arm-bones, which clearly
+foreshadows the joint of the wrist. Indeed, in this fore-foot of <span
+class='sn'>Chelydra</span>, a child could trace all the principal homologies of
+the mammalian counterpart, growing, like the next stage in a dissolving
+view, out of the primitive paddle of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon</span>&mdash;namely, first the
+radius and ulna, next the carpals, then the meta-carpals, and, lastly,
+the three phalanges in each of the five digits.</p>
+
+<p>Such a type of foot no doubt admirably meets the requirements of slow
+reptilian locomotion over swampy ground. But for anything like rapid
+locomotion over hard and uneven ground, greater modifications would be
+needed. Such modifications, however, need not be other in kind: it is
+enough that they should continue in the same line of advance, so as to
+reach a <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_182" id="page_182">[182]</a></span>
+higher degree of firmness, combined with better joints. Accordingly we
+find that this took place, not indeed among reptiles, whose habits of
+cold-blooded life have not changed, but among their warm-blooded
+descendants, the mammals. Moreover, when we examine the whole mammalian
+series, we find that the required modifications must have taken place in
+slightly different ways in three lines of descent simultaneously. We
+have first the plantigrade and digitigrade modifications already
+mentioned (pp. <a href="#page_178">178</a>, <a href="#page_179">179</a>)
+Of these the plantigrade walking entailed least change, because most
+resembling the ancestral or lizard-like mode of progression. All that
+was here needed was a general improvement as to relative lengths of
+bones, with greater consolidation and greater flexibility of joints.
+Therefore I need not say anything more about the plantigrade division.
+But the digitigrade modification necessitated a change of structural
+plan, to the extent of raising the wrist and ankle joints off the
+ground, so as to make the quadruped walk on its fingers and toes. We
+meet with an interesting case of this transition in the existing hare,
+which while at rest supports itself on the whole hind foot after the
+manner of a plantigrade animal, but when running does so upon the ends
+of its toes, after the manner of a digitigrade animal.</p>
+
+<p>It is of importance for us to note that this transition from the
+original plantigrade to the more recent digitigrade type, has been
+carried out on two slightly different plans in two different lines of
+mammalian descent. The hoofed mammals&mdash;which are all digitigrade&mdash;are
+sub-classified as artiodactyls and perissodactyls, i. e. even-toed and
+odd-toed. Now, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_183" id="page_183">[183]</a></span>
+whether an animal has an even or an odd number of toes may seem a
+curiously artificial distinction on which to found so important a
+classification of the mammalian group. But if we look at the matter from
+a less empirical and more intelligent point of view, we shall see that
+the alternative of having an even or an odd number of toes carries with
+it alternative consequences of a practically important kind to any
+animal of the digitigrade type. For suppose an aboriginal five-toed
+animal, walking on the ends of its five toes, to be called upon to
+resign some of his toes. If he is left with an even number, it must be
+two or four; and in either case the animal would gain the firmest
+support by so disposing his toes as to admit of the axis of his foot
+passing between an equal number of them&mdash;whether it be one or two
+toes on each side. On the other hand, if our early mammal were called
+upon to retain an odd number of toes, he would gain best support by
+adjusting matters so that the axis of his foot should be coincident with
+his middle toe, whether this were his only toe, or whether he had one on
+either side of it. This consideration shows that the classification into
+even-toed and odd-toed is not so artificial as it no doubt at first
+sight appears. Let us, then, consider the stages in the evolution of
+both these types of feet.</p>
+
+<p>Going back to the reptile <span class='sn'>Chelydra</span>, it will be observed that the axis of
+the foot passes down the middle toe, which is therefore supported by two
+toes on either side (Fig. 78). It may also be noticed that the wrist or
+ankle bones do not interlock, either with one another or with the bones
+of the hand or foot below <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_184" id="page_184">[184]</a></span>
+them. This, of course, would give a weak foot, suited to slow
+progression over marshy ground&mdash;which, as we have seen, was no
+doubt the origin of the mammalian plantigrade foot. Here, for instance,
+to all intents and purposes, is a similar type of foot, which
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_185" id="page_185">[185]</a></span>
+belonged to a very early mammal, antecedent to the elephant series, the
+horse series, the rhinoceros, the hog, and, in short, all the known
+hoofed mammalia (Fig. 80). It was presumably an inhabitant of swampy
+ground, slow in its movements, and low in its intelligence.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_184i" id="page_184i">[184i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_201_080.jpg" width="500" height="296" alt="Fossil skeleton of Phenacodus primavus." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 80.&mdash;Fossil skeleton of <span class='sn'>Phenacodus primavus</span>. (After
+Cope.)</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_185c" id="page_185c">[185c.]</a></span>
+But now, as we have seen, for more rapid progression on hard uneven
+ground, a stronger and better jointed foot would be needed. Therefore we
+find the bones of the wrist and ankle beginning to interlock, both among
+themselves and also with those of the foot and hand immediately below
+them. Such a stage of evolution is still apparent in the now existing
+elephant. (See Fig. 81.)</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_186" id="page_186">[186]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_203_081.jpg" width="500" height="236" alt="Bones of the foot of four forms of
+the perissodactyl type." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 81.&mdash;Bones of the foot of four different forms of
+the perissodactyl type, showing gradual reduction in the number of
+digits, coupled with a greater consolidation of the bones above the
+digits. The series reads from right to left. Drawn from nature (<i>Brit.
+Mus.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_185c2" id="page_185c2">[185c2.]</a></span>
+Next, however, a still stronger foot was made by the still further
+interlocking of the wrist and ankle bones, so that both the first and
+second rows of them were thus fitted into each other, as well as into
+the bones of the hand and foot beneath. This further modification is
+clearly traceable in some of the earlier perissodactyls, and occurs in
+the majority at the present time. Compare, for example, the greater
+interlocking and consolidation of these small bones in the Rhinoceros as
+contrasted with the Elephant (Fig. 81). Moreover, simultaneously with
+these consolidating improvements in the mechanism of the wrist and ankle
+joints, or possibly at a somewhat later period, a reduction in the
+number of digits began to take place. This was a continuation of the
+policy of consolidating the foot, analogous to the dropping out of the
+sixth row of small bones in the paddle of <span class='sn'>Baptanodon</span>.
+(Fig. 78.) In the pentadactyl plantigrade foot of the early mammals, the
+first digit, being the shortest, was the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_188" id="page_188">[188]</a></span>
+first to leave the ground, to dwindle, and finally to disappear. More
+work being thus thrown on the remaining four, they were strengthened by
+interlocking with the wrist (or ankle) bones above them, as just
+mentioned; and also by being brought closer together.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_187" id="page_187">[187]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_204_082.jpg" width="500" height="297" alt="Bones of the foot of four forms of
+the artiodactyl type." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 82.&mdash;Bones of the foot of four different forms of
+the artiodactyl type, showing gradual reduction of the number of digits,
+coupled with a greater consolidation of the bones above the digits. The
+series reads from right to left. Drawn from nature (<i>Brit. Mus.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_188c" id="page_188c">[188c.]</a></span>
+The changes which followed I will render in the words of Professor
+Marsh.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Two kinds of reduction began. One leading to the existing
+perissodactyl foot, and the other, apparently later, resulting in
+the artiodactyl type. In the former the axis of the foot remained
+in the middle of the third digit, as in the pentadactyl foot. [See
+Fig. 81.] In the latter, it shifted to the outer side of this
+digit, or between the third and fourth toe. [See Fig. 82.]</p>
+
+<p>In the further reduction of the perissodactyl foot, the fifth
+digit, being shorter than the remaining three, next left the
+ground, and gradually disappeared. [Fig. 81 B.] Of the three
+remaining toes, the middle or axial one was the longest, and
+retaining its supremacy as greater strength and speed were
+required, finally assumed the chief support of the foot [Fig. 81
+C], while the outer digits left the ground, ceased to be of use,
+and were lost, except as splint-bones [Fig. 81 D]. The feet of the
+existing horse shows the best example of this reduction in the
+Perissodactyls, as it is the most specialized known in the
+Ungulates [Fig. 81 D].</p>
+
+<p>In the artiodactyl foot, the reduction resulted in the gradual
+diminution of the two outer of the four remaining toes, the third
+and fourth doing all the work, and thus increasing in size and
+power. The fifth digit, for the same reasons as in the
+perissodactyl foot, first left the ground and became smaller. Next,
+the second soon followed, and these two gradually ceased to be
+functional, [and eventually disappeared altogether, as shown in the
+accompanying drawing of the feet of still existing animals, Fig. 82
+B, C, D].</p>
+
+<p>The limb of the modern race-horse is a nearly perfect piece of
+machinery, especially adapted to great speed on dry, level ground.
+The limb of an antelope, or deer, is likewise well fitted <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_190" id="page_190">[190]</a></span>for
+rapid motion on a plain, but the foot itself is adapted to rough
+mountain work as well, and it is to this advantage, in part, that
+the Artiodactyls owe their present supremacy. The plantigrade
+pentadactyl foot of the primitive Ungulate&mdash;and even the
+perissodactyl foot that succeeded it&mdash;both belong to the past humid
+period of the world&rsquo;s history. As the surface of the earth
+slowly dried up, in the gradual desiccation still in progress, new
+types of feet became a necessity, and the horse, antelope, and
+camel were gradually developed, to meet the altered conditions.</p></div>
+
+<p>The best instance of such progressive modifications in the case of
+perissodactyl feet is furnished by the fossil pedigree of the existing
+horse, because here, within the limits of the same continuous family
+line, we have presented the entire series of modifications.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_189" id="page_189">[189]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 327px;">
+<img src="images/i_206_083.jpg" width="327" height="500" alt="Feet and teeth in fossil pedigree of the Horse." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 83.&mdash;Feet and teeth in fossil pedigree of the Horse.
+(After Marsh.) <i>a</i>, bones of the fore-foot; <i>b</i>, bones of the hind-foot;
+<i>c</i>, radius and ulna; <i>d</i>, tibia and fibula; <i>e</i>, roots of a tooth; <i>f</i>
+and <i>g</i>, crowns of upper and lower molar teeth.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_190c" id="page_190c">[190c.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_207_084.jpg" width="500" height="279" alt="Pal&aelig;otherium." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 84.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Pal&aelig;otherium</span>. (Lower Tertiary of Paris Basin.)</span></div>
+
+<p>There are now known over thirty species of horse-like creatures,
+beginning from the size of a fox, then progressively increasing in bulk,
+and all standing in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_191" id="page_191">[191]</a></span>
+linear series in structure as in time. Confining attention to the teeth
+and feet, it will be seen from the wood-cut on page 189 that the former
+grow progressively longer in their sockets, and also more complex in the
+patterns of their crowns. On the other hand, the latter exhibit a
+gradual diminution of their lateral toes, together with a gradual
+strengthening of the middle one. (See Fig. 83.) So that in the
+particular case of the horse-ancestry we have a practically complete
+chain of what only a few years ago were &ldquo;missing links.&rdquo; And
+this now practically completed chain shows us the entire history of what
+happens to be the most peculiar, or highly specialized, limb in the
+whole mammalian class&mdash;namely, that of the existing horse. Of the
+other two wood-cuts, the former (Fig. 84) shows the skeleton of a very
+early and highly generalized ancestor, while the other is a partial
+restoration of a much more recent and specialized one. (Fig. 85.)</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_192i" id="page_192i">[192i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_209_085.jpg" width="400" height="324" alt="Hipparion." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 85.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Hipparion</span>. (New World Pliocene.)</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_191c" id="page_191c">[191c.]</a></span>
+On the other hand, progressive modifications of the artiodactyl feet may
+be traced geologically up to the different stages presented by living
+ruminants, in some of which it has proceeded further than in others. For
+instance, if we compare the pig, the deer, and the camel (Fig. 82), we
+immediately perceive that the dwindling of the two rudimentary digits
+has proceeded much further in the case of the deer than in that of the
+pig, and yet not so far as in that of the camel, seeing that here they
+have wholly disappeared. Moreover, complementary differences are to be
+observed in the degree of consolidation presented by the two useful
+digits. For while in the pig the two foot-bones are still clearly
+distinguishable <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_192" id="page_192">[192]</a></span>
+throughout their entire length, in the deer, and still more in the
+camel, their union is more complete, so that they go to constitute a
+single bone, whose double or compound character is indicated externally
+only by a slight bifurcation at the base. Nevertheless, if we examine
+the state of matters in the unborn young of these animals, we find that
+the two bones in question are still separated throughout their length.
+and thus precisely resemble what used to be their permanent condition in
+some of the now fossil species of hoofed mammalia.</p>
+
+<p>Turning next from bones of the limb to other parts of the mammalian
+skeleton, let us briefly consider the evidence of evolution that is here
+likewise presented by the vertebral column, the skull, and the teeth.</p>
+
+<p>As regards the vertebral column, if we examine this <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_193" id="page_193">[193]</a></span>
+structure in any of the existing hoofed animals, we find that the bony
+processes called zygapophyses, which belong to each of the constituent
+vertebr&aelig;, are so arranged that the anterior pair belonging to each
+vertebra interlocks with the posterior pair belonging to the next
+vertebra. In this way the whole series of vertebr&aelig; are connected
+together in the form of a chain, which, while admitting of considerable
+movement laterally, is everywhere guarded against dislocation. But if we
+examine the skeletons of any ungulates from the lower Eocene deposits,
+we find that in no case is there any such arrangement to secure
+interlocking. In all the hoofed mammals of this period the zygapophyses
+are flat. Now, from this flat condition to the present condition of full
+interlocking we obtain a complete series of connecting links. In the
+middle Miocene period we find a group of hoofed animals in which the
+articulation begins by a slight rounding of the previously flat
+surfaces: later on this rounding progressively increases, until
+eventually we get the complete interlocking of the present time.</p>
+
+<p>As regards teeth, and still confining attention to the hoofed mammals,
+we find that low down in the geological series the teeth present on
+their grinding surfaces only three simple tubercles. Later on a fourth
+tubercle is added, and later still there is developed that complicated
+system of ridges and furrows which is characteristic of these teeth at
+the present time, and which was produced by manifold and various
+involutions of the three or four simple tubercles of Eocene and lower
+Miocene times. In other words, the principle of gradual improvement in
+the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_195" id="page_195">[195]</a></span>
+Construction of teeth, which has already been depicted as regards the
+particular case of the horse-family (Fig. 83), is no less apparent in
+the pedigree of all the other mammalia, wherever the pal&aelig;ontological
+history is sufficiently intact to serve as a record at all.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_194" id="page_194">[194]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 348px;">
+<img src="images/i_211_086.jpg" width="348" height="500" alt="Comparative series of Brains." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 86.&mdash;Comparative series of Brains. (After Le Conte.)
+The series reads from above downwards, and represents diagrammatically
+the brain of a Fish, a Reptile, a Bird, a Mammal, and a Man. In each
+case the letter A marks a side view, and the letter B a top view. The
+small italics throughout signify the following homologous parts: <i>m</i>,
+medulla; <i>cb</i>, cerebellum; <i>op</i>, optic lobes; <i>cr</i>, cerebrum and
+thalamus; <i>ol</i>, olfactory lobes. The series shows a progressive
+consolidation and enlargement of the brain in general, and of the
+cerebrum and cerebellum in particular, which likewise exhibit
+continually advancing structure in respect of convolution. In the case
+of Man, these two parts of the brain have grown to so great a size that
+they conceal all the other parts from the superficial points of view
+represented in the diagram.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_195c" id="page_195c">[195c.]</a></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_212_087.jpg" width="400" height="294" alt="Ideal section through all the above stages." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig</span>. 87.&mdash;Ideal section through all the above stages.
+(After Le Conte.)</span></div>
+
+<p>Lastly, as regards the skull, casts of the interior show that all the
+earlier mammals had small brains with comparatively smooth or
+unconvoluted surfaces; and that as time went on the mammalian brain
+gradually advanced in size and complexity. Indeed so small were the
+cerebral hemispheres of the primitive mammals that they did not overlap
+the cerebellum, while their smoothness must have been such as in this
+respect to have resembled the brain of a bird or reptile. This, of
+course, is just as it ought to be, if the brain, which the skull has to
+accommodate, has been gradually <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_196" id="page_196">[196]</a></span>
+evolved into larger and larger proportions in respect of its cerebral
+hemispheres, or the upper masses of it which constitute the seat of
+intelligence. Thus, if we look at the above series of wood-cuts, which
+represents the comparative structure of the brain in the existing
+classes of the Vertebrata, we can immediately understand why the fossil
+skulls of Mammalia should present a gradual increase in size and
+furrowing, so as to accommodate the general increase of the brain in
+both these respects between the level marked &ldquo;maml&rdquo; and that
+marked &ldquo;man,&rdquo; in the last of the diagrams. (Fig. 87.)</p>
+
+<p>The tabular statement on the following diagram, which I borrow from
+Prof. Cope, will serve at a glance to reveal the combined significance
+of so many lines of evidence, united within the limits of the same group
+of animals.</p>
+
+<p>To give only one special illustration of the principle of evolution as
+regards the skull, here is one of the most recent instances that has
+occurred of the discovery of a missing link, or connecting form (see
+Fig. 88). The fossil (B), which was found in New Jersey, stands in an
+intermediate position between the stag and the elk. In the stag (A) the
+skull is high, showing but little of that anterior attenuation which is
+such a distinctive feature of the skull of the elk (C). The nasal bones
+(N) of the former, again, are remarkably long when compared with the
+similar bones of the latter, and the premaxillaries (PMX), instead of
+being projected forward along the horizontal plane of the base of the
+skull, are deflected sharply downward. In all these points, it will be
+seen, the newly discovered form (<span class='sn'>Cervalces</span>) holds an intermediate
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_198" id="page_198">[198]</a></span>
+position (B). &ldquo;The skull exhibits a partial attenuation
+anteriorly, the premaxillaries are directed about equally downward and
+forward, and the nasal bones are measurably contracted in size. The
+horns likewise <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_199" id="page_199">[199]</a></span>
+furnish characters which further serve to establish this dual
+relationship<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_198i" id="page_198i">[198i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 307px;">
+<img src="images/i_215_088.jpg" width="307" height="500" alt="Skulls of Canadian Stag, Cervalces
+Americanus and Elk." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 88.&mdash;Skulls of&mdash;A, Canadian Stag; B, <span class='sn'>Cervalces
+Americanus</span>; and C, Elk. (After Heilprin.)</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_197" id="page_197">[197]</a></p>
+<div class='center mt2'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="" style='font-size:0.8em;'>
+<tr><td class='c'>Formation.</td><td class='c'>No. of toes.</td><td class='c'>Feet.</td><td class='c'>Astragalus.</td><td class='c'>Carpus and tarsus.</td><td class='c'>Ulno-radius</td><td class='c'>Superior molars.</td><td class='c'>Zygapophyses.</td><td class='c'>Brain.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>&nbsp;&nbsp;Pliocene.</td><td class='c'>1-1<br />2-2</td><td class='l'>Digitigrade.<br />(Plantigrade.)</td><td class='l'>Grooved.<br />(Flat.)</td><td class='l'>Interlocking.<br />(Opposite.)</td><td class='l'>Faceted.</td><td class='l'>4-tubercles, crested and cemented</td><td class='l'>Doubly involute.<br />Singly involute.</td><td class='l'>Hemispheres larger, convoluted.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Upper Miocene.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;(Loup Fork.)</td><td class='c'>3-3<br />4-4<br />(5-5)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Middle.<br />(John Day.)</td><td class='c'>2-2<br />3-3<br />4-4</td><td class='l'>Digitigrade.</td><td class='l'>Grooved.</td><td class='l'>Interlocking.</td><td class='l'>Faceted.<br />Smooth.</td><td class='l'>4-tubercles, and crested.</td><td class='l'>Singly involute.<br />Doubly involute.</td><td class='l'>Hemispheres larger, convoluted.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Lower<br />(White River.)</td><td class='c'>3-3<br />4-3<br />4-4</td><td class='l'>Digitigrade.<br />Plantigrade.</td><td class='l'>Grooved.</td><td class='l'>Interlocking.</td><td class='l'>Smooth.<br />Faceted.</td><td class='l'>4-tubercles, and crested.</td><td class='l'>? Singly involute.</td><td class='l'>Hemispheres small, and larger.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Eocene.<br />Upper<br />(bridger.)</td><td class='c'>3-3<br />4-3<br />4-5<br />5-5</td><td class='l'>(Digitigrade.)<br />Plantigrade.</td><td class='l'>Grooved.<br />(Flat.)</td><td class='l'>Opposite. Interlocking.</td><td class='l'>Smooth.</td><td class='l'>4-tubercles.<br />3-tubercles, and crested.</td><td class='l'>Singly involute.<br />Plane.</td><td class='l'>Hemispheres small</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Middle.<br />(Wasatch.)</td><td class='c'>4-3<br />4-5<br />5-5</td><td class='l'>Plantigrade.<br />(Digitigrade.)</td><td class='l'>Flat.<br />(Grooved.)</td><td class='l'>Opposite. Interlocking.</td><td class='l'>Smooth.</td><td class='l'>4-tubercles.<br />3-tubercles, a few crested.</td><td class='l'>Plane.<br />Singly involute.</td><td class='l'>Hemispheres small; mesencehpalon sometimes exposed.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Lower<br />(Puerco.)</td><td class='c'>5-5</td><td class='l'>Plantigrade.</td><td class='l'>Flat.</td><td class='l'>Opposite.</td><td class='l'>Smooth.</td><td class='l'>3-tubercles.<br />(4-tubercles), none crested.</td><td class='l'>Plane.</td><td class='l'>Mesencephalon exposed; hemisphere small and smoother.</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_199c" id="page_199c">[199c.]</a></span>
+The evidence, then, which is furnished by all parts of the vertebral
+skeleton&mdash;whether we have regard to Fishes, Reptiles, Birds, or
+Mammals&mdash;is cumulative and consistent. Nowhere do we meet with any
+deviation or ambiguity, while everywhere we encounter similar proofs of
+continuous transformation&mdash;proofs which vary only with the varying
+amount of material which happens to be at our disposal, being most
+numerous and detailed in those cases where the greatest number of fossil
+forms has been preserved by the geological record. Here, therefore, we
+may leave the vertebral skeleton; and, having presented a sample of the
+evidence as yielded by horns and bones, I will conclude by glancing with
+similar brevity at the case of shells&mdash;which, as before remarked,
+constitute the only other sufficiently hard or permanent material to
+yield unbroken evidence touching the fossil ancestry of animals.</p>
+
+<p>Of course it will be understood that I am everywhere giving merely
+samples of the now superabundant evidence which is yielded by
+pal&aelig;ontology; and, as this chapter is already a long one, I must content
+myself with citing only the case of mollusk-shells, although shells of
+other classes might be made to yield highly important additions to the
+testimony. Moreover, even as regards the one division of mollusk-shells,
+I can afford to quote only a very few cases. These, however, are in my
+opinion the strongest single pieces of evidence in favour of
+transmutation which have thus far been brought to light.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_200" id="page_200">[200]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 293px;">
+<img src="images/i_217_089.jpg" width="293" height="500" alt="Transmutations of Planorbis." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 89.&mdash;Transmutations of <span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>. (After Hyatt.)</span></div>
+
+<p>Near the village of Steinheim, in W&uuml;rtemberg, there is an ancient
+lake-basin, dating from Tertiary times. The lake has long ago dried up;
+but its aqueous deposits are extraordinarily rich in fossil shells,
+especially of different species of the genus<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_201" id="page_201">[201]</a></span>
+<span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>. The following is an authoritative
+<i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> of the facts.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>As the deposits seem to have been continuous for ages, and the
+fossil shells very abundant, this seemed to be an excellent
+opportunity to test the theory of derivation. With this end in
+view, they have been made the subject of exhaustive study by
+Hilgendorf in 1866, and by Hyatt in 1880. In passing from the
+lowest to the highest strata the species change greatly and many
+times, the extreme forms being so different that, were it not for
+the intermediate forms, they would be called not only different
+species, but different genera. And yet the gradations are so
+insensible that the whole series is nothing less than a
+demonstration, in this case at least, of origin of species by
+derivation with modifications. The accompanying plate of successive
+forms (Fig. 89), which we take from Prof. Hyatt&rsquo;s admirable
+memoir, will show this better than any mere verbal explanation. It
+will be observed that, commencing with four slight
+varieties&mdash;probably sexually isolated varieties&mdash;of one species,
+each series shows a gradual transformation as we go upward in the
+strata&mdash;i. e. onward in time. Series I branches into three
+sub-series, in two of which the change of form is extreme. Series
+IV is remarkable for great increase in size as well as change in
+form. In the plate we give only selected stages, but in the fuller
+plates of the memoir, and still more in the shells themselves, the
+subtilest gradations are found<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Here is another and more recently observed case of transmutation in the
+case of mollusks.</p>
+
+<p>The recent species, <span class='sn'>Strombus accipitrinus</span>, still inhabits the coasts of
+Florida. Its extinct prototype, <span class='sn'>S. Leidy</span>, was discovered a few years ago
+by Prof. Heilprin in the Pliocene formations of the interior of Florida.
+The peculiar shape of the wing, and tuberculation of the whorl, are thus
+proved to have grown but of a previously more conical form of shell.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_202" id="page_202">[202]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_219_090.jpg" width="500" height="217" alt="Transformation of Strombus." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 90.&mdash;Transformation of <span class='sn'>Strombus</span>. (After Heilprin.)
+1, 1<i>a</i>, <span class='sn'>Strombus Leidy</span> (1, typical), Pliocene; 2, 2<i>a</i>, <span class='sn'>Strombus
+accipitrinus</span> (2<i>a</i> typical) Recent.</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_203" id="page_203">[203]</a></span></p>
+<p>Lastly, attention may here again be directed to the very instructive
+series of shells which has already been shown in a previous chapter, and
+which serves to illustrate the successive geological forms of <span class='sn'>Paludina</span>
+from the Tertiary beds of Slavonia, as depicted by Prof. Neumayr of
+Vienna. (Fig. 1, p. 19.)</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_204" id="page_204">[204]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Geographical Distribution.</span></h2>
+
+<p>The argument from geology is the argument from the distribution of
+species in time. I will next take the argument from the distribution of
+species in space&mdash;that is, the present geographical distribution of
+plants and animals.</p>
+
+<p>Seeing that the theory of descent with adaptive modification implies
+slow and gradual change of one species into another, and progressively
+still more slow and gradual changes of one genus, family, or order into
+another genus, family, or order, we should expect on this theory that
+the organic types living on any given geographical area would be found
+to resemble or to differ from organic types living elsewhere, according
+as the area is connected with or disconnected from other geographical
+areas. For instance, the large continental islands of Australia and New
+Zealand are widely disconnected from all other lands of the world, and
+deep sea soundings show that they have probably been thus disconnected,
+either since the time of their origin, or, at the least, through immense
+geological epochs. The theory of evolution, therefore, would expect to
+find two general facts with regard to the inhabitants of these islands.
+First, that <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_205" id="page_205">[205]</a></span>
+the inhabitants should form, as it were, little worlds of their own,
+more or less unlike the inhabitants of any other parts of the globe. And
+next, that some of these inhabitants should present us with independent
+information touching archaic forms of life. For it is manifestly most
+improbable that the course of evolutionary history should have run
+exactly parallel in the case of these isolated oceanic continents and in
+continents elsewhere. Australia and New Zealand, therefore, ought to
+present a very large number, not only of peculiar species and genera,
+but even of families, and possibly of orders. Now this is just what
+Australia and New Zealand do present. The case of the dog being
+doubtful, there is an absence of all mammalian life, except that of one
+of the oldest and least highly developed orders, the Marsupials. There
+even occurs a unique order, still lower in the scale of
+organization&mdash;so low, in fact, that it deserves to be regarded as
+but nascent mammalian: I mean, of course, the Monotremata. As regards
+Birds, we have the peculiar wingless forms alluded to in a previous
+chapter (viz. that on Morphology); and, without waiting to go into
+details, it is notorious that the faunas of Australia and New Zealand
+are not only highly peculiar, but also suggestively archaic. Therefore,
+in both the respects above mentioned, the anticipations of our theory
+are fully borne out. But as it would take too long to consider, even
+cursorily, the faunas and floras of these immense islands, I here allude
+to them only for the sake of illustration. In order to present the
+argument from geographical distribution within reasonable limits, I
+think it is best to restrict our examination to smaller areas; for these
+will better <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_206" id="page_206">[206]</a></span>
+admit of brief and yet adequate consideration. But of course it will be
+understood that the less isolated the region, and the shorter the time
+that it has been isolated, the smaller amount of peculiarity should we
+expect to meet with on the part of its present inhabitants. Or,
+conversely stated, the longer and the greater the isolation, the more
+peculiarity of species would our theory expect to find. The object of
+the present chapter will be to show that these, and other cognate
+expectations, are fully realized by facts; but, before proceeding to do
+this, I must say a few words on the antecedent standing of the argument.</p>
+
+<p>Where the question is, as at present, between the rival theories of
+special creation and gradual transmutation, it may at first sight well
+appear that no test can be at once so crucial and so easily applied as
+this of comparing the species of one geographical area with those of
+another, in order to see whether there is any constant correlation
+between differences of type and degrees of separation. But a little
+further thought is enough to show that the test is not quite so simple
+or so absolute&mdash;that it is a test to be applied in a large and general
+way over the surface of the whole earth, rather than one to be relied
+upon as exclusively rigid in every special case.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, there is the obvious consideration that lands or
+seas which are discontinuous now may not always have been so, or not for
+long enough to admit of the effects of separation having been exerted to
+any considerable extent upon their inhabitants. Next, there is the
+scarcely less important consideration, that although land areas may long
+have been separated from one another by extensive tracts of ocean,
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_207" id="page_207">[207]</a></span>
+birds and insects may more or less easily have been able to fly from
+one to the other; while even non-flying animals and plants may often
+have been transported by floating ice or timber, wind or water currents,
+and sundry other means of dispersal. Again, there is the important
+influence of climate to be taken into account. We know from geological
+evidence that in the course of geological time the self-same continents
+have been submitted to enormous changes of temperature&mdash;varying in
+fact from polar cold to almost tropical heat; and as it is manifestly
+impossible that forms of life suited to one of these climates could have
+survived during the other, we can here perceive a further and most
+potent cause interfering with the test of geographical distribution as
+indiscriminately applied in all cases. When the elephant and
+hippopotamus were flourishing in England amid the luxuriant vegetation
+which these large animals require, it is evident that scarcely any one
+species of either the fauna or the flora of this country can have been
+the same as it was when its African climate gave place to that of
+Greenland. Therefore, as Mr. Wallace observes, &ldquo;If glacial epochs
+in temperate lands and mild climates near the poles have, as now
+believed by men of eminence, occurred several times over in the past
+history of the earth, the effects of such great and repeated changes
+both on migration, modification, and extinction of species, must have
+been of overwhelming importance&mdash;of more importance perhaps than
+even the geological changes of sea and land.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>But although for these, and certain other less important reasons which I
+need not wait to detail, we must conclude that the evidence from
+geographical <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_208" id="page_208">[208]</a></span>
+distribution is not to be regarded as a crucial test between the rival
+theories of creation and evolution in all cases indiscriminately, I must
+next remark that it is undoubtedly one of the strongest lines of
+evidence which we possess. When we once remember that, according to the
+general theory of evolution itself, the present geographical
+distribution of plants and animals is &ldquo;the visible outcome or
+residual product of the whole past history of the earth,&rdquo; and,
+therefore, that of the conditions determining the characters of life
+inhabiting this and that particular area continuity or discontinuity
+with other areas is but one,&mdash;when we remember this, we find that
+no further reservation has to be made: all the facts of geographical
+distribution speak with one consent in favour of the naturalistic
+theory.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>The first of these facts which I shall adduce is, that although the
+geographical range of any given species is, as a rule, continuous, such
+is far from being always the case. Very many species have more or less
+discontinuous ranges&mdash;the mountain-hare, for instance, extending from
+the Arctic regions over the greater portion of Europe to the Ural
+Mountains and the Caucasus, and yet over all this enormous tract
+appearing only in isolated or discontinuous patches, where there happen
+to be either mountain ranges or climates cold enough to suit its nature.
+Now, in all such cases of discontinuity in the range of a species the
+theory of evolution has a simple explanation to offer&mdash;namely, either
+that some representatives of the species have at some former period been
+able to migrate from one region to the other, or else that at <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_209" id="page_209">[209]</a></span>
+one time the species occupied the whole of the range in question, but
+afterwards became broken up as geographical, climatic, or other changes
+rendered parts of the area unfit for the species to inhabit. Thus, for
+instance, it is easy to understand that during the last cold epoch the
+mountain-hare would have had a continuous range; but that as the Arctic
+climate gradually receded to polar regions, the species would be able to
+survive in southern latitudes only on mountain ranges, and thus would
+become broken up into many discontinuous patches, corresponding with
+these ranges. In the same way we can explain the occurrence of Arctic
+vegetation on the Alps and Pyrenees&mdash;namely, as left behind by the
+retreat of the Arctic climate at the close of the glacial period.</p>
+
+<p>But now, on the other hand, the theory of special creation cannot so
+well afford to render this obvious explanation of discontinuity. In the
+case of the Arctic flora of the Alps, for instance, although it is true
+that much of this vegetation is of an Arctic type, it is not true that
+the species are all identical with those which occur in the Arctic
+regions. Therefore the theory of special creation would here have to
+assume that, although the now common species were left behind on the
+Alps by the retreat of glaciation northwards, the peculiar Alpine
+species were afterwards created separately upon the Alps, and yet
+created with such close affinities to the pre-existing species as to be
+included with them under the same genera. Looking to the absurdity of
+this supposition, as well as of others which I need not wait to mention,
+certain advocates of special creation have sought to take refuge in
+another hypothesis&mdash;namely, that <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_210" id="page_210">[210]</a></span>
+species which present a markedly discontinuous range may have had a
+corresponding number of different centres of creation, the same specific
+type having been turned down, so to speak, on widely separated areas.
+But to me it seems that this explanation presents even greater
+difficulty than the other. If it is difficult to say why the Divinity
+should have chosen to create new species of plants on the Alps on so
+precisely the same pattern as the old, much more would it be difficult
+to say why, in addition to these new species, he should also have
+created again the old species which he had already placed in the Arctic
+regions.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>So much, then, for discontinuity of distribution. The next general fact
+to be adduced is, that there is no constant correlation between habitats
+and animals or plants suited to live upon them. Of course all the
+animals and plants living upon any given area are well suited to live
+upon that area; for otherwise they could not be there. But the point now
+is, that besides the area on which they do live, there are usually many
+other areas in different parts of the globe where they might have lived
+equally well&mdash;as is proved by the fact that when transported by man they
+thrive as well, or even better, than in their native country. Therefore,
+upon the supposition that all species were separately created in the
+countries where they are respectively found, we must conclude that they
+were created in only some of the places where they might equally well
+have lived. Probably there is at most but a small percentage either of
+plants or animals which would not thrive in some <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_211" id="page_211">[211]</a></span>
+place, or places, on the earth&rsquo;s surface other than that in which
+they occur; and hence we must say that one of the objects of special
+creation&mdash;if this be the true theory&mdash;was that of depositing
+species in only some among the several parts of the earth&rsquo;s
+surface equally well suited to support them.</p>
+
+<p>Now, I do not contend that this fact in itself raises any difficulty
+against the theory of special creation. But I do think that a very
+serious difficulty is raised when to this fact we add another&mdash;namely,
+that on every biological region we encounter species related to other
+species in genera, and usually also genera related to other genera in
+families. For if each of all the constituent species of a genus, and
+even of a family, were separately created, we must hence conclude that
+in depositing them there was an unaccountable design manifested to make
+areas of distribution correspond to the natural affinities of their
+inhabitants. For example, the humming-birds are geographically
+restricted to America, and number 120 genera, comprising over 400
+species. Hence, if this betokens 400 separate acts of creation, it
+cannot possibly have been due to chance that they were all performed on
+the same continent: it must have been design which led to every species
+of this large family of birds having been deposited in one geographical
+area. Or, to take a case where only the species of a single genus are
+concerned. The rats and mice proper constitute a genus which comprises
+altogether more than 100 species, and they are all exclusively
+restricted to the Old World. In the New World they are represented by
+another genus comprising about 70 species, which resemble their<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_212" id="page_212">[212]</a></span>
+Old World cousins in form and habits; but differ from them in dentition
+and other such minor points. Now, the question is,&mdash;Why should all
+the 100 species have been separately created on one side of the Atlantic
+with one pattern of dentition, and all the 70 species on the other side
+with another pattern? What has the Atlantic Ocean got to do with any
+&ldquo;archetypal plan&rdquo; of rats&rsquo; teeth?</p>
+
+<p>Or again, to recur to Australia, why should all the mammalian forms of
+life be restricted to the one group of Marsupials, when we know that not
+only the Rodents, such as the rabbit, but all other orders of mammals,
+would thrive there equally well. And similarly, of course, in countless
+other instances. Everywhere we meet with this same correlation between
+areas of distribution and affinities of classification.</p>
+
+<p>Now, it is at once manifest how completely this general fact harmonizes
+with the theory of evolution. If the 400 species of humming-birds, for
+instance, are all modified descendants of common ancestors, and if none
+of their constituent individuals have ever been large enough to make
+their way across the oceans which practically isolate their territory
+from all other tropical and sub-tropical regions of the globe, then we
+can understand why it is that all the 400 species occupy the same
+continent. But on the special-creation theory we can see no reason why
+the 400 species should all have been deposited in America. And, as
+already observed, we must remember that this correlation between a
+geographically restricted habitat and the zoological or botanical
+affinities of its inhabitants, is repeated over and over and over again
+in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_213" id="page_213">[213]</a></span>
+faunas and floras of the world, so that merely to enumerate the
+instances would require a separate chapter.</p>
+
+<p>Furthermore, the general argument thus presented in favour of descent
+with continuous modification admits of being enormously strengthened by
+three different classes of additional facts.</p>
+
+<p>The first is, that the correlation in question&mdash;namely, that between a
+geographically restricted habitat and the zoological or botanical
+affinities of its inhabitants&mdash;is not limited to the now existing
+species, but extends also to the extinct. That is to say, the dead
+species are allied to the living species, as we should expect that they
+must be, if the latter are modified descendants of the former. On the
+alternative theory, however, we have to suppose that the policy of
+maintaining a correlation between geographical restriction and natural
+affinity extends very much further back than even the existing species
+of plants and animals; indeed we must suppose that a practically
+infinite number of additional acts of separate creation were governed by
+the same policy, in the case of long lines of species long since
+extinct.</p>
+
+<p>Thus far, then, the only answer which an advocate of special creation
+can adduce is, that for some reason unknown to us such a policy may have
+been more wise than it appears: it may have served some inscrutable
+purpose that allied products of distinct acts of creation should all be
+kept together on the same areas. Well, in answer to this unjustifiable
+appeal to the argument from ignorance, I will adduce the second of the
+three considerations. This is, that in cases where the geographical
+areas are not restricted the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_214" id="page_214">[214]</a></span>
+policy in question fails. In other words, where the inhabitants of an
+area are free to migrate to other areas, the policy of correlating
+affinity with distribution is most significantly forgotten. In this case
+species wander away from their native homes, and the course of their
+wanderings is marked by the origination of new species springing up en
+route. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that the mere circumstance of
+some members of a species being able to leave their native home should
+furnish any occasion for creating new and allied species upon the tracts
+over which they travel, or the territories to which they go? When the
+400 existing species of humming-birds have all been created on the same
+continent for some reason supposed to be unknown, why should this reason
+give way before the accident of any means of migration being furnished
+to humming-birds, so that they should be able to visit, say the
+continents of Africa and Asia, there gain a footing beside the
+sun-birds, and henceforth determine a new centre for the separate
+creation of additional species of humming-birds peculiar to the Old
+World&mdash;as has happened in the case of the majority of species
+which, unlike the humming-birds, have been at any time free to migrate
+from their original homes?</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, my third consideration is, that the supposed policy in question
+does not extend to affinities which are wider than those between species
+and genera&mdash;more rarely to families, scarcely ever to orders, and never
+to classes. In other words, nature shows a double correlation in her
+geographical distribution of organic types:&mdash;first, that which we have
+already considered between geographical restriction and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_215" id="page_215">[215]</a></span>
+Natural affinity among inhabitants of the same areas; second, another
+of a more detailed character between <i>degrees</i> of geographical
+restriction and <i>degrees</i> of natural affinity. The more distant the
+affinity, the more general is the extension. This, of course, is what we
+should expect on the theory of descent with modification, because the
+more distant the affinity, and therefore, <i>ex hypothesi</i>, the larger and
+the older the original group of organisms, the greater must be the
+chance of dispersal. The 400 species of humming-birds may well be unable
+to migrate from their native continent; but it would indeed have been an
+unaccountable fact if no other species of all the class of birds had
+ever been able to have crossed the atlantic ocean. Thus, on the theory
+of evolution, we can well understand the second correlation now before
+us&mdash;namely, between remoteness of affinity and generality of
+dispersal,&mdash;so that there is no considerable portion of the
+habitable globe without representatives of all the classes of animals,
+few portions without representatives of all the orders, but many
+portions without many of the families, innumerable portions without
+innumerable genera, and, of course, all portions without the great
+majority of species. Now, while this general correlation thus obviously
+supports the theory of natural descent with progressive modification, it
+makes directly against the opposite theory of special creation. For we
+have recently seen that when we restrict our view to the case of species
+and genera, the theory of special creation is obliged to suppose that
+for some inscrutable reason the deity had regard to systematic affinity
+while determining on what large areas to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_216" id="page_216">[216]</a></span>
+create his species<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>.
+but now we see that he must be held to have neglected this inscrutable
+reason (whatever it was) when he passed beyond the range of
+genera&mdash;and this always in proportion to the remoteness of
+systematic affinity on the part of the species concerned.</p>
+
+<p>I cannot well conceive a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> more complete than this.
+But, having now presented these most general facts of geographical
+distribution in their relation to the issue before us, we may next
+proceed to consider a few illustrations of them in detail, for in this
+way I think that their overwhelming weight may become yet more
+abundantly apparent.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>It will assist us in dealing with these detailed illustrations if we
+begin by considering the means of dispersal of organisms from one place
+to another. Of course the most ordinary means is that of continuous
+wandering, or emigration; but where geographical barriers of any kind
+have to be surmounted, organisms may only be able to pass them by more
+exceptional and accidental means. The principal barriers of a
+geographical kind are oceans, rivers, mountain-chains, and
+desert-tracts, in the case of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_217" id="page_217">[217]</a></span>
+terrestrial organisms; and, in the case of aquatic organisms, the
+presence of land. But it is to be observed that, as regards marine
+organisms, any considerable difference in the temperature of the water
+may constitute a barrier as effectual as the presence of land; and also
+that, in the case of all shallow-water faunas, a tract of deep ocean
+constitutes almost as complete a barrier as it does to terrestrial
+faunas.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the means whereby barriers admit of being accidentally or
+occasionally surmounted are, of course, various; and they differ in the
+case of different organisms. Birds, bats, and insects, on account of
+their powers of flight, are particularly apt to be blown out great
+distances to sea, and hence of all animals are most likely to become the
+involuntary colonists of distant shores. Floating timber serves to
+convey seeds and eggs of small animals over great distances; and Darwin
+has shown that many kinds of seeds are able of themselves to float for
+more than a month in sea-water without losing their powers of
+germination. For instance, out of 87 kinds, 64 germinated after an
+immersion of 28 days, and a few survived an immersion of 137 days. As a
+result of all his experiments he concludes, that the seeds of at least
+ten per cent. of the species of plants of any country might be floated
+by sea-currents during 28 days, without losing their powers of
+germination; and this, at the average rate of flow of several Atlantic
+currents, would serve to transport the seeds to a distance of at least
+900 miles. Again, he proved that even seeds which are quickly destroyed
+by contact with sea-water admit of being successfully transported during
+30 days, if they be contained within the crop of a dead bird. He also
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_218" id="page_218">[218]</a></span>
+proved that living birds are most active agents in the work of
+dissemination, and this not only by taking seeds into their crops
+(where, so long as they remain, the seeds are uninjured), but likewise
+by carrying seeds (and even young mollusks) attached to their feet and
+feathers. In the course of these experiments he found that a small
+cup-full of mud, which he gathered from the edges of three ponds in
+February, was so charged with seeds that when sown in the ground these
+few ounces of mud yielded no less than 537 plants, belonging to many
+different species. It is therefore evident what opportunities are thus
+afforded for the transportation of seeds on the feet and bills of
+wading-birds. Lastly, floating ice is well known to act as a carrier of
+any kind of life which may prove able to survive this mode of transit.</p>
+
+<p>Such being the nature of geographical barriers, and the means that
+organisms of various kinds may occasionally have of overcoming them, I
+will now give a few detailed illustrations of the argument from
+geographical distribution, as previously presented in its general form.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with aquatic animals. As Darwin remarks, &ldquo;the marine
+inhabitants of the Eastern and Western shores of South America are very
+distinct; with extremely few shells, crustacea, or echinodermata in
+common.&rdquo; Again, westward of the shores of America, a wide space of
+open ocean extends, which, as we have seen, furnishes as effectual a
+barrier as does the land to any emigration of shallow-water animals.
+Now, as soon as this reach of deep water is passed, we meet in the
+eastern islands of the Pacific with another and totally distinct fauna.
+&ldquo;So that three marine <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_219" id="page_219">[219]</a></span>
+faunas range northward and southward in parallel lines not far from
+each other, under corresponding climates": they are, however,
+&ldquo;separated from each other by impassable barriers, either of land
+or open sea": and it is in exact coincidence with the course of these
+barriers that we find so remarkable a differentiation of the
+faunas<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a>.
+Obviously, therefore, it is impossible to suggest that this correlation
+is accidental. Altogether many thousands of species are involved, and
+within this comparatively limited area they are sharply marked off into
+three groups as to their natural affinities, and into three groups as to
+their several basins. Hence, if all these species were separately
+created, there is no escape from the conclusion that for some reason or
+another the act of creation was governed by the presence of these
+barriers, so that species deposited on the Eastern shores of South
+America were formed with one set of natural affinities, while species
+deposited on the Western shore were formed with another set; and
+similarly with regard to the third set of species in the third basin,
+which, extending over a whole hemisphere to the coast of Africa without
+any further barrier, nowhere presents, over this vast area, any other
+case of a distinct marine fauna. But what conceivable reason can there
+have been thus to consult these geographical barriers in the original
+creation of specific <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_220" id="page_220">[220]</a></span>
+types? Even if such a case stood alone, it would be strongly suggestive
+of error on the part of the special creation theory. But let us take
+another case, this time from fresh-water faunas.</p>
+
+<p>Although the geographical distribution of fresh-water fish and
+fresh-water shells is often surprisingly extensive and apparently
+capricious, this may be explained by the means of dispersal being here
+so varied&mdash;not only aquatic birds, floods, and whirlwinds, but also
+geographical changes of water-shed having all assisted in the process.
+Moreover, in some cases it is possible that the habits of more widely
+distributed fresh-water fish may have originally been wholly or partly
+marine&mdash;which, of course, would explain the existing discontinuity of
+their existing fresh-water distribution. But, be this as it may (and it
+is not a question that affects the issue between special creation and
+gradual evolution, since it is only a question as to how a given species
+has been dispersed from its original home, whether or not in that home
+it was specially created), the point I desire to bring forward is, that
+where we find a barrier to the emigration of fresh-water forms which is
+more formidable than a thousand miles of ocean&mdash;a barrier over which
+neither water-fowl nor whirlwinds are likely to pass, and which is above
+the reach of any geological changes of water-shed,&mdash;where we find such a
+barrier, we always find a marked difference in the fresh-water faunas on
+either side of it. The kind of barrier to which I allude is a high
+mountain-chain. It may be only a few miles wide; yet it exercises a
+greater influence on the diversification of specific <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_221" id="page_221">[221]</a></span>
+types, where fresh-water faunas are concerned, than almost any other.
+But why should this be the case on any intelligible theory of special
+creation? Why, in the depositing of species of newly created fresh-water
+fish, should the presence of an impassable mountain-chain have
+determined so uniformly a difference of specific affinity on either side
+of it? The question, so far as I can see, does not admit of an answer
+from any reasonable opponent.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Turning now from aquatic organisms to terrestrial, the body of facts
+from which to draw is so large, that I think the space at my disposal
+may be best utilized by confining attention to a single division of
+them&mdash;that, namely, which is furnished by the zoological study of
+oceanic islands.</p>
+
+<p>In the comparatively limited&mdash;but in itself extensive&mdash;class of facts
+thus presented, we have a particularly fair and cogent test as between
+the alternative theories of evolution and creation. For where we meet
+with a volcanic island, hundreds of miles from any other land, and
+rising abruptly from an ocean of enormous depth, we may be quite sure
+that such an island can never have formed part of a now submerged
+continent. In other words, we may be quite sure that it always has been
+what it now is&mdash;an oceanic peak, separated from all other land by
+hundreds of miles of sea, and therefore an area supplied by nature for
+the purpose, as it were, of testing the rival theories of creation and
+evolution. For, let us ask, upon these tiny insular specks of land what
+kind of life should we expect to find? To this question the theories of
+special creation and of gradual evolution would <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_222" id="page_222">[222]</a></span>
+agree in giving the same answer up to a certain point. For both
+theories would agree in supposing that these islands would, at all
+events in large part, derive their inhabitants from accidental or
+occasional arrivals of wind-blown or water-floated organisms from other
+countries&mdash;especially, of course, from the countries least remote.
+But, after agreeing upon this point, the two theories must part company
+in their anticipations. The special-creation theory can have no reason
+to suppose that a small volcanic island in the midst of a great ocean
+should be chosen as the theatre of any extraordinary creative activity,
+or for any particularly rich manufacture of peculiar species to be found
+nowhere else in the world. On the other hand, the evolution theory would
+expect to find that such habitats are stocked with more or less peculiar
+species. For it would expect that when any organisms chanced to reach a
+wholly isolated refuge of this kind, their descendants should forthwith
+have started upon an independent course of evolutionary history.
+Protected from intercrossing with any members of their parent species
+elsewhere, and exposed to considerable changes in their conditions of
+life, it would indeed be fatal to the general theory of evolution if
+these descendants, during the course of many generations, were not to
+undergo appreciable change. It has happened on two or three occasions
+that European rats have been accidentally imported by ships upon some of
+these islands, and even already it is observed that their descendants
+have undergone a slight change of appearance, so as to constitute them
+what naturalists call local varieties. The change, of course, is but
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_223" id="page_223">[223]</a></span>
+slight, because the time allowed for it has been so short. But the
+longer the time that a colony of a species is thus completely isolated
+under changed conditions of life the greater, according to the evolution
+theory, should we expect the change to become. Therefore, in all cases
+where we happen to know, from independent evidence of a geological kind,
+that an oceanic island is of very ancient formation, the evolution
+theory would expect to encounter a great wealth of peculiar species. On
+the other hand, as I have just observed, the special-creation theory can
+have no reason to suppose that there should be any correlation between
+the age of an oceanic island and the number of peculiar species which it
+may be found to contain.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, having considered the principles of geographical distribution
+from the widest or most general point of view, we shall pass to the
+opposite extreme, and consider exhaustively, or in the utmost possible
+detail, the facts of such distribution where the conditions are best
+suited to this purpose&mdash;that is, as I have already said, upon oceanic
+islands, which may be metaphorically regarded as having been formed by
+nature for the particular purpose of supplying naturalists with a
+crucial test between the theories of creation and evolution. The
+material upon which my analysis is to be based will be derived from the
+most recent works upon geographical distribution&mdash;especially from the
+magnificent contributions to this department of science which we owe to
+the labours of Mr. Wallace. Indeed, all that follows may be regarded as
+a condensed filtrate of the facts which he has collected. Even as thus
+restricted, however, our subject-matter <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_224" id="page_224">[224]</a></span>
+would be too extensive to be dealt with on the present occasion, were
+we to attempt an exhaustive analysis of the floras and faunas of all
+oceanic islands upon the face of the globe. Therefore, what I propose to
+do is to select for such exhaustive analysis a few of what may be termed
+the most oceanic of oceanic islands&mdash;that is to say, those oceanic
+islands which are most widely separated from mainlands, and which,
+therefore, furnish the most unquestionable of test cases as between the
+theories of special creation and genetic descent.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p><i>Azores.</i>&mdash;A group of volcanic islands, nine in number, about 900 miles
+from the coast of Portugal, and surrounded by ocean depths of 1,800 to
+2,500 fathoms. There is geological evidence that the origin of the group
+dates back at least as far as Miocene times. There is a total absence of
+all terrestrial Vertebrata, other than those which are known to have
+been introduced by man. Flying animals, on the other hand, are abundant;
+namely, 53 species of birds, one species of bat, a few species of
+butterflies, moths, and hymenoptera, with 74 species of indigenous
+beetles. All these animals are unmodified European species, with the
+exception of one bird and many of the beetles. Of the 74 indigenous
+species of the latter, 36 are not found in Europe; but 19 are natives of
+Madeira or the Canaries, and 3 are American, doubtless transplanted by
+drift-wood. The remaining 14 species occur nowhere else in the world,
+though for the most part they are allied to other European species.
+There are 69 known species of land-shells, of which 37 are European, and
+32 peculiar, though all allied to European <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_225" id="page_225">[225]</a></span>
+forms. Lastly, there are 480 known species of plants, of which 40 are
+peculiar, though allied to European species.</p>
+
+<p><i>Bermudas.</i>&mdash;A small volcanic group of islands, 700 miles from North
+Carolina. Although there are about 100 islands in the group, their total
+area does not exceed 50 square miles. The group is surrounded by water
+varying in depth from 2,500 to 3,800 fathoms. The only terrestrial
+Vertebrate (unless the rats and mice are indigenous) is a lizard allied
+to an American form, but specifically distinct from it, and therefore a
+solitary species which does not occur anywhere else in the world. None
+of the birds or bats are peculiar, any more than in the case of the
+Azores; but, as in that case, a large percentage of the land-shells are
+so&mdash;namely, at least one quarter of the whole. Neither the botany nor
+the entomology of this group has been worked out; but I have said enough
+to show how remarkably parallel are the cases of these two volcanic
+groups of islands situated in different hemispheres, but at about the
+same distance from large continents. In both there is an extraordinary
+paucity of terrestrial vertebrata, and of any peculiar species of bird
+or beast. On the other hand, there is in both a marvellous wealth of
+peculiar species of insects and land-shells. Now these correlations are
+all abundantly intelligible. It is a difficult matter for any
+terrestrial animal to cross 900, or even 700, miles of ocean: therefore
+only one lizard has succeeded in doing so in one of the two parallel
+cases; and, living cut off from intercrossing with its parent form, the
+descendants of that lizard have become modified so as to constitute a
+peculiar species. But it is more easy for large flying animals <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_226" id="page_226">[226]</a></span>
+to cross those distances of ocean: consequently, there is only one
+instance of a peculiar species of bird or bat&mdash;namely, a bull-finch
+in the Azores, which, being a small land-bird, is not likely ever to
+have had any other visitors from its original parent species coming over
+from Europe to keep up the original breed. Lastly, it is very much more
+easy for insects and land-mollusca to be conveyed to such islands by
+wind and floating timber than it is for terrestrial mammals, or even
+than it is for small birds and bats; but yet such means of transit are
+not sufficiently sure to admit of much recruiting from the mainland for
+the purpose of keeping up the specific types. Consequently, the insects
+and the land-shells present a much greater proportion of peculiar
+species&mdash;namely, one half and one fourth of the land-shells in the
+one case, and one eighth of the beetles in the other. All these
+correlations, I say, are abundantly intelligible on the theory of
+evolution; but who shall explain, on the opposite theory, why orders of
+beetles and land-mollusca should have been chosen from among all other
+animals for such superabundant creation on oceanic islands, so that in
+the Azores alone we find no less than 32 of the one and 14 of the other?
+And, in this connexion, I may again allude to the peculiar species of
+beetles in the island of Madeira. Here there are an enormous number of
+peculiar species, though they are nearly all related to, or included
+under the same genera as, beetles on the neighbouring continent. Now, as
+we have previously seen, no less than 200 of these species have lost the
+use of their wings. Evolutionists explain this remarkable fact by their
+general laws of degeneration under disuse, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_227" id="page_227">[227]</a></span>
+and the operation of natural selection, as will be shown later on; but
+it is not so easy for special creationists to explain why this enormous
+number of peculiar species of beetles should have been deposited on
+Madeira, all allied to beetles on the nearest continent, and nearly all
+deprived of the use of their wings. And similarly, of course, with all
+the peculiar species of the Bermudas and the Azores. For who will
+explain, on the theory of independent creation, why all the peculiar
+species, both of animals and plants, which occur on the Bermudas should
+so unmistakably present American affinities, while those which occur on
+the Azores no less unmistakably present European affinities? But to
+proceed to other, and still more remarkable, cases.</p>
+
+<p><i>The Galapagos Islands.</i>&mdash;This archipelago is of volcanic origin,
+situated under the equator between 500 and 600 miles from the West Coast
+of South America. The depth of the ocean around them varies from 2,000
+to 3,000 fathoms or more. This group is of particular interest, from the
+fact that it was the study of its fauna which first suggested to
+Darwin&rsquo;s mind the theory of evolution. I will, therefore, begin by
+quoting a short passage from his writings upon the zoological relations
+of this particular fauna.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Here almost every product of the land and of the water bears the
+unmistakeable stamp of the American continent. There are twenty-six
+land birds; of these, twenty-one, or perhaps twenty-three, are
+ranked as distinct species, and would commonly be assumed to have
+been here created; yet the close affinity of most of these birds to
+American species is manifest in every character, in their habits,
+gestures, and tones of voice.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_228" id="page_228">[228]</a></span>
+So it is with the other animals, and with a large proportion of the
+plants, as shown by Dr. Hooker in his admirable Flora of this
+archipelago. The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these
+volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the
+continent, feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this
+be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in
+the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp
+of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the
+conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their
+height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes
+are associated together, which closely resembles the conditions of the
+South American coast; in fact, there is a considerable dissimilarity in
+all these respects. On the other hand, there is a considerable degree of
+resemblance in the volcanic nature of the soil, in the climate, height,
+and size of the islands, between the Galapagos and Cape de Verde
+Archipelagoes; but what an entire and absolute difference in their
+inhabitants! The inhabitants of the Cape de Verde Islands are related to
+those of Africa, like those of the Galapagos to America. Facts such as
+these admit of no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of
+independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious
+that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists from
+America, and the Cape de Verde Islands from Africa; such colonists would
+be liable to modification&mdash;the principle of inheritance still
+betraying their original birthplace<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>The following is a synopsis of the fauna and flora of this archipelago,
+so far as at present known. The only terrestrial vertebrates are two
+peculiar species of land-tortoise, and one extinct species; five species
+of lizards, all peculiar&mdash;two of them so much so as to constitute a
+peculiar genus;&mdash;and two species of snakes, both closely allied to South
+American forms. Of birds there are 57 species, of which no <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_229" id="page_229">[229]</a></span>
+less than 38 are peculiar; and all the non-peculiar species, except
+one, belong to aquatic tribes. The true land birds are represented by 31
+species, of which all, except one, are peculiar; while more than half of
+them go to constitute peculiar genera. Moreover, while they are all
+unquestionably allied to South American forms, they present a beautiful
+series of gradations, &ldquo;from perfect identity with the continental
+species, to genera so distinct that it is difficult to determine with
+what forms they are most nearly allied; and it is interesting to note
+that this diversity bears a distinct relation to the probabilities of,
+and facilities for, migration to the islands. The excessively abundant
+rice-bird, which breeds in Canada, and swarms over the whole United
+States, migrating to the West Indies and South America, visiting the
+distant Bermudas almost every year, and extending its range as far as
+Paraquay, is the only species of land-bird which remains completely
+unchanged in the Galapagos; and we may therefore conclude that some
+stragglers of the migrating host reach the islands sufficiently often to
+keep up the purity of the breed<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a>.&rdquo;
+Again, of the thirty peculiar land-birds, it is observable that the more
+they differ from any other species or genera on the South American
+continent, the more certainly are they found to have their nearest
+relations among those South American forms which have the more
+restricted range, and are therefore the least likely to have found their
+way to the islands with any frequency.</p>
+
+<p>The insect fauna of the Galapagos islands is scanty, and chiefly
+composed of beetles. These number 35 <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_230" id="page_230">[230]</a></span>
+species, which are nearly all peculiar, and in some cases go to
+constitute peculiar genera. The same remarks apply to the twenty species
+of land-shells. Lastly, of the total number of flowering plants (332
+species) more than one half (174 species) are peculiar. It is observable
+in the case of these peculiar species of plants&mdash;as also of the
+peculiar species of birds&mdash;that many of them are restricted to
+single islands. It is also observable that, with regard both to the
+fauna and flora, the Galapagos Islands as a whole are very much richer
+in peculiar species than either the Azores or Bermudas, notwithstanding
+that both the latter are considerably more remote from their nearest
+continents. This difference, which at first sight appears to make
+against the evolutionary interpretation, really tends to confirm it. For
+the Galapagos Islands are situated in a calm region of the globe,
+unvisited by those periodic storms and hurricanes which sweep over the
+North Atlantic, and which every year convey some straggling birds,
+insects, seeds, &amp;c., to the Azores and Bermudas. Notwithstanding
+their somewhat greater isolation geographically, therefore, the Azores
+and Bermudas are really less isolated biologically than are the
+Galapagos Islands; and hence the less degree of peculiarity on the part
+of their endemic species. But, on the theory of special creation, it is
+impossible to understand why there should be any such correlation
+between the prevalence of gales and a comparative inertness of creative
+activity. And, as we have seen, it is equally impossible on this theory
+to understand why there should be a further correlation between the
+<i>degree</i> of peculiarity on the part <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_231" id="page_231">[231]</a></span>
+of the isolated species, and the degree in which their nearest allies
+on the mainland are there confined to narrow ranges, and therefore less
+likely to keep up any biological communication with the islands.</p>
+
+<p><i>St. Helena.</i>&mdash;A small volcanic island, ten miles long by eight wide,
+situated in mid-ocean, 1100 miles from Africa, and 1800 from South
+America. It is very mountainous and rugged, bounded for the most part by
+precipices, rising from ocean depths of 17,000 feet, to a height above
+the sea-level of nearly 3,000. When first discovered it was richly
+clothed with forests; but these were all destroyed by human agency
+during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. The records of civilization
+present no more lamentable instance of this kind of destruction. From a
+merely pecuniary point of view the abolition of these primeval forests
+has proved an irreparable loss; but from a scientific point of view the
+loss is incalculable. These forests served to harbour countless forms of
+life, which extended at least from the Miocene age, and which, having
+found there an ocean refuge, survived as the last remnants of a remote
+geological epoch. In those days, as Mr. Wallace observes, St. Helena
+must have formed a kind of natural museum or vivarium of archaic species
+of all classes, the interest of which we can now only surmise from the
+few remnants of those remnants, which are still left among the more
+inaccessible portions of the mountain peaks and crater edges. These
+remnants of remnants are as follows.</p>
+
+<p>There is a total absence of all indigenous mammals, reptiles,
+fresh-water fish, and true land-birds. There is, however, a species of
+plover, allied to one <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_232" id="page_232">[232]</a></span>
+in South Africa; but it is specifically distinct, and therefore
+peculiar to the island. The insect life, on the other hand, is abundant.
+Of beetles no less than 129 species are believed to be aboriginal, and,
+with one single exception, the whole number are peculiar to the island.
+&ldquo;But in addition to this large amount of specific peculiarity
+(perhaps unequalled anywhere else in the world), the beetles of this
+island are remarkable for their generic isolation, and for the
+altogether exceptional proportion in which the great divisions of the
+order are represented. The species belong to 39 genera, of which no less
+than 25 are peculiar to the island; and many of these are such isolated
+forms that it is impossible to find their allies in any particular
+country<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a>.&rdquo;
+More than two-thirds of all the species belong to the group of
+weevils&mdash;a circumstance which serves to explain the great wealth of
+beetle-population, the weevils being beetles which live in wood, and St.
+Helena having been originally a densely wooded island. This circumstance
+is also in accordance with the view that the peculiar insect fauna has
+been in large part evolved from ancestors which reached the island by
+means of floating timber; for, of course, no explanation can be
+suggested why special creation of this highly peculiar insect fauna
+should have run so disproportionately into the production of weevils.
+About two-thirds of the whole number of beetles, or over 80 species,
+show no close affinity with any existing insects, while the remaining
+third have some relations, though often very remote, with European and
+African forms. That this high degree of peculiarity <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_233" id="page_233">[233]</a></span>
+is due to high antiquity is further indicated, according to our theory,
+by the large number of species which some of the types comprise. Thus,
+the 54 species of <span class='sn'>Cossonid&aelig;</span> may be referred to three types; the 11
+species of <span class='sn'>Bembidium</span> form a group by themselves; and the <span class='sn'>Heteromera</span> form
+two groups. &ldquo;Now, each of these types may well be descended from a
+single species, which originally reached the island from some other
+land; and the great variety of generic and specific forms into which
+some of them have diverged is an indication, and to some extent a
+measure, of the remoteness of their origin<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>.&rdquo;
+But, on the counter-supposition that all these 128 peculiar species were
+separately created to occupy this particular island, it is surely
+unaccountable that they should thus present such an arborescence of
+natural affinities amongst themselves.</p>
+
+<p>Passing over the rest of the insect fauna, which has not yet been
+sufficiently worked out, we next find that there are only 20 species of
+indigenous land-shells&mdash;which is not surprising when we remember by what
+enormous reaches of ocean the island is surrounded. Of these 20 species
+no less than 13 have become extinct, three are allied to European
+species, while the rest are so highly peculiar as to have no near allies
+in any other part of the globe. So that the land-shells tell exactly the
+same story as the insects.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, the plants likewise tell the same story. The truly indigenous
+flowering plants are about 50 in number, besides 26 ferns. Forty of the
+former and ten of the latter are peculiar to the island, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_234" id="page_234">[234]</a></span>
+and, as Sir Joseph Hooker tells us, &ldquo;cannot be regarded as very
+close specific allies of any other plants at all&rdquo; Seventeen of
+them belong to peculiar genera, and the others all differ so markedly as
+species from their congeners, that not one comes under the category of
+being an insular form of a continental species. So that with respect to
+its plants no less than with respect to its animals, we find that the
+island of St. Helena constitutes a little world of unique species,
+allied among themselves, but diverging so much from all other known
+forms that in many cases they constitute unique genera.</p>
+
+<p><i>Sandwich Islands.</i>&mdash;These are an extensive group of islands, larger
+than any we have hitherto considered&mdash;the largest of the group being
+about the size of Devonshire. The entire archipelago is volcanic, with
+mountains rising to a height of nearly 14,000 feet. The group is
+situated in the middle of the North Pacific, at a distance of
+considerably over 2,000 miles from any other land, and surrounded by
+enormous ocean depths. The only terrestrial vertebrata are two lizards,
+one of which constitutes a peculiar genus. There are 24 aquatic birds,
+five of which are peculiar; four birds of prey, two of which are
+peculiar; and 16 land-birds, all of which are peculiar. Moreover, these
+16 land-birds constitute no less than 10 peculiar genera, and even one
+peculiar family of five genera. This is an amount of peculiarity far
+exceeding that of any other islands, and, of course, corresponds with
+the great isolation of this archipelago. The only other animals which
+have here been carefully studied are the land-shells, and these tell the
+same story as the birds. For there are <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_235" id="page_235">[235]</a></span>
+no less than 400 species which are all, without any exception,
+peculiar; while about three-quarters of them go to constitute peculiar
+genera. Again, of the plants, 620 species are believed to be endemic;
+and of these 377 are peculiar, yielding no less than 39 peculiar genera.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Prejudice apart, I think we must all now agree that it is needless to
+continue further this line of proof. I have chosen the smallest and most
+isolated islands for the purposes of our present argument, first because
+these furnish the most crucial kind of test, and next because they best
+admit of being dealt with in a short space. But, if necessary, a vast
+amount of additional material could be furnished, not only from other
+small oceanic islands, but still more from the largest islands of the
+world, such as Australia and New Zealand. However, after the detailed
+inventories which have now been given in the case of some of the smaller
+islands most remote from mainlands, we may well be prepared to accept it
+as a general law, that <i>wherever</i> there is evidence of land-areas having
+been for a long time separated from other land-areas, there we meet with
+a more or less extraordinary profusion of unique species, often running
+up into unique genera. And, in point of fact, so far as naturalists have
+hitherto been able to ascertain, <i>there is no exception to this general
+law in any region of the globe</i>. Moreover, there is everywhere a
+constant correlation between the <i>degree</i> of this peculiarity on the
+part of the fauna and flora, and the <i>time</i> during which they have been
+isolated. Thus, for instance, among the islands which<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_236" id="page_236">[236]</a></span>
+I have called into evidence, those that are at once the most isolated
+and give independent proofs of the highest antiquity, are the Galapagos
+Islands, the Sandwich Islands, and St. Helena. Now, if we apply the
+method of tabular analysis to these three cases, we obtain the following
+most astonishing results. For the sake of simplicity I will omit the
+enumeration of peculiar genera, and confine attention to peculiar
+species. Moreover, I will consider only terrestrial animals; for, as we
+have already seen, aquatic animals are so much more likely to reach
+oceanic islands that they do not furnish nearly so fair a test of the
+evolutionary hypothesis.</p>
+
+<div class='center mt2'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<thead class='c'><tr><td colspan='6'>PECULIAR SPECIES.</td></tr></thead>
+<tbody><tr class='i'><td></td><td class='c'>Shells.</td><td class='c'>Insects.</td><td class='c'>Reptiles.</td><td class='c'>Birds.</td><td class='c'>Mammals.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Sandwich</td><td class='r'>400</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>2</td><td class='r'>16</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Galapagos</td><td class='r'>15</td><td class='r'>35</td><td class='r'>10</td><td class='r'>30</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>St. Helena</td><td class='r'>20</td><td class='r'>128</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>1</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Totals.</td><td class='r'>435</td><td class='r'>163</td><td class='r'>12</td><td class='r'>47</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+</tbody></table></div>
+
+<div class='center mt2'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<thead class='c'><tr><td colspan='6'>NON-PECULIAR SPECIES.</td></tr></thead>
+<tbody><tr class='i'><td></td><td class='c'>Shells.</td><td class='c'>Insects.</td><td class='c'>Reptiles.</td><td class='c'>Birds.</td><td class='c'>Mammals.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Sandwich</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Galapagos</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>1</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>St. Helena</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Totals.</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>?</td><td class='r'>0</td><td class='r'>1</td><td class='r'>0</td></tr>
+</tbody></table></div>
+
+<p>From this synopsis we perceive that out of a total of 658 species of
+terrestrial animals known to inhabit <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_237" id="page_237">[237]</a></span>
+these three oceanic territories, all are peculiar, with the exception
+of a single land-bird which is found in the Galapagos Islands. This is
+the rice-bird, so very abundant on the American continent that its
+representatives must not unfrequently become the involuntary colonists
+of the Archipelago. There are, however, a few species of non-peculiar
+insects inhabiting the Sandwich and Galapagos Islands, the exact number
+of which is doubtful, and on this account are not here quoted. But at
+most they would be represented by units, and therefore do not affect the
+general result. Lastly, the remarkable fact will be noted, that there is
+no single representative of the mammalian class in any of these islands.</p>
+
+<p>If we turn next to consider the case of plants, we obtain the following
+result:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr class='c i'><td></td><td>Peculiar<br />Species.</td><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>Non-peculiar<br />Species.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Sandwich</td><td class='r'>377</td><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td class='r'>243</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Galapagos</td><td class='r'>174</td><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td class='r'>158</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>St. Helena</td><td class='r'>50</td><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td class='r'>26</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Totals.</td><td class='r'>601</td><td>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td class='r'>427</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p>So that by adding together peculiar species both of land-animals and
+plants, we find that on these three limited areas alone there are 1258
+forms of life which occur nowhere else upon the globe&mdash;not to speak of
+the peculiar aquatic species, nor of the presumably large number of
+peculiar species of all kinds not hitherto discovered in these
+imperfectly explored regions.</p>
+
+<p>Now let us compare these facts with those which are presented by the
+faunas and floras of islands less <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_238" id="page_238">[238]</a></span>
+remote from continents, and known from independent geological evidence
+to be of comparatively recent origin&mdash;that is, to have been
+separated from their adjacent mainlands in comparatively recent times,
+and therefore as islands to be comparatively young. The British Isles
+furnish as good an instance as could be chosen, for they together
+comprise over 1000 islands of various sizes, which are nowhere separated
+from one another by deep seas, and in the opinion of geologists were all
+continuous with the European continent since the glacial period.</p>
+
+<div class='center mt2'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<thead class='c'><tr><td colspan='6'>BRITISH ISLES.</td></tr></thead>
+<tbody>
+<tr><td class='c sc lc' colspan='6'>NON-PECULIAR SPECIES.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c'>Plants.</td><td class='c'>Land Shells.</td><td class='c'>Insects.</td><td class='c'>Reptiles and Amphibia.</td><td class='c'>Land Birds.</td><td class='c'>Land Mammals.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c'>1462</td><td class='c'>83</td><td class='c'>12,551</td><td class='c'>13</td><td class='c'>130</td><td class='c'>40</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c sc lc' colspan='6'>PECULIAR SPECIES.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c'>Plants.</td><td class='c'>Land Shells.</td><td class='c'>Insects.</td><td class='c'>Reptiles and Amphibia.</td><td class='c'>Land Birds.</td><td class='c'>Land Mammals.</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='c'>46</td><td class='c'>4</td><td class='c'>149</td><td class='c'>0</td><td class='c'>1</td><td class='c'>0</td></tr></tbody>
+</table></div>
+
+<div class='center mt2'>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr><td class='l'>Total Peculiar Plants</td><td class='r'>46</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Total Peculiar Animals</td><td class='r'>154</td></tr>
+<tr><td></td><td class='r'>&mdash;&mdash;</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>Grand Total</td><td class='r'>200</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p>I have drawn up this table in the most liberal manner possible,
+including as peculiar species forms <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_239" id="page_239">[239]</a></span>
+which many naturalists regard as merely local varieties. But, even as
+thus interpreted, how wonderful is the contrast between the 1000 islands
+of Great Britain and the single volcanic rock of St. Helena, where
+almost all the animals and about half the plants are peculiar, instead
+of about 1/80 of the animals, and 1/30 of the plants. Of course, if no
+peculiar species of any kind had occurred in the British Isles,
+advocates of special creation might have argued that it was, so to
+speak, needless for the Divinity to have added any new species to those
+European forms which fully populated the islands at the time when they
+were separated from the continent. But, as the matter stands, advocates
+of special creation must face the fact that a certain small number of
+new and peculiar species have been formed on the British Isles; and,
+therefore, that creative activity has not been wholly suspended in their
+case. Why, then, has it been so meagre in this case of a thousand
+islands, when it has proved so profuse in the case of all single islands
+more remote from mainlands, and presenting a higher antiquity? Or why
+should the Divinity have thus appeared so uniformly to consult these
+merely accidental circumstances of space and time in the depositing of
+his unique specific types? Do not such facts rather speak with
+irresistible force in favour of the view, that while all ancient and
+solitary islands have had time enough, and separation enough, to admit
+of distinct histories of evolution having been written in their living
+inhabitants, no one of the thousand islands of Great Britain has had
+either time enough, or separation enough, to have admitted of more than
+some of the first pages of such a history having been commenced?</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_240" id="page_240">[240]</a></span>
+But this allusion to Great Britain introduces us to another point. It
+will have been observed that, unlike oceanic islands remote from
+mainlands, Great Britain is well furnished both with reptiles (including
+amphibia) and mammals. For there is no instance of any oceanic island
+situated at more than 300 miles from a continent where any single
+species of the whole class of mammals is to be found, excepting species
+of the only order which is able to fly&mdash;namely, the bats. And the same
+has to be said of frogs, toads, and newts, whose spawn is quickly killed
+by contact with sea-water, and therefore could never have reached remote
+islands in a living state. Hence, on evolutionary principles; it is
+quite intelligible why oceanic islands should not present any species of
+mammals or batrachians&mdash;peculiar or otherwise,&mdash;save such species of
+mammals as are able to fly. But on the theory of special creation we can
+assign no reason why, notwithstanding the extraordinary profusion of
+unique types of other kinds which we have seen to occur on oceanic
+islands, the Deity should have made this curious exception to the
+detriment of all frogs, toads, newts, and mammals, save only such as are
+able to fly. Or, if any one should go so far to save a desperate
+hypothesis as to maintain that there must have been some hidden reason
+why batrachians and quadrupeds were not specially created on oceanic
+islands, I may mention another small&mdash;but in this relation a most
+significant&mdash;fact. This is that on some of these islands there occur
+certain peculiar species of plants, the seeds of which are provided with
+numerous tiny hooks, obviously and beautifully adapted&mdash;like those on
+the seeds of allied plants elsewhere&mdash;to catch the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_241" id="page_241">[241]</a></span>
+wool or hair of moving quadrupeds, and so to further their own
+dissemination. But, as we have just seen, there are no quadrupeds in the
+islands to meet these beautiful adaptations on the part of the plants;
+so that special creationists must resort to the almost impious
+supposition that in these cases the Deity has only carried out half his
+plan, in that while he made an elaborate provision for these uniquely
+created species of plants, which depended for its efficiency on the
+presence of quadrupeds, he nevertheless neglected to place any
+quadrupeds on the islands where he had placed the plants. Such one-sided
+attempts at adaptation surely resolve the thesis of special creation to
+a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>; and hence the only reasonable interpretation
+of them is, that while the seeds of allied or ancestral plants were able
+to float to the islands, no quadrupeds were ever able over so great a
+distance to swim.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Although much more evidence might still be given under the head of
+geographical distribution, I must now close with a brief summary of the
+main points that have been adduced.</p>
+
+<p>After certain preliminary considerations, I began by noticing that the
+theory of evolution has a much more intelligible account to give than
+has its rival of the facts of discontinuous distribution&mdash;the Alpine
+flora, for instance, being allied to the Arctic, not because the same
+species were separately created in both places, but because during the
+glacial period these species extended all over Europe, and were left
+behind on the Alps as the Arctic flora receded northwards&mdash;which was
+sufficiently long ago to explain <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_242" id="page_242">[242]</a></span>
+why some of the Alpine species are unique, though closely allied to
+Arctic forms.</p>
+
+<p>Next we saw that, although living things are always adapted to the
+climates under which they live (since otherwise they could not live
+there at all), it is equally true that, as a rule, besides the area on
+which they do live, there are many other areas in different parts of the
+globe where they might have lived equally well. Consequently we must
+conclude that, if all species were separately created, many species were
+severally created on only one among a number of areas where they might
+equally well have thrived. Now, although this conclusion in itself may
+not seem opposed to the theory of special creation, a most serious
+difficulty is raised when it is taken in connexion with another fact of
+an equally general kind. This is, that on every biological region we
+encounter chains of allied species constituting allied genera, families,
+and so on; while we scarcely ever meet with allied species in different
+biological regions, notwithstanding that their climates may be similar,
+and, consequently, just as well suited to maintain some of the allied
+species. Hence we must further conclude, if all species were separately
+created, that in the work of creation some unaccountable regard was paid
+to making areas of distribution correspond to degrees of structural
+affinity. A great many species of the rat genus were created in the Old
+World, and a great many species of another, though allied, genus were
+created in the New World: yet no reason can be assigned why no one
+species of the Old World series should not just as well have been
+deposited in the New World, and <i>vice versa</i>. On the other hand, the
+theory of evolution <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_243" id="page_243">[243]</a></span>
+may claim as direct evidence in its support all the innumerable cases
+such as these&mdash;cases, indeed, so innumerable that, as Mr. Wallace
+remarks, it may be taken as a law of nature that &ldquo;every species
+has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a
+pre-existing and closely allied species.&rdquo; A general law which,
+while in itself most strongly suggestive of evolution, is surely
+impossible to reconcile with any reasonable theory of special creation.
+Furthermore, this law extends backwards through all geological time,
+with the result that the extinct species which now occur only as fossils
+on any given geological area, resemble the species still living upon
+that area, as we should expect that they must, if the former were the
+natural progenitors of the latter. On the other hand, if they were not
+the natural progenitors, but all the species, both living and extinct,
+were the supernatural and therefore independent creations which the
+rival theory would suppose, then no reason can be given why the extinct
+species should thus resemble the living&mdash;any more than why the
+living species should resemble one another. For, as we have seen, there
+are almost always many other habitats on other parts of the globe, where
+any members of any given group of species might equally well have been
+deposited; and this, of course, applies to geological no less than to
+historical time. Yet throughout all time we meet with this most
+suggestive correlation between continuity of a geographical area and
+structural affinity between the forms of life which have lived, or are
+still living, upon that area.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly, we find the further, and no less suggestive, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_244" id="page_244">[244]</a></span>
+correlation between the birth of new species and the immediate
+pre-existence of closely allied species on the same area&mdash;or, at
+most, on closely contiguous areas.</p>
+
+<p>Where a continuous area has long been circumscribed by barriers of any
+kind, which prevent the animals from wandering beyond it, then we find
+that all the species, both extinct and living, constitute more or less a
+world of their own; while, on the other hand, where the animals are free
+to migrate from one area to another, the course of their migrations is
+marked by the origination of new species springing up <i>en route</i>, and
+serving to connect the older, or metropolitan, forms with the younger,
+or colonising, forms in the way of a graduated series. This principle,
+however, admits of being traced only in certain cases of species
+belonging to the same genus, of genera belonging to the same family, or,
+at most, of families belonging to the same order. In other words, the
+more general the structural affinity, the more general is the
+geographical extension&mdash;as we should expect to be the case on the theory
+of descent with branching modifications, seeing that the larger, the
+older, and the more diverse the group of organisms compared, the greater
+must be their chances of dispersal.</p>
+
+<p>These general considerations led us to contemplate more in detail the
+correlation between structural affinity and barriers to free migration.
+Such barriers, of course, differ in the cases of different organisms.
+Marine organisms are stopped by land, unsuitable temperature, or
+unsuitable depths; fresh-water organisms by sea and by mountain-chains;
+terrestrial organisms chiefly by water. Now it is a matter of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_245" id="page_245">[245]</a></span>
+fact which admits of no dispute, that in each of these cases we meet
+with a direct correlation between the kind of barrier and the kind of
+organisms whose structural affinities are affected thereby. Where we
+have to do with marine organisms, barriers such as the Isthmus of Panama
+and the varying depth of the Western Pacific determine three very
+distinct faunas, ranging north and south in closely parallel lines, and
+under corresponding climates. Where we have to do with fresh-water
+organisms, we find that a mountain-chain only a few miles wide has more
+influence in determining differences of organic type on either side of
+it than is exercised by even thousands of miles of a continuous
+land-area, if this be uninterrupted by any mountains high enough to
+prevent water-fowl, whirlwinds, &amp;c., from dispersing the ova. Again,
+where we have to do with terrestrial organisms, the most effectual
+barriers are wide reaches of ocean; and, accordingly, we find that these
+exercise an enormous influence on the modification of terrestrial types.
+Moreover, we find that the <i>more</i> terrestrial an organism, or the
+<i>greater</i> the difficulty it has in traversing a wide reach of ocean, the
+<i>greater</i> is the modifying influence of such a barrier upon that type.
+In oceanic islands, for example, many of the plants and aquatic birds
+usually belong to the same species as those which occur on the nearest
+mainlands, and where there are any specific differences, these but
+rarely run up to generic differences. But the land-birds, insects, and
+reptiles which are found on such islands are nearly always specifically,
+and very often generically, distinct from those on the nearest
+mainland&mdash;although invariably allied with sufficient closeness
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_246" id="page_246">[246]</a></span>
+to leave no manner of doubt as to their affinities with the fauna of
+that mainland. Lastly, no amphibians and no mammals (except bats) are
+ever found on any oceanic islands. Yet, as we have seen, on the theory
+of special creation, these islands must all be taken to have been the
+theatres of the most extraordinary creative activity, so that on only
+three of them we found no less than 1258 unique species, whereof 657
+were unique species of land animals, to be set against one single
+species known to occur elsewhere. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this
+prodigious expenditure of creative energy in the case of land-birds,
+land-shells, insects, and reptiles, no single new amphibian, or no
+single new mammal, has been created on any single oceanic island, if we
+except the only kind of mammal that is able to fly, and the ancestors of
+which, like those of the land-birds and insects, might therefore have
+reached the islands ages ago. Moreover, with regard to mammals, even in
+cases where allied forms occur on either side of a sea-channel, it is
+found to be a general rule that if the channel is shallow, the species
+on either side of it are much more closely related than if it be
+deep&mdash;and this irrespective of its width. Therefore we can only
+conclude, in the words of Darwin&mdash;"As the amount of modification
+which animals of all kinds undergo partly depends on lapse of time, and
+as the islands which are separated from each other or from the mainland
+by shallow channels are more likely to have been continuously united
+within a recent period than islands separated by deeper channels, we can
+understand how it is that a relation exists between the depth of the sea
+separating two mammalian <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_247" id="page_247">[247]</a></span>
+faunas, and the degree of their affinity&mdash;a relation which is
+quite inexplicable on the theory of independent acts of creation.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Looking to all these general principles of geographical distribution,
+and remembering the sundry points of smaller detail relating to oceanic
+islands which I will not wait to recapitulate, to my mind it seems that
+there is no escape from the following conclusion, with which I will
+bring my brief epitome of the evidence to a close. The conclusion to
+which, I submit, all the evidence leads is, that if the doctrine of
+special creation is taken to be true, then it must be further taken that
+the one and only principle which has been consistently followed in the
+geographical deposition of species, is that of so depositing them as to
+make it everywhere appear that they were not thus deposited at all, but
+came into existence where they now occur by way of genetic descent with
+perpetual migration and correlative modification. On no other principle,
+so far as I can see, would it be possible to account for the fact that
+&ldquo;every species has come into existence coincident both in space
+and time with a pre-existing and closely allied species,&rdquo; together
+with the carefully graduated regard to physical barriers which the
+Creator must have displayed while depositing his newly formed species on
+either sides of them&mdash;everywhere making <i>degrees</i> of structural affinity
+correspond to <i>degrees</i> of geographical continuity, and <i>degrees</i> of
+structural difference correspond to <i>degrees</i> of geographical
+separation, whether by mountain-chains in the case of fresh-water
+faunas, by land and by deep sea in the case of marine <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_248" id="page_248">[248]</a></span>
+faunas, or by reaches of ocean in the case of terrestrial
+faunas&mdash;stocking oceanic islands with an enormous profusion of
+peculiar species all allied to those on the nearest mainlands, yet
+everywhere avoiding the creation upon them of any amphibian or mammal,
+except an occasional bat. We are familiar with the doctrine that God is
+a God who hideth himself; here, however, it seems to me, we should have
+but a thinly-veiled insinuation, not merely that in his works he is
+hidden, but that in these works he is untrue. Than which I cannot
+conceive a stronger condemnation of the theory which it has been my
+object fairly to represent and dispassionately to criticise.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_249" id="page_249">[249]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="SECTION_II" id="SECTION_II"></a>SECTION II<br /><br />
+<span class='i'>SELECTION</span></h2>
+<hr class='minor' /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_251" id="page_251">[251]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">The Theory of Natural Selection.</span></h2>
+
+<p>Thus far we have been considering the main evidences of organic
+evolution considered as a fact. We now enter a new field, namely, the
+evidences which thus far have been brought to light touching the causes
+of organic evolution considered as a process.</p>
+
+<p>As was pointed out in the opening chapter, this is obviously the
+methodical course to follow: we must have some reasonable assurance that
+a fact is a fact before we endeavour to explain it. Nevertheless, it is
+not necessary that we should actually demonstrate a fact to be a fact
+before we endeavour to explain it. Even if we have but a reasonable
+presumption as to its probability, we may find it well worth while to
+consider its explanation; for by so doing we may obtain additional
+evidence of the fact itself. And this because, if it really is a fact,
+and if we hit upon the right explanation of it, by proving the
+explanation probable, we may thereby greatly increase our evidence of
+the fact. In the very case before us, for example, the evidence of
+evolution as a fact has from the first been largely derived from testing
+Darwin&rsquo;s theory concerning its method. It was this theoretical
+explanation of its <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_252" id="page_252">[252]</a></span>
+method which first set him seriously to enquire into the evidences of
+evolution as a fact; and ever since he published his results, the
+evidences which he adduced in favour of natural selection as a method
+have constituted some of the strongest reasons which scientific men have
+felt for accepting evolution as a fact. Of course the evidence in favour
+of this fact has gone on steadily growing, quite independently of the
+assistance which was thus so largely lent to it by the distinctively
+Darwinian theory of its method; and, indeed, so much has this been the
+case, that in the present treatise we have been able to consider such
+direct evidence of the fact itself, without any reference at all to the
+indirect or accessory evidence which is derived from that of natural
+selection as a method. From which it follows that in most of what I am
+about to say in subsequent chapters on the evidences of natural
+selection as a method, there will be furnished a large addition to the
+evidences which have already been detailed of evolution as a fact. But,
+as a matter of systematic treatment, I have thought it desirable to keep
+these two branches of our subject separate. Which means that I have made
+the evidences of evolution as a fact to stand independently on their own
+feet&mdash;feet which in my opinion are amply strong enough to bear any
+weight of adverse criticism that can be placed upon them.</p>
+
+<p>Our position, then, is this. On the foundation of the previous chapters,
+I will henceforth assume that we all accept organic evolution as a fact,
+without requiring any of the accessory evidence which is gained by
+independent proof of natural selection as a method. But in making this
+assumption&mdash;namely, that we are all now firmly persuaded of the fact of
+evolution&mdash;I do <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_253" id="page_253">[253]</a></span>
+not imagine that such is really the case. I make the assumption for the
+purposes of systematic exposition, and in order that different parts of
+the subject may be kept distinct. I confess it does appear to me
+remarkable that there should still be a doubt in any educated mind
+touching the general fact of evolution; while it becomes to me
+unaccountable that such should be the case with a few still living men
+of science, who cannot be accused of being ignorant of the evidences
+which have now been accumulated. But in whatever measure we may
+severally have been convinced&mdash;or remained unconvinced&mdash;on
+this matter, for the purposes of exposition I must hereafter assume that
+we are all agreed to the extent of regarding the process of evolution
+as, at least, sufficiently probable to justify enquiry touching its
+causes on supposition of its truth.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the causes of evolution have been set forth in a variety of
+different hypotheses, only the chief of which need be mentioned here.
+Historically speaking the first of these was that which was put forward
+by Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Herbert Spencer. It consists in putting
+together the following facts and inferences.</p>
+
+<p>We know that, in the lifetime of the individual, increased use of
+structures leads to an increase of their functional efficiency; while,
+on the other hand, disuse leads to atrophy. The arms of a blacksmith,
+and the legs of a mountaineer, are familiar illustrations of the first
+principle: our hospital wards are full of illustrations of the second.
+Again, we know that the characters of parents are transmitted to their
+progeny by means of heredity. Now the hypothesis <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_254" id="page_254">[254]</a></span>
+in question consists in supposing that if any particular organs in a
+species are habitually used for performing any particular action, they
+must undergo a structural improvement which would more and more adapt
+them to the performance of that action; for in each generation constant
+use would better and better adapt the structures to the discharge of
+their functions, and they would then be bequeathed to the next
+generation in this their improved form by heredity. So that, for
+instance, if there had been a thousand generations of blacksmiths, we
+might expect the sons of the last of them to inherit unusually strong
+arms, even if these young men had themselves taken to some other trade
+not requiring any special use of their arms. Similarly, if there had
+been a thousand generations of men who used their arms but slightly, we
+should expect their descendants to show but a puny development of the
+upper extremities. Now let us apply all this to the animal kingdom in
+general. The giraffe, for instance, is a ruminant whose entire frame has
+been adapted to support an enormously long neck, which is of use to the
+animal in reaching the foliage of trees. The ancestors of the giraffe,
+having had ordinary necks, were supposed by Lamarck to have gradually
+increased the length of them, through many successive generations, by
+constantly stretching to reach high foliage; and he further supposed
+that, when the neck became so long as to require for its support special
+changes in the general form of the animal as a whole, these special
+changes would have brought about the dwindling of other parts from which
+so much activity was no longer required&mdash;the general result being
+that the whole organization of the animal became more and more
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_255" id="page_255">[255]</a></span>
+adapted to browsing on high foliage. And so in the cases of other
+animals, Lamarck believed that the adaptation of their forms to their
+habits could be explained by this simple hypothesis that the habits
+created the forms, through the effects of use and disuse, coupled with
+heredity.</p>
+
+<p>Such is what is ordinarily known as Lamarck&rsquo;s theory of evolution.
+We may as well remember, however, that it really constitutes only one
+part of his theory; for besides this hypothesis of the cumulative
+inheritance of functionally-produced modifications&mdash;to which we may add
+the inherited effects of any direct action exercised by surrounding
+conditions of life,&mdash;Lamarck believed in some transcendental principle
+tending to produce gradual improvement in pre-determined lines of
+advance. Therefore it would really be more correct to designate the
+former hypothesis by the name either of Erasmus Darwin, or, still
+better, of Herbert Spencer. Nevertheless, in order to avoid confusion, I
+will follow established custom, and subsequently speak of this
+hypothesis as the Lamarckian hypothesis&mdash;understanding, however, that in
+employing this designation I am not referring to any part or factor of
+Lamarck&rsquo;s general theory of evolution other than the one which has
+just been described&mdash;namely, the hypothesis of the cumulative
+transmission of functionally-produced, or otherwise
+&ldquo;acquired,&rdquo; modifications.</p>
+
+<p>This, then, was the earliest hypothesis touching the causes of organic
+evolution. But we may at once perceive that it is insufficient to
+explain all that stands to be explained. In the first place, it refers
+in chief part only to the higher animals, which are actuated to
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_256" id="page_256">[256]</a></span>
+effort by intelligence. Its explanatory power in the case of most
+invertebrata&mdash;as well as in that of all plants&mdash;is extremely
+limited, inasmuch as these organisms can never be moved to a greater or
+less use of their several parts by any discriminating volition, such as
+that which leads to the continued straining of a giraffe&rsquo;s neck
+for the purpose of reaching foliage. In the second place, even among the
+higher animals there are numberless tissues and organs which
+unquestionably present a high degree of adaptive evolution, but which
+nevertheless cannot be supposed to have fallen within the influence of
+Lamarckian principles. Of such are the shells of crustacea, tortoises,
+&amp;c., which although undoubtedly of great use to the animals
+presenting them, cannot ever have been <i>used</i> in the sense required by
+Lamarck&rsquo;s hypothesis, i. e. actively exercised, so as to increase
+a flow of nutrition to the part. Lastly, in the third place, the
+validity of Lamarck&rsquo;s hypothesis in any case whatsoever has of
+late years become a matter of serious question, as will be fully shown
+and discussed in the next volume. Meanwhile it is enough to observe
+that, on account of all these reasons, the theory of Lamarck, even if it
+be supposed to present any truth at all, is clearly insufficient as a
+full or complete theory of organic evolution.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>In historical order the next theory that was arrived at was the theory
+of natural selection, simultaneously published by Darwin and Wallace on
+July 1st, 1858.</p>
+
+<p>If we may estimate the importance of an idea by the change of thought
+which it effects, this idea of natural selection is unquestionably the
+most important <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_257" id="page_257">[257]</a></span>
+idea that has ever been conceived by the mind of man. Yet the wonder is
+that it should not have been hit upon long before. Or rather, I should
+say, the wonder is that its immense and immeasurable importance should
+not have been previously recognised. For, since the publication of this
+idea by Darwin and Wallace, it has been found that its main features had
+already occurred to at least two other minds&mdash;namely, Dr. Wells in
+1813, and Mr. Patrick Matthew in 1831. But neither of these writers
+perceived that in the few scattered sentences which they had written
+upon the subject they had struck the key-note of organic nature, and
+resolved one of the principal chords of the universe. Still more
+remarkable is the fact that Mr. Herbert Spencer&mdash;notwithstanding
+his great powers of abstract thought and his great devotion of those
+powers to the theory of evolution, when as yet this theory was scorned
+by science&mdash;still more remarkable, I say, is the fact that Mr.
+Herbert Spencer should have missed what now appears so obvious an idea.
+But most remarkable of all is the fact that Dr. Whewell, with all his
+stores of information on the history of the inductive sciences, and with
+all his acumen on the matter of scientific method, should not only have
+conceived the idea of natural selection, but expressly stated it as a
+logically possible explanation of the origin of species, and yet have so
+stated it merely for the purpose of dismissing it with contempt<a
+name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a>.
+This, I think, is most remarkable, because it serves to prove how very
+far men&rsquo;s minds at that time must have been from entertaining, as
+in any way antecedently probable, the doctrine of transmutation. In
+order to show this I will here quote one <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_258" id="page_258">[258]</a></span>
+passage from the writings of Whewell, and another from a distinguished
+French naturalist referred to by him.</p>
+
+<p>In 1846 Whewell wrote:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Not only is the doctrine of the transmutation of species in itself
+disproved by the best physiological reasonings, but the additional
+assumptions which are requisite to enable its advocates to apply it
+to the explanation of the geological and other phenomena of the
+earth, are altogether gratuitous and fantastical<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Then he quotes with approval the following opinion:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Against this hypothesis, which, up to the present time, I regard as
+purely gratuitous, and likely to turn geologists out of the sound
+and excellent road in which they now are, I willingly raise my
+voice, with the most absolute conviction of being in the right<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>And, after displaying the proof rendered by Lyell of uniformitarianism
+in geology, and cordially subscribing thereto, Whewell adds:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>We are led by our reasonings to this view, that the present order
+of things was commenced by an act of creative power entirely
+different to any agency which has been exerted since. None of the
+influences which have modified the present races of animals and
+plants since they were placed in their habitations on the
+earth&rsquo;s surface can have had any efficacy in producing them
+at first. We are necessarily driven to assume, as the beginning of
+the present cycle of organic nature, an event not included in the
+course of nature<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>So much, then, for the state of the most enlightened and representative
+opinions on the question of evolution <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_259" id="page_259">[259]</a></span>
+before the publication of Darwin&rsquo;s work; and so much, likewise,
+for the only reasonable suggestions as to the causes of evolution which
+up to that time had been put forward, even by those few individuals who
+entertained any belief in evolution as a fact. It was the theory of
+natural selection that changed all this, and created a revolution in the
+thought of our time, the magnitude of which in many of its far-reaching
+consequences we are not even yet in a position to appreciate; but the
+action of which has already wrought a transformation in general
+philosophy, as well as in the more special science of biology, that is
+without a parallel in the history of mankind.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Although every one is now more or less well acquainted with the theory
+of natural selection, it is necessary, for the sake of completeness,
+that I should state the theory; and I will do so in full detail.</p>
+
+<p>It is a matter of observable fact that all plants and animals are
+perpetually engaged in what Darwin calls a &ldquo;struggle for
+existence.&rdquo; That is to say, in every generation of every species a
+great many more individuals are born than can possibly survive; so that
+there is in consequence a perpetual battle for life going on among all
+the constituent individuals of any given generation. Now, in this
+struggle for existence, which individuals will be victorious and live?
+Assuredly those which are best fitted to live, in whatever respect, or
+respects, their superiority of fitness may consist. Hence it follows
+that Nature, so to speak, <i>selects</i> the best individuals out of each
+generation to live. And not only so; but as these favoured individuals
+transmit their favourable qualities to their offspring, according to
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_260" id="page_260">[260]</a></span>
+the fixed laws of heredity, it further follows that the individuals
+composing each successive generation have a general tendency to be
+better suited to their surroundings than were their forefathers. And
+this follows, not merely because in every generation it is only the
+&ldquo;flower of the flock&rdquo; that is allowed to breed, but also
+because, if in any generation some new and beneficial qualities happen
+to arise as slight variations from the ancestral type, they will (other
+things permitting) be seized upon by natural selection, and, being
+transmitted by heredity to subsequent generations, will be added to the
+previously existing type. Thus the best idea of the whole process will
+be gained by comparing it with the closely analogous process whereby
+gardeners, fanciers, and cattle-breeders create their wonderful
+productions; for just as these men, by always &ldquo;<i>selecting</i>&rdquo;
+their best individuals to breed from, slowly but continuously improve
+their stock, so Nature, by a similar process of
+&ldquo;<i>selection</i>&rdquo; slowly but continuously makes the various
+species of plants and animals better and better suited to the conditions
+of their life.</p>
+
+<p>Now, if this process of continuously adapting organisms to their
+environment takes place in nature at all, there is no reason why we
+should set any limits on the extent to which it is able to go, up to the
+point at which a complete and perfect adaptation is achieved. Therefore
+we might suppose that all species would eventually reach this condition
+of perfect harmony with their environment, and then remain fixed. And
+so, according to the theory, they would, if the environment were itself
+unchanging. But forasmuch as the environment (i. e. the sum total of the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_261" id="page_261">[261]</a></span>
+external conditions of life) of almost every organic type alters more
+or less from century to century&mdash;whether from astronomical,
+geological, and geographical changes, or from the immigrations and
+emigrations of other species living on contiguous areas, and so
+on&mdash;it follows that the process of natural selection need never
+reach a terminal phase. And forasmuch as natural selection may thus
+continue, <i>ad infinitum</i>, slowly to alter a specific type in adaptation
+to a gradually changing environment, if in any case the alteration thus
+effected is sufficient in amount to lead naturalists to name the result
+as a distinct species, it follows that natural selection has transmuted
+one specific type into another. Similarly, by a continuation of the
+process, specific types would become transmuted into generic, generic
+into family types, and so on. Thus the process is supposed to go on
+throughout all the countless forms of life continuously and
+simultaneously&mdash;the world of organic types being thus regarded as
+in a state of perpetual, though gradual, flux.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Now, the first thing we have to notice about this theory is, that in all
+its main elements it is merely a statement of observable facts. It is an
+observable fact that in all species of plants and animals a very much
+larger number of individuals are born than can possibly survive. Thus,
+for example, it has been calculated that if the progeny of a single pair
+of elephants&mdash;which are the slowest breeding of animals&mdash;were all
+allowed to reach maturity and propagate, in 750 years there would be
+living 19,000,000 descendants. Again, in the case of vegetables, if a
+species of annual plant produces only two seeds a <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_262" id="page_262">[262]</a></span>
+year, if these in successive years were all allowed to reproduce their
+kind, in twenty years there would be 11,000,000 plants from a single
+ancestor. Yet we know that nearly all animals and plants produce many
+more young at a time than in either of these two supposed cases. Indeed,
+as individuals of many kinds of plants, and not a few kinds of animals,
+produce every year several thousand young, we may make a rough estimate
+and say, that over organic nature as a whole probably not one in a
+thousand young are allowed to survive to the age of reproduction. How
+tremendous, therefore, must be the struggle for existence! It is thought
+a terrible thing in battle when one half the whole number of combatants
+perish. But what are we to think of a battle for life where only one in
+a thousand survives?</p>
+
+<p>This, then, is the first fact. The second is the fact so long ago
+recognised, that the battle is to the strong, the race to the swift. The
+thousandth individual which does survive in the battle for
+existence&mdash;which does win the race for life&mdash;is, without question, one
+of the individuals best fitted to do so; that is to say, best fitted to
+the conditions of its existence considered as a whole. Nature is,
+therefore, always picking out, or selecting, such individuals to live
+and to breed.</p>
+
+<p>The third fact is, that the individuals so selected transmit their
+favourable qualities to their offspring by heredity. There is no doubt
+about this fact, so far as we are concerned with it. For although, as I
+have already hinted, considerable doubt has of late years been cast upon
+Lamarck&rsquo;s doctrine of the hereditary transmission of <i>acquired</i>
+characters, it remains as impossible as ever it was to question the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_263" id="page_263">[263]</a></span>
+hereditary transmission of what are called <i>congenital</i> characters. And
+this is all that Darwin&rsquo;s theory necessarily requires.</p>
+
+<p>The fourth fact is, that although heredity as a whole produces a
+wonderfully exact copy of the parent in the child, there is never a
+precise reduplication. Of all the millions of human beings upon the face
+of the earth, no one is so like another that we cannot see some
+difference; the resemblance is everywhere specific, nowhere individual.
+Now this same remark applies to all specific types. The only reason why
+we notice individual differences in the case of the human type more than
+we do in the case of any other types, is because our attention is here
+more incessantly focussed upon these differences. We are compelled to
+notice them in the case of our own species, however small they may
+appear to a naturalist, because, unless we do so, we should not
+recognise the members of our own family, or be able to distinguish
+between a man whom we know is ready to do us an important service, and
+another man whom we know is ready to cut our throats. But our common
+mother Nature is able thus to distinguish between all her children. Her
+eyes are much more ready to detect small individual peculiarities than
+are the eyes of any naturalist. No slight variations in the cast of
+feature or disposition of parts, no minute difference in the arrangement
+of microscopical cells, can escape her ever vigilant attention. And,
+consequently, when among all the innumerable multitudes of individual
+variations any one arises which&mdash;no matter in how slight a degree&mdash;gives
+to that individual a better chance of success in the struggle for life,
+Nature chooses that individual <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_264" id="page_264">[264]</a></span>
+to survive, and so to perpetuate the improvement in his or her progeny.</p>
+
+<p>Now I say that all these several component parts of Darwinian doctrine
+are not matters of theory, but matters of fact. The only element of
+theory in his doctrine of evolution by natural selection has reference
+to the degree in which these observable facts, when thus brought
+together, are adequate to account for the process of evolution.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>So much, then, as a statement of the theory of natural selection. But
+from this statement&mdash;i. e. from the theory of natural selection
+itself&mdash;there follow certain matters of general principle which it is
+important to bear in mind. These, therefore, I shall here proceed to
+mention.</p>
+
+<p>First of all, it is evident that the theory is applicable as an
+explanation of organic changes in specific types only in so far as these
+changes are of <i>use</i>, or so far as such changes endow the species with
+better chances of success in the general struggle for existence. This is
+the only sense in which I shall always employ the terms use, utility,
+service, benefit, and so forth&mdash;that is to say, in the sense of
+life-preserving.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Next, it must be clearly understood that the life which it is the
+object, so to speak, of natural selection to preserve, is primarily the
+life of the <i>species</i>; not that of the <i>individual</i>. Natural selection
+preserves the life of the individual only in so far as this is conducive
+to that of the species. Wherever the life-interests of the individual
+clash with those of the species, that individual is sacrificed in favour
+of others <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_265" id="page_265">[265]</a></span>
+who happen better to subserve the interests of the species. For
+example, in all organisms a greater or less amount of vigour is wasted,
+so far as individual interests are concerned, in the formation and the
+nourishment of progeny. In the great majority of plants and animals an
+enormous amount of physiological energy is thus expended. Look at the
+roe or the milt of a herring, for instance, and see what a huge drain
+has been made upon the individual for the sake of its species. Again,
+all unselfish instincts have been developed for the sake of the species,
+and usually against the interests of the individual. An ant which will
+allow her head to be slowly drawn from her body rather than relinquish
+her hold upon a pupa, is clearly acting in response to an instinct which
+has been developed for the benefit of the hive, though fatal to the
+individual. And, in a lesser degree, the parental instincts, wherever
+they occur, are more or less detrimental to the interests of the
+individual, though correspondingly essential to those of the race.</p>
+
+<p>These illustrations will serve to show that natural selection always
+works primarily for the life-interests of the species&mdash;and, indeed, only
+works for those of the individual at all in so far as the latter happen
+to coincide with the former. Or, otherwise stated, the object of natural
+selection is always that of producing and maintaining specific types in
+the highest degree of efficiency, no matter what may become of the
+constituent individuals. Which is a striking republication by Science of
+a general truth previously stated by Poetry:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
+<span class="i0">So careful of the type she seems,<br /></span>
+<span class="i0">So careless of the single life.<br /></span>
+</div></div><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_266" id="page_266">[266]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class='noin'>Tennyson thus noted the fact, and a few years later Darwin supplied the
+explanation.</p>
+
+<p>But of course in many, if not in the majority of cases, anything that
+adds to the life-sustaining power of the single life thereby ministers
+also to the life-sustaining power of the type; and thus we can
+understand why all mechanisms and instincts which minister to the single
+life have been developed&mdash;namely, because the life of the species is
+made up of the lives of all its constituent individuals. It is only
+where the interests of the one clash with those of the other that
+natural selection works against the individual. So long as the interests
+are coincident, it works in favour of both.</p>
+
+<p>Natural selection, then, is a theory which seeks to explain by natural
+causes the occurrence of every kind of adaptation which is to be met
+with in organic nature, on the assumption that adaptations of every kind
+have primary reference to the preservation of species, and therefore
+also, as a general rule, to the preservation of their constituent
+individuals. And from this it follows that where it is for the benefit
+of a species to change its type, natural selection will effect that
+change, thus leading to a specific transmutation, or the evolution of a
+new species. In such cases the old species may or may not become
+extinct. If the transmutation affects the species as a whole, or
+throughout its entire range, of course <i>that</i> particular type becomes
+extinct, although it does so by becoming changed into a still more
+suitable type in the course of successive generations. If, on the other
+hand, the transmutation affects only a part of the original species, or
+not throughout its entire range, then the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_267" id="page_267">[267]</a></span>
+other parts of that species may survive for any number of ages as they
+originally were. In the one case there is a ladder-like transmutation of
+species in time; in the other case a possibly tree-like multiplication
+of species in space. But whether the evolution of species be thus serial
+in time or divergent in space, the object of natural selection, so to
+speak, is in either case the same&mdash;namely, that of preserving all
+types which prove best suited to the conditions of their existence.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Once more, the term &ldquo;struggle for existence&rdquo; must be
+understood to comprehend, not only a competition for life among
+contemporary individuals of the same species, but likewise a struggle by
+all such individuals taken collectively for the continuance of their own
+specific type. Thus, on the one hand, while there is a perpetual civil
+war being waged between members of the same species, on the other hand
+there is a foreign war being waged by the species as a whole against its
+world as a whole. Hence it follows that natural selection does not
+secure survival of the fittest as regards individuals only, but also
+survival of the fittest as regards types. This is a most important point
+to remember, because, as a general rule, these two different causes
+produce exactly opposite effects. Success in the civil war, where each
+is fighting against all, is determined by <i>individual</i> fitness and
+<i>self-reliance</i>. But success in the foreign war is determined by what
+may be termed <i>tribal</i> fitness and <i>mutual dependence</i>. For example,
+among social insects the struggle for existence is quite as great
+between different tribes or communities, as it is between different
+individuals of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_268" id="page_268">[268]</a></span>
+the same community; and thus we can understand the extraordinary degree
+in which not only co-operative instincts, but also largely intelligent
+social habits, have here been developed<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a>.
+Similarly, in the case of mankind, we can understand the still more
+extraordinary development of these things&mdash;culminating in the moral
+sense. I have heard a sermon, preached at one of the meetings of the
+British Association, entirely devoted to arguing that the moral sense
+could not have been evolved by natural selection, seeing that the
+altruism which this sense involves is the very opposite of selfishness,
+which alone ought to have been the product of survival of the fittest in
+a struggle for life. And, of course, this argument would have been
+perfectly sound had Darwin limited the struggle for existence to
+individuals, without extending it to communities. But if the preacher
+had ever read Darwin&rsquo;s works he would have found that, when thus
+extended, the principle of natural selection is bound to work in favour
+of the co-operative instincts in the case of so highly social an animal
+as man; and that of these instincts conscience is the highest imaginable
+exhibition.</p>
+
+<p>What I have called tribal fitness&mdash;in contradistinction to individual
+fitness&mdash;begins with the family, developes in the community (herd, hive,
+clan, &amp;c.), and usually ends with the limits of the species. On the one
+hand, however, it is but seldom that it extends so far as to embrace the
+entire species; while, on the other hand, it may in some cases, and as
+it were <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_269" id="page_269">[269]</a></span>
+sporadically, extend beyond the species. In these latter cases members
+of different species mutually assist one another, whether in the way of
+what is called symbiosis, or in a variety of other ways which I need not
+wait to mention. For the only point which I now desire to make clear is,
+that all cases of mutual aid or co-operation, whether within or beyond
+the limits of species, are cases which fall under the explanatory sweep
+of the Darwinian theory<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Another important point to notice is, that it constitutes no part of the
+theory of natural selection to suppose that survival of the fittest must
+invariably lead to <i>improvement</i> of type, in the sense of superior
+organization. On the contrary, if from change of habits or conditions of
+life an organic type ceases to have any use for previously useful
+organs, natural selection will not only allow these organs in successive
+generations to deteriorate&mdash;by no longer placing any selective premium
+upon their maintenance&mdash;but may even proceed to assist the agencies
+engaged in their destruction. For, being now useless, they may become
+even deleterious, by absorbing nutriment, causing weight, occupying
+space, &amp;c., without conferring any compensating benefit. Thus we can
+understand why it is that parasites, for example, present the phenomena
+of what is called <i>degeneration</i>, i. e. showing by their whole structure
+that they have descended from a possibly very much higher type of
+organization than that which they now exhibit. Having for innumerable
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_270" id="page_270">[270]</a></span>
+generations ceased to require their legs, their eyes, and so forth, all
+such organs of high elaboration have either disappeared or become
+vestigial, leaving the parasite as a more or less effete representative
+of its ancestry.</p>
+
+<p>These facts of degeneration, as we have previously seen, are of very
+general occurrence, and it is evident that their importance in the field
+of organic evolution as a whole has been very great. Moreover, it ought
+to be particularly observed that, as just indicated, the facts may be
+due either to a passive <i>cessation</i> of selection, or to an active
+<i>reversal</i> of it. Or, more correctly, these facts are probably <i>always</i>
+due to the cessation of selection, although in most cases where species
+in a state of nature are concerned, the process of degeneration has been
+both hastened and intensified by the super-added influence of the
+reversal of selection. In the next volume I shall have occasion to recur
+to this distinction, when it will be seen that it is one of no small
+importance to the general theory of descent.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>We may now proceed to consider certain misconceptions of the Darwinian
+theory which are largely, not to say generally, prevalent among
+supporters of the theory. These misconceptions, therefore, differ from
+those which fall to be considered in the next chapter, i. e.
+misconceptions which constitute grounds of objection to the theory.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Of all the errors connected with the theory of natural selection,
+perhaps the one most frequently met with&mdash;especially among supporters of
+the theory&mdash;is that of employing the theory to explain all cases of
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_271" id="page_271">[271]</a></span>
+Phyletic modification (or inherited change of type) indiscriminately,
+without waiting to consider whether in particular cases its application
+is so much as logically possible. The term &ldquo;natural
+selection&rdquo; thus becomes a magic word, or sesame, at the utterance
+of which every closed door is supposed to be immediately opened. Be it
+observed, I am not here alluding to that merely blind faith in natural
+selection, which of late years has begun dogmatically to force this
+principle as the sole cause of organic evolution in every case where it
+is <i>logically possible</i> that the principle can have come into play. Such
+a blind faith, indeed, I hold to be highly inimical, not only to the
+progress of biological science, but even to the true interests of the
+natural selection theory itself. As to this I shall have a good deal to
+say in the next volume. Here, however, the point is, that the theory in
+question is often invoked in cases where it is not even logically
+possible that it can apply, and therefore in cases where its application
+betokens, not merely an error of judgment or extravagance of dogmatism,
+but a fallacy of reasoning in the nature of a logical contradiction.
+almost any number of examples might be given; but one will suffice to
+illustrate what is meant. And I choose it from the writings of one of
+the authors of the selection theory itself, in order to show how easy it
+is to be cheated by this mere juggling with a phrase&mdash;for of course
+I do not doubt that a moment&rsquo;s thought would have shown the writer
+the untenability of his statement.</p>
+
+<p>In his most recent work Mr. Wallace advances an interesting hypothesis
+to the effect that differences of colour between allied species, which
+are apparently <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_272" id="page_272">[272]</a></span>
+too slight to serve any other purpose, may act as &ldquo;recognition
+marks,&rdquo; whereby the opposite sexes are enabled at once to
+distinguish between members of their own and of closely resembling
+species. Of course this hypothesis can only apply to the higher animals;
+but the point here is that, supposing it to hold for them, Mr. Wallace
+proceeds to argue thus:&mdash;Recognition marks &ldquo;have in all
+probability been acquired in the process of differentiation for the
+purpose of checking the intercrossing of allied forms,&rdquo; because
+&ldquo;one of the first needs of a new species would be to keep separate
+from its nearest allies, and this could be more readily done by some
+easily seen external mark<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a>.&rdquo;
+Now, it is clearly not so much as logically possible that these
+recognition-marks (supposing them to be such) can have been acquired by
+natural selection, &ldquo;for the purpose of checking intercrossing of
+allied forms.&rdquo; For the theory of natural selection, from its own
+essential nature as a theory, is logically exclusive of the supposition
+that survival of the fittest ever provides changes in anticipation of
+future uses. Or, otherwise stated, it involves a contradiction of the
+theory itself to say that the colour-changes in question were originated
+by natural selection, in order to meet &ldquo;one of the <i>first</i> needs
+of a <i>new</i> species,&rdquo; or for the purpose of <i>subsequently</i>
+preventing intercrossing with allied forms. If it had been said that
+these colour-differentiations were originated by some cause other than
+natural selection (or, if by natural selection, still with regard to
+some <i>previous</i>, instead of <i>prophetic</i>, &ldquo;purpose"), and, when so
+&ldquo;acquired,&rdquo; <i>then</i> began to serve the &ldquo;purpose&rdquo;
+assigned, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_273" id="page_273">[273]</a></span>
+the argument would not have involved the fallacy which we are now
+considering. But, as it stands, the argument reverts to the teleology of
+pre-Darwinian days&mdash;or the hypothesis of a &ldquo;purpose&rdquo; in
+the literal sense which sees the end from the beginning, instead of a
+&ldquo;purpose&rdquo; in the metaphorical sense of an adaptation that is
+evolved by the very modifications which subserve it<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Another very prevalent, and more deliberate, fallacy connected with the
+theory of natural selection is, <i>that it follows deductively from the
+theory itself</i> that the principle of natural selection must be the sole
+means of modification in all cases where modification is of an
+<i>adaptive</i> kind,&mdash;with the consequence that no other principle can ever
+have been concerned in the production of structures or instincts which
+are of any use to their possessors. Whether or not natural selection
+actually has been the sole means of adaptive modification in the race,
+as distinguished from the individual, is a question of biological
+fact<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>; but it <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_274" id="page_274">[274]</a></span>involves a grave error of reasoning to suppose that
+this question can be answered deductively from the theory of natural
+selection itself, as I shall show at some length in the next volume.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>A still more extravagant, and a still more unaccountable fallacy is the
+one which represents it as following deductively from the theory of
+natural selection itself, that all <i>hereditary</i> characters are
+&ldquo;necessarily&rdquo; due to natural selection. In other words, not
+only all adaptive, but likewise all non-adaptive hereditary characters,
+it is said, <i>must</i> be due to natural selection. For non-adaptive
+characters are taken to be due to &ldquo;correlation of growth,&rdquo;
+in connexion with some of the adaptive ones&mdash;natural selection being
+thus the <i>indirect</i> means of producing the former <i>wherever</i> they may
+occur, on account of its being the <i>direct</i> and the <i>only</i> means of
+producing the latter. Thus it is deduced from the theory of natural
+selection itself,&mdash;1st, that the principle of natural selection is the
+only possible cause of adaptive modification: 2nd, that non-adaptive
+modifications can only occur in the race as correlated appendages to the
+adaptive: 3rd, that, consequently, natural selection is the only
+possible cause of modification, whether adaptive or non-adaptive. Here
+again, therefore, we must observe that none of these sweeping
+generalizations can possibly be justified by deductive reasoning from
+the theory of natural selection itself. Any attempt at such deductive
+reasoning must necessarily end in circular reasoning, as I shall
+likewise show in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_275" id="page_275">[275]</a></span>
+Second volume, where this whole &ldquo;question of utility&rdquo; will
+be thoroughly dealt with.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Once more, there is an important oversight very generally committed by
+the followers of Darwin. For even those who avoid the fallacies above
+mentioned often fail to perceive, that natural selection can only begin
+to operate if the <i>degree</i> of adaptation is already given as
+sufficiently high to count for something in the struggle for
+<i>existence</i>. Any adaptations which fall below this level of importance
+cannot possibly have been produced by survival of the fittest. Yet the
+followers of Darwin habitually speak of adaptative characters, which <i>in
+their own opinion</i> are subservient merely to comfort or convenience, as
+having been produced by such means. Clearly this is illogical; for it
+belongs to the essence of Darwin&rsquo;s theory to suppose, that natural
+selection can have no jurisdiction beyond the line where structures or
+instincts already present a sufficient degree of adaptational value to
+increase, in some measure, the expectation of life on the part of their
+possessors. We cannot speak of adaptations as due to natural selection,
+without thereby affirming that they present what I have elsewhere termed
+a &ldquo;selection value.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Lastly, as a mere matter of logical definition, it is well-nigh
+self-evident that the theory of natural selection is a theory of the
+origin, and cumulative development, of <i>adaptations</i>, whether these be
+distinctive of species, or of genera, orders, families, classes, and
+sub-kingdoms. It is only when the adaptations happen to be distinctive
+of the first (or lowest) of these <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_276" id="page_276">[276]</a></span>
+taxonomic divisions, that the theory which accounts for <i>these</i>
+adaptations accounts also for the forms which present them,&mdash;i. e.
+becomes <i>also</i> a theory of the origin of species. This, however, is
+clearly but an accident of particular cases; and, therefore, even in
+them the theory is <i>primarily</i> a theory of adaptations, while it is but
+secondarily a theory of the species which present them. Or, otherwise
+stated, the theory is no more a theory of the origin of species than it
+is of the origin of genera, families, and the rest; while, on the other
+hand, it is <i>everywhere</i> a theory of the adaptive modifications whereby
+each of these taxonomic divisions has been differentiated as such. Yet,
+sufficiently obvious as the accuracy of this definition must appear to
+any one who dispassionately considers it, several naturalists of high
+standing have denounced it in violent terms. I shall therefore have to
+recur to the subject at somewhat greater length hereafter. At present it
+is enough merely to mention the matter, as furnishing another and a
+curious illustration of the not infrequent weakness of logical
+perception on the part of minds well gifted with the faculty of
+observation. It may be added, however, that the definition in question
+is in no way hostile to the one which is virtually given by Darwin in
+the title of his great work. <i>The Origin of Species by means of Natural
+Selection</i> is beyond doubt the best title that could have been given,
+because at the time when the work was published the <i>fact</i>, no less than
+the <i>method</i>, of organic evolution had to be established; and hence the
+most important thing to be done at that time was to prove the
+transmutation of species. But now that this has been done to the
+satisfaction of naturalists in general, it is <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_277" id="page_277">[277]</a></span>
+as I have said, curious to find some of them denouncing a wider
+definition of the principle of natural selection, merely because the
+narrower (or included) definition is invested with the charm of verbal
+associations<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>So much for fallacies and misconceptions touching Darwin&rsquo;s theory,
+which are but too frequently met with in the writings of its supporters.
+We must now pass on to mention some of the still greater fallacies and
+misconceptions which are prevalent in the writings of its opponents.
+And, in order to do this thoroughly, I shall begin by devoting the
+remainder of the present chapter to a consideration of the antecedent
+standing of the two theories of natural selection and supernatural
+design. This having been done, in the succeeding chapters I shall deal
+with the evidences for, and the objections against, the former theory.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Beginning, then, with the antecedent standing of these alternative
+theories, the first thing to be noticed is, that they are both concerned
+with the same subject-matter, which it is their common object to
+explain. Moreover, this subject-matter is clearly and sharply divisible
+into two great classes of facts in organic nature&mdash;namely, those of
+Adaptation and those of Beauty. Darwin&rsquo;s theory of descent
+explains the former by his doctrine of natural selection, and the latter
+by his doctrine of sexual selection. In the first instance, therefore, I
+shall have to deal only with the facts of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_278" id="page_278">[278]</a></span>
+adaptation, leaving for subsequent consideration the facts of beauty.</p>
+
+<p>Innumerable cases of the adaptation of organisms to their surroundings
+being the facts which now stand before us to be explained either by
+natural selection or by supernatural intention, we may first consider a
+statement which is frequently met with&mdash;namely, that even if all such
+cases of adaptation were proved to be fully explicable by the theory of
+descent, this would constitute no disproof of the theory of design: all
+the cases of adaptation, it is argued, might still be due to design,
+even though they admit of being hypothetically accounted for by the
+theory of descent. I have heard an eminent Professor tell his class that
+the many instances of mechanical adaptation discovered and described by
+Darwin as occurring in orchids, seemed to him to furnish better proof of
+supernatural contrivance than of natural causes; and another eminent
+Professor has informed me that, although he had read the <i>Origin of
+Species</i> with care, he could see in it no evidence of natural selection
+which might not equally well have been adduced in favour of intelligent
+design. But here we meet with a radical misconception of the whole
+logical attitude of science. For, be it observed, this exception <i>in
+limine</i> to the evidence which we are about to consider does not question
+that natural selection <i>may</i> be able to do all that Darwin ascribes to
+it. The objection is urged against his interpretation of the facts
+merely on the ground that these facts might <i>equally well</i> be ascribed
+to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all
+simple enough to adopt a supernatural explanation whenever a natural one
+is found sufficient to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_279" id="page_279">[279]</a></span>
+account for the facts. Once admit the irrational principle that we may
+assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones
+is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and
+all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic
+which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony&mdash;or the law
+which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower
+ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects&mdash;this law
+constitutes the only barrier between science and superstition. It is
+always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon
+whatsoever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some
+supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of
+science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a
+validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
+Therefore one can have no hesitation in saying that this way of looking
+at the evidence in favour of natural selection is not a scientific or a
+reasonable way of looking at it, but a purely superstitious way. Let us
+take, as an illustration, a perfectly parallel case. When Kepler was
+unable to explain by any known causes the paths described by the
+planets, he resorted to a supernatural explanation, and supposed that
+every planet was guided in its movements by some presiding angel. But
+when Newton supplied a beautifully simple physical explanation, all
+persons with a scientific habit of mind at once abandoned the
+metaphysical one. Now, to be consistent, the above-mentioned Professors,
+and all who think with them, ought still to adhere to Kepler&rsquo;s
+hypothesis in preference to Newton&rsquo;s explanation; for, excepting
+the law of parsimony, there is certainly <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_280" id="page_280">[280]</a></span>
+no other logical objection to the statement, that the movements of the
+planets afford as good evidence of the influence of guiding angels as
+they do of the influence of gravitation.</p>
+
+<p>So much, then, for the illogical position that, granting the evidence in
+favour of natural descent and supernatural design to be equal and
+parallel, we should hesitate in our choice between the two theories.
+But, of course, if the evidence is supposed <i>not</i> to be equal and
+parallel&mdash;i. e. if it is supposed that the theory of natural selection
+is not so good a theory whereby to explain the facts of adaptation as is
+that of supernatural design,&mdash;then the objection is no longer the one
+which we are considering. It is quite another objection, and one which
+is not <i>prima facie</i> absurd. Therefore let us state clearly the distinct
+question which thus arises.</p>
+
+<p>Innumerable cases of adaptation of organisms to their environments are
+the observed facts for which an explanation is required. To supply this
+explanation, two, and only two, hypotheses are in the field. Of these
+two hypotheses one is intelligent design manifested directly in special
+creation; the other is natural causation operating through countless
+ages of the past. Now, the adaptations in question involve an
+innumerable multitude of special mechanisms, in most cases even within
+the limits of any one given species; but when we consider the sum of all
+these mechanisms presented by organic nature as a whole, the mind must
+indeed be dull which does not feel astounded. For, be it further
+observed, these mechanical contrivances<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a>
+are, for the most part, no merely simple <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_281" id="page_281">[281]</a></span>
+arrangements, which might reasonably be supposed due, like the
+phenomena of crystallization, to comparatively simple physical causes.
+On the contrary, they everywhere and habitually exhibit so deep-laid, so
+intricate, and often so remote an adaptation of means to ends, that no
+machinery of human contrivance can properly be said to equal their
+perfection from a mechanical point of view. Therefore, without question,
+the hypothesis which first of all they suggest&mdash;or suggest most
+readily&mdash;is the hypothesis of design. And this hypothesis becomes
+virtually the only hypothesis possible, if it be assumed&mdash;as it
+generally was assumed by natural theologians of the past,&mdash;that all
+species of plants and animals were introduced into the world <i>suddenly</i>.
+For it is quite inconceivable that any known cause, other than
+intelligent design, could be competent to turn out instantaneously any
+one of these intricate pieces of machinery, already adapted to the
+performance of its special function. But, on the other hand, if there is
+any evidence to show that one species becomes slowly transformed into
+another&mdash;or that one set of adaptations becomes slowly changed into
+another set as changing circumstances require,&mdash;then it becomes
+quite possible to imagine that a strictly natural causation may have had
+something to do with the matter. And this suggestion becomes greatly
+more probable when we discover, from geological evidence and
+embryological research, that in the history both of races and of
+individuals the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_282" id="page_282">[282]</a></span>
+various mechanisms in question have themselves had a
+history&mdash;beginning in the forms of most uniformity and simplicity,
+gradually advancing to forms more varied and complex, nowhere exhibiting
+any interruptions in their upward progress, until the world of organic
+machinery as we now have it is seen to have been but the last phase of a
+long and gradual growth, the ultimate roots of which are to be found in
+the soil of undifferentiated protoplasm.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, when there is supplied to us the suggestion of natural selection
+as a cause presumably adequate to account for this continuous growth in
+the number, the intricacy, and the perfection of such mechanisms, it is
+only the most unphilosophical mind that can refuse to pause as between
+the older hypothesis of design and the newer hypothesis of descent.</p>
+
+<p>Thus it is clear that the <i>a priori</i> standing of the rival hypotheses of
+naturalism and supernaturalism in the case of all these pieces of
+organic machinery, is profoundly affected by the question whether they
+came into existence suddenly, or whether they did so gradually. For, if
+they all came into existence suddenly, the fact would constitute
+well-nigh positive proof in favour of supernaturalism, or creation by
+design; whereas, if they all came into existence gradually, this fact
+would in itself constitute presumptive evidence in favour of naturalism,
+or of development by natural causes. And, as shown in the previous
+chapters, the proof that all species of plants and animals came into
+existence gradually&mdash;or the proof of evolution as a fact&mdash;is simply
+overwhelming.</p>
+
+<p>From a still more general point of view I may state the case in another
+way, by borrowing and somewhat <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_283" id="page_283">[283]</a></span>
+expanding an illustration which, I believe, was first used by Professor
+Huxley. If, when the tide is out, we see lying upon the shore a long
+line of detached sea-weed, marking the level which is reached by full
+tide, we should be free to conclude that the separation of the sea-weed
+from the sand and the stones was due to the intelligent work of some one
+who intended to collect the sea-weed for manure, or for any other
+purpose. But, on the other hand, we might explain the fact by a purely
+physical cause&mdash;namely, the separation by the sea-waves of the
+sea-weed from the sand and stones, in virtue of its lower specific
+gravity. Now, thus far the fact would be explained equally well by
+either hypothesis; and this fact would be the fact of <i>selection</i>. But
+whether we yielded our assent to the one explanation or to the other
+would depend upon a due consideration of all collateral circumstances.
+The sea-weed might not be of a kind that is of any use to man; there
+might be too great a quantity of it to admit of our supposing that it
+had been collected by man; the fact that it was all deposited on the
+high-water-mark would in itself be highly suggestive of the agency of
+the sea; and so forth. Thus, in such a case any reasonable observer
+would decide in favour of the physical explanation, or against the
+teleological one.</p>
+
+<p>Now the question whether organic evolution has been caused by physical
+agencies or by intelligent design is in precisely the same predicament.
+There can be no logical doubt that, theoretically at all events, the
+physical agencies which the present chapter is concerned with, and which
+are conveniently summed up in the term natural selection, are as
+competent to produce these so-called mechanical contrivances, and the
+other <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_284" id="page_284">[284]</a></span>
+cases of adaptation which are to be met with in organic nature, as
+intelligent design could be. Hence, our choice as between these two
+hypotheses must be governed by a study of all collateral circumstances;
+that is to say, by a study of the evidences in favour of the physical
+explanation. To this study, therefore, we shall now address ourselves,
+in the course of the following chapters.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_285" id="page_285">[285]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Evidences of the Theory of Natural Selection.</span></h2>
+
+<p>I will now proceed to state the main arguments in favour of the theory
+of natural selection, and then, in the following chapter, the main
+objections which have been urged against it.</p>
+
+<p>In my opinion, the main arguments in favour of the theory are three in
+number.</p>
+
+<p>First, it is a matter of observation that the struggle for existence in
+nature does lead to the extermination of forms less fitted for the
+struggle, and thus makes room for forms more fitted. This general fact
+may be best observed in cases where an exotic species proves itself
+better fitted to inhabit a new country than is some endemic species
+which it exterminates. In Great Britain, for example, the so-called
+common rat is a comparatively recent importation from Norway, and it has
+so completely supplanted the original British rat, that it is now
+extremely difficult to procure a single specimen of the latter: the
+native black rat has been all but exterminated by the foreign brown rat.
+The same thing is constantly found in the case of imported species of
+plants. I have seen the river at Cambridge so choked with the inordinate
+propagation of a species <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_286" id="page_286">[286]</a></span>
+Of water-weed which had been introduced from america, that considerable
+expense had to be incurred in order to clear the river for traffic. In
+new zealand the same thing has happened with the european water-cress,
+and in australia with the common rabbit. So it is doubtless true, as one
+of the natives is said to have philosophically remarked, &ldquo;the
+white man&rsquo;s rat has driven away our rat, the european fly drives
+away our fly, his clover kills our grass, and so will the maoris
+disappear before the white man himself.&rdquo; innumerable other cases
+to the same effect might be quoted; and they all go to establish the
+fact that forms less fitted to survive succumb in their competition with
+forms better fitted.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Secondly, there is a general consideration of the largest possible
+significance in the present connexion&mdash;namely, that among all the
+millions of structures and instincts which are so invariably, and for
+the most part so wonderfully, adapted to the needs of the species
+presenting them, we cannot find a single instance, either in the
+vegetable or animal kingdom, of a structure or an instinct which is
+developed for the exclusive benefit of another species. Now this great
+and general fact is to my mind a fact of the most enormous, not to say
+overwhelming, significance. The theory of natural selection has now been
+before the world for more than thirty years, and during that time it had
+stood a fire of criticism such as was never encountered by any
+scientific theory before. From the first Darwin invited this criticism
+to adduce any single instance, either in the vegetable or animal
+kingdom, of a structure or an instinct which should unquestionably
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_287" id="page_287">[287]</a></span>
+be proved to be of exclusive use to any species other than the one
+presenting it. He even went so far as to say that if any one such
+instance could be shown he would surrender his whole theory on the
+strength of it&mdash;so assured had he become, by his own prolonged
+researches, that natural selection was the true agent in the production
+of adaptive structures, and, as such, could never have permitted such a
+structure to occur in one species for the benefit of another. Now, as
+this invitation has been before the world for so many years, and has not
+yet been answered by any naturalist, we may by this time be pretty
+confident that it never will be answered. How tremendous, then, is the
+significance of this fact in its testimony to Darwin&rsquo;s theory! The
+number of animal and vegetable species, both living and extinct, is to
+be reckoned by millions, and every one of these species presents on an
+average hundreds of adaptive structures,&mdash;at least one of which in
+many, possibly in most, if not actually in all cases, is peculiar to the
+species that presents it. In other words, there are millions of adaptive
+structures (not to speak of instincts) which are peculiar to the species
+presenting them, and also many more which are the common property of
+allied species: yet, notwithstanding this inconceivable profusion of
+adaptive structures in organic nature, there is no single instance that
+has been pointed out of the occurrence of such a structure save for the
+benefit of the species that presents it. Therefore, I say that this
+immensely large and general fact speaks with literally immeasurable
+force in favour of natural selection, as at all events one of the main
+causes of organic evolution. For the fact is precisely what we should
+expect if this theory is true, while <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_288" id="page_288">[288]</a></span>
+upon no other theory can its universality and invariability be rendered
+intelligible. On the beneficent design theory, for instance, it is
+inexplicable that no species should ever be found to present a structure
+or an instinct having primary reference to the welfare of another
+species, when, <i>ex hypothesi</i>, such an endless amount of thought has
+been displayed in the creation of structures and instincts having
+primary reference to the species which present them. For how magnificent
+a display of divine beneficence would organic nature have afforded, if
+all&mdash;or even some&mdash;species had been so inter-related as to
+have ministered to each others wants. Organic species might then have
+been likened to a countless multitude of voices, all singing in one
+great harmonious psalm. But, as it is, we see absolutely no vestige of
+such co-ordination: every species is for itself, and for itself
+alone&mdash;an outcome of the always and everywhere fiercely raging
+struggle for life.</p>
+
+<p>In order that the force of this argument may not be misapprehended, it
+is necessary to bear in mind that it is in no way affected by cases
+where a structure or an instinct is of primary benefit to its possessor,
+and then becomes of secondary benefit to some other species on account
+of the latter being able in some way or another to utilise its action.
+Of course organic nature is full of cases of this kind; but they only go
+to show the readiness which all species display to utilise for
+themselves everything that can be turned to good account in their own
+environments, and so, among other things, the structures and instincts
+of other animals. For instance, it would be no answer to Darwin&rsquo;s
+challenge if any one were to point to a hermit-crab inhabiting the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_289" id="page_289">[289]</a></span>
+cast-off shell of a mollusk; because the shell was primarily of use to
+the mollusk itself, and, so far as the mollusk is concerned, the fact of
+its shell being afterwards of a secondary use to the crab is quite
+immaterial. What Darwin&rsquo;s challenge requires is, that some
+structure or instinct should be shown which is not merely of such
+secondary or accidental benefit to another species, but clearly adapted
+to the needs of that other species in the first instance&mdash;such, for
+example, as would be the case if the tail of a rattle-snake were of no
+use to its possessor, while serving to warn other animals of the
+proximity of a dangerous creature; or, in the case of instincts, if it
+were true that a pilot-fish accompanies a shark for the purpose of
+helping the shark to discover food. Both these instances have been
+alleged; but both have been shown untenable. And so it has proved of all
+the other cases which thus far have been put forward.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps the most remarkable of all the allegations which ever have been
+put forward in this connexion are those that were current with regard to
+instincts before the publication of Darwin&rsquo;s work. These
+allegations are the most remarkable, because they serve to show, in a
+degree which I do not believe could be shown anywhere else, the warping
+power of preconceived ideas. A short time ago I happened to come across
+the 8th edition of the <i>Encyclop&aelig;dia Britannica</i>, and turned up the
+article on &ldquo;Instinct&rdquo; there, in order to see what amount of
+change had been wrought with regard to our views on this subject by the
+work of Darwin&mdash;the 8th edition of the <i>Encyclop&aelig;dia Britannica</i> having
+been published shortly before <i>The Origin of Species by means of Natural
+Selection</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_290" id="page_290">[290]</a></span>
+I cannot wait to give any lengthy quotations from this representative
+exponent of scientific opinion upon the subject at that time; but its
+general drift may be appreciated if I transcribe merely the short
+concluding paragraph, wherein he sums up his general results. Here he
+says:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>It thus only remains for us to regard instinct as a mental faculty,
+<i>sui generis</i>, the gift of God to the lower animals, that man in
+his own person, and by them, might be relieved from the meanest
+drudgery of nature.</p></div>
+
+<p>Now, here we have the most extraordinary illustration that is imaginable
+of the obscuring influence of a preconceived idea. Because he started
+with the belief that instincts <i>must</i> have been implanted in animals for
+the benefit of man, this writer, even when writing a purely scientific
+essay, was completely blinded to the largest, the most obvious, and the
+most important of the facts which the phenomena of instinct display.
+For, as a matter of fact, among all the many thousands of instincts
+which are known to occur in animals, there is no single one that can be
+pointed to as having any special reference to man; while, on the other
+hand, it is equally impossible to point to one which does not refer to
+the welfare of the animal presenting it. Indeed, when the point is
+suggested, it seems to me surprising how few in number are the instincts
+of animals which have proved to be so much as of secondary or accidental
+benefit to man, in the same way as skins, furs, and a whole host of
+other animal products are thus of secondary use to him. Therefore, this
+writer not only failed to perceive the most obvious truth that every
+instinct, without any single exception, has reference to the animal
+which <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_291" id="page_291">[291]</a></span>
+presents it; but he also conceived a purely fictitious inversion of
+this truth, and wrote an essay to prove a statement which all the
+instincts in the animal kingdom unite in contradicting.</p>
+
+<p>This example will serve to show, in a striking manner, not only the
+distance that we have travelled in our interpretation of organic nature
+between two successive editions of the <i>Encyclop&aelig;dia Britannica</i>, but
+also the amount of verification which this fact furnishes to the theory
+of natural selection. For, inasmuch as it belongs to the very essence of
+this theory that all adaptive characters (whether instinctive or
+structural) must have reference to their own possessors, we find
+overpowering verification furnished to the theory by the fact now before
+us&mdash;namely, that immediately prior to the enunciation of this theory,
+the truth that all adaptive characters have reference only to the
+species which present them was not perceived. In other words, it was the
+testing of this theory by the facts of nature that <i>revealed</i> to
+naturalists the general law which the theory, as it were, predicted&mdash;the
+general law that all adaptive characters have primary reference to the
+species which present them. And when we remember that this is a kind of
+verification which is furnished by millions of separate cases, the whole
+mass of it taken together is, as I have before said, overwhelming.</p>
+
+<p>It is somewhat remarkable that the enormous importance of this argument
+in favour of natural selection as a prime factor of organic evolution
+has not received the attention which it deserves. Even Darwin himself,
+with his characteristic reserve, has not presented its incalculable
+significance; nor do I <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_292" id="page_292">[292]</a></span>
+know any of his followers who have made any approach to an adequate use
+of it in their advocacy of his views. In preparing the present chapter,
+therefore, I have been particularly careful not to pitch too high my own
+estimate of its evidential value. That is to say, I have considered,
+both in the domain of structures and of instincts, what instances admit
+of being possibly adduced <i>per contra</i>, or as standing outside the
+general law that adaptive structures and instincts are of primary use
+only to their possessors. In the result I can only think of two such
+instances. These, therefore, I will now dispose of.</p>
+
+<p>The first was pointed out, and has been fully discussed, by Darwin
+himself. Certain species of ants are fond of a sweet fluid that is
+secreted by aphides, and they even keep the aphides as we keep cows for
+the purpose of profiting by their &ldquo;milk.&rdquo; Now the point is,
+that the use of this sweet secretion to the aphis itself has not yet
+been made out. Of course, if it is of no use to the aphis, it would
+furnish a case which completely meets Darwin&rsquo;s own challenge. But,
+even if this supposition did not stand out of analogy with all the other
+facts of organic nature, most of us would probably deem it prudent to
+hold that the secretion must primarily be of some use to the aphis
+itself, although the matter has not been sufficiently investigated to
+inform us of what this use is. For, in any case, the secretion is not of
+any vital importance to the ants which feed upon it: and I think but few
+impartial minds would go so far to save an hypothesis as to maintain,
+that the Divinity had imposed this drain upon the internal resources of
+one species of insect for the sole purpose of supplying a luxury to
+another.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_293" id="page_293">[293]</a></span>
+On the whole, it seems most probable that the fluid is of the nature of
+an excretion, serving to carry off waste products. Such, at all events,
+was the opinion at which Darwin himself arrived, as a result of
+observing the facts anew, and in relation to his theory.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>The other instance to which I have alluded as seeming at first sight
+likely to answer Darwin&rsquo;s challenge is the formation of vegetable
+galls. The great number and variety of galls agree in presenting a more
+or less elaborate structure, which is not only foreign to any of the
+uses of plant-life, but singularly and specially adapted to those of the
+insect-life which they shelter. Yet they are produced by a growth of the
+plant itself, when suitably stimulated by the insects&rsquo;
+inoculation&mdash;or, according to recent observations, by emanations from
+the bodies of the larv&aelig; which develop from the eggs deposited in the
+plant by the insect. Now, without question, this is a most remarkable
+fact; and if there were many more of the like kind to be met with in
+organic nature, we might seriously consider whether the formation of
+galls should not be held to make against the ubiquitous agency of
+natural selection. But inasmuch as the formation of galls stands out as
+an exception to the otherwise universal rule of every species for
+itself, and for itself alone, we are justified in regarding this one
+apparent exception with extreme suspicion. Indeed, I think we are
+justified in regarding the peculiar pathological effect produced in the
+plant by the secretions of the insect as having been in the first
+instance accidentally beneficial to the insects. Thus, if any other
+effect than that of a growing tumour had been produced in <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_294" id="page_294">[294]</a></span>
+the first instance, or if the needs of the insect progeny had not been
+such as to have derived profit from being enclosed in such a tumour,
+then, of course, the inoculating instinct of these animals could not
+have been developed by natural selection. But, given these two
+conditions, and it appears to me there is nothing very much more
+remarkable about an accidental correlation between the effects of a
+parasitic larva on a plant and the needs of that parasite, than there is
+between the similarly accidental correlation between a hydated parasite
+and the nutrition furnished to it by the tissues of a warm-blooded
+animal. Doubtless the case of galls is somewhat more remarkable,
+inasmuch as the morbid growth of the plant has more concern in the
+correlation&mdash;being, in many instances, a more specialized structure
+on the part of a host than occurs anywhere else, either in the animal or
+vegetable world. But here I may suggest that although natural selection
+cannot have acted upon the plant directly, so as to have produced galls
+ever better and better adapted to the needs of the insect, it may have
+so acted upon the plants indirectly <i>though the insects</i>. For it may
+very well have been that natural selection would ever tend to preserve
+those individual insects, the quality of whose emanations tended to
+produce the form of galls best suited to nourish the insect progeny; and
+thus the character of these pathological growths may have become ever
+better and better adapted to the needs of the insects. Lastly, looking
+to the enormous number of relations and inter-relations between all
+organic species, it is scarcely to be wondered at that even so
+extraordinary an instance of correlation as this should have arisen thus
+by accident, and then <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_295" id="page_295">[295]</a></span>
+have been perfected by such an <i>indirect</i> agency of natural selection
+as is here suggested<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>The third general class of facts which tell so immensely in favour of
+natural selection as an important cause of organic evolution, are those
+of domestication. The art of the horticulturist, the fancier, the
+cattle-breeder, &amp;c., consists in producing greater and greater
+deviations from a given wild type of plant or animal, in any particular
+direction that may be desired for purposes either of use or of beauty.
+Cultivated cereals, fruits, and flowers are known to have been all
+derived from wild species; and, of course, the same applies to all our
+domesticated varieties of animals. Yet if we compare a cabbage rose with
+a wild rose, a golden pippin apple with a crab, a toy terrier with any
+species of wild dog, not to mention any number of other instances, there
+can be no question that, if such differences had appeared in nature, the
+organisms presenting them would have been entitled to rank as distinct
+species&mdash;or even, in many cases, as distinct genera. Yet we know, as a
+matter of fact, that all these differences have been produced by a
+process of artificial selection, or pairing, which has been continuously
+practised by horticulturists and breeders through a number of
+generations. It is the business of these men to note the individual
+organisms which show most variation in the directions required, and then
+to propagate from these individuals, in order that the progeny shall
+inherit the qualities desired. The results thus become cumulative from
+generation to generation, until we now have an astonishing manifestation
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_296" id="page_296">[296]</a></span>
+of useful qualities on the one hand, and of beautiful qualities on the
+other, according as the organisms have been thus bred for purposes of
+use or for those of beauty.</p>
+
+<p>Now it is immediately obvious that in these cases the process of
+artificial selection is precisely analogous to that of natural selection
+(and of sexual selection which will be considered later on), in all
+respects save one: the utility or the beauty which it is the aim of
+artificial selection continually to enhance, is utility or beauty in
+relation to the requirements or to the tastes of man; whereas the
+utility or the beauty which is produced by natural selection and sexual
+selection has reference only to the requirements or the tastes of the
+organisms themselves. But, with the exception of this one point of
+difference, the processes and the products are identical in kind.
+Persevering selection by man is thus proved to be capable of creating
+what are virtually new specific types, and this in any required
+direction. Hence, when we remember how severe is the struggle for
+existence in nature, it becomes impossible to doubt that selection by
+nature is able to do at least as much as artificial selection in the way
+of thus creating new types out of old ones. Artificial selection,
+indeed, notwithstanding the many and marvellous results which it has
+accomplished, can only be regarded as but a feeble imitation of natural
+selection, which must act with so much greater vigilance and through
+such immensely greater periods of time. In a word, the proved
+capabilities of artificial selection furnish, in its best conceivable
+form, what is called an argument <i>a fortiori</i> in favour of natural
+selection.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_297" id="page_297">[297]</a></span>
+Or, to put it in another way, it may be said that for thousands of years
+mankind has been engaged in making a gigantic experiment to test, as it
+were by anticipation, the theory of natural selection. For, although
+this prolonged experiment has been carried on without any such intention
+on the part of the experimenters, it is none the less an experiment in
+the sense that its results now furnish an overwhelming verification of
+Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s theory. That is to say, they furnish overwhelming
+proof of the efficacy of the selective principle in the modification of
+organic types, when once this principle is brought steadily and
+continuously to bear upon a sufficiently long series of generations.</p>
+
+<p>In order to furnish ocular evidence of the value of this line of
+verification, I have had the following series of drawings prepared.
+Another and equally striking series might be made of the products of
+artificial selection in the case of plants; but it seems to me that the
+case of animals is more than sufficient for the purpose just stated.
+Perhaps it is desirable to add that considerable care has been bestowed
+upon the execution of these portraits; and that in every case the latter
+have been taken from the most typical specimens of the artificial
+variety depicted. Those of them which have not been drawn directly from
+life are taken from the most authoritative sources; and, before being
+submitted to the engraver, they were all examined by the best judges in
+each department. In none of the groups, however, have I aimed at an
+exhaustive representation of all the varieties: I have merely introduced
+representatives of as many as the page would in each case accommodate.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_298" id="page_298">[298]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_315_091.jpg" width="300" height="500" alt="Pigeons." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 91.&mdash;Pigeons. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_299" id="page_299">[299]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 303px;">
+<img src="images/i_316_092.jpg" width="303" height="500" alt="Pigeons, continued." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 92.&mdash;Pigeons, continued. Drawn from life (prize
+specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_300" id="page_300">[300]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 296px;">
+<img src="images/i_317_093.jpg" width="296" height="500" alt="Fowls." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 93.&mdash;Fowls. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_301" id="page_301">[301]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 295px;">
+<img src="images/i_318_094.jpg" width="295" height="500" alt="Fowls, continued." title="" />
+<span class="caption">Fig. 94.&mdash;Fowls, continued. Drawn from life (prize
+specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_302" id="page_302">[302]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 295px;">
+<img src="images/i_319_095.jpg" width="295" height="500" alt="Pair of Japanese Fowls, long-tailed breed." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 95.&mdash;Pair of Japanese Fowls, long-tailed breed.
+Drawn from stuffed specimens in the British Museum.</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_303" id="page_303">[303]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 307px;">
+<img src="images/i_320_096.jpg" width="307" height="500" alt="Canaries." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 96.&mdash;Canaries. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_304" id="page_304">[304]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_321_097.jpg" width="500" height="401" alt="Sebastopol, or Frizzled Goose." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 97.&mdash;Sebastopol, or Frizzled Goose. Drawn from a
+photograph.</span></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_321_098.jpg" width="400" height="375" alt="The Dingo, or wild dog of Australia." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 98.&mdash;The Dingo, or wild dog of Australia, 1/10 nat.
+size. Drawn from life (<i>Zoological Gardens</i>).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_305" id="page_305">[305]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 298px;">
+<img src="images/i_322_099.jpg" width="298" height="500" alt="Dogs." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 99.&mdash;Dogs. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_306" id="page_306">[306]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_323_100.jpg" width="300" height="500" alt="Dogs, continued." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 100.&mdash;Dogs, continued. Drawn from life (prize
+specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_307" id="page_307">[307]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_324_101.jpg" width="400" height="375" alt="The Hairless Dog of Japan." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 101.&mdash;The Hairless Dog of Japan, 1/10 nat. size.
+Drawn from a photograph kindly lent for the purpose by the proprietor.</span></div>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_324_102.jpg" width="400" height="385" alt="The skull of a Bull-dog compared with that of
+a Deerhound." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 102.&mdash;The skull of a Bull-dog compared with that of
+a Deerhound. Drawn from nature.</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_308" id="page_308">[308]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 296px;">
+<img src="images/i_325_103.jpg" width="296" height="500" alt="Rabbits." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 103. Rabbits. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_309" id="page_309">[309]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 289px;">
+<img src="images/i_326_104.jpg" width="289" height="500" alt="Horses." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 104.&mdash;Horses. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_310" id="page_310">[310]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 300px;">
+<img src="images/i_327_105.jpg" width="300" height="500" alt="Sheep. British breeds." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 105.&mdash;Sheep. The illustrations are confined to
+British breeds. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_311" id="page_311">[311]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 297px;">
+<img src="images/i_328_106.jpg" width="297" height="500" alt="Cattle. British breeds." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 106.&mdash;Cattle. The illustrations are confined to
+British breeds. Drawn from life (prize specimens).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_312" id="page_312">[312]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_329_107.jpg" width="500" height="410" alt="Wild Boar contrasted with a modern
+Domesticated Pig." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 107.&mdash;Wild Boar contrasted with a modern
+Domesticated Pig. Drawn from life (<i>Zoological Gardens</i>, and prize
+specimen).</span></div>
+
+<p>The exigencies of space have prevented, in some of the groups, strict
+adherence to a uniform scale&mdash;with the result that contrasts between
+different breeds in respect of size are not adequately rendered. This
+remark applies especially to the dogs; for although the artist has
+endeavoured to draw them in perspective, unless the distance between
+those in the foreground and those in the background is understood to be
+more considerable than it appears, an inadequate idea is given of the
+relative differences of size. The most instructive of the groups, I
+think, is that of the Canaries; because the many and great changes in
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_313" id="page_313">[313]</a></span>
+different directions must in this case have been produced by artificial
+selection in so comparatively short a time&mdash;the first mention of this
+bird that I can find being by Gesner, in the sixteenth century.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Now, it is surely unquestionable that in these typical proofs of the
+efficacy of artificial selection in the modification of specific types,
+we have the strongest conceivable testimony to the power of natural
+selection in the same direction. For it thus appears that wherever
+mankind has had occasion to operate by selection for a sufficiently long
+time&mdash;that is to say, on whatever species of plant or animal he chooses
+thus to operate for the purpose of modifying the type in any required
+direction,&mdash;the results are always more or less the same: he finds that
+all specific types lend themselves to continuous deflection in any
+particulars of structure, colour, &amp;c., that he may desire to modify.</p>
+
+<p>Nevertheless, to this parallel between the known effects of artificial
+selection, and the inferred effects of natural selection, two objections
+have been urged. The first is, that in the case of artificial selection
+the selecting agent is a voluntary intelligence, while in the case of
+natural selection the selecting agent is Nature herself; and whether or
+not there is any counterpart of man&rsquo;s voluntary intelligence in
+nature is a question with which Darwinism has nothing to do. Therefore,
+it is alleged, the analogy between natural selection and artificial
+selection fails <i>ab initio</i>, or at the fountain-head of the causes which
+are taken by the analogy to be respectively involved.</p>
+
+<p>The second objection to the analogy is, that the products of artificial
+selection, closely as they may <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_314" id="page_314">[314]</a></span>
+resemble natural species in all other respects, nevertheless present
+one conspicuous and highly important point of difference: they rarely,
+if ever, present the physiological character of mutual infertility,
+which is a character of extremely general occurrence in the case of
+natural species, even when these are most nearly allied.</p>
+
+<p>I will deal with these two objections in the next chapter, where I shall
+be concerned with the meeting of all the objections which have ever been
+urged against the theory of natural selection. Meanwhile I am engaged
+only in presenting the general arguments which support the theory, and
+therefore mention these objections to one of them merely <i>en passant</i>.
+And I do so in order to pledge myself effectually to dispose of them
+later on, so that for the purposes of my present argument both these
+objections may be provisionally regarded as non-existent; which means,
+in other words, that we may provisionally regard the analogy between
+artificial selection and natural selection as everywhere logically
+intact.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>To sum up, then, the results of the foregoing exposition thus far, what
+I hold to be the three principal, or most general, arguments in favour
+of the theory of natural selection, are as follows.</p>
+
+<p>First, there is the <i>a priori</i> consideration that, if on independent
+grounds we believe in the theory of evolution at all, it becomes obvious
+that natural selection <i>must</i> have had <i>some</i> part in the process. For
+no one can deny the potent facts of heredity, variability, the struggle
+for existence, and survival of the fittest. But to admit these facts is
+to admit <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_315" id="page_315">[315]</a></span>
+natural selection as a principle which must be, at any rate, one of the
+factors of organic evolution, supposing such evolution to have taken
+place. Next, when we turn from these <i>a priori</i> considerations, which
+thus show that natural selection <i>must</i> have been concerned to some
+extent in the process of evolution, we find in organic nature evidence
+<i>a posteriori</i> of the extent to which this principle <i>has</i> been thus
+concerned. For we find that among all the countless millions of adaptive
+structures which are to be met with in organic nature, it is an
+invariable rule that they exist in relation to the needs of the
+particular species which present them: they never have any primary
+reference to the needs of other species. And as this extraordinarily
+large and general fact is exactly what the theory of natural selection
+would expect, the theory is verified by the fact in an extraordinarily
+cogent manner. In other words, the fact goes to prove that in <i>all</i>
+cases where adaptive structures or instincts are concerned, natural
+selection must have been either the sole cause at work, or, at the
+least, an influence controlling the operation of all other causes.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, an actually experimental verification of the theory has been
+furnished on a gigantic scale by the operations of breeders, fanciers,
+and horticulturists. For these men, by their process of selective
+accumulation, have empirically proved what immense changes of type may
+thus be brought about; and so have verified by anticipation, and in a
+most striking manner, the theory of natural selection&mdash;which, as now so
+fully explained, is nothing more than a theory of cumulative
+modifications by means of selective breeding.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_316" id="page_316">[316]</a></span>
+So much, then, by way of generalities. But perhaps the proof of natural
+selection as an agency of the first importance in the transmutation of
+species may be best brought home to us by considering a few of its
+applications in detail. I will therefore devote the rest of the present
+chapter to considering a few cases of this kind.</p>
+
+<p>There are so many large fields from which such special illustrations may
+be supplied, that it is difficult to decide which of them to draw upon.
+For instance, the innumerable, always interesting, and often astonishing
+adaptations on the part of flowers to the fertilising agency of insects,
+has alone given rise to an extensive literature since the time when
+Darwin himself was led to investigate the subject by the guidance of his
+own theory. The same may be said of the structures and movements of
+climbing plants, and in short, of all the other departments of natural
+history where the theory of natural selection has led to the study of
+the phenomena of adaptation. For in all these cases the theory of
+natural selection, which first led to their discovery, still remains the
+only scientific theory by which they can be explained. But among all the
+possible fields from which evidences of this kind may be drawn, I think
+the best is that which may be generically termed defensive colouring. To
+this field, therefore, I will restrict myself. But, even so, the cases
+to be mentioned are but mere samples taken from different divisions of
+this field; and therefore it must be understood at the outset that they
+could easily be multiplied a hundred-fold.</p><p>
+
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_317" id="page_317">[317]</a></span></p>
+<h3 class='i'>Protective Colouring.</h3>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_334_108.jpg" width="500" height="416" alt="Seasonal changes of colour in Ptarmigan." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 108.&mdash;Seasonal changes of colour in Ptarmigan (<span
+class='sn'>Lagopus mutus</span>). Drawn from stuffed specimens in the British
+Museum, 1/6 nat. size, with appropriate surroundings supplied.</div></div>
+
+<p>A vast number of animals are rendered more or less inconspicuous by
+resembling the colours of the surfaces on which they habitually rest.
+Such, for example, are grouse, partridges, rabbits, &amp;c. Moreover, there
+are many cases in which, if the needs of the creature be such that it
+must habitually frequent surfaces of different colours, it has acquired
+the power of changing its colour accordingly&mdash;e. g. cuttle-fish,
+flat-fish, frogs, chameleons, &amp;c. The physiological mechanism whereby
+these adaptive changes of colour are produced <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_318" id="page_318">[318]</a></span>
+differs in different animals; but it is needless for our purposes to go
+into this part of the subject. Again, there are yet other cases where
+protective colouring which is admirably suited to conceal an animal
+through one part of the year, would become highly conspicuous during
+another part of it&mdash;namely, when the ground is covered with snow.
+Accordingly, in these cases the animals change their colour in the
+winter months to a snowy white: witness stoats, mountain hares,
+ptarmigan, &amp;c. (Fig. 108.)</p>
+
+<p>Now, it is sufficiently obvious that in all these classes of cases the
+concealment from enemies or prey which is thus secured is of advantage
+to the animals concerned; and, therefore, that in the theory of natural
+selection we have a satisfactory theory whereby to explain it. And this
+cannot be said of any other theory of adaptive mechanisms in nature that
+has ever been propounded. The so-called Lamarckian theory, for instance,
+cannot be brought to bear upon the facts at all; and on the theory of
+special creation it is unintelligible why the phenomena of protective
+colouring should be of such general occurrence. For, in as far as
+protective colouring is of advantage to the species which present it, it
+is of corresponding disadvantage to those other species against the
+predatory nature of which it acts as a defence. And, of course, the same
+applies to yet other species, if they serve as prey. Moreover, the more
+minutely this subject is investigated in all its details, the more
+exactly is it found to harmonise with the naturalistic
+interpretation<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_319" id="page_319">[319]</a></span>
+In the first place, we always find a complete correspondence between
+imitative colouring and instinctive endowment. If a caterpillar exactly
+resembles the colour of a twig, it also presents the instinct of
+habitually reposing in the attitude which makes it most resemble a
+twig&mdash;standing out from the branch on which it rests at the same angle
+as is presented by the real twigs of the tree on which it lives.</p>
+
+<p>Here, again, is a bird protectively coloured so as to resemble stones
+upon the rough ground where it habitually lives; and the drawing shows
+the attitude in which the bird instinctively reposes, so as still
+further to increase its resemblance to a stone. (Fig. 109.)</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_320i" id="page_320i">[320i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_337_109.jpg" width="500" height="435" alt="&OElig;dicnemus crepitans." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 109.&mdash;<span class='sn'>&OElig;dicnemus crepitans</span>, showing the
+instinctive attitude of concealment. Drawn from a stuffed specimen in
+the British Museum, 1/6 nat. size, with appropriate surroundings
+supplied.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_319c" id="page_319c">[319c.]</a></span>
+To take only one other instance, hares and rabbits, like grouse and
+partridges&mdash;or like the plover just alluded to,&mdash;instinctively crouch
+upon those surfaces the colours of which they resemble; and I have often
+remarked that if, on account of any individual peculiarity of
+coloration, the animal is not able thus <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_320" id="page_320">[320]</a></span>
+to secure concealment, it nevertheless exhibits the instinct of
+crouching which is of benefit to all its kind, although, from the
+accident of its own abnormal colouring, this instinct is then actually
+detrimental to the animal itself. For example, every sportsman must have
+noticed that the somewhat rare melanic variety of the common rabbit will
+crouch as steadily as the normal brownish-gray type, notwithstanding
+that, owing to its abnormal colour, a &ldquo;nigger-rabbit&rdquo; thus
+renders itself the most conspicuous object in the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_321" id="page_321">[321]</a></span>
+landscape. In all such cases, of course, there has been a deviation
+from the normal type in respect of colour, with the result that the
+inherited instinct is no longer in tune with the other endowments of the
+animal. Such a variation of colour, therefore, will tend to be
+suppressed by natural selection; while any variations which may bring
+the animal still more closely to resemble its habitual surroundings will
+be preserved. Thus we can understand the truly wonderful extent to which
+this principle of protective colouring has been carried in many cases
+where the need of it has been most urgent.</p>
+
+<p>Not only colour, but structure, may be profoundly modified for the
+purposes of protective concealment. Thus, caterpillars which resemble
+twigs do so not only in respect of colour, but also of shape; and this
+even down to the most minute details in cases where the adaptation is
+most complete: certain butterflies and leaf-insects so precisely
+resemble the leaves upon which, or among which, they live, that it is
+almost impossible to detect them in the foliage&mdash;not only the colour,
+the shape, and the venation being all exactly imitated, but in some
+cases even the defects to which the leaves are liable, in the way of
+fungoid growths, &amp;c. There are other insects which with similar
+exactness resemble moss, lichens, and so forth. A species of fish
+secures a complete resemblance to bunches of sea-weed by a frond-like
+modification of all its appendages, and so on through many other
+instances. Now, in all such cases where there is so precise an
+imitation, both in colour and structure, it seems impossible to suggest
+any other explanation of the facts than the one which is supplied by
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_323" id="page_323">[323]</a></span>
+Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s theory&mdash;namely, that the more perfect the resemblance
+is caused to become through the continuous influence of natural
+selection always picking out the best imitations, the more highly
+discriminative becomes the perception of those enemies against the
+depredations of which this peculiar kind of protection is developed; so
+that, in virtue of this action and re-action, eventually we have a
+degree of imitation which renders it almost impossible for a naturalist
+to detect the animal when living in its natural environment.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_322" id="page_322">[322]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 295px;">
+<img src="images/i_339_110.jpg" width="295" height="500" alt="Imitative forms and colours in insects." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 110.&mdash;Imitative forms and colours in insects. Drawn
+from nature (<i>R. Coll. Surg. Mus.</i>).</span></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_323c" id="page_323c">[323c.]</a></p>
+<h3 class='i'>Warning Colours.</h3>
+
+<p>In strange and glaring contrast to all these cases of protective
+colouring, stand other cases of conspicuous colouring. Thus, for
+example, although there are numberless species of caterpillars which
+present in an astonishing degree the phenomena of protective colouring,
+there are numberless other species which not only fail to present these
+phenomena in any degree, but actually go to the opposite extreme of
+presenting colours which appear to have been developed for the sake of
+their conspicuousness. At all events, these caterpillars are usually the
+most conspicuous objects in their surroundings, and therefore in the
+early days of Darwinism they were regarded by Darwin himself as
+presenting a formidable difficulty in the way of his theory. To Mr.
+Wallace belongs the merit of having cleared up this difficulty in an
+extraordinarily successful manner. He virtually reasoned thus. If the
+<i>raison d&rsquo;&ecirc;tre</i> of protective colouring be that of concealing
+agreeably flavoured caterpillars from the eye-sight of birds, may not
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_324" id="page_324">[324]</a></span>
+the <i>raison d&rsquo;&ecirc;tre</i> of conspicuous colouring be that of
+protecting disagreeably flavoured caterpillars from any possibility of
+being mistaken by birds? Should this be the case, of course the more
+conspicuous the colouring the better would it be for the caterpillars
+presenting it. Now as soon as this suggestion was acted upon
+experimentally, it was found to be borne out by facts. Birds could not
+be induced to eat caterpillars of the kinds in question; and there is
+now no longer any doubt that their conspicuous colouring is correlated
+with their distastefulness to birds, in the same way as the
+inconspicuous or imitative colouring of other caterpillars is correlated
+with their tastefulness to birds. Here then is yet another instance,
+added to those already given, of the verification yielded to the theory
+of natural selection by its proved competency as a guide to facts in
+nature; for assuredly this particular class of facts would never have
+been suspected but for its suggestive agency.</p>
+
+<p>As in the case of protective imitation, so in this case of warning
+conspicuousness, not only colour, but structure may be greatly modified
+for the purpose of securing immunity from attack. Here, of course, the
+object is to assume, as far as possible, a touch-me-not appearance; so
+that, although destitute of any real means of offence, the creatures in
+question present a fictitiously dangerous aspect. As the
+Devil&rsquo;s-coach-horse turns up his stingless tail when threatened by
+an enemy, so in numberless ways do many harmless animals of all classes
+pretend to be formidable. But the point now is that these instincts of
+self-defence are often helped out by structural <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_325" id="page_325">[325]</a></span>
+modifications, expressly and exclusively adapted to this end. For
+example, what a remarkable series of protective adjustments occurs in
+the life-history of the Puss Moth&mdash;culminating with so comical an
+instance of the particular device now under consideration as the
+following. I quote the facts from Mr. E. B. Poulton&rsquo;s admirable
+book on <i>The Colours of Animals</i> (pp. 269-271).</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_342_111.jpg" width="400" height="125" alt="The larva of Puss Moth when
+undisturbed." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 111.&mdash;The larva of Puss Moth (<span class='sn'>C. vinula</span>) when
+undisturbed; full-fed; natural size.</span></div>
+
+<p>The larva of the Puss Moth (Cerura vinula) is very common upon
+poplar and willow. The circular dome-like eggs are laid, either
+singly or in little groups of two or three, upon the upper side of
+the leaf, and being of a reddish colour strongly suggest the
+appearance of little galls, or the results of some other injury to
+the leaf. The youngest larv&aelig; are black, and also rest upon the
+upper surface of the leaf, resembling the dark patches which are
+commonly seen in this position. As the larva grows, the apparent
+black patch would cover too large a space, and would lead to
+detection if it still occupied the whole surface of the body. The
+latter gains a green ground-colour which harmonises with the leaf,
+while the dark marking is chiefly confined to the back. As growth
+proceeds the relative amount of green increases, and the dark mark
+is thus prevented from attaining a size which would render it too
+conspicuous. In the last stage of growth the green larva becomes
+very large, and usually rests on the twigs of its food-plant (Fig.
+111). The dark colour is still present on the back but is softened
+to a purplish tint, which tends to be replaced by a combination of
+white and green in many of the largest larv&aelig;. Such a larva is well
+concealed by General Protective<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_326" id="page_326">[326]</a></span>
+Resemblance, and one may search a long time before finding it, although
+assured of its presence from the stripped branches of the food-plant and
+the f&aelig;ces on the ground beneath.</p>
+
+<p>As soon as a large larva is discovered and disturbed it withdraws
+its head into the first body-ring, inflating the margin, which is
+of a bright red colour.<span class="figleft" style="width: 220px;">
+<img src="images/i_343_112.jpg" width="220" height="179" alt="The larva of Puss Moth in its terrifying
+attitude after being disturbed." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 112.&mdash;The larva of Puss Moth in its terrifying
+attitude after being disturbed; full-fed; natural size.</span></span>
+There are two intensely black spots on this
+margin in the appropriate position for eyes, and the whole
+appearance is that of a large flat face extending to the outer edge
+of the red margin (see Fig. 112). The effect is an intensely
+exaggerated caricature of a vertebrate face, which is probably
+alarming to the vertebrate enemies of the caterpillar. The
+terrifying effect is therefore mimetic. The movements entirely
+depend on tactile impressions: when touched ever so lightly a
+healthy larva immediately assumes the terrifying attitude, and
+turns so as to present its full face towards the enemy; if touched
+on the other side or on the back it instantly turns its face in the
+appropriate direction. The effect is also greatly strengthened by
+two pink whips which are swiftly protruded from the prongs of the
+fork in which the body terminates. The prongs represent the last
+pair of larval legs which have been greatly modified from their
+ordinary shape and use. The end of the body is at the same time
+curved forward over the back (generally much further than in Fig.
+112), so that the pink filaments are brandished above the head.</p></div>
+
+<h3 class='i'>Mimicry.</h3>
+
+<p>Lastly, these facts as to imitative and conspicuous colouring lead on to
+the yet more remarkable facts of what is called mimicry. By mimicry is
+meant the imitation in form and colour of one species by another,
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_327" id="page_327">[327]</a></span>
+in order that the imitating species may be mistaken for the imitated,
+and thus participate in some advantage which the latter enjoys. For
+instance, if, as in the case of the conspicuously-coloured caterpillars,
+it is of advantage to an ill-savoured species that it should hold out a
+warning to enemies, clearly it may be of no less advantage to a
+well-savoured species that it should borrow this flag, and thus be
+mistaken for its ill-savoured neighbour. Now, the extent to which this
+device of mimicry is carried is highly remarkable, not only in respect
+of the number of its cases, but also in respect of the astonishing
+accuracy which in most of these cases is exhibited by the imitation.
+There need be little or virtually no zoological affinity between the
+imitating and the imitated forms; that is to say, in some cases the
+zoological affinity is not closer than ordinal, and therefore cannot
+possibly be ascribed to kinship. Like all the other branches of the
+general subject of protective resemblance in form or colouring, this
+branch has already been so largely illustrated by previous writers,
+that, as in the previous cases, I need only give one or two examples.
+Those which I choose are chosen on account of the colours concerned not
+being highly varied or brilliant, and therefore lending themselves to
+less ineffectual treatment by wood-engraving than is the case where
+attempts are made to render by this means even more remarkable
+instances. (Figs. 113, 114, 115.)</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_328" id="page_328">[328]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 295px;">
+<img src="images/i_345_113.jpg" width="295" height="500" alt="Three cases of mimicry." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 113.&mdash;Three cases of mimicry. Drawn from nature:
+first two pairs nat. size, last pair 2/3 (<i>R. Coll. Surg. Mus.</i>).</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_327c" id="page_327c">[327c.]</a></span>
+It is surely apparent, without further comment, that it is impossible to
+imagine stronger evidence in favour of natural selection as a true cause
+in nature, than is furnished by this culminating fact in the matter of
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_329" id="page_329">[329]</a></span>
+protective resemblance, whereby it is shown that a species of one
+genus, family, or even order, will accurately mimic the appearance of a
+species belonging to another genus, family, or order, so as to deceive
+its natural enemies into mistaking it for a creature of so totally
+different a kind. And it must be added that while this fact of mimicry
+is of extraordinarily frequent occurrence, there can be no possibility
+of our mistaking its purpose. For the fact is never observable except in
+the case of species which occupy the same area or district.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<img src="images/i_346_114.jpg" width="400" height="335" alt="Two flies resembling
+a wasp and a bee." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 114.&mdash;Two further cases of mimicry; flies resembling
+a wasp in the one and a bee in the other. Drawn from nature: nat. size
+(<i>R. Coll. Surg. Mus.</i>).</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_330" id="page_330">[330]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 295px;">
+<img src="images/i_347_115.jpg" width="295" height="500" alt="A non-venomous species
+of snake resembling a venomous one." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 115.&mdash;A case of mimicry where a non-venomous species
+of snake resembles a venomous one. Drawn from nature: 1/3 nat. size (<i>R.
+Coll. Surg. Mus.</i>).</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_329c" id="page_329c">[329c.]</a></span>
+Such being what appears to me the only reasonable view of the matter, I
+will now conclude this chapter on the evidences of natural selection as
+at all events the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_331" id="page_331">[331]</a></span>
+main factor of organic evolution, by simply adding illustrations of
+two further cases of mimicry, which are perhaps even more remarkable
+than any of the foregoing examples. The first of the two (Fig. 115)
+speaks for itself. The second will be rendered intelligible by the
+following few words of explanation.</p>
+
+<p>There are certain ants of the Amazons which present the curious instinct
+of cutting off leaves from trees, and carrying them like banners over
+their heads to the hive, as represented in Fig. 116, B, where one ant is
+shown without a leaf, and the others each with a leaf. Their object in
+thus collecting leaves is probably that of growing a fungus upon the
+&ldquo;soil&rdquo; which is furnished by the leaves when decomposing.
+But, be this as it may<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a>,
+the only point we are now concerned with is the appearance which these
+ants present when engaged in their habitual operation of carrying
+leaves. For it has been recently observed by Mr. W. L. Sclater, that in
+the localities where these hymenopterous insects occur, there occurs
+also a <span class='sn'>homopterous</span> insect which mimics the ant, leaf and all, in a
+wonderfully deceptive manner. The leaf is imitated by the thin flattened
+body of the insect, &ldquo;which in its dorsal aspect is so compressed
+laterally that it is no thicker than a leaf, and terminates in a sharp
+jagged edge.&rdquo; The colour is exactly the same as that of a leaf,
+and the brown legs show themselves beneath the green body in just the
+same way as those of the ant show themselves beneath the leaf. So that
+both the form and the colouring of the homopterous insect has been
+brought to resemble, with singular exactness, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_332" id="page_332">[332]</a></span>
+those belonging to a different order of insect, when the latter is
+engaged in its peculiar avocation. A glance at the figure is enough to
+show the means employed and the result attained. In A, an ant and its
+mimic are represented as about 2&frac12; times their natural size, and
+both proceeding in the same direction. It ought to be mentioned,
+however, that in reality the margin of the leaf is seldom allowed to
+retain its natural serrations as here depicted: the ants usually gnaw
+the edge of the real leaf, so that the margin of the false one bears an
+even closer resemblance to it than the illustration represents. B is a
+drawing from life of a group of five ants carrying leaves, and their
+mimic walking beside them<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 369px;">
+<img src="images/i_350_116.jpg" width="369" height="500" alt="Protective Mimicry" title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig. 116. <span class='lc'>PROTECTIVE MIMICRY</span></span></span></div>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_333" id="page_333">[333]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">Criticisms of the Theory of Natural Selection.</span></h2>
+
+<p>I will now proceed to consider the various objections and difficulties
+which have hitherto been advanced against the theory of natural
+selection.</p>
+
+<p>Very early in the day Owen hurled the weight of his authority against
+the new theory, and this with a strength of onslaught which was only
+equalled by its want of judgment. Indeed, it is painfully apparent that
+he failed to apprehend the fundamental principles of the Darwinian
+theory. For he says:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Natural Selection is an explanation of the process [of
+transmutation] of the same kind and value as that which has been
+proffered of the mystery of &ldquo;secretion.&rdquo; For example, a
+particular mass of matter in a living animal takes certain elements
+out of the blood, and rejects them as &ldquo;bile.&rdquo;
+Attributes were given to the liver which can only be predicated of
+the whole animal; the &ldquo;appetency&rdquo; of the liver, it was
+said, was for the elements of bile, and &ldquo;biliosity,&rdquo; or
+the &ldquo;hepatic sensation,&rdquo; guided the gland to their
+secretion. Such figurative language, I need not say, explains
+absolutely nothing of the nature of bilification<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Assuredly, it was needless for Owen to say that figurative language of
+this kind explains nothing; but <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_334" id="page_334">[334]</a></span>
+it was little less than puerile in him to see no more in the theory of
+natural selection than such a mere figure of speech. To say that the
+liver selects the elements of bile, or that nature selects specific
+types, may both be equally unmeaning re-statements of facts; but when it
+is explained that the term natural selection, unlike that of
+&ldquo;hepatic sensation,&rdquo; is used as a shorthand expression for a
+whole group of well-known natural causes&mdash;struggle, variation,
+survival, heredity,&mdash;then it becomes evidence of an almost childish
+want of thought to affirm that the expression is figurative and nothing
+more. The doctrine of natural selection may be a huge mistake; but, if
+so, this is not because it consists of any unmeaning metaphor: it can
+only be because the combination of natural causes which it suggests is
+not of the same adequacy in fact as it is taken to be in theory.</p>
+
+<p>Owen further objected that the struggle for existence could only act as
+a cause of the extinction of species, not of their origination&mdash;a view
+of the case which again shows on his part a complete failure to grasp
+the conception of Darwinism. Acting alone, the struggle for existence
+could only cause extermination; but acting together with variation,
+survival, and heredity, it may very well&mdash;for anything that Owen, or
+others who followed in this line of criticism, show to the
+contrary&mdash;have produced every species of plant and animal that has ever
+appeared upon the face of the earth.</p>
+
+<p>Another and closely allied objection is, that the theory of natural
+selection &ldquo;personifies an abstraction.&rdquo; Or, as the Duke of
+Argyll states it, the theory is &ldquo;essentially the image of
+mechanical necessity <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_335" id="page_335">[335]</a></span>
+concealed under the clothes, and parading in the mask, of mental
+purpose. The word &lsquo;natural&rsquo; suggests Matter, and the
+physical forces. The word &lsquo;selection&rsquo; suggests Mind, and the
+powers of choice.&rdquo; This, however, is a mere quarrelling about
+words. Darwin called the principle which he had discovered by the name
+natural selection in order to mark the analogy between it and artificial
+selection. No doubt in this analogy there is not necessarily supposed to
+be in nature any counterpart to the mind of the breeder, nor, therefore,
+to his powers of intelligent choice. But there is no need to limit the
+term <i>selection</i> (<i>se</i> and <i>lego</i>, Gr. &#955;&#941;&#947;&#969;) to powers of
+intelligent choice. As previously remarked, a bank of sea-weed on the
+sea-shore may be said to have been selected by the waves from all the
+surrounding sand and stones. Similarly, we may say that grain is
+selected from chaff by the wind in the process of winnowing corn. Or, if
+it be thought that there is any ambiguity involved in such a use of the
+term in the case of &ldquo;Natural Selection,&rdquo; there is no
+objection to employing the phrase which has been coined by Mr. Spencer
+as its equivalent&mdash;namely, &ldquo;Survival of the Fittest.&rdquo;
+The point of the theory is, that those organisms which are best suited
+to their surroundings are allowed to live and to propagate, while those
+which are less suited are eliminated; and whether we call this process a
+process of selection, or call it by any other name, is clearly
+immaterial.</p>
+
+<p>A material question is raised only when it is asked whether the process
+is one that can be ascribed to causation strictly natural. It is often
+denied that such is the case, on the ground that natural selection does
+not originate the variations which it favours, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_336" id="page_336">[336]</a></span>
+but depends upon the variations being supplied by some other means.
+For, it is said, all that natural selection does is to preserve the
+suitable variations <i>after they have arisen</i>. Natural selection does not
+<i>cause</i> these suitable variations; and therefore, it is argued, Darwin
+and his followers are profoundly mistaken in representing the principle
+as one which <i>produces</i> adaptations. Now, although this objection has
+been put forward by some of the most intelligent minds in our
+generation, it appears to me to betoken some extraordinary failure to
+appreciate the very essence of Darwinian doctrine. No doubt it is
+perfectly true that natural selection does not produce variations of any
+kind, whether beneficial or otherwise. But if it be granted that
+variations of many kinds are occurring in every generation, and that
+natural selection is competent to preserve the more favourable among
+them, then it appears to me unquestionable that this principle of
+selection deserves to be regarded as, in the full sense of the word, a
+natural cause. The variations being expressly regarded by the theory as
+more or less promiscuous<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>,
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_337" id="page_337">[337]</a></span>
+Survival of the fittest becomes the winnowing fan, whose function it is
+to eliminate all the less fit in each generation, in order to preserve
+the good grain, out of which to constitute the next generation. And as
+this process is supposed to be continuous through successive
+generations, its action is supposed to be cumulative, till from the eye
+of a worm there is gradually developed the eye of an eagle. Therefore it
+follows from these suppositions (which are not disputed by the present
+objection), that if it had not been for the process of selection, such
+development would never have been begun; and that in the exact measure
+of its efficiency will the development proceed. But any agency without
+the operation of which a result cannot take place may properly be
+designated the cause of that result: it is the agency which, in
+co-operation with all the other agencies in the cosmos, produces that
+result.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_338" id="page_338">[338]</a></span>
+Take any analogous case. The selective agency of specific gravity which
+is utilised in gold-washing does not create the original differences
+between gold-dust and dust of all other kinds. But these differences
+being presented by as many different bodies in nature, the gold-washer
+takes advantage of the selective agency in question, and, by using it as
+a cause of segregation, is enabled to separate the gold from all the
+earths with which it may happen to be mixed. So far as the objects of
+the gold-washer are concerned, it is immaterial with what other earths
+the gold-dust may happen to be mixed. For although gold-dust may occur
+in intimate association with earths of various kinds in various
+proportions, and although in each case the particular admixture which
+occurs must have been due to definite causes, these things, in relation
+to the selective process of the washer, are what is called accidental:
+that is to say, they have nothing to do with the causative action of the
+selective process. Now, in precisely the same sense Darwin calls the
+multitudinous variations of plants and animals accidental. By so calling
+them he expressly says he does not suppose them to be accidental in the
+sense of not all being due to definite causes. But they are accidental
+in relation to the sifting process of natural selection: all that they
+have to do is to furnish the promiscuous material on which this sifting
+process acts.</p>
+
+<p>Or let us take an even closer analogy. The power of selective breeding
+by man is so wonderful, that in the course of successive generations all
+kinds of peculiarities as to size, shape, colour, special appendages or
+abortions, &amp;c., can be produced at pleasure, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_339" id="page_339">[339]</a></span>
+as we saw in the last chapter. Now all the promiscuous variations which
+are supplied to the breeder, and out of which, by selecting only those
+that are suited to his purpose, he is able to produce the required
+result&mdash;all those promiscuous variations, in relation to that
+purpose, are accidental. Therefore the selective agency of the breeder
+deserves to be regarded as the cause of that which it produces, or of
+that which could not have been produced but for the operation of such
+agency. But where is the difference between artificial and natural
+selection in this respect? And, if there is no difference, is not
+natural selection as much entitled to be regarded as a true cause of the
+origin of natural species, as artificial selection is to be regarded as
+a true cause of our domesticated races? Here, as in the case of the
+previous illustration, if there be any ambiguity in speaking of
+variations as accidental, it arises from the incorrect or undefined
+manner in which the term &ldquo;accidental&rdquo; is used by
+Darwin&rsquo;s critics. In its original and philosophically-correct
+usage, the term &ldquo;accident&rdquo; signifies a property or quality
+not essential to our conception of a substance: hence, it has come to
+mean anything that happens as a result of unforeseen causes&mdash;or,
+lastly, that which is causeless. But, as we know that nothing can happen
+without causes of some kind, the term &ldquo;accident&rdquo; is divested
+of real meaning when it is used in the last of these senses. Yet this is
+the sense that is sought to be placed upon it by the objection which we
+are considering. If the objectors will but understand the term in its
+correct philosophical sense&mdash;or in the only sense in which it
+presents any meaning at all,&mdash;they will see that<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_340" id="page_340">[340]</a></span>
+Darwinians are both logically and historically justified in employing
+the word &ldquo;accidental&rdquo; as the word which serves most properly
+to convey the meaning that they intend&mdash;namely, variations due to
+causes accidental to the struggle for existence. Similarly, when it is
+said that variations are &ldquo;spontaneous,&rdquo; or even
+&ldquo;fortuitous,&rdquo; nothing further is meant than that we do not
+know the causes which lead to them, and that, so far as the principle of
+selection is concerned, it is immaterial what these causes may be. Or,
+to revert to our former illustration, the various weights of different
+kinds of earths are no doubt all due to definite causes; but, in
+relation to the selective action of the gold-washer, all the different
+weights of whatever kinds of earth he may happen to include in his
+washing-apparatus are, <i>strictly speaking</i>, accidental. And as at
+different washings he meets with different proportions of heavy earths
+with light ones, and as these &ldquo;variations&rdquo; are immaterial to
+him, he may colloquially speak of them as &ldquo;fortuitous,&rdquo; or
+due to &ldquo;chance,&rdquo; even though he knows that at each washing
+they must have been determined by definite causes.</p>
+
+<p>More adequately to deal with this merely formal objection, however,
+would involve more logic-chopping than is desirable on the present
+occasion. But I have already dealt with it fully elsewhere,&mdash;viz. in
+<i>The Contemporary Review</i> for June, 1888, to which therefore I may refer
+any one who is interested in dialectics of this kind<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_341" id="page_341">[341]</a></span>
+I will now pass on to consider another misconception of the Darwinian
+theory, which is very prevalent in the public mind. It is virtually
+asked, If some species are supposed to have been improved by natural
+selection, why have not all species been similarly improved? Why should
+not all invertebrated <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_342" id="page_342">[342]</a></span>
+animals have risen into vertebrated? Or why should not all monkeys have
+become men?</p>
+
+<p>The answers are manifold. In the first place, it by no means follows
+that because an advance in organization has proved itself of benefit in
+the case of one form of life, therefore any or every other form would
+have been similarly benefited by a similar advance. The business of
+natural selection is to bring this and that form of life into the
+closest harmony with its environment that all the conditions of the case
+permit. Sometimes it will happen that the harmony will admit of being
+improved by an improvement of organization. But just as often it will
+happen that it will be best secured by leaving matters as they are. If,
+therefore, an organism has already been brought into a tolerably full
+degree of harmony with its environment, natural selection will not try
+to change it so long as the environment remains unchanged; and this, no
+doubt, is the reason why some species have survived through enormous
+periods of geological time without having undergone any change. Again,
+as we saw in a previous chapter, there are yet other cases where, on
+account of some change in the environment or even in the habits of the
+organisms themselves, adaption will be best secured by an active
+<i>reversal</i> of natural selection, with the result of causing
+<i>degeneration</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But, it is sometimes further urged, there are cases where we cannot
+doubt that improvement of organization would have been of benefit to
+species; and yet such improvement has not taken place&mdash;as, for instance,
+in the case all monkeys not turning into men. Here, however, we must
+remember that the operation <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_343" id="page_343">[343]</a></span>
+of natural selection in any case depends upon a variety of highly
+complex conditions; and, therefore, that the fact of all those
+conditions having been satisfied in one instance is no reason for
+concluding that they must also have been satisfied in other instances.
+Take, for example, the case of monkeys passing into men. The wonder to
+me appears to be that this improvement should have taken place in even
+one line of descent; not that, having taken place in one line, it should
+not also have taken place in other lines. For how enormously complex
+must have been the conditions&mdash;physical, anatomical, physiological,
+psychological, sociological&mdash;which by their happy conjunction first
+began to raise the inarticulate cries of an ape into the rational speech
+of a man. Therefore, the more that we appreciate the superiority of a
+man to an ape, the less ought we to countenance this supposed objection
+to Darwin&rsquo;s theory&mdash;namely, that natural selection has not
+effected the change in more than one line of descent.</p>
+
+<p>Even in the case of two races of mankind where one has risen higher in
+the scale of civilization than another, it is now generally impossible
+to assign the particular causes of the difference; much more, then, must
+this be impossible in the case of still more remote conditions which
+have led to the divergence of species. The requisite variations may not
+have arisen in the one line of descent which did arise in the other; or
+if they did arise in both, some counterbalancing disadvantages may have
+attended their initial development in the one case which did not obtain
+in the other. In short, where so exceedingly complex a play of
+conditions are <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_344" id="page_344">[344]</a></span>
+concerned, the only wonder would be if two different lines of descent
+<i>had</i> happened to present two independent and yet perfectly parallel
+lines of history.</p>
+
+<p>These general considerations would apply equally to the great majority
+of other cases where some types have made great advances upon others,
+notwithstanding that we can see no reason why the latter should not in
+this respect have imitated the former. But there is yet a further
+consideration which must be taken into account. The struggle for
+existence is always most keen between closely allied species, because,
+from the similarity of their forms, habits, needs, &amp;c., they are in
+closest competition. Therefore it often happens that the mere fact of
+one species having made an advance upon others of itself precludes the
+others from making any similar advance: the field, so to speak, has
+already been occupied as regards that particular improvement, and where
+the struggle for existence is concerned possession is emphatically nine
+points of the law. For example, to return to the case of apes becoming
+men, the fact of one rational species having been already evolved (even
+if the rational faculty were at first but dimly nascent) must make an
+enormous change in the conditions as regards the possibility of any
+other such species being subsequently evolved&mdash;unless, of course, it be
+by way of descent from the rational one. Or, as Sir Charles Lyell has
+well put it, two rational species can never <i>coexist</i> on the globe,
+although the descendants of one rational species may in time become
+<i>transformed</i> into another single rational species<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a>.</p>
+
+<p>In view of such considerations, another and exactly <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_345" id="page_345">[345]</a></span>
+opposite objection has sometimes been urged&mdash;viz. that we ought
+never to find inferior forms of organization in company with superior,
+because in the struggle for existence the latter ought to have
+exterminated the former. Or, to quote the most recent expression of this
+view, &ldquo;in every locality there would only be one species, and that
+the most highly organized; and thus a few superior races would partition
+the earth amongst them to the entire exclusion of the innumerable
+varieties, species, genera, and orders which now inhabit it<a
+name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a>.&rdquo;
+Of course to this statement it would be sufficient to enquire, On what
+would these few supremely organized species subsist? Unless manna fell
+from heaven for their especial benefit, it would appear that such forms
+could under no circumstances be the most improved forms; in
+exterminating others on such a scale as this, they would themselves be
+quickly, and very literally, improved off the face of the earth. But
+even when the statement is not made in so extravagant a form as this, it
+must necessarily be futile as an objection unless it has first been
+shown that we know exactly all the conditions of the complex struggle
+for existence between the higher and lower forms in question. And this
+it is impossible that we ever can know. The mere fact that one form has
+been changed in virtue of this struggle must in many cases of itself
+determine a change in the conditions of the struggle. Again, the other
+and closely allied forms (and these furnish the best grounds for the
+objection) may also have undergone defensive changes, although these may
+be less conspicuous to our observation, or perhaps less <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_346" id="page_346">[346]</a></span>
+suggestive of &ldquo;improvement&rdquo; to our imperfect means of
+judging. Lastly, not to continue citing an endless number of such
+considerations, there is the broad fact that it is only to those cases
+where, for some reason or another, the lower forms have not been exposed
+to a struggle of fatal intensity, that the objection applies. But we
+know that in millions of other cases the lower (i. e. less fitted) forms
+<i>have</i> succumbed, and therefore I do not see that the objection has any
+ground to stand upon. That there is a general tendency for lower forms
+to yield their places to higher is shown by the gradual advance of
+organization throughout geological time; for if <i>all</i> the inferior forms
+had survived, the earth could not have contained them, unless she had
+been continually growing into something like the size of Jupiter. And if
+it be asked why any of the inferior forms have survived, the answer has
+already been given, as above.</p>
+
+<p>There is only one other remark to be made in this connexion. Mr. Syme
+chooses two cases as illustrations of the supposed difficulty. These are
+sufficiently diverse&mdash;viz. Foraminifera and Man. Touching the former,
+there is nothing that need be added to the general answer just given.
+But with regard to the latter it must be observed that the dominion of
+natural selection as between different races of mankind is greatly
+restricted by the presence of rationality. Competition in the human
+species is more concerned with wits and ideas than with nails and teeth;
+and therefore the &ldquo;struggle&rdquo; between man and man is not so
+much for actual <i>being</i>, as for <i>well-being</i>. Consequently, in regard to
+the present objection, the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_347" id="page_347">[347]</a></span>
+Human species furnishes the worst example that could have been chosen.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Hitherto I have been considering objections which arise from
+misapprehensions of Darwin&rsquo;s theory. I will now go on to consider
+a logically sound objection, which nevertheless is equally futile,
+because, although it does not depend on any misapprehension of the
+theory, it is not itself supported by fact.</p>
+
+<p>The objection is the same as that which we have already considered in
+relation to the general theory of descent&mdash;namely, that similar organs
+or structures are to be met with in widely different branches of the
+tree of life. Now this would be an objection fatal to the theory of
+natural selection, supposing these organs or structures in the cases
+compared are not merely analogous, but also homologous. For it would be
+incredible that in two totally different lines of descent one and the
+same structure should have been built up independently by two parallel
+series of variations, and that in these two lines of descent it should
+always and independently have ministered to the same function. On the
+other hand, there would be nothing against the theory of natural
+selection in the fact that two structures, <i>not</i> homologous, should come
+by independent variation in two different lines of descent to be adapted
+to perform the same function. For it belongs to the very essence of the
+theory of natural selection that a useful function should be secured by
+favourable variations of whatever structural material may happen to be
+presented by different organic types. Flying, for instance, is a very
+useful function, and it has been developed independently in at least
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_348" id="page_348">[348]</a></span>
+four different lines of descent&mdash;namely, the insects, reptiles,
+birds, and mammals. Now if in all, or indeed in any, of these four cases
+the wings had been developed on the same anatomical pattern, so as not
+only to present the analogical resemblance which it is necessary that
+they should present in order to discharge their common function of
+flying, but likewise an homologous or structural resemblance, showing
+that they had been formed on the same anatomical &ldquo;plan,"&mdash;if
+such has been the case, I say, the theory of natural selection would
+certainly be destroyed.</p>
+
+<p>Now it has been alleged by competent naturalists that there are several
+such cases in organic nature. We have already noticed in a previous
+chapter (pp. <a href="#page_58">58</a>, <a href="#page_59">59</a>), that Mr. Mivart has instanced the eye of the
+cuttle-fish as not only analogous to, but also homologous with, the eye
+of a true fish&mdash;that is to say, the eye of a mollusk with the eye of a
+vertebrate. And he has also instanced the remarkable resemblance of a
+shrew to a mouse&mdash;that is, of an insectivorous mammal to a rodent&mdash;not
+to mention other cases. In the chapter alluded to these instances of
+homology, alleged to occur in different branches of the tree of life,
+were considered with reference to the process of organic evolution as a
+fact: they are now being considered with reference to the agency of
+natural selection as a method. And just as in the former case it was
+shown, that if any such alleged instances could be proved, the proof
+would be fatal to the general theory of organic evolution by physical
+causes, so in the present case, if this could be proved, it would be
+equally fatal to the more special theory of natural selection. But, as
+we have <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_349" id="page_349">[349]</a></span>
+before seen, no single case of this kind has ever been made out; and,
+therefore, not only does this supposed objection fall to the ground, but
+in so doing it furnishes an additional argument in favour of natural
+selection. For in the earlier chapter just alluded to I showed that this
+great and general fact of our nowhere being able to find two homologous
+structures in different branches of the tree of life, was the strongest
+possible testimony in favour of the theory of evolution. And, by parity
+of reasoning, I now adduce it as equally strong evidence of natural
+selection having been the cause of <i>adaptive</i> structures, independently
+developed in all the different lines of descent. For the alternative is
+between adaptations having been caused by natural selection or by
+supernatural design. Now, if adaptations were caused by natural
+selection, we can very well understand why they should never be
+homologous in different lines of descent, even in cases where they have
+been brought to be so closely analogous as to have deceived so good a
+naturalist as Mr. Mivart. Indeed, as I have already observed, so well
+can we understand this, that any single instance to the contrary would
+be sufficient to destroy the theory of natural selection <i>in toto</i>,
+unless the structure be one of a very simple type. But on the other
+hand, it is impossible to suggest any rational explanation why, if all
+adaptations are due to supernatural design, such scrupulous care should
+have been taken never to allow homologous adaptations to occur in
+different divisions of the animal or vegetable kingdoms. Why, for
+instance, should the eye of a cuttle-fish <i>not</i> have been constructed on
+the same ideal pattern as that of vertebrate? Or why, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_350" id="page_350">[350]</a></span>
+among the thousands of vertebrated species, should no one of their eyes
+be constructed on the ideal pattern that was devised for the
+cuttle-fish? Of course it may be answered that perhaps there was some
+hidden reason why the design should never have allowed an adaptation
+which it had devised for one division of organic nature to appear in
+another&mdash;even in cases where the new design necessitated the
+closest possible resemblance in everything else, save in the matter of
+anatomical homology. Undoubtedly such may have been the case&mdash;or
+rather such <i>must</i> have been the case&mdash;if the theory of special
+design is true. But where the question is as to the truth of this
+theory, I think there can be no doubt that its rival gains an enormous
+advantage by being able to <i>explain</i> why the facts are such as they are
+instead of being obliged to take refuge in hypothetical possibilities of
+a confessedly unsubstantiated and apparently unsubstantial kind.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, as far as this objection to the theory of natural selection
+is concerned&mdash;or the allegation that homologous structures occur in
+different divisions of organic nature&mdash;not only does it fall to the
+ground, but positively becomes itself converted into one of the
+strongest arguments in favour of the theory. As soon as the allegation
+is found to be baseless, the very fact that it cannot be brought to bear
+upon any one of all the millions of adaptive structures in organic
+nature becomes a fact of vast significance on the opposite side.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>The next difficulty to which I shall allude is that of explaining by the
+theory of natural selection the preservation of the first beginnings of
+structures which <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_351" id="page_351">[351]</a></span>
+are then useless, though afterwards, when more fully developed, they
+become useful. For it belongs to the very essence of the theory of
+natural selection, that a structure must be supposed already useful
+before it can come under the influence of natural selection: therefore
+the theory seems incapable of explaining the origin and conservation of
+<i>incipient</i> organs, or organs which are not yet sufficiently developed
+to be of any service to the organisms presenting them.</p>
+
+<p>This objection is one that has been advanced by all the critics of
+Darwinism; but has been presented with most ability and force by the
+Duke of Argyll. I will therefore state it in his words.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>If the doctrine of evolution be true&mdash;that is to say, if all
+organic creatures have been developed by ordinary generation from
+parents&mdash;then it follows of necessity that the prim&aelig;val germs must
+have contained potentially the whole succeeding series. Moreover,
+if that series has been developed gradually and very slowly, it
+follows, also as a matter of necessity, that every modification of
+structure must have been functionless at first, when it began to
+appear.... Things cannot be selected until they have first been
+produced. Nor can any structure be selected by utility in the
+struggle for existence until it has not only been produced, but has
+been so far perfected as to actually be used.</p></div>
+
+<p>The Duke proceeds to argue that all adaptive structures must therefore
+originally have been due to special design: in the earlier stages of
+their development they must all have been what he calls &ldquo;prophetic
+germs.&rdquo; Not yet themselves of any use, and therefore not yet
+capable of being improved by natural selection, both in their origin and
+in the first stages (at all events) of their development, they must
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_352" id="page_352">[352]</a></span>
+be regarded as intentionally preparatory to the various uses which they
+subsequently acquire.</p>
+
+<p>Now this argument, forcible as it appears at first sight, is really at
+fault both in its premiss and in its conclusion. By which I mean that,
+in the first place the premiss is not true, and, in the next place, that
+even if it were, the conclusion would not necessarily follow. The
+premiss is, &ldquo;that every modification of structure must have been
+functionless at first, when it began to appear;&rdquo; and the
+conclusion is, that, <i>qu&acirc;</i> functionless, such a modification cannot have
+been caused by natural selection. I will consider these two points
+separately.</p>
+
+<p>First as to the premiss, it is not true that every modification of
+structure must necessarily be functionless when it first begins to
+appear. There are two very good reasons why such should not be the case
+in all instances, even if it should be the case in some. For, as a
+matter of observable fact, a very large proportional number of incipient
+organs are useful from the very moment of their inception. Take, for
+example, what is perhaps the most wonderful instance of refined
+mechanism in nature&mdash;the eye of a vertebrated animal. Comparative
+anatomy and embryology combine to testify that this organ had its origin
+in modifications of the endings of the ordinary nerves of the skin. Now
+it is evident that from the very first any modification of a cutaneous
+nerve whereby it was rendered able, in however small a degree, to be
+differently affected by light and by darkness would be of benefit to the
+creature presenting it; for the creature would thus be able to seek the
+one and shun the other according to the requirements of its life.
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_353" id="page_353">[353]</a></span>
+And being thus useful from the very moment of its inception, it would
+afterwards be gradually improved as variations of more and more utility
+presented themselves, until not only would finer and finer degrees of
+difference between light and shade become perceptible, but even the
+outlines of solid bodies would begin to be appreciated. And so on, stage
+by stage, till from an ordinary nerve-ending in the skin is evolved the
+eye of an eagle.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover, in this particular instance there is very good reason to
+suppose that the modification of the cutaneous nerves in question began
+by a progressive increase in their sensitiveness to temperature.
+Wherever dark pigment happened to be deposited in the skin&mdash;and we know
+that in all animals it is apt to be deposited in points and patches, as
+it were by accident, or without any &ldquo;prophecy&rdquo; as to future
+uses,&mdash;the cutaneous nerves in its vicinity would be better able to
+appreciate the difference between sun and shade in respect of
+temperature, even though as yet there were no change at all in these
+cutaneous nerves tending to make them responsive to light. Now it is
+easy to see how, from such a purely accidental beginning, natural
+selection would have had from the first sufficient material to act upon.
+It being of advantage to a lowly creature that it should distinguish
+with more and more delicacy, or with more and more rapidity, between
+light and darkness by means of its thermal sensations, the pigment spots
+in the skin would be rendered permanent by natural selection, while the
+nerves in that region would by the same agency be rendered more and more
+specialized as organs adapted to perceive changes of temperature, until
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_354" id="page_354">[354]</a></span>
+from the stage of responding to the thermal rays of the non-luminous
+spectrum alone, they become capable of responding also to luminous.</p>
+
+<p>So much, then, for the first consideration which serves to invalidate
+the Duke&rsquo;s premiss. The second consideration is, that very often
+an organ which began by being useful for the performance of one
+function, after having been fully developed for the performance of that
+function, finds itself, so to speak, accidentally fitted to the
+performance of some other and even more important function, which it
+thereupon begins to discharge, and so to undergo a new course of
+adaptive development. In such cases, and so far as the new function is
+concerned, the difficulty touching the first inception of an organ does
+not apply; for here the organ has already been built up by natural
+selection for one purpose, before it begins to discharge the other. As
+an example of such a case we may take the lung of an air-breathing
+animal. Originally the lung was a swim-bladder, or float, and as such it
+was of use to the aquatic ancestors of terrestrial animals. But as these
+ancestors gradually became more and more amphibious in their habits, the
+swim-bladder began more and more to discharge the function of a lung,
+and so to take a wholly new point of departure as regards its
+developmental history. But clearly there is here no difficulty with
+regard to the inception of its new function, because the organ was
+already well developed for one purpose before it began to serve another.
+Or, to take only one additional example, there are few structures in the
+animal kingdom so remarkable in respect of adaptation as is the wing of
+a bird or a bat; and at first sight it might well appear <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_355" id="page_355">[355]</a></span>
+that a wing could be of no conceivable use until it had already
+acquired enormous proportional dimensions, as well as an immense amount
+of special elaboration as to its general form, size of muscle, amount of
+blood-supply, and so on. For, obviously, not until it had attained all
+these things could it even begin to raise the animal in the air. But
+observe how fallacious is this argument. Although it is perfectly true
+that a wing could be of no use <i>as a wing</i> until sufficiently developed
+to serve the purpose of flight, this is merely to say that until it has
+become a wing it is no use as a wing. It does not, however, follow that
+on this account it was of no prior use for any other purpose. The first
+modifications of the fore-limb which ended in its becoming an organ of
+flight may very well have been due to adapting it as an organ for
+increased rapidity of locomotion of other kinds&mdash;whether on land as
+in the case of its now degenerated form in the ostrich, or in water as
+in the case of the expanded fins of fish. Indeed, we may see the actual
+process of transition from the one function to the other in the case of
+&ldquo;flying-fish.&rdquo; Here the progressive expansion of the
+pectoral fins must certainly have been always of use for continuously
+promoting rapidity of locomotion through water; and thus natural
+selection may have continuously increased their development until they
+now begin to serve also as wings for carrying the animal a short
+distance through air. Again, in the case of the so-called flying
+squirrels we find the limbs united to the body by means of large
+extensions of the skin, so-that when jumping from one tree to another
+the animal is able to sustain itself through a long distance in the air
+by merely spreading out its <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_356" id="page_356">[356]</a></span>
+limbs, and thus allowing the skin-extensions to act after the manner of
+a parachute. Here, of course, we have not yet got a wing, any more than
+we have in the case of the flying-fish; but we have the foundations laid
+for the possible development of a future wing, upon a somewhat similar
+plan as that which has been so wonderfully perfected in the case of
+bats. And through all the stages of progressive expansion which the skin
+of the squirrel has undergone, the expansion has been of use, even
+though it has not yet so much as begun to acquire the distinctive
+functions of a wing. Here, then, there is obviously nothing
+&ldquo;prophetic&rdquo; in the matter, any more than there was in the
+case of the swim-bladder and the lung, or in that of the nerve-ending
+and the eye. In short, it is the business of natural selection to secure
+the highest available degree of adaptation for the time being; and, in
+doing this, it not unfrequently happens that an extreme development of a
+structure in one direction (produced by natural selection for the sake
+of better and better adapting the structure to perform some particular
+function) ends by beginning to adapt it to the performance of some other
+function. And, whenever this happens to be the case, natural selection
+forthwith begins to act upon the structure, so to speak, from a new
+point of departure.</p>
+
+<p>So much, then, for the Duke&rsquo;s premiss&mdash;namely, that &ldquo;every
+modification of structure <i>must</i> have been functionless <i>at first</i>, when
+it began to appear.&rdquo; This premiss is clearly opposed to observable
+fact. But now, the second position is that, even if this were not so,
+the Duke&rsquo;s conclusion would not follow. This conclusion, it will
+be remembered, is, that if incipient <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_357" id="page_357">[357]</a></span>
+structures are useless, it necessarily follows that natural selection
+can have had no part whatever in their inception. Now, this is a
+conclusion which does not &ldquo;necessarily&rdquo; follow. Even if it
+be granted that there are structures which in their first beginnings are
+not of any use at all for any purpose, it is still possible that they
+may owe their origin to natural selection&mdash;not indeed directly, but
+indirectly. This possibility arises from the occurrence in nature of a
+principle which has been called the Correlation of Growth.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Darwin, who has paid more attention to this matter than any other
+writer, has shown, in considerable detail, that all the parts of any
+given organism are so intimately bound together, or so mutually
+dependent upon each other, that when one part is caused to change by
+means of natural selection, some other parts are very likely to undergo
+modification as a consequence. For example, there are several kinds of
+domesticated pigeons and fowls, which grow peculiar wing-like feathers
+on the feet. These are quite unlike all the other feathers in the
+animal, except those of the wing, to which they bear a very remarkable
+resemblance. Mr. Darwin records the case of a bantam where these
+wing-like feathers were nine inches in length, and I have myself seen a
+pigeon where they reproduced upon the feet a close imitation of the
+different kinds of feathers which occupy homologous positions in the
+wing&mdash;primaries, secondaries, and tertiaries all being distinctly
+repeated in their proper anatomical relations. Furthermore, in this
+case, as in most cases where such wing-feathers occur upon the feet, the
+third and fourth toes were partly united by skin; and, as is well known,
+in the wing <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_358" id="page_358">[358]</a></span>
+of a bird the third and fourth digits are completely united by skin;
+&ldquo;so that in feather-footed pigeons, not only does the exterior
+surface support a row of long feathers, like wing-feathers [which, as
+just stated, may in some cases be obviously differentiated into
+primaries, secondaries and tertiaries], but the very same digits which
+in the wing are completely united by skin become partially united by
+skin in the feet; and thus by the law of correlated variation of
+homologous parts, we can understand the curious connexion of feathered
+legs and membrane between the two outer toes<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a>.&rdquo; The
+illustration is drawn from the specimen to which I have referred.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_359i" id="page_359i">[359i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 392px;">
+<img src="images/i_378_117.jpg" width="392" height="500" alt="Feather-footed pigeon." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 117.&mdash;Feather-footed pigeon. Drawn from nature.</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_358c" id="page_358c">[358c.]</a></span>
+Many similar instances of the same law are to be met with throughout
+organic nature; and it is evident that in this principle we find a
+conceivable explanation of the origin of such adaptive structures as
+could not have been originated by natural selection acting directly upon
+themselves: they may have been originated by natural selection
+developing other adaptive structures elsewhere in the organism, the
+gradual evolution of which has entailed the production of these by
+correlation of growth. And, if so, when once started in this way, these
+structures, because thus accidentally useful, will now themselves come
+under the <i>direct</i> action of natural selection, and so have their
+further evolution determined with or without the correlated association
+which first led to their inception.</p>
+
+<p>Of course it must be understood that in thus applying the principle of
+correlated growth, to explain the origin of adaptive structures where it
+is impossible to explain such origin by natural selection having from
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_359" id="page_359">[359]</a></span>
+the first acted directly upon these structures themselves, Darwinists
+do not suppose that in all&mdash;or even in most&mdash;cases of
+correlated growth the correlated structures are of use. On the contrary,
+it is well known that structures due to correlated growth are, as a
+rule, useless. Being only the by-products of adaptive changes going on
+elsewhere, in any given case the chances are against these correlated
+effects being themselves of any utilitarian significance; and,
+therefore, as a matter of fact, correlated growths appear to be usually
+meaningless from the point of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_360" id="page_360">[360]</a></span>
+view of adaptation. Still, on the doctrine of chances, it is to be
+expected that sometimes a change of structure which has thus been
+indirectly produced by correlation of growth might happen to prove
+useful for some purpose or another; and in as many cases as such
+indirectly produced structures do prove useful, they will straightway
+begin to be improved by the direct action of natural selection. In all
+such cases, therefore, we should have an explanation of the <i>origin</i> of
+such a structure, which is the only point that we are now considering.</p>
+
+<p>I think, then, that all this effectually disposes of the doctrine of
+&ldquo;prophetic germs.&rdquo; But, before leaving the subject, I should
+like to make one further statement of greater generality than any which
+I have hitherto advanced. This statement is, that we must remember how
+large a stock of meaningless structures are always being produced in the
+course of specific transmutations, not only by correlation of growth,
+which we have just been considering, but also by the direct action of
+external conditions, together with the constant play of all the many and
+complex forces internal to organisms themselves. In other words,
+important as the principle of correlation undoubtedly is, we must
+remember that even this is very far from being the only principle which
+is concerned in the origination of structures that may or may not chance
+to be useful. Therefore, it is not only natural selection when operating
+indirectly through the correlation of growth that is competent to
+produce new structures without reference to utility. In all the complex
+action and reaction of internal and external forces, new variations are
+perpetually arising <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_361" id="page_361">[361]</a></span>
+without any reference to utility, either present or future. Among all
+this multitude of promiscuous variations, the chances must be that some
+percentage will prove of some service, either from the first moment of
+their appearance, or else after they have undergone some amount of
+development. Such development prior to utility may be due, either to
+correlation of growth, to the structure having previously performed some
+other function, as already explained, or else to a continued operation
+of the causes which were concerned in the first appearance of originally
+useless characters. In a series of chapters which will be devoted to the
+whole question of utility in the next volume, I shall hope to give very
+good reasons for concluding that useless characters are not only of
+highly frequent occurrence, but are due to a variety of other causes
+besides correlation of growth. And, if so, the possibility of originally
+useless characters happening in some cases to become, by increased
+development, useful characters, is correspondingly increased. Among a
+hundred varietal or specific characters which are directly produced in
+as many different species by a change of climate, for example, some five
+or six may be <i>potentially</i> useful: that is to say, characters thus
+adventitiously produced in an incipient form may only require to be
+further developed by a continuance of the same causes as first
+originated them, in order that some percentage of the whole number shall
+become of some degree of use. Those professed followers of Darwin,
+therefore, who without any reason&mdash;or, as it appears to me, against
+all reason&mdash;deny the possibility of useless specific characters in
+any case or in any degree (unless correlated with useful characters),
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_362" id="page_362">[362]</a></span>
+are playing into the hands of Darwin&rsquo;s critics by indirectly
+countenancing the difficulty which we are now considering. For, if
+correlation of growth is unreasonably supposed to be the only possible
+cause of the origin of incipient structures which are not useful from
+the first moment of their inception, clearly the field is greatly
+narrowed as regards the occurrence of incipient characters sufficient in
+amount&mdash;and, still more, in constancy of appearance and persistency
+of transmission&mdash;to admit of furnishing material for the working of
+natural selection. But in the measure that incipient
+characters&mdash;whether varietal or specific&mdash;are recognised as
+not always or &ldquo;necessarily&rdquo; useful from the moment of their
+inception, and yet capable of being developed to a certain extent by the
+causes which first led to their occurrence, in that measure is this line
+of criticism closed. For of all the variations which thus occur, it is
+only those which afterwards prove of any use that are laid hold upon and
+wrought up by natural selection into adaptive structures, or working
+organs. And, therefore, what we see in organic nature is the net outcome
+of the development of all the happy chances. So it comes that the
+appearance presented by organic nature as a whole is that of a continual
+fulfilment of structural prophecies, when, in point of fact, if we had a
+similar record of all the other variations it would be seen that
+possibly not one such prophecy in a thousand is ever destined to be
+fulfilled.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Here, then, I feel justified in finally taking leave of the difficulty
+from the uselessness of incipient organs, as this difficulty has been
+presented, in varying degrees <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_363" id="page_363">[363]</a></span>
+of emphasis, by the Duke of Argyll, Mr. Mivart, Professors N&auml;geli,
+Bronn, Broca, Eimer, and, indeed, by all other writers who have hitherto
+advanced it. For, as thus presented, I think I have shown that it admits
+of being adequately met. But now, I must confess, to me individually it
+does appear that behind this erroneous presentation of the difficulty
+there lies another question, which is deserving of much more serious
+attention. For although it admits of being easily shown&mdash;as I have
+just shown&mdash;that the difficulty as ordinarily presented fails on
+account of its extravagance, the question remains whether, if stated
+with more moderation, a real difficulty might not be found to remain.</p>
+
+<p>My quarrel with the conclusion, like my quarrel with the premiss, is due
+to its universality. By saying in the premiss that <i>all</i> incipient
+organs are <i>necessarily</i> useless at the time of their inception, these
+writers admit of being controverted by fact; and by saying in the
+conclusion that, <i>if</i> all incipient organs are useless, it necessarily
+follows that in <i>no</i> case can natural selection have been the cause of
+building up an organ until it becomes useful, they admit of being
+controverted by logic. For, even if the premiss were true in
+fact&mdash;namely, that all incipient organs are useless at the time of their
+inception,&mdash;it would not necessarily follow that in no case could
+natural selection build up a useless structure into a useful one;
+because, although it is true that in no case can natural selection do
+this by acting on a useless structure <i>directly</i>, it may do so by acting
+on the useless structure <i>indirectly</i>, through its direct action on some
+other part of the organism with which the useless structure happens to
+be correlated. Moreover, as I believe, and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_364" id="page_364">[364]</a></span>
+will subsequently endeavour to prove, there is abundant evidence to
+show that incipient characters are often developed to a large extent by
+causes other than natural selection (or apart from any reference to
+utility), with the result that some of them thus happen to become of
+use, when, of course, the supposed difficulty is at an end.</p>
+
+<p>But although it is thus easy to dispose of both the propositions in
+question, on account of their universality, stated more carefully they
+would require, as I have said, more careful consideration. Thus, if it
+had been said that some incipient organs are <i>presumably</i> useless at the
+time of their inception, and that in <i>some of these cases</i> it is
+difficult, or impossible, to conceive how the principle of correlation,
+or any other principle hitherto suggested, can apply&mdash;then the question
+would have been raised from the sphere of logical discussion to that of
+biological fact. And the new question thus raised would have to be
+debated, no longer on the ground of general or abstract principles, but
+on that of special or concrete cases. Now until within the last year or
+two it has not been easy to find such a special or concrete case&mdash;that
+is to say, a case which can be pointed to as apparently excluding the
+possibility of natural selection having had anything to do with the
+genesis of an unquestionably adaptive structure. But eventually such a
+case has arisen, and the Duke of Argyll has not been slow in perceiving
+its importance. This case is the electric organ in the tail of the
+skate. No sooner had Professor Cossar Ewart published an abstract of his
+first paper on this subject, than the Duke seized upon it as a case for
+which, as he said, he had long been waiting&mdash;namely, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_365" id="page_365">[365]</a></span>
+the case of an <i>adaptive</i> organ the genesis of which <i>could not
+possibly</i> be attributed to natural selection, and must therefore be
+attributed to supernatural design. Now, I do not deny that he is here in
+possession of an admirable case&mdash;a case, indeed, so admirable that
+it almost seems to have been specially designed for the discomfiture of
+Darwinians. Therefore, in order to do it full justice, I will show that
+it is even more formidable than the Duke of Argyll has represented.</p>
+
+<p>Electric organs are known to occur in several widely different kinds of
+fish&mdash;such as the <span class='sn'>Gymnotus</span> and <span class='sn'>Torpedo</span>.
+Wherever these organs do occur, they perform the function of electric
+batteries in storing and discharging electricity in the form of more or
+less powerful shocks. Here, then, we have a function which is of obvious
+use to the fish for purposes both of offence and defence. These organs
+are everywhere composed of a transformation of muscular, together with
+an enormous development of nervous tissue; but inasmuch as they occupy
+different positions, and are also in other respects dissimilar in the
+different zoological groups of fishes where they occur, no difficulty
+can be alleged as to these analogous organs being likewise homologous in
+different divisions of the aquatic vertebrata.</p>
+
+<p>Now, in the particular case of the skate, the organ is situated in the
+tail, where it is of a spindle-like form, measuring, in a large fish,
+about two feet in length by about an inch in diameter at the middle of
+the spindle. Although its structure is throughout as complex and perfect
+as that of the electric organ in <span class='sn'>Gymnotus</span> or <span class='sn'>Torpedo</span>,
+its smaller size does not admit <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_366" id="page_366">[366]</a></span>
+of its generating a sufficient amount of electricity to yield a
+discharge that can be felt by the hand. Nevertheless, that it does
+discharge under suitable stimulation has been proved by Professor Burdon
+Sanderson by means of a telephone; for he found that every time he
+stimulated the animal its electrical discharge was rendered audible by
+the telephone. Here, then, the difficulty arises. For of what
+conceivable use is such an organ to its possessor? We can scarcely
+suppose that any aquatic animal is more sensitive to electric shocks
+than is the human hand; and even if such were the case, a discharge of
+so feeble a kind taking place in water would be short-circuited in the
+immediate vicinity of the skate itself. So there can be no doubt that
+such weak discharges as the skate is able to deliver must be wholly
+imperceptible alike to prey and to enemies. Yet for the delivery of such
+discharges there is provided an organ of such high peculiarity and huge
+complexity, that, regarded as a piece of living mechanism, it deserves
+to rank as at once the most extremely specialized and the most highly
+elaborated structure in the whole animal kingdom. Thousands of
+separately formed elements are ranged in row after row, all electrically
+insulated one from another, and packed away into the smallest possible
+space, with the obvious end, or purpose, of conspiring together for the
+simultaneous delivery of an electric shock. Nevertheless, the shock when
+delivered is, as we have just seen, too slight to be of any conceivable
+use to the skate. Therefore it appears impossible to suggest how this
+astonishing structure&mdash;much more astonishing, in my opinion, than
+the human eye or the human hand&mdash;can ever <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_367" id="page_367">[367]</a></span>
+have been begun, or afterwards developed, by means of natural
+selection. For if it be not even yet of any conceivable use to its
+possessor, clearly thus far survival of the fittest can have had nothing
+to do with its formation. On the other hand, seeing that electric organs
+when of larger size, as in the <span class='sn'>Gymnotus</span> and <span class='sn'>Torpedo</span>,
+are of obvious use to their possessors, the facts of the case, so far as
+the skate is concerned, assuredly do appear to sanction the doctrine of
+&ldquo;prophetic germs.&rdquo; The organ in the skate seems to be on its
+way towards becoming such an organ as we meet with in these other
+animals; and, therefore, unless we can show that it is now, and in all
+previous stages of its evolution has throughout been, of use to the
+skate, the facts do present a serious difficulty to the theory of
+natural selection, while they readily lend themselves to the
+interpretation of a disposing or fore-ordaining mind, which knows how to
+construct an electric battery by thus transforming muscular tissue into
+electric tissue, and is now actually in process of constructing such an
+apparatus for the prospective benefit of future creatures.</p>
+
+<p>Should it be suggested that possibly the electric organ of the skate may
+be in process of degeneration, and therefore that it is now the
+practically functionless remnant of an organ which in the ancestors of
+the skate was of larger size and functional use&mdash;against so obvious a
+suggestion there lie the whole results of Professor Ewart&rsquo;s
+investigations, which go to indicate that the organ is here not in a
+stage of degeneration, but of evolution. For instance, in <span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span>,
+it does not begin to be formed out of the muscular tissue until some
+time after the animal has left the egg-capsule, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_368" id="page_368">[368]</a></span>
+and assumed all the normal proportions (though not yet the size) of the
+adult creature. The organ, therefore, is one of the very latest to
+appear in the ontogeny of <span class='sn'>R. radiata</span>; and, moreover, it does not attain
+its full <i>development</i> (i. e. not merely <i>growth</i>, but transforming of
+muscular fibres into electrical elements) till the fish attains
+maturity. Read in the light of embryology, these facts prove, (1) that
+the electric organ of <span class='sn'>R. radiata</span> must be one of the very <span class="pagenum"><a
+name='page_370' id='page_370'>[370]</a></span>latest products of the
+animal&rsquo;s phylogeny; and, (2) that as yet, at all events, it has
+not begun to degenerate. But, if not, it must either be at a
+stand-still, or it must be in course of further evolution; and,
+whichever of these alternatives we adopt, the difficulty of accounting
+for its present condition remains. In this connexion also it is worth
+while to remark that the electric <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_371" id="page_371">[371]</a></span>
+organ, even after it has attained its full <i>development</i>, continues its
+<i>growth</i> with the growth of the fish, and this in a much higher ratio,
+either than the tail alone, or the whole animal. Lastly, Prof. Burdon
+Sanderson finds that <i>section for section</i> the organ in the skate is as
+efficient as it is in <span class='sn'>Torpedo</span>. It is evident that these facts also point
+to the skate&rsquo;s organ being in course of phylogenetic evolution.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_368i" id="page_368i">[368i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 445px;">
+<img src="images/i_387_118.jpg" width="445" height="500" alt="Raia radiata, representing the life size of
+the youngest individual in which muscle fibres have been found
+developing into electric cells." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 118.&mdash;<span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span>, representing the life size of
+the youngest individual in which muscle fibres have been found
+developing into electric cells.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_369" id="page_369">[369]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 313px;">
+<img src="images/i_388_119.jpg" width="313" height="500" alt="Electric organ of the Skate." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 119.&mdash;Electric organ of the Skate. The left-hand
+drawing (I) represents the entire organ (natural size) of a full-grown
+<span class='sn'>R. radiata</span>. This is a small skate, which rarely exceeds 50 centms. in
+length; but in the large <span class='sn'>R. batis</span>, the organ may exceed two feet in
+length. The other drawings represent single muscle-fibres in successive
+stages of transition. In the first of the series (II) the motor plate,
+and the nerves connected with it, have already been considerably
+enlarged. In the other three specimens, the fibre becomes more and more
+club-like, and eventually cup-like. These changes of shape are
+expressive of great changes of structure, as may be seen in the last of
+the series (V), where the shallow cup is seen in partial section. The
+electric plate lines the concavity of the cup, and is richly supplied
+with nerves (only a few of which are represented in the last drawing);
+the thick walls of the cup are composed of muscular fibres, the
+striation of which is distinctly visible.</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_370i" id="page_370i">[370i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 376px;">
+<img src="images/i_389_120.jpg" width="376" height="500" alt="Electric cells of Raia radiata." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 120.&mdash;Electric cells of <span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span>. The drawing on
+the left represents one of the clubs magnified, as in the preceding
+wood-cut. The drawing on the right represents a number of these clubs,
+less highly magnified, <i>in situ</i>.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_371c" id="page_371c">[371c.]</a></span>
+Again, it cannot be answered that the principle of correlation may be
+drawn upon in mitigation of the difficulty. The structure of the
+electric organ is far too elaborate, far too specialized, and far too
+obviously directed to a particular end, to admit of our conceivably
+supposing it due to any accidental correlation with structural changes
+going on elsewhere. Even as regards the initial changes of
+muscle-elements into electrical-elements, I do not think the principle
+of correlation can be reasonably adduced by way of explanation; for, as
+shown in the illustrations, even this initial change is most
+extraordinarily peculiar, elaborate, and specialized. But, be this as it
+may, I am perfectly certain that the principle of correlation cannot
+possibly be adduced to explain the subsequent <i>association of these
+electrical elements into an electric battery</i>, actuated by a special
+nervous mechanism of enormous size and elaboration&mdash;unless of course,
+the progress of such a structure were assumed to have been throughout of
+some utility. Under this supposition, however, the principle of
+correlation would be forsaken in favour of that of natural selection;
+and we should again be in the presence of the same difficulty as that
+with which we started.</p>
+
+<p>But now, and further, if we do thus abandon correlation <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_372" id="page_372">[372]</a></span>
+in favour of natural selection, and therefore if for the sake of saving
+an hypothesis we assume that the organ as it now stands <i>must</i> be of
+some use to the existing skate, we should still have to face the
+question&mdash;Of what conceivable use can those initial stages of its
+formation have been, when first the muscle-elements began to be changed
+into the very different electrical-elements, and when therefore they
+became useless as muscles while not yet capable of performing even so
+much of the electrical function as they now perform?</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, we must remember that not only have we here the most highly
+specialized, the most complex, and altogether the most elaboratively
+adaptive organ in the animal kingdom; but also that in the formation of
+this structure there has been needed an altogether unparalleled
+expenditure of the most physiologically expensive of all
+materials&mdash;namely, nervous tissue. Whether estimated by volume or by
+weight, the quantity of nervous tissue which is consumed in the electric
+organ of the skate is in excess of all the rest of the nervous system
+put together. It is needless to say that nowhere else in the animal
+kingdom&mdash;except, of course, in other electric fishes&mdash;is there any
+approach to so enormous a development of nervous tissue for the
+discharge of a special function. Therefore, as nervous tissue is,
+physiologically speaking, the most valuable of all materials, we are
+forced to conclude that natural selection ought strongly to have
+<i>opposed</i> the evolution of such organs, unless from the first moment of
+their inception, and throughout the whole course of their development,
+they were of some such paramount importance as biologically to justify
+so unexampled an expenditure. Yet this paramount importance <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_373" id="page_373">[373]</a></span>
+does not admit of being so much as surmised, even where the organ has
+already attained the size and degree of elaboration which it presents in
+the skate.</p>
+
+<p>In view of all these considerations taken together, I freely confess
+that the difficulty presented by this case appears to me of a magnitude
+and importance altogether unequalled by that of any other single
+case&mdash;or any series of cases&mdash;which has hitherto been encountered by the
+theory of natural selection. So that, if there were many other cases of
+the like kind to be met with in nature, I should myself at once allow
+that the theory of natural selection would have to be discarded. But
+inasmuch as this particular case stands so far entirely by itself, and
+therefore out of analogy with thousands, or even millions, of other
+cases throughout the whole range of organic nature, I am constrained to
+feel it more probable that the electric organ of the skate will some day
+admit of being marshalled under the general law of natural selection&mdash;in
+just the same way as proved to be the case with the conspicuous
+colouring of those caterpillars, which, as explained in the last
+chapter, at one time seemed to constitute a serious difficulty to the
+theory, and yet, through a better knowledge of all the relations
+involved, has now come to constitute one of the strongest witnesses in
+its favour.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>I have now stated all the objections of any importance which have
+hitherto been brought against the theory of natural selection, excepting
+three, which I left to be dealt with together because they form a
+logically connected group. With a brief consideration of these,
+therefore, I will bring this chapter to a close.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_374" id="page_374">[374]</a></span>
+The three objections to which I allude are, (1) that a large
+proportional number of specific, as well as of higher taxonomic
+characters, are seemingly useless characters, and therefore do not lend
+themselves to explanation by the Darwinian theory; (2) that the most
+general of all specific characters&mdash;viz. cross-infertility between
+allied species&mdash;cannot possibly be due to natural selection, as is
+demonstrated by Darwin himself; (3) that the swamping effects of free
+intercrossing must always render impossible by natural selection alone
+any evolution of species in divergent (as distinguished from serial)
+lines of change.</p>
+
+<p>These three objections have been urged from time to time by not a few of
+the most eminent botanists and zoologists of our century; and from one
+point of view I cannot myself have the smallest doubt that the
+objections thus advanced are not only valid in themselves, but also by
+far the most formidable objections which the theory of natural selection
+has encountered. From another point of view, however, I am equally
+convinced that they all admit of absolute annihilation. This strong
+antithesis arises, as I have said, from differences of standpoint, or
+from differences in the view which we take of the theory of natural
+selection itself. If we understand this theory to set forth natural
+selection as the sole cause of organic evolution, then all the above
+objections to the theory are not merely, as already stated, valid and
+formidable, but as I will now add, logically insurmountable. On the
+other hand, if we take theory to consist merely in setting forth natural
+selection as a factor of organic evolution, even although we believe
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_375" id="page_375">[375]</a></span>
+it to have been the chief factor or principal cause, all the three
+objections in question necessarily vanish. For in this case, even if it
+be satisfactorily proved that the theory of natural selection is unable
+to explain the three classes of facts above mentioned, the theory is not
+thereby affected: facts of each and all of these classes may be
+consistently left by the theory to be explained by causes other than
+natural selection&mdash;whether these be so far capable or incapable of
+hypothetical formulation. Thus it is evident that whether the three
+objections above named are to be regarded as logically insurmountable by
+the theory, or as logically non-existent in respect to it, depends
+simply upon the manner in which the theory itself is stated.</p>
+
+<p>In the next volume a great deal more will have to be said upon these
+matters&mdash;especially with regard to the causes other than natural
+selection which in my opinion are capable of explaining these so-called
+&ldquo;difficulties.&rdquo; In the present connexion, however, all I
+have attempted to show is, that, whatever may be thought touching the
+supplementary theories whereby I shall endeavour to explain the facts of
+inutility, cross-sterility, and non-occurrence of free intercrossing, no
+one of these facts is entitled to rank as an objection against the
+theory of natural selection, unless we understand this theory to claim
+an exclusive prerogative in the field of organic evolution. This, as we
+have previously seen, is what Mr. Wallace does claim for it; while on
+the other hand, Mr. Darwin expressly&mdash;and even vehemently&mdash;repudiates
+the claim: from which it follows that all the three main objections
+against the theory of natural selection <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_376" id="page_376">[376]</a></span>
+are objections which vitally affect the theory only as it has been
+stated and upheld by Wallace. As the theory has been stated and upheld
+by Darwin, all these objections are irrelevant. This is a fact which I
+had not myself perceived at the time when I mentioned these objections
+in a paper entitled <i>Physiological Selection</i>, which was published in
+1886. The discussions to which that paper gave rise, however, led me to
+consider these matters more closely; and further study of Darwin&rsquo;s
+writings, with these matters specially in view, has led me to see that
+none of the objections in question are relevant to his theory, as
+distinguished from that of Mr. Wallace. This, I acknowledge, I ought to
+have perceived before I published the paper just alluded to; but in
+those days I had had no occasion to follow out the differences between
+Darwin and Wallace to all their consequences, and therefore adopted the
+prevalent view that their theories of evolution were virtually
+identical. Now, however, I have endeavoured to make it clear that the
+points wherein they differ involve the important consequences above set
+forth. All these the most formidable objections against the theory of
+natural selection arise simply and solely from what I conceive to be the
+erroneous manner in which the theory has been presented by
+Darwin&rsquo;s distinguished colleague.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>I have now considered, as impartially as I can, all the main criticisms
+and objections which have been brought against the theory of natural
+selection; and the result is to show that, neither singly nor
+collectively, are they entitled to much weight. On the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_377" id="page_377">[377]</a></span>
+other hand, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, there is a vast
+accumulation of evidence in favour of the theory. Hence, it is no wonder
+that the theory has now been accepted by all naturalists, with scarcely
+any one notable exception, as at any rate the best working hypothesis
+which has ever been propounded whereby to explain the facts of organic
+evolution. Moreover, in the opinion of those most competent to judge,
+the theory is entitled to be regarded as something very much more than a
+working hypothesis: it is held to be virtually a completed induction,
+or, in other words, the proved exhibition of a general law, whereby the
+causation of organic evolution admits of being in large part&mdash;if
+not altogether&mdash;explained.</p>
+
+<p>Now, whether or not we subscribe to this latter conclusion ought, I
+think, to depend upon what we mean by an explanation in the case which
+is before us. If we mean only that, given the large class of known facts
+and unknown causes which are conveniently summarized under the terms
+Heredity and Variability, then the further facts of Struggle and
+Survival serve, in some considerable degree or another, to account for
+the phenomena of adaptive evolution, I cannot see any room to question
+that the evidence is sufficient to prove the statement. But it is clear
+that by taking for granted these great facts of Heredity and
+Variability, we have assumed the larger part of the problem as a whole.
+Or, more correctly, by thus generalizing, in a merely verbal form, all
+the unknown causes which are concerned in these two great factors of the
+process in question, we are not so much as attempting to explain the
+precedent <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_378" id="page_378">[378]</a></span>
+causation which serves as a condition to the process. Much more than
+half the battle would already have been won, had Darwin&rsquo;s
+predecessors been able to explain the causes of Heredity and Variation;
+hence it is but a very partial victory which we have hitherto gained in
+our recent discovery of the effects of Struggle and Survival.</p>
+
+<p>Yet partial though it be in relation to the whole battle, in itself, or
+considered absolutely, there can be no reasonable doubt that it
+constitutes the greatest single victory which has ever been gained by
+the science of Biology. For this very reason, however, it behoves us to
+consider all the more carefully the extent to which it goes. But my
+discussion of this matter must be relegated to the next volume, where I
+hope to give abundant proof of the soundness of Darwin&rsquo;s judgment
+as conveyed in the words:&mdash;"I am convinced that natural selection has
+been the main, but not the exclusive, means of modification.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_379" id="page_379">[379]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.<br /><br />
+<span class="sc">The Theory of Sexual Selection, and Concluding Remarks.</span></h2>
+
+<p>Although the explanatory value of the Darwinian theory of natural
+selection is, as we have now seen, incalculably great, it nevertheless
+does not meet those phenomena of organic nature which perhaps more than
+any other attract the general attention, as well as the general
+admiration, of mankind: I mean all that class of phenomena which go to
+constitute the Beautiful. Whatever value beauty as such may have, it
+clearly has not a life-preserving value. The gorgeous plumage of a
+peacock, for instance, is of no advantage to the peacock in his struggle
+for life, and therefore cannot be attributed to the agency of natural
+selection. Now this fact of beauty in organic structures is a fact of
+wide generality&mdash;almost as wide, indeed, as is the fact of their
+utility. Mr. Darwin, therefore, suggested another hypothesis whereby to
+render a scientific explanation of this fact. Just as by his theory of
+natural selection he sought to explain the major fact of utility, so did
+he endeavour to explain the minor fact of beauty by a theory of what he
+termed Sexual Selection.</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_380" id="page_380">[380]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It is a matter of observation that the higher animals do not pair
+indiscriminately; but that the members of either sex prefer those
+individuals of the opposite sex which are to them most attractive. It is
+important to understand <i>in limine</i> that nobody has ever attempted to
+challenge this statement. In other words, it is an unquestionable fact
+that among many of the higher animals there literally and habitually
+occurs a <i>sexual selection</i>; and this fact is not a matter of inference,
+but, as I have said, a matter of observation. The inference only begins
+where, from this observable fact, it is argued,&mdash;1st, that the sexual
+selection has reference to an &aelig;sthetic taste on the part of the animals
+themselves; and 2nd, that, supposing the selection to be determined by
+such a taste, the cause thus given is adequate to explain the phenomena
+of beauty which are presented by these animals. I will consider these
+two points separately.</p>
+
+<p>From the evidence which Darwin has collected, it appears to me
+impossible to doubt that an &aelig;sthetic sense is displayed by many birds,
+and not a few mammals. This of course does not necessarily imply that
+the <i>standards</i> of such a sense are the same as our own; nor does it
+necessarily imply that there is any constant relation between such a
+sense and high levels of intelligence in other respects. In point of
+fact, such is certainly not the case, because the best evidence that we
+have of an &aelig;sthetic sense in animals is derived from birds, and not from
+mammals. The most cogent cases to quote in this connexion are those of
+the numerous species of birds which habitually adorn their nests with
+gaily coloured feathers, wool, cotton, or any other gaudy materials
+which they <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_381" id="page_381">[381]</a></span>
+may find lying about the woods and fields. In many cases a marked
+preference is shown for particular objects&mdash;as, for instance, in
+the case of the Syrian nut-hatch, which chooses the iridescent wings of
+insects, or that of the great crested fly-catcher, which similarly
+chooses the cast-off skins of snakes. But no doubt the most remarkable
+of these cases is that of the baya-bird of Asia, which after having
+completed its bottle-shaped and chambered nest<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>,
+studs it over with small lumps of clay, both inside and out, upon which
+the cock-bird sticks fire-flies, apparently for the sole purpose of
+securing a brilliantly decorative effect. Other birds, such as the
+hammer-head of Africa, adorn the surroundings of their nests (which are
+built upon the ground) with shells, bones, pieces of broken glass and
+earthenware, or any objects of a bright and conspicuous character which
+they may happen to find. The most consummate artists in this respect
+are, however, the bower-birds; for the species of this family construct
+elaborate play-houses in the form of arched tunnels, built of twigs upon
+the ground. Through and around such a tunnel they chase one another; and
+it is always observable that not only is the floor paved with a great
+collection of shells, bones, coloured stones, and any other brilliant
+objects which they are able to carry in their beaks, but also that the
+walls are decorated with the most gaudy articles which the birds can
+find. There is one genus, in Papua, which even goes so far as to provide
+the theatre with a surrounding garden. A level piece of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_382" id="page_382">[382]</a></span>
+ground is selected as a site for the building. The latter is about two
+feet high, and constructed round the growing stalk of a shrub, which
+therefore serves as a central pillar to which the frame-work of the roof
+is attached. Twigs are woven into this frame-work until the whole is
+rendered rain-proof. The tent thus erected is about nine feet in
+circumference at its base, and presents a large arch as an entrance. The
+central pillar is banked up with moss at its base, and a gallery is
+built round the interior of the edifice. This gallery is decorated with
+flowers, fruits, fungi, &amp;c. These are also spread over the garden,
+which covers <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_383" id="page_383">[383]</a></span>
+about the same area as the play-house. The flowers are said to be
+removed when they fade, while fresh ones are gathered to supply their
+places. Thus the garden is always kept bright with flowers, as well as
+with the brilliant green of mosses, which are collected and distributed
+in patches, resembling tiny lawns.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_382i" id="page_382i">[382i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_401_121.jpg" width="500" height="401" alt="The Garden Bower-bird (Amblyornis inornata)." title="" />
+<span class="caption"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 121.&mdash;The Garden Bower-bird (<span class='sn'>Amblyornis inornata</span>).
+Reduced from <i>Gould&rsquo;s Birds of New Guinea</i> to &frac14; nat. size.</span></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_383c" id="page_383c">[383c.]</a></span>
+Now these sundry cases alone seem to prove a high degree of the &aelig;sthetic
+sense as occurring among birds; for, it is needless to say, none of the
+facts just mentioned can be due to natural selection, seeing that they
+have no reference to utility, or the preservation of life. But if an
+&aelig;sthetic sense occurs in birds, we should expect, on <i>a priori</i> grounds,
+that it would probably be exercised with reference to the personal
+appearance of the sexes. And this expectation is fully realized. For it
+is an observable fact that in most species of birds where the males are
+remarkable for the brilliancy of their plumage, not only is this
+brilliancy most remarkable during the pairing season, but at this season
+also the male birds take elaborate pains to display their charms before
+the females. Then it is that the peacock erects his tail to strut round
+and round the hens, taking care always to present to them a front view,
+where the coloration is most gorgeous. And the same is true of all other
+gaily coloured male birds. During the pairing season they actively
+compete with one another in exhibiting their attractiveness to the
+females; and in many cases there are added all sorts of extraordinary
+antics in the way of dancings and crowings. Again, in the case of all
+song-birds, the object of the singing is to please the females; and for
+this purpose the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_384" id="page_384">[384]</a></span>
+males rival one another to the best of their musical ability.</p>
+
+<p>Thus there can be no question that the courtship of birds is a highly
+elaborate business, in which the males do their best to surpass one
+another in charming the females. Obviously the inference is that the
+males do not take all this trouble for nothing; but that the females
+give their consent to pair with the males whose personal appearance, or
+whose voice, proves to be the most attractive. But, if so, the young of
+the male bird who is thus <i>selected</i> will inherit his superior beauty;
+and thus, in successive generations, a continuous advance will be made
+in the beauty of plumage or of song, as the case may be,&mdash;both the
+origin and development of beauty in the animal world being thus supposed
+due to the &aelig;sthetic taste of animals themselves.</p>
+
+<p>Such is the theory of sexual selection in its main outlines; and with
+regard to it we must begin by noting two things which are of most
+importance. In the first place, it is a theory wholly and completely
+distinct from the theory of natural selection; so that any truth or
+error in the one does not in the least affect the other. The second
+point is, that there is not so great a wealth of evidence in favour of
+sexual selection as there is in favour of natural selection; and,
+therefore, that while all naturalists nowadays accept natural selection
+as <i>a</i> (whether or not <i>the</i>) cause of adaptive, useful, or
+life-preserving structures, there is no such universal&mdash;but only a very
+general&mdash;agreement with reference to sexual selection as a cause of
+decorative, beautiful, or life-embellishing structures. Nevertheless,
+the evidence in favour of sexual <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_385" id="page_385">[385]</a></span>
+selection is both large in amount and massive in weight.</p>
+
+<p>Our consideration of this evidence will bring us to the second division
+of our subject, as previously marked out for discussion&mdash;namely,
+granting that an &aelig;sthetic sense occurs in certain large divisions of the
+animal kingdom, what is the proof that such a sense is a cause of the
+beauty which is presented by the animals in question?</p>
+
+<p>Before proceeding to state this proof, however, it is desirable to
+observe that under the theory of sexual selection Darwin has included
+two essentially different classes of facts. For besides the large class
+of facts to which I have thus far been alluding,&mdash;i. e. the cases where
+two sexes of the same species differ from one another in respect of
+ornamentation,&mdash;there is another class of facts equally important,
+namely, the cases where the two sexes of the same species differ from
+one another in respect of size, strength, and the possession of natural
+weapons, such as spurs, horns, &amp;c. In most of these cases it is the
+males which are thus superiorly endowed; and it is a matter of
+observation that in all cases where they are so endowed they use their
+superior strength and natural weapons for fighting together, in order to
+secure possession of the females. Hence results what Mr. Darwin has
+called the Law of Battle between males of the same species; and this law
+of battle he includes under his theory of sexual selection. But it is
+evident that the principle which is operative in the law of battle
+differs from the principle which is concerned in the form of sexual
+selection that has to do with embellishment, and consequent charm. The
+law of <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_386" id="page_386">[386]</a></span>
+battle, in fact, more nearly approaches the law of natural selection;
+seeing that it expresses the natural advantages of brute force in the
+struggling of rival animals, and so frequently results in <i>death of the
+less fitted</i>, as distinguished from a mere failure to propagate. Now
+against this doctrine of the law of battle, and the consequences to
+which it leads in the superior fighting powers of male animals, no
+objection has been raised in any quarter. It is only with regard to the
+other aspect of the theory of sexual selection&mdash;or that which is
+concerned with the superior embellishment of male animals&mdash;that any
+difference of opinion obtains. I will now proceed to give the main
+arguments on both sides of this question, beginning with a
+<i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> of the evidences in favour of sexual selection.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, the fact that secondary sexual characters of the
+embellishing kind are so generally restricted to the male sex in itself
+seems to constitute very cogent proof that, in some way or another, such
+characters are connected with the part which is played by the male in
+the act of propagation. Moreover, secondary sexual characters of this
+kind are of quite as general occurrence as are those of the other kind
+which have to do with rivalry in battle; and the former are usually of
+the more elaborate description. Therefore, as there is no doubt that
+secondary sexual characters of the one order have an immediate purpose
+to serve in the act of propagation, we are by this close analogy
+confirmed in our surmise that secondary sexual characters of the other,
+and still more elaborate, order are likewise so concerned. Moreover,
+this view of their meaning becomes still further strengthened when we
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_387" id="page_387">[387]</a></span>
+take into consideration the following facts. Namely, (<i>a</i>) secondary
+sexual characters of the embellishing kind are, as a rule, developed
+only at maturity; and most frequently during only a part of the year,
+which is invariably the breeding season: (<i>b</i>) they are always more or
+less seriously affected by emasculation: (<i>c</i>) they are always, and
+only, displayed in perfection during the act of courtship: (<i>d</i>) then,
+however, they are displayed with the most elaborate pains; yet always,
+and only, before the females: (<i>e</i>) they appear, at all events in many
+cases, to have the effect of charming the females into a performance of
+the sexual act; while it is certain that in many cases, both among
+quadrupeds and birds, individuals of the one sex are capable of feeling
+a strong antipathy against, or a strong preference for, certain
+individuals of the opposite sex.</p>
+
+<p>Such are the main lines of evidence in favour of the theory of sexual
+selection. And although it is enough that some of them should be merely
+stated as above in order that their immense significance should become
+apparent, in the case of others a bare statement is not sufficient for
+this purpose. More especially is this the case as regards the enormous
+profusion, variety, and elaboration of sexually-embellishing characters
+which occur in birds and mammals&mdash;not to mention several divisions of
+Arthropoda; together with the extraordinary amount of trouble which, in
+a no less extraordinary number of different ways, is taken by the male
+animals to display their embellishments before the females. And even in
+many cases where to our eyes there is no particular embellishment to
+display, the process of courtship consists in such an elaborate
+performance of dancings, struttings, and <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_388" id="page_388">[388]</a></span>
+attitudinizings that it is scarcely possible to doubt their object is
+to incite the opposite sex. Here, for instance, is a series of drawings
+illustrating the courtship of spiders. I choose this case as an example,
+partly <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_390" id="page_390">[390]</a></span>because it is the one which has been published most
+recently, and partly because it is of particular interest as occurring
+so low down in the zoological scale. I am indebted to the kindness of
+Mr. and Mrs. Peckham for permission to reproduce these few selected
+drawings from their very admirable work, which is published by the
+Natural History Society of Wisconsin, U.S. It is evident at a glance
+that all these elaborate, and to our eyes ludicrous, performances are
+more suggestive of incitation than of any other imaginable purpose. And
+this view of the matter is strongly corroborated by the fact that it is
+the most brightly coloured parts of the male spiders which are most
+obtruded upon the notice of the female by these peculiar
+attitudes&mdash;in just the same way as is invariably the case in the
+analogous phenomena of courtship among birds, insects, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_388i" id="page_388i">[388i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 329px;">
+<img src="images/i_407_122.jpg" width="329" height="500" alt="Courtship of Spiders." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 122.&mdash;Courtship of Spiders. A few examples of some
+of the attitudes adopted by different species of males when approaching
+their females. (After Peckham.)</div></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_389" id="page_389">[389]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 335px;">
+<img src="images/i_408_123.jpg" width="335" height="500" alt="Courtship of Spiders (Continued)." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 123.&mdash;Courtship of Spiders. Continued from Fig. 122,
+similarly showing some of the attitudes of approach adopted by males of
+yet other different species. (After Peckham.)</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_390c" id="page_390c">[390c.]</a></span>
+But so great is the mass of material which Darwin has collected in proof
+of all the points mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, that to attempt
+anything in the way of an epitome would really be to damage its
+evidential force. Therefore I deem it best simply to refer to it as it
+stands in his <i>Descent of Man</i>, concluding, as he concludes,&mdash;"This
+surprising uniformity in the laws regulating the differences between the
+sexes in so many and such widely separated classes is intelligible if we
+admit the action throughout all the higher divisions of the animal
+kingdom of one common cause, namely, sexual selection"; while, as he
+might well have added, it is difficult to imagine that all the large
+classes of facts which an admission of this common cause serves to
+explain, can ever admit of being rendered intelligible by any other
+theory.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_391" id="page_391">[391]</a></span>
+We may next proceed to consider the objections which have been brought
+against the theory of sexual selection. And this is virtually the same
+thing as saying that we may now consider Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s views upon
+the subject.</p>
+
+<p>Reserving for subsequent consideration the most general of these
+objections&mdash;namely, that at best the theory can only apply to the more
+intelligent animals, and so must necessarily fail to explain the
+phenomena of beauty in the less intelligent, or in the non-intelligent,
+as well as in all species of plants&mdash;we may take <i>seriatim</i> the other
+objections which, in the opinion of Mr. Wallace, are sufficient to
+dispose of the theory even as regards the higher animals.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, he argues that the principal cause of the greater
+brilliancy of male animals in general, and of male birds in particular,
+is that they do not so much stand in need of protection arising from
+concealment as is the case with their respective females. Consequently
+natural selection is not so active in repressing brilliancy of colour in
+the males, or, which amounts to the same thing, is more active in
+&ldquo;repressing in the female those bright colours which are normally
+produced in both sexes by general laws.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Next, he argues that not only does natural selection thus exercise a
+negative influence in passively permitting more heightened colour to
+appear in the males, but even exercises a positive influence in actively
+promoting its development in the males, while, at the same time,
+actively repressing its appearance in the females. For heightened
+colour, he says, is correlated with health and vigour; and as there
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_392" id="page_392">[392]</a></span>
+can be no doubt that healthy and vigorous birds best provide for their
+young, natural selection, by always placing its premium on health and
+vigour in the males, thus also incidentally promotes, through correlated
+growth, their superior coloration.</p>
+
+<p>Again, with regard to the display which is practised by male birds, and
+which constitutes the strongest of all Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s arguments in
+favour of sexual selection, Mr. Wallace points out that there is no
+evidence of the females being in any way affected thereby. On the other
+hand, he argues that this display may be due merely to general
+excitement; and he lays stress upon the more special fact that moveable
+feathers are habitually erected under the influence of anger and
+rivalry, in order to make the bird look more formidable in the eyes of
+antagonists.</p>
+
+<p>Furthermore, he adduces the consideration that, even if the females are
+in any way affected by colour and its display on the part of the males,
+and if, therefore, sexual selection be conceded a true principle in
+theory, still we must remember that, as a matter of fact, it can only
+operate in so far as it is allowed to operate by natural selection. Now,
+according to Mr. Wallace, natural selection must wholly neutralize any
+such supposed influence of sexual selection. For, unless the survivors
+in the general struggle for existence happen to be those which are also
+the most highly ornamented, natural selection must neutralize and
+destroy any influence that may be exerted by female selection. But
+obviously the chances against the otherwise best fitted males happening
+to be likewise the most highly ornamented must be many to <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_393" id="page_393">[393]</a></span>
+one, unless, as Wallace supposes, there is some correlation between
+embellishment and general perfection, in which case, as he points out,
+the theory of sexual selection lapses altogether, and becomes but a
+special case of natural selection.</p>
+
+<p>Once more, Mr. Wallace argues that the evidence collected by Mr. Darwin
+himself proves that each bird finds a mate under any circumstances&mdash;a
+general fact which in itself must quite neutralize any effect of sexual
+selection of colour or ornament, since the less highly coloured birds
+would be at no disadvantage as regards the leaving of healthy progeny.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, he urges the high improbability that through thousands of
+generations all the females of any particular species&mdash;possibly spread
+over an enormous area&mdash;should uniformly and always have displayed
+exactly the same taste with respect to every detail of colour to be
+presented by the males.</p>
+
+<p>Now, without any question, we have here a most powerful array of
+objections against the theory of sexual selection. Each of them is ably
+developed by Mr. Wallace himself in his work on <i>Tropical Nature</i>; and
+although I have here space only to state them in the most abbreviated of
+possible forms, I think it will be apparent how formidable these
+objections appear. Unfortunately the work in which they are mainly
+presented was published several years after the second edition of the
+<i>Descent of Man</i>, so that Mr. Darwin never had a suitable opportunity of
+replying. But, if he had had such an opportunity, as far as I can judge
+it seems that his reply would have been more or less as follows.</p>
+
+<p>In the first place, Mr. Wallace fails to distinguish <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_394" id="page_394">[394]</a></span>
+between brilliancy and ornamentation&mdash;or between colour as merely
+&ldquo;heightened,&rdquo; and as distinctively decorative. Yet there is
+obviously the greatest possible difference between these two things. We
+may readily enough admit that a mere heightening of already existing
+coloration is likely enough&mdash;at all events in many cases&mdash;to
+accompany a general increase of vigour, and therefore that natural
+selection, by promoting the latter, may also incidentally promote the
+former, in cases where brilliancy is not a source of danger. But clearly
+this is a widely different thing from showing that not only a <i>general
+brilliancy of colour</i>, but also <i>the particular disposition of colours</i>,
+in the form of ornamental patterns, can thus be accounted for by natural
+selection. Indeed, it is expressly in order to account for the
+occurrence of such ornamental patterns that Mr. Darwin constructed his
+theory of sexual selection; and therefore, by thus virtually ignoring
+the only facts which that theory endeavours to explain, Mr. Wallace is
+not really criticizing the theory at all. By representing that the
+theory has to do only with brilliancy of colour, as distinguished from
+disposition of colours, he is going off upon a false issue which has
+never really been raised<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a>.
+Look, for example, at a peacock&rsquo;s tail. No doubt it is
+sufficiently brilliant; but far more remarkable than its brilliancy is
+its elaborate pattern on the one hand, and its enormous size on the
+other. There is no conceivable reason why mere <i>brilliancy of colour</i>,
+as an accidental concomitant of general vigour, should have run into so
+extraordinary, so elaborate, and so beautiful <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_395" id="page_395">[395]</a></span>
+a <i>design of colours</i>. Moreover, this design is only unfolded when the
+tail is erected, and the tail is not erected in battle (as Mr.
+Wallace&rsquo;s theory of the erectile function in feathers would
+require), but in courtship; obviously, therefore, the purpose of the
+pattern, so to speak, is correlated with the act of courtship&mdash;it
+being only then, in fact, that the general purpose of the whole
+structure, as well as the more special purpose of the pattern, becomes
+revealed. Lastly, the fact of this whole structure being so large,
+entailing not only a great amount of physiological material in its
+production, but also of physiological energy in carrying about such a
+weight, as well as of increased danger from impeding locomotion and
+inviting capture&mdash;all this is obviously incompatible with the
+supposition of the peacock&rsquo;s tail having been produced by natural
+selection. And such a case does not stand alone. There are multitudes of
+other instances of ornamental structures imposing a drain upon the vital
+energies of their possessors, without conferring any compensating
+benefit from a utilitarian point of view. Now, in all these cases,
+without any exception, such structures are ornamental structures which
+present a plain and obvious reference to the relationship of the sexes.
+Therefore it becomes almost impossible to doubt&mdash;first, that they
+exist for the sake of ornament; and next, that the ornament exists on
+account of that relationship. If such structures were due merely to a
+superabundance of energy, as Mr. Wallace supposes, not only ought they
+to have been kept down by the economizing influence of natural
+selection; but we can see no reason, either why they should be so highly
+ornamental on the one hand, or <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_396" id="page_396">[396]</a></span>
+so exclusively related to the sexual relationship on the other.</p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_415_124.jpg" width="500" height="405" alt="The Bell-bird." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 124.&mdash;The Bell-bird (<span class='sn'>Chasmorhynchus niveus</span>, &frac14;
+natural size). Drawn from nature (<i>R. Coll. Surg. Mus.</i>). In the drawing
+of the adult male the ornamental appendage is represented in its
+inflated condition, during courtship; in the drawing of the young male
+it is shown in its flaccid condition.</div></div>
+
+<p>Finally, we must take notice of the fact that where peculiar
+<i>structures</i> are concerned for purposes of display in courtship, the
+<i>elaboration</i> of these structures is often no less remarkable than that
+of patterns where colours are thus concerned. Take, for example, the
+case of the Bell-bird, which I select from an innumerable number of
+instances that might be mentioned because, while giving a verbal
+description of this animal, Darwin does not supply a pictorial
+representation <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_397" id="page_397">[397]</a></span>
+thereof. The bird, which lives in South America, has a very loud and
+peculiar call, that can be heard at a distance of two or three miles.
+The female is dusky-green; but the adult male is a beautiful white,
+excepting the extraordinary structure with which we are at present
+concerned. This is a tube about three inches long, which rises from the
+base of the beak. It is jet black, and dotted over with small downy
+feathers. The tube is closed at the top, but its cavity communicates
+with the palate, and thus the whole admits of being inflated from
+within, when, of course, it stands erect as represented in one of the
+two drawings.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_398" id="page_398">[398]</a></span>
+When not thus inflated, it hangs down, as shown in the second figure,
+which represents the plumage of a young male. (Fig. 124.)</p>
+
+<p>In another species of the genus there are three of these appendages&mdash;the
+two additional ones being mounted on the corners of the mouth. (Fig.
+125.) In all species of the genus (four in number) the tubes are
+inflated during courtship, and therefore perform the function of sexual
+embellishments. Now the point to which I wish to draw attention is, that
+so specialized and morphologically elaborate a structure cannot be
+regarded as merely adventitious. It must have been developed by some
+definite cause, acting through a long series of generations. And as no
+other function can be assigned to it than that of charming the female
+when it is erected in courtship, the peculiarity of form and mechanism
+which it presents&mdash;like the elaboration of patterns in cases where
+colour only is concerned&mdash;virtually compels us to recognise in sexual
+selection the only conceivable cause of its production.</p>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_397i" id="page_397i">[397i.]</a></p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/i_416_125.jpg" width="500" height="417" alt="C. tricarunculatus." title="" />
+<div class="captionh"><span class="sc">Fig.</span> 125.&mdash;<span class='sn'>C. tricarunculatus</span>, &frac14; natural size. Copied
+from the <i>Ibis</i>. The ornamental appendages of the male are represented
+in a partly inflated condition.</div></div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_398c" id="page_398c">[398c.]</a></span>
+For these reasons I think that Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s main objection falls
+to the ground. Passing on to his subsidiary objections, I do not see
+much weight in his merely negative difficulty as to there being an
+absence of evidence upon hen birds being charmed by the plumage, or the
+voice, of their consorts. For, on the one hand, it is not very safe to
+infer what sentiments may be in the mind of a hen; and, on the other
+hand, it is impossible to conceive what motive can be in the mind of a
+cock, other than that of making himself attractive, when he performs his
+various antics, displays his ornamental plumes, or sings his melodious
+songs. Considerations somewhat analogous apply to the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_399" id="page_399">[399]</a></span>
+difficulty of supposing so much similarity and constancy of taste on
+the part of female animals as Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s theory undoubtedly
+requires. Although we know very little about the psychology of the lower
+animals, we do observe in many cases that small details of mental
+organization are often wonderfully constant and uniform throughout all
+members of a species, even where it is impossible to suggest any utility
+as a cause.</p>
+
+<p>Again, as regards the objection that each bird finds a mate under any
+circumstances, we have here an obvious begging of the whole question.
+That every feathered Jack should find a feathered Jill is perhaps what
+we might have antecedently expected; but when we meet with innumerable
+instances of ornamental plumes, melodious songs, and the rest, as so
+many witnesses to a process of sexual selection having always been in
+operation, it becomes irrational to exclude such evidence on account of
+our antecedent prepossessions.</p>
+
+<p>There remains the objection that the principles of natural selection
+must necessarily swallow up those of sexual selection. And this
+consideration, I doubt not, lies at the root of all Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s
+opposition to the supplementary theory of sexual selection. He is
+self-consistent in refusing to entertain the evidence of sexual
+selection, on the ground of his antecedent persuasion that in the great
+drama of evolution there is no possible standing-ground for any other
+actor than that which appears in the person of natural selection. But
+here, again, we must refuse to allow any merely antecedent presumption
+to blind our eyes to the actual evidence of other agencies having
+co-operated <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_400" id="page_400">[400]</a></span>
+with natural selection in producing the observed results. And, as
+regards the particular case now before us, I think I have shown, as far
+as space will permit, that in the phenomena of decorative colouring (as
+distinguished from merely brilliant colouring), of melodious song (as
+distinguished from merely tuneless cries), of enormous arborescent
+antlers (as distinguished from merely offensive weapons), and so
+forth&mdash;I say that in all these phenomena we have phenomena which
+cannot possibly be explained by the theory of natural selection; and,
+further, that if they are to be explained at all, this can only be done,
+so far as we can at present see, by Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s supplementary
+theory of sexual selection.</p>
+
+<p>I have now briefly answered all Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s objections to this
+supplementary theory, and, as previously remarked, I feel pretty
+confident that, at all events in the main, the answer is such as Mr.
+Darwin would himself have supplied, had there been a third edition of
+his work upon the subject. At all events, be this as it may, we are
+happily in possession of unquestionable evidence that he believed all
+Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s objections to admit of fully satisfactory answers.
+For his very last words to science&mdash;read only a few hours before his
+death at a meeting of the Zoological Society&mdash;were:</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>I may perhaps be here permitted to say that, after having carefully
+weighed, to the best of my ability, the various arguments which
+have been advanced against the principle of sexual selection, I
+remain firmly convinced of its truth<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p class="pagenum"><a name="page_401" id="page_401">[401]</a></p>
+<h3 class='i'>Concluding Remarks.</h3>
+
+<p>I will now conclude this chapter, and with it the present volume, by
+offering a few general remarks on what may be termed the philosophical
+relations of Darwinian doctrine to the facts of adaptation on the one
+hand, and to those of beauty on the other. Of course we are all aware
+that before the days of this doctrine the facts of adaptation in organic
+nature were taken to constitute the clearest possible evidence of
+special design, on account of the wonderful mechanisms which they
+everywhere displayed; while the facts of beauty were taken as
+constituting no less conclusive evidence of the quality of such special
+design as beneficent, not to say artistic. But now that the Darwinian
+doctrine appears to have explained scientifically the former class of
+facts by its theory of natural selection, and the latter class of facts
+by its theory of sexual selection, we may fitly conclude this brief
+exposition of the doctrine as a whole by considering what influence such
+naturalistic explanations may fairly be taken to exercise upon the
+older, or super-naturalistic, interpretations.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with the facts of adaptation, we must first of all observe that
+the Darwinian doctrine is immediately concerned with these facts only in
+so far <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_402" id="page_402">[402]</a></span>
+as they occur in organic nature. With the adaptations&mdash;if they can
+properly be so called&mdash;which occur in all the rest of nature, and
+which go to constitute the Cosmos as a whole so wondrous a spectacle of
+universal law and perfect order, this doctrine is but indirectly
+concerned. Nevertheless, it is of course fundamentally concerned with
+them to the extent that it seeks to bring the phenomena of organic
+nature into line with those of inorganic; and therefore to show that
+whatever view we may severally take as to the kind of causation which is
+energizing in the latter we must now extend to the former. This is
+usually expressed by saying that the theory of evolution by natural
+selection is a mechanical theory. It endeavours to comprise all the
+facts of adaptation in organic nature under the same category of
+explanation as those which occur in inorganic nature&mdash;that is to
+say, under the category of physical, or ascertainable, causation.
+Indeed, unless the theory has succeeded in doing this, it has not
+succeeded in doing anything&mdash;beyond making a great noise in the
+world. If Mr. Darwin has not discovered a new mechanical cause in the
+selection principle, his labour has been worse than in vain.</p>
+
+<p>Now, without unduly repeating what has already been said in Chapter
+VIII, I may remark that, whatever we may each think of the measure of
+success which has thus far attended the theory of natural selection in
+explaining the facts of adaptation, we ought all to agree that,
+considered as a matter of general reasoning, the theory does certainly
+refer to a <i>vera causa</i> of a strictly physical kind; and, therefore,
+that no exception can be taken to the theory in this respect <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_403" id="page_403">[403]</a></span>
+on grounds of <i>logic</i>. If the theory in this respect is to be attacked
+at all, it can only be on grounds of <i>fact</i>&mdash;namely, by arguing
+that the cause does not occur in nature, or that, if it does, its
+importance has been exaggerated by the theory. Even, however, if the
+latter proposition should ever be proved, we may now be virtually
+certain that the only result would be the relegation of all the residual
+phenomena of adaptation to other causes of the physical
+order&mdash;whether known or unknown. Hence, as far as the matter of
+<i>principle</i> is concerned, we may definitely conclude that the great
+naturalistic movement of our century has already brought all the
+phenomena of adaptation in organic nature under precisely the same
+category of mechanical causation, as similar movements in previous
+centuries have brought all the known phenomena of inorganic nature: the
+only question that remains for solution is the strictly <i>scientific</i>
+question touching the particular causes of the mechanical order which
+have been at work.</p>
+
+<p>So much, then, for the phenomena of adaptation. Turning next to those of
+beauty, we have already seen that the theory of sexual selection stands
+to these in precisely the same relation as the theory of natural
+selection does to those of adaptation. In other words, it supplies a
+physical explanation of them; because, as far as our present purposes
+are concerned, it may be taken for granted, or for the sake of argument,
+that inasmuch as psychological elements enter into the question the
+cerebral basis which they demand involves a physical side.</p>
+
+<p>There is, moreover, this further point of resemblance between the two
+theories: neither of them has any <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_404" id="page_404">[404]</a></span>
+reference to inorganic nature. Therefore, with the charm or the
+loveliness of landscapes, of earth and sea and sky, of pebbles,
+crystals, and so forth, we have at present nothing to do. How it is that
+so many inanimate objects are invested with beauty&mdash;why it is that
+beauty attaches to architecture, music, poetry, and many other
+things&mdash;these are questions which do not specially concern the
+biologist. If they are ever to receive any satisfactory explanation in
+terms of natural causation, this must be furnished at the hands of the
+psychologist. It may be possible for him to show, more satisfactorily
+than hitherto, that all beauty, whenever and wherever it occurs, is
+literally &ldquo;in the eyes of the beholder"; or that objectively
+considered, there is no such thing as beauty. It may be&mdash;and in my
+opinion it probably is&mdash;purely an affair of the percipient mind
+itself, depending on the association of ideas with pleasure-giving
+objects. This association may well lead to a liking for such objects,
+and so to the formation of what is known as &aelig;sthetic feeling with
+regard to them. Moreover, beauty of inanimate nature must be an affair
+of the percipient mind itself, unless there be a creating intelligence
+with organs of sense and ideals of beauty similar to our own. And, apart
+from any deeper considerations, this latter possibility is scarcely
+entitled to be regarded as a probability, looking to the immense
+diversities in those ideals among different races of mankind. But, be
+this as it may, the scientific problem which is presented by the fact of
+&aelig;sthetic feeling, even if it is ever to be satisfactorily solved,
+is a problem which, as already remarked, must be dealt with by
+psychologists. As biologists we have simply to accept this feeling as a
+fact, and to consider <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_405" id="page_405">[405]</a></span>
+how, out of such a feeling as a cause, the beauty of organic nature may
+have followed as an effect.</p>
+
+<p>Now we have already seen how the theory of sexual selection supposes
+this to have happened. But against this theory a formidable objection
+arises, and one which I have thought it best to reserve for treatment in
+this place, because it serves to show the principal difference between
+Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s two great generalizations, considered as
+generalizations in the way of mechanical theory. For while the theory of
+natural selection extends equally throughout the whole range of organic
+nature, the theory of sexual selection has but a comparatively
+restricted scope, which, moreover, is but vaguely defined. For it is
+obvious that the theory can only apply to living organisms which are
+sufficiently intelligent to admit of our reasonably accrediting them
+with &aelig;sthetic taste&mdash;namely, in effect, the higher animals. And just as
+this consideration greatly restricts the possible scope of the theory,
+as compared with that of natural selection, so does it render undefined
+the zoological limits within which it can be reasonably employed.
+Lastly, this necessarily undefined, and yet most important limitation
+exposes the theory to the objection just alluded to, and which I shall
+now mention.</p>
+
+<p>The theory, as we have just seen, is necessarily restricted in its
+application to the higher animals. Yet the facts which it is designed to
+explain are not thus restricted. For beauty is by no means restricted to
+the higher animals. The whole of the vegetable world, and the whole of
+the animal world at least as high up in the scale as the insects, must
+be taken as incapable of &aelig;sthetic feeling. Therefore, the extreme
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_406" id="page_406">[406]</a></span>
+beauty of flowers, sea-anemones, corals, and so forth, cannot possibly
+be ascribed to sexual selection.</p>
+
+<p>Now, with regard to this difficulty, we must begin by excluding the case
+of the vegetable kingdom as irrelevant. For it has been rendered highly
+probable&mdash;if not actually proved&mdash;by Darwin and others, that the beauty
+of flowers and of fruits is in large part due to natural selection. It
+is to the advantage of flowering plants that their organs of
+fructification should be rendered conspicuous&mdash;and in many cases also
+odoriferous,&mdash;in order to attract the insects on which the process of
+fertilization depends. Similarly, it is to the advantage of all plants
+which have brightly coloured fruits that these should be conspicuous for
+the purpose of attracting birds, which eat the fruits and so disseminate
+the seed. Hence all the gay colours and varied forms, both of flowers
+and fruits, have been thus adequately explained as due to natural
+causes, working for the welfare, as distinguished from the beauty, of
+the plants. For even the distribution of colours on flowers, or the
+beautiful patterns which so many of them present, are found to be useful
+in guiding insects to the organs of fructification.</p>
+
+<p>Again, the green colouring of leaves, which lends so much beauty to the
+vegetable world, has likewise been shown to be of vital importance to
+the physiology of plant-life; and, therefore, may also be ascribed to
+natural selection. Thus, there remains only the forms of plants other
+than the flowers. But the forms of leaves have also in many cases been
+shown to be governed by principles of utility; and the same is to be
+said of the branching structure which is so characteristic of trees and
+shrubs, since this is the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_407" id="page_407">[407]</a></span>
+form most effectual for spreading out the leaves to the light and air.
+Here, then, we likewise find that the cause determining plant beauty is
+natural selection; and so we may conclude that the only reason why the
+forms of trees which are thus determined by utility appeal to us as
+beautiful, is because we are accustomed to these the most ordinary
+forms. Our ideas having been always, as it were, moulded upon these
+forms, &aelig;sthetic feeling becomes attached to them by the principle
+of association. At any rate, it is certain that when we contemplate
+almost any forms of plant-structure which, for special reasons of
+utility, differ widely from these (to us) more habitual forms, the
+result is not suggestive of beauty. Many of the tropical and
+un-tree-like plants&mdash;such as the cactus tribe&mdash;strike us as
+odd and quaint, not as beautiful. Be this however as it may, I trust I
+have said enough to prove that in the vegetable world, at all events,
+the attainment of beauty cannot be held to have been an object aimed at,
+so to speak, for its own sake. Even if, for the purposes of argument, we
+were to suppose that all the forms and colours in the vegetable world
+are due to special design, there could be no doubt that the purpose of
+this design has been in chief part a utilitarian purpose; it has not
+aimed at beauty exclusively for its own sake. For most of such beauty as
+we here perceive is plainly due to the means adopted for the attainment
+of life-preserving ends, which, of course, is a metaphorical way of
+saying that it is probably due to natural selection<a
+name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_408" id="page_408">[408]</a></span>
+Turning, then, to the animal kingdom below the level of insects, here we
+are bound to confess that the beauty which so often meets us cannot
+reasonably be ascribed either to natural or to sexual selection. Not to
+sexual selection for the reasons already given; the animals in question
+are neither sufficiently intelligent to possess any &aelig;sthetic
+taste, nor, as a matter of fact, do we observe that they exercise any
+choice in pairing. Not to natural selection, because we cannot here, as
+in the case of vegetables, point to any benefit as generally arising
+from bright colours and beautiful forms. On the principles of
+naturalism, therefore, we are driven to conclude that the beauty here is
+purely adventitious, or accidental. Nor need we be afraid to make this
+admission, if only we take a sufficiently wide view of the facts. For,
+when we do take such a view, we find that beauty here is by no means of
+invariable, or even of general, occurrence. There is no loveliness about
+an oyster or a lob-worm; parasites, as a rule, are positively ugly, and
+they constitute a good half of all animal species. The truth seems to
+be, when we look attentively at the matter, that in all cases where
+beauty does occur in these lower forms of animal life, its presence is
+owing to one of two things&mdash;either to the radiate form, or to the
+bright tints. Now, seeing that the radiate form is of such general
+occurrence among these lower animals&mdash;appearing over and over
+again, with the utmost insistence, even among groups widely separated
+from one another by <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_409" id="page_409">[409]</a></span>
+the latest results of scientific classification&mdash;seeing this, it
+becomes impossible to doubt that the radiate form is due to some
+morphological reasons of wide generality. Whether these reasons be
+connected with the internal laws of growth, or to the external
+conditions of environment, I do not pretend to suggest. But I feel safe
+in saying that it cannot possibly be due to any design to secure beauty
+for its own sake. The very generality of the radiate form is in itself
+enough to suggest that it must have some physical, as distinguished from
+an &aelig;sthetic, explanation; for, if the attainment of beauty had
+here been the object, surely it might have been even more effectually
+accomplished by adopting a greater variety of typical forms&mdash;as,
+for instance, in the case of flowers.</p>
+
+<p>Coming then, lastly, to the case of brilliant tints in the lower
+animals, Mr. Darwin has soundly argued that there is nothing forced or
+improbable in the supposition that organic compounds, presenting as they
+do such highly complex and such varied chemical constitutions, should
+often present brilliant colouring <i>incidentally</i>. Considered merely as
+colouring, there is nothing in the world more magnificent than arterial
+blood; yet here the colouring is of purely utilitarian significance. It
+is of the first importance in the chemistry of respiration; but is
+surely without any meaning from an &aelig;sthetic point of view. For the
+colour of the cheeks, and of the flesh generally, in the <i>white</i> races
+of mankind, could have been produced quite as effectually by the use of
+pigment&mdash;as in the case of certain monkeys. Now the fact that in the
+case of blood, as in that of many other highly coloured fluids and
+solids throughout the animal <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_410" id="page_410">[410]</a></span>
+kingdom, the colour is <i>concealed</i>, is surely sufficient proof that the
+colour, if regarded from an &aelig;sthetic point of view, is accidental.
+Therefore, when, as in other cases, such colouring occurs upon the
+surface, and thus becomes apparent, are we not irresistibly led to
+conclude that its <i>exhibition</i> in such cases is likewise accidental, so
+far as any question of &aelig;sthetic design is concerned?</p>
+
+<p>I have now briefly glanced at all the main facts of organic nature with
+reference to beauty; and, as a result, I think it is impossible to
+resist the general conclusion, that in organic nature beauty does not
+exist as an end <i>per se</i>. All cases where beauty can be pointed to in
+organic nature are seemingly due&mdash;either to natural selection, acting
+without reference to beauty, but to utility; to sexual selection, acting
+with reference to the taste of animals; or else to sheer accident. And
+if this general conclusion should be held to need any special
+verification, is it not to be found in the numberless cases where
+organic nature not only fails to be beautiful, but reveals itself as the
+reverse. Not again to refer to the case of parasites, what can be more
+unshapely than a hippopotamus, or more generally repulsive than a
+crocodile? If it be said that these are exceptions, and that the forms
+of animals as a rule are graceful, the answer&mdash;even apart from
+parasites&mdash;is obvious. In all cases where the habits of life are such as
+to render rapid locomotion a matter of utilitarian necessity, the
+outlines of an animal <i>must</i> be graceful&mdash;else, whether the locomotion
+be terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic, it must fail to be swift. Hence it
+is only in such cases as that of the hippopotamus, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_411" id="page_411">[411]</a></span>
+rhinoceros, elephant, crocodile, and so forth, where natural selection
+has had no concern in developing speed, that the accompanying accident
+of gracefulness can be allowed to disappear. But if beauty in organic
+nature had been in itself what may be termed an artistic object on the
+part of a divine Creator, it is absurd to suggest that his design in
+this matter should only have been allowed to appear where we are able to
+detect other and very good reasons for its appearance.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Thus, whether we look to the facts of adaptation or to those of beauty,
+everywhere throughout organic nature we meet with abundant evidence of
+natural causation, while nowhere do we meet with any independent
+evidence of supernatural design. But, having led up to this conclusion,
+and having thus stated it as honestly as I can, I should like to finish
+by further stating what, in my opinion is its logical bearing upon the
+more fundamental tenets of religious thought.</p>
+
+<p>As I have already observed at the commencement of this brief exposition,
+prior to the Darwinian theory of organic evolution, the theologian was
+prone to point to the realm of organic nature as furnishing a peculiarly
+rich and virtually endless store of facts, all combining in their
+testimony to the wisdom and the beneficence of the Deity. Innumerable
+adaptations of structures to functions appeared to yield convincing
+evidence in favour of design; the beauty so profusely shed by living
+forms appeared to yield evidence, no less convincing, of that design as
+beneficent. But both these sources of evidence have now, as it were,
+been <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_412" id="page_412">[412]</a></span>
+tapped at their fountain-head: the adaptation and the beauty are alike
+receiving their explanation at the hands of a purely mechanical
+philosophy. Nay, even the personality of man himself is assailed; and
+this not only in the features which he shares with the lower animals,
+but also in his god-like attributes of reason, thought, and conscience.
+All nature has thus been transformed before the view of the present
+generation in a manner and to an extent that has never before been
+possible: and inasmuch as the change which has taken place has taken
+place in the direction of naturalism, and this to the extent of
+rendering the mechanical interpretation of nature universal, it is no
+wonder if the religious mind has suddenly awakened to a new and a
+terrible force in the words of its traditional enemy&mdash;Where is now
+thy God?</p>
+
+<p>This is not the place to discuss the bearings of science on
+religion<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>;
+but I think it is a place where one may properly point out the limits
+within which no such bearings obtain. Now, from what has just been said,
+it will be apparent that I am not going to minimise the change which has
+been wrought. On the contrary, I believe it is only stupidity or
+affectation which can deny that the change in question is more deep and
+broad than any single previous change in the whole history of human
+thought. It is a fundamental, a cosmical, a world-transforming change.
+Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is a change of a non-theistic, as
+distinguished from an a-theistic, kind. It has rendered impossible the
+appearance in literature of any future Paley, Bell, or Chalmers; but it
+has <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_413" id="page_413">[413]</a></span>
+done nothing in the way of negativing that belief in a Supreme Being
+which it was the object of these authors to substantiate. If it has
+demonstrated the futility of their proof, it has furnished nothing in
+the way of disproof. It has shown, indeed, that their line of argument
+was misjudged when they thus sought to separate organic nature from
+inorganic as a theatre for the special or peculiar display of
+supernatural design; but further than this it has not shown anything.
+The change in question therefore, although greater in degree, is the
+same in kind as all its predecessors: like all previous advances in
+cosmological theory which have been wrought by the advance of science,
+this latest and greatest advance has been that of revealing the
+constitution of nature, or the method of causation, as everywhere the
+same. But it is evident that this change, vast and to all appearance
+final though it be, must end within the limits of natural causation
+itself. The whole world of life and mind may now have been annexed to
+that of matter and energy as together constituting one magnificent
+dominion, which is everywhere subject to the same rule, or method of
+government. But the ulterior and ultimate question touching the nature
+of this government as mental or non-mental, personal or impersonal,
+remains exactly where it was. Indeed, this is a question which cannot be
+affected by <i>any</i> advance of science, further than science has proved
+herself able to dispose of erroneous arguments based upon ignorance of
+nature. For while the sphere of science is necessarily restricted to
+that of natural causation which it is her office to explore, the
+question touching the <i>nature of this natural causation</i> is one which as
+necessarily lies without the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_414" id="page_414">[414]</a></span>
+whole sphere of such causation itself: therefore it lies beyond any
+possible intrusion by science. And not only so. But if the nature of
+natural causation be that of the highest order of known existence, then,
+although we must evidently be incapable of conceiving what such a Mind
+is, at least we seem capable of judging what in many respects it is not.
+It cannot be more than one; it cannot be limited either in space or
+time; it cannot be other than at least as self-consistent as its
+manifestations in nature are invariable. Now, from the latter deduction
+there arises a point of first-rate importance in the present connexion.
+For if the so-called First Cause be intelligent, and therefore all
+secondary causes but the expression of a supreme Will, in as far as such
+a Will is self-consistent, the operation of all natural causes must be
+uniform,&mdash;with the result that, as seen by us, this operation must
+needs appear to be what we call mechanical. The more unvarying the Will,
+the more unvarying must be this expression thereof; so that, if the
+former be absolutely self-consistent, the latter cannot fail to be as
+reasonably interpreted by the theory of mindless necessity, as by that
+of ubiquitous intention. Such being, as it appears to me, the pure logic
+of the matter, the proof of organic evolution amounts to nothing more
+than the proof of a natural process. What mode of being is ultimately
+concerned in this process&mdash;or in what it is that this process
+ultimately consists&mdash;is a question upon which science is as
+voiceless as speculation is vociferous.</p>
+
+<p>But, it may still be urged, surely the principle of natural selection
+(with its terrible basis in the struggle for existence) and the
+principle of sexual selection<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_415" id="page_415">[415]</a></span>
+(with its consequence in denying beauty to be an end in itself)
+demonstrate that, <i>if</i> there be design in nature, such design at all
+events cannot be beneficent. To this, however, I should again reply
+that, just as touching the major question of design itself, so as
+touching this minor question of the quality of such design as
+beneficent, I do not see how the matter has been much affected by a
+discovery of the principles before us. For we did not need a Darwin to
+tell us that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in
+pain. The most that in this connexion Darwin can fairly be said to have
+done is to have estimated in a more careful and precise manner than any
+of his predecessors, the range and the severity of this travail. And if
+it be true that the result of what may be called his scientific analysis
+of nature in respect of suffering is to have shown the law of suffering
+even more severe, more ubiquitous, and more necessary than it had ever
+been shown before, we must remember at the same time how he has proved,
+more rigidly than was ever proved before, that suffering is a condition
+to improvement&mdash;struggle for life being the <i>raison
+d&rsquo;&ecirc;tre</i> of higher life, and this not only in the physical
+sphere, but also in the mental and moral.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, if it be said that the <i>choice</i> of such a method, whereby
+improvement is only secured at the cost of suffering, indicates a kind
+of callousness on the part of an intelligent Being supposed to be
+omnipotent, I confess that such does appear to me a legitimate
+conclusion&mdash;subject, however, to the reservation that higher knowledge
+might displace it. For, as far as matters are now actually presented to
+the unbiased contemplation of a human mind, this provisional <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_416" id="page_416">[416]</a></span>
+inference appears to me unavoidable&mdash;namely, that if the world of
+sentient life be due to an Omnipotent Designer, the aim or motive of the
+design must have been that of securing a continuous advance of animal
+improvement, without any regard at all to animal suffering. For I own it
+does not seem to me compatible with a fair and honest exercise of our
+reason to set the sum of animal happiness over against the sum of animal
+misery, and then to allege that, in so far as the former tends to
+balance&mdash;or to over-balance&mdash;the latter, thus far is the moral
+character of the design as a whole vindicated. Even if it could be shown
+that the sum of happiness in the brute creation considerably
+preponderates over that of unhappiness&mdash;which is the customary
+argument of theistic apologists,&mdash;we should still remain without
+evidence as to this state of matters having formed any essential part of
+the design. On the other hand, we should still be in possession of
+seemingly good evidence to the contrary. For it is clearly a condition
+to progress by survival of the fittest, that as soon as organisms become
+sentient selection must be exercised with reference to sentiency; and
+this means that, if further progress is to take place, states of
+sentiency <i>must</i> become so organized with reference to habitual
+experience of the race, that pleasures and pains shall answer
+respectively to states of agreement and disagreement with the sentient
+creature&rsquo;s environment. Those animals which found pleasure in what
+was deleterious to life would not survive, while those which found
+pleasure in what was beneficial to life would survive; and so
+eventually, in every species of animal, states of sentiency as agreeable
+or disagreeable must approximately correspond with what is good for
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_417" id="page_417">[417]</a></span>
+the species or bad for the species. Indeed, we may legitimately surmise
+that the reason why sentiency (and, <i>a fortiori</i>, conscious volition)
+has ever appeared upon the scene at all, has been because it
+furnishes&mdash;through this continuously selected adjustment of states
+of sentiency to states of the sentient organism&mdash;so admirable a
+means of securing rapid, and often refined, adjustments by the organism
+to the habitual conditions of its life<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a>.
+But, if so, not only is this state of matters a <i>condition</i> to progress
+in the future; it is further, and equally, a <i>consequence</i> of progress
+in the past.</p>
+
+<p>However, be this as it may, from all that has gone before does it not
+become apparent that pleasure or happiness on the one hand, and pain or
+misery on the other, must be present in sentient nature? And so long as
+they are both seen to be equally necessary under the process of
+evolution by natural selection, we have clearly no more reason to regard
+the pleasure than the pain as an object of the supposed design. Rather
+must we see in both one and the same condition to progress under the
+method of natural causation which is before us; and therefore I cannot
+perceive that it makes much difference&mdash;so far as the argument for
+beneficence is concerned&mdash;whether the pleasures of animals outweigh
+their pains, or <i>vice vers&acirc;</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Upon the whole, then, it seems to me that such evidence as we have is
+against rather than in favour of the inference, that if design be
+operative in animate nature it has reference to animal enjoyment or
+well-being, as distinguished from animal improvement or evolution. And
+if this result should be found distasteful <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_418" id="page_418">[418]</a></span>
+to the religious mind&mdash;if it be felt that there is no desire to
+save the evidences of design unless they serve at the same time to
+testify to the nature of that design as beneficent,&mdash;I must once
+more observe that the difficulty thus presented to theism is not a
+difficulty of modern creation. On the contrary, it has always
+constituted the fundamental difficulty with which natural theologians
+have had to contend. The external world appears, in this respect, to be
+at variance with our moral sense; and when the antagonism is brought
+home to the religious mind, it must ever be with a shock of terrified
+surprise. It has been newly brought home to us by the generalizations of
+Darwin; and therefore, as I said at the beginning, the religious thought
+of our generation has been more than ever staggered by the
+question&mdash;Where is now thy God? But I have endeavoured to show that
+the logical standing of the case has not been materially changed; and
+when this cry of Reason pierces the heart of Faith, it remains for Faith
+to answer now, as she has always answered before&mdash;and answered with
+that trust which is at once her beauty and her life&mdash;Verily thou
+art a God that hidest thyself.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_419" id="page_419">[419]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_AND_NOTES" id="APPENDIX_AND_NOTES"></a><i>APPENDIX AND NOTES</i></h2>
+
+<hr class='minor' /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_421" id="page_421">[421]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="APPENDIX_TO_CHAPTER_V" id="APPENDIX_TO_CHAPTER_V"></a>APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V.</h2>
+
+<h3 class="sc">On Objections which have been brought against the Theory of Organic
+Evolution on grounds of Pal&aelig;ontology.</h3>
+
+<p>While stating in the text, and in a necessarily general way, the
+evidence which is yielded by pal&aelig;ontology to the theory of organic
+evolution, I have been desirous of not overstating it. Therefore, in the
+earlier paragraphs of the chapter, which deal with the most general
+heads of such evidence, I introduced certain qualifying phrases; and I
+will now give the reasons which led me to do so.</p>
+
+<p>Of all the five biological sciences which have been called into
+evidence&mdash;viz. those of Classification, Morphology, Embryology,
+Pal&aelig;ontology, and Geographical Distribution&mdash;it is in the case of
+pal&aelig;ontology alone that any important or professional opinions still
+continue to be unsatisfied. Therefore, in order that justice may be done
+to this line of dissent, I have thought it better to deal with the
+matter in a separate Appendix, rather than to hurry it over in the text.
+And, as all the difficulties or objections which have been advanced
+against the theory of evolution on grounds of pal&aelig;ontology must vary, as
+to their strength, with the estimate which is taken touching the degree
+of imperfection of the geological record, I will begin by adding a few
+paragraphs to what has already been said in the text upon this subject.</p>
+
+<p>First, then, as to the difficulties in the way of fossils being
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_422" id="page_422">[422]</a></span>
+formed at all. We have already noticed in the text that it is only the
+more or less hard parts of organisms which under any circumstances can
+be fossilized; and even the hardest parts quickly disintegrate if not
+protected from the weather on land, or from the water on the sea-bottom.
+Moreover, as Darwin says, &ldquo;we probably take a quite erroneous view
+when we assume that sediment is being deposited over nearly the whole
+bed of the sea, at a rate sufficiently quick to embed and preserve
+fossil remains. Throughout an enormously large proportion of the ocean,
+the bright blue tint of the water bespeaks its purity. The many cases on
+record of a formation conformably covered, after an immense interval of
+time, by another and a later formation, without the underlying bed
+having suffered in the interval any wear and tear, seem explicable only
+on the view of the bottom of the sea not rarely lying for ages in an
+unaltered condition.&rdquo; Next, as regards littoral animals, he shows
+the difficulty which they must have in becoming fossils, and gives a
+striking example in several of the existing species of a sub-family of
+cirripedes (<span class='sn'>Chthamalin&aelig;</span>), &ldquo;which coat the rocks all over the
+world in infinite numbers,&rdquo; yet, with the exception of one species
+which inhabits deep water, no vestige of any of them has been found in
+any tertiary formation, although it is known that the genus <span class='sn'>Chthamalus</span>
+existed through the Chalk period. Lastly, &ldquo;with respect to the
+terrestrial productions which lived through the secondary and
+pal&aelig;ozoic periods, it is superfluous to state our evidence is
+fragmentary in an extreme degree. For instance, until recently not a
+land shell was known belonging to either of these vast periods,&rdquo;
+with one exception; while, &ldquo;in regard to mammiferous remains, a
+glance at the historical table in Lyell&rsquo;s Manual will bring home
+the truth, how accidental and rare has been their preservation, far
+better than pages of detail. Nor is their rarity surprising, when we
+remember how large a proportion of the bones of tertiary mammals have
+been discovered either <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_423" id="page_423">[423]</a></span>
+in caves or in lacustrine deposits; and that not a cave or true
+lacustrine bed is known belonging to the age of our secondary or
+pal&aelig;ozoic formations.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>But perhaps of even more importance than all these known causes which
+prevent the formation of fossils, is the existence of unknown causes
+which make for the same result. For example, the Flysch-formation is a
+formation of several thousand feet in thickness (as much as 6000 in some
+places), and it extends for at least 300 miles from Vienna to
+Switzerland; moreover, it consists of shale and sandstone. Therefore,
+alike in respect of time, space, and character, it is just such a
+formation as we should expect to find highly rich in fossils; yet,
+&ldquo;although this great mass has been most carefully searched, no
+fossils, except a few vegetable remains, have been found.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>So much then for the difficulty, so to speak, which nature experiences
+in the manufacture of fossils. Probably not one per cent. of the species
+of animals which have inhabited the earth has left a single individual
+as a fossil, whereby to record its past existence.</p>
+
+<p>But of even more importance than this difficulty of making fossils in
+the first instance, is the difficulty of preserving them when they are
+made. The vast majority of fossils have been formed under water, and a
+large proportional number of these&mdash;whether the animals were marine,
+terrestrial, or inhabitants of fresh water&mdash;have been formed in
+sedimentary deposits either of sand, gravel, or other porous material.
+Now, where such deposits have been afterwards raised into the air for
+any considerable time&mdash;and this has been more or less the case with all
+deposits which are available for exploration&mdash;their fossiliferous
+contents will have been, as a general rule, dissolved by the percolation
+of rain-water charged with carbonic acid. Similarly, sea-water has
+recently been found to be a surprisingly strong solvent of calcareous
+material: hence, Saturn-like, the ocean devours her own progeny
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_424" id="page_424">[424]</a></span>
+as far as shells and bones of all kinds are concerned&mdash;and this to
+an extent of which we have probably no adequate conception.</p>
+
+<p>Of still greater destructive influence, however, than these solvent
+agencies in earth and sea, are the erosive agencies of both. Any one who
+watches the pounding of the waves upon the shore; who then observes the
+effect of it upon the rocks broken into shingle, and on the shingle
+reduced to sand; who, looking behind him at the cliffs, sees there the
+evidence of the gradual advance of this all-pulverising power&mdash;an
+advance so gradual that no yard of it is accomplished until within that
+yard the &ldquo;white teeth&rdquo; have eaten well into the
+&ldquo;bowels of the earth"; who then reflects that this process is
+going on simultaneously over hundreds of thousands of miles of
+coast-lines throughout the world; and who finally extends his mental
+vision from space to time, by trying dimly to imagine what this
+ever-roaring monster must have consumed during the hundreds of millions
+of years that slowly rising and slowly sinking continents have exposed
+their whole areas to her jaws; whoever thus observes and thus reflects
+must be a dull man, if he does not begin to feel that in the presence of
+such a destroyer as this we have no reason to wonder at a frequent
+silence in the testimony of the rocks.</p>
+
+<p>But although the erosive agency of the sea is thus so inconceivably
+great, it is positively small if compared with erosive agencies on land.
+The constant action of rain, wind, and running water, in wearing down
+the surfaces of all lands into &ldquo;the dust of continents to be"; the
+disintegrating effects on all but the very hardest rocks of winter
+frosts alternating with summer heats; the grinding power of ice in
+periods of glaciation; and last, but not least, the wholesale melting up
+of sedimentary formations whenever these have sunk for any considerable
+distance beneath the earth&rsquo;s surface:&mdash;all these agencies taken
+together constitute so prodigious a sum of energies combined through
+immeasureable <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_425" id="page_425">[425]</a></span>
+ages in their common work of destruction, that when we try to realise
+what it must amount to, we can scarcely fail to wonder, not that the
+geological record is highly imperfect, but that so much of the record
+has survived as we find to have been the case. And, if we add to these
+erosive and solvent agencies on land the erosive and solvent agencies of
+the sea, we may almost begin to wonder that anything deserving the name
+of a geological record is in existence at all.</p>
+
+<p>That such estimates of the destructive powers of nature are not mere
+matters of speculative reasoning may be amply shown by stating one
+single fact, which, like so many others where the present subject is
+concerned, we owe to the generalizations of Darwin. Plutonic rocks,
+being those which have emerged from subterranean heat of melting
+intensity, must clearly at some time or another have lain beneath the
+whole thickness of sedimentary deposits, which at that time occupied any
+part of the earth&rsquo;s surface where we now find the Plutonic rocks
+exposed to view. Or, in other words, wherever we now find Plutonic rocks
+at the surface of the earth, we must conclude that all the sedimentary
+rocks by which they were covered when in a molten state have since been
+entirely destroyed; several vertical miles of the only kinds of rocks in
+which fossils can possibly occur must in all such cases have been
+abolished <i>in toto</i>. Now, in many parts of the world metamorphic
+rocks&mdash;which have thus gradually risen from Plutonic depths, while miles
+of various other rock-formations have been removed from their now
+exposed surfaces&mdash;cover immense areas, and therefore testify by their
+present horizontal range, no less than by their previously vertical
+depth, to the enormous scale on which a total destruction has taken
+place of everything that once lay above them. For instance, the granitic
+region of Parime is at least nineteen times the size of Switzerland; a
+similar region south of the Amazon is probably larger than France,
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_426" id="page_426">[426]</a></span>
+Spain, Italy, and Great Britain all put together; and, more remarkable
+still, over the area of the United States and Canada, granitic rocks
+exceed in the proportion of 19 to 12&frac12; the whole of the newer
+Pal&aelig;ozoic formations. Lastly, after giving these examples, Darwin adds
+the important consideration, that &ldquo;in many regions the metamorphic
+and granitic rocks would be found much more widely extended than they
+appear to be, if all the sedimentary beds were removed which rest
+unconformably on them, and which could not have formed part of the
+original mantle under which they were crystallized.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>The above is a brief condensation of the already condensed statement
+which Darwin has given of the imperfection of the geological record; but
+I think it is enough to show, in a general way, how precarious must be
+the nature of any objections to the theory of evolution which are
+founded merely upon the silence of pal&aelig;ontology in cases where, if the
+record were anything like complete, we should be entitled to expect from
+it some positive information. But, as we have seen in the text,
+imperfect though the record be, in as far as it furnishes positive
+information at all, this is well-nigh uniformly in favour of the theory;
+and therefore, even on grounds of pal&aelig;ontology alone, it appears to me
+that Darwin is much too liberal where he concludes his discussion by
+saying,&mdash;"Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree
+perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject the theory.&rdquo; If in any
+measure reasonable, such persons ought rather to examine their title to
+such a belief; and even if they disregard the consensus of testimony
+which is yielded by all the biological sciences to the theory of
+evolution, they ought at least to hold their judgment in suspense until
+they shall have not only set against the apparently negative testimony
+which is yielded by geology its unquestionably positive testimony, but
+also well considered the causes which may&mdash;or rather must&mdash;have so
+gravely impaired the geological record.</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="page_427" id="page_427">[427]</a></span>
+However, be this as it may, I will now pass on to consider the
+difficulties and objections which have been brought against the theory
+on grounds of pal&aelig;ontology.</p>
+
+<p>These may be classified under four heads. First, the absence of varietal
+links between allied species; second, the sudden appearance of whole
+groups of species&mdash;not only as genera and families, but even sometimes
+as orders and classes&mdash;without any forms leading up to them; third, the
+occurrence of highly organized types at much lower levels of geological
+strata than an evolutionist would antecedently expect; and, fourth, the
+absence of fossils of any kind lower down than the Cambrian strata.</p>
+
+<p>Now all these objections depend on estimates of the imperfection of the
+geological record much lower than that which is formed by Darwin.
+Therefore I have arranged the objections in their order of difficulty in
+this respect, or in the order that requires successively increasing
+estimates of the imperfection of the record, if they are to be
+successively answered.</p>
+
+<p>I think that the first of them has been already answered in the text, by
+showing that even a very moderate estimate of the imperfection of the
+record is enough to explain why intermediate <i>varieties</i>, connecting
+allied <i>species</i>, are but comparatively seldom met with. Moreover it was
+shown that in some cases, where shells are concerned, remarkably
+well-connected series of such varieties have been met with. And the same
+applies to species and genera in certain other cases, as in the equine
+family.</p>
+
+<p>But no doubt a greater difficulty arises where whole groups of species
+and genera, or even families and orders, appear to arise suddenly,
+without anything leading up to them. Even this the second difficulty,
+however, admits of being fully met, when we remember that in very many
+cases it has been proved, quite apart from the theory of descent, that
+superjacent formations have been separated from one another by
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_428" id="page_428">[428]</a></span>
+wide intervals of time. And even although it often happens that
+intermediate deposits which are absent in one part of the world are
+present in another, we have no right to assume that such is always the
+case. Besides, even if it were, we should have no right further to
+assume that the faunas of widely separated geographical areas were
+identical during the time represented by the intermediate formation.
+Yet, unless they were identical, we should not expect the fossils of the
+intermediate formation, where extant, to yield evidence of what the
+fossils would have been in this same formation elsewhere, had it not
+been there destroyed. Now, as a matter of fact, &ldquo;geological
+formations of each region are almost invariably intermittent"; and
+although in many cases a more or less continuous record of past forms of
+life can be obtained by comparing the fossils of one region and
+formation with those of another region and adjacent formations, it is
+evident (from what we know of the present geographical distribution of
+plants and animals) that not a few cases there must have been where the
+interruption of the record in one region cannot be made good by thus
+interpolating the fossils of another region. And we must remember it is
+by selecting the cases where this cannot be done that the objection
+before us is made to appear formidable. In other words, <i>unless</i> whole
+groups of new species which are unknown in formation A appear suddenly
+in formation C of one region (X), where the intermediate formation B is
+absent; and <i>unless</i> in some other region (Y), where B is present, the
+fossiliferous contents of B fail to supply the fossil ancestry of the
+new species in A (X); <i>unless</i> such a state of matters is found to
+obtain, the objection before us has nothing to say. But at best this is
+negative evidence; and, in order to consider it fairly, we ought to set
+against it the cases where an interposition of fossils found in B (Y)
+<i>does</i> furnish the fossil ancestry of what would <i>otherwise</i> have been
+an abrupt appearance of whole groups of new species in A (X). Now such
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_429" id="page_429">[429]</a></span>
+cases are neither few nor unimportant, and therefore they deprive the
+objection of the force it would have had if the selected cases to the
+contrary were the general rule.</p>
+
+<p>In addition to these considerations, the following, some of which are of
+a more special kind, appear to me so important that I will quote them
+almost <i>in extenso</i>.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the
+area over which our geological formations have been carefully
+examined: we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long
+existed, and have slowly multiplied, before they invaded the
+ancient archipelagoes of Europe and the United States. We do not
+make due allowance for the intervals of time which have elapsed
+between our consecutive formations,&mdash;longer perhaps in many cases
+than the time required for the accumulation of each formation.
+These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of
+species from some one parent form; and, in the succeeding
+formation, such groups of species will appear as if suddenly
+created.</p>
+
+<p>I may here recall a remark formerly made, namely, that it might
+require a long succession of ages, to adapt an organism to some new
+and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air;
+and consequently that the transitional form would often long remain
+confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had
+once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great
+advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be
+necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread
+rapidly and widely throughout the world....</p>
+
+<p>In geological treatises, published not many years ago, mammals were
+always spoken of as having abruptly come in at the commencement of
+the tertiary series. And now one of the richest known accumulations
+of fossil mammals belongs to the middle of the secondary series;
+and true mammals have been discovered in the new red sandstone at
+nearly the commencement of this great series. Cuvier used to urge
+that no monkey occurred in any tertiary stratum; but now extinct
+species have been discovered in India, South America, and in Europe
+as far <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_430" id="page_430">[430]</a></span>
+back as the miocene stage. Had it not been for the rare accident of the
+preservation of footsteps in the new red sandstone of the United States,
+who would have ventured to suppose that, no less than at least thirty
+kinds of bird-like animals, some of gigantic size, existed during that
+period? Not a fragment of bone has been discovered in these beds. Not
+long ago pal&aelig;ontologists maintained that the whole class of birds
+came suddenly into existence during the eocene period; but now we know,
+on the authority of Professor Owen, that a bird certainly lived during
+the deposition of the upper green-sand. And still more recently that
+strange bird, the Archeopteryx ... has been discovered in the oolitic
+slates of Solenhofen. Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly
+than this, how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the
+world.</p>
+
+<p>I may give another instance, which, from having passed under my own
+eyes, has much struck me. In a memoir on Fossil Sessile Cirripedes,
+I stated that, from the number of existing and extinct tertiary
+species; from the extraordinary abundance of the individuals of
+many species all over the world from the Arctic regions to the
+equator, inhabiting various zones of depths from the upper tidal
+limits to 50 fathoms; from the perfect manner in which specimens
+are preserved in the oldest tertiary beds; from the ease with which
+even a fragment of a valve can be recognized; from all these
+circumstances, I inferred that had sessile cirripedes existed
+during the secondary periods, they would certainly have been
+preserved and discovered; and as not one species had then been
+discovered in beds of this age, I concluded that this great group
+had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary
+series. This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more
+instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. But
+my work had hardly been published, when a skilful pal&aelig;ontologist,
+M. Bosquet, sent me a drawing of a perfect specimen of an
+unmistakeable sessile cirripede, which he had himself extracted
+from the chalk of Belgium. And, as if to make the case as striking
+as possible, this sessile cirripede was a Chthamalus, a very
+common, large, and ubiquitous genus, of which not one specimen has
+as yet been found even in any tertiary stratum. Still more
+recently, a Pyrgoma, a member of a distinct sub-family <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_431" id="page_431">[431]</a></span>
+of sessile cirripedes, has been discovered by Mr. Woodward in the upper
+chalk; so that we now have abundant evidence of the existence of this
+group of animals during the secondary period.</p>
+
+<p>The case most frequently insisted on by pal&aelig;ontologists of the
+apparently sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that
+of the teleostean fishes, low down, according to Agassiz, in the
+Chalk period. This group includes the large majority of existing
+species. But certain Jurassic and Triassic forms are now commonly
+admitted to be teleostean; and even some pal&aelig;ozoic forms have been
+thus classed by one high authority. If the teleosteans had really
+appeared suddenly in the northern hemisphere, the fact would have
+been highly remarkable; but it would not have formed an insuperable
+difficulty, unless it could likewise have been shown that at the
+same period the species were suddenly and simultaneously developed
+in other quarters of the world. It is almost superfluous to remark
+that hardly any fossil fish are known from south of the equator;
+and by running through Pictet&rsquo;s Pal&aelig;ontology it will be seen
+that very few species are known from several formations in Europe.
+Some few families of fish now have a confined range; the teleostean
+fish might formerly have had a similarly confined range, and after
+having been largely developed in some one sea, might have spread
+widely. Nor have we any right to suppose that the seas of the world
+have always been so freely open from south to north as they are at
+present. Even at this day, if the Malay Archipelago were converted
+into land, the tropical parts of the Indian Ocean would form a
+large and perfectly enclosed basin, in which any great group of
+marine animals might be multiplied; and here they would remain
+confined, until some of the species became adapted to a cooler
+climate, and were enabled to double the southern capes of Africa or
+Australia, and thus reach other and distant seas.</p>
+
+<p>From these considerations, from our ignorance of the geology of
+other countries beyond the confines of Europe and the United
+States; and from the revolution in our pal&aelig;ontological knowledge
+effected by the discoveries of the last dozen years, it seems to me
+to be about as rash to dogmatize on the succession of organic
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_432" id="page_432">[432]</a></span>
+forms throughout the world, as it would be for a naturalist to land for
+five minutes on some one barren point in Australia, and then to discuss
+the number and range of its productions<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>In view of all the foregoing facts and considerations, it appears to me
+that the second difficulty on our list is completely answered. Indeed,
+even on a moderate estimate of the imperfection of the geological
+record, the wonder would have been if many cases had <i>not</i> occurred
+where groups of species present the fictitious appearance of having been
+suddenly and simultaneously created in the particular formations where
+their remains now happen to be observable.</p>
+
+<p>Turning next to the third objection, there cannot be any question that
+every here and there in the geological series animals occur of a much
+higher grade zoologically than the theory of evolution would have
+expected to find in the strata where they are found. At any rate,
+speaking for myself, I should not have antecedently expected to meet
+with such highly differentiated insects as butterflies and dragonflies
+in the middle of the Secondaries: still less should I have expected to
+encounter beetles, cockroaches, spiders, and May-flies in the upper and
+middle Primaries&mdash;not to mention an insect and a scorpion even in the
+lower. And I think the same remark applies to a whole sub-kingdom in the
+case of Vertebrata. For although it is only the lowest class of the
+sub-kingdom which, so far as we positively know, was represented in the
+Devonian and Silurian formations, we must remember, on the one hand,
+that even a cartilaginous or ganoid fish belongs to the highest
+sub-kingdom of the animal series; and, on the other hand, that such
+animals are thus proved to have abounded in the very lowest strata where
+there is good evidence of there having been any forms of life at all.
+Lastly, the fact that Marsupials occur in the Trias, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_433" id="page_433">[433]</a></span>
+coupled with the fact that the still existing Monotremata are what may
+be termed animated fossils, referring us by their lowly type of
+organization to some period enormously more remote,&mdash;these facts
+render it practically certain that some members of this very highest
+class of the highest sub-kingdom must have existed far back in the
+Primaries.</p>
+
+<p>These things, I say, I should not have expected to find, and I think all
+other evolutionists ought to be prepared to make the same
+acknowledgment. But as these things have been found, the only possible
+way of accounting for them on evolutionary principles is by supposing
+that the geological record is even more imperfect than we needed to
+suppose in order to meet the previous objections. I cannot see, however,
+why evolutionists should be afraid to make this acknowledgment. For I do
+not know any reason which would lead us to suppose that there is any
+common measure between the distances marked on our tables of geological
+formations, and the times which those distances severally represent. Let
+the reader turn to the table on page <a href="#page_163">163</a>, and then
+let him say why the 30,000 feet of so-called Azoic rocks may not
+represent a greater duration of time than does the thickness of all the
+Primary rocks above them put together. For my own part I believe that
+this is probably the case, looking to the enormous ages during which
+these very early formations must have been exposed to destructive
+agencies of all kinds, now at one time and now at another, in different
+parts of the world. And, of course, we are without any means of
+surmising what ranges of time are represented by the so-called Primeval
+rocks, for the simple reason that they are non-sedimentary, and
+non-sedimentary rocks cannot be expected to contain fossils.</p>
+
+<p>But, it will be answered, the 30,000 feet of Azoic rocks, lying above
+the Primeval, <i>are</i> sedimentary to some extent: they are not all
+completely metamorphic: yet they are all destitute of fossils. This is
+the fourth and last difficulty <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_434" id="page_434">[434]</a></span>
+which has to be met, and it can only be met by the considerations which
+have been advanced by Lyell and Darwin. The former says:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>The total absence of any trace of fossils has inclined many
+geologists to attribute the origin of the most ancient strata to an
+azoic period, or one antecedent to the existence of organic beings.
+Admitting, they say, the obliteration, in some cases, of fossils by
+plutonic action, we might still expect that traces of them would
+oftener be found in certain ancient systems of slate, which can
+scarcely be said to have assumed a crystalline structure. But in
+urging this argument it seems to be forgotten that there are
+stratified formations of enormous thickness, and of various ages,
+some of them even of tertiary date, and which we know were formed
+after the earth had become the abode of living creatures, which
+are, nevertheless, in some districts, entirely destitute of all
+vestiges of organic bodies<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>He then proceeds to mention sundry causes (in addition to plutonic
+action) which are adequate to destroy the fossiliferous contents of
+stratified rocks, and to show that these may well have produced enormous
+destruction of organic remains in these oldest of known formations.</p>
+
+<p>Darwin&rsquo;s view is that, during the vast ages of time now under
+consideration, it is probable that the distribution of sea and land over
+the earth&rsquo;s surface has not been uniformly the same, even as
+regards oceans and continents. Now, if this were the case, &ldquo;it
+might well happen that strata which had subsided some miles nearer to
+the centre of the earth, and which had been pressed on by an enormous
+weight of superincumbent water, might have undergone far more
+metamorphic action than strata which have always remained nearer to the
+surface. The immense areas in some parts of the world, for instance in
+South America, of naked metamorphic rocks, which must have been heated
+under great pressure, have always seemed to me to require <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_435" id="page_435">[435]</a></span>
+some special explanation; and we may perhaps believe that we see, in
+these large areas, the many formations long anterior to the Cambrian
+epoch in a completely metamorphosed and denuded condition<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a>.&rdquo;
+The probability of this view he sustains by certain general
+considerations, as well as particular facts touching the geology of
+oceanic islands, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole, then, it seems to me but reasonable to conclude, with
+regard to all four objections in question, as Darwin concludes with
+regard to them:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>For my part, following out Lyell&rsquo;s metaphor, I look at the
+geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept,
+written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last
+volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this
+volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and
+of each page only here and there a few lines. Each word of the
+slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive
+chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in
+our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to us to have
+been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above
+discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>As far as I can see, the only reasonable exception that can be taken to
+this general view of the whole matter, is one which has been taken from
+the side of astronomical physics.</p>
+
+<p>Put briefly, it is alleged by one of the highest authorities in this
+branch of science, that there cannot have been any such enormous reaches
+of unrecorded time as would be implied by the supposition of there
+having been a lost history of organic evolution before the Cambrian
+period. The grounds of this allegation I am not qualified to examine;
+but in a general way I agree with Prof. Huxley in feeling that, from the
+very nature of the case, they are necessarily <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_436" id="page_436">[436]</a></span>
+precarious,&mdash;and this in so high a degree that any conclusions
+raised on such premises are not entitled to be deemed formidable<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr class='minor' />
+
+<p>Turning now to plants, the principal and the ablest opponent of the
+theory of evolution is here unquestionably Mr. Carruthers<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>.
+The difficulties which he adduces may be classified under three heads,
+as follows:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1. There is no evidence of change in specific forms of existing plants.
+Not only are the numerous species of plants which have been found in
+Egyptian mummies indistinguishable from their successors of to-day; but,
+what is of far more importance, a large number of our own indigenous
+plants grew in Great Britain during the glacial period (including under
+this term the warm periods between those of successive glaciations), and
+in no one case does it appear that any modification of specific type has
+occurred. This fact is particularly remarkable as regards leaves,
+because on the one hand they are the organs of plants which are most
+prone to vary, while on the other hand they are likewise the organs
+which lend themselves most perfectly to the process of fossilization, so
+that all details of their structure can be minutely observed in the
+fossil state. Yet the interval since the glacial period, although not a
+long one geologically speaking, is certainly what may be called an
+appreciable portion of time in the history of Dicotyledonous plants
+since their first appearance in the Cretaceous epoch. Again, if we
+extend this kind of enquiry so as to include the world as a whole, a
+number of other species of plants dating from the glacial epoch are
+found to tell the same story&mdash;notwithstanding that, in the opinion of
+Mr. Carruthers, they must all have undergone many changes of environment
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_437" id="page_437">[437]</a></span>
+while advancing before, and retreating after, successive glaciations in
+different parts of the globe. Or, to quote his own words:&mdash;"The
+various physical conditions which of necessity affected these {41}
+species in their diffusion over such large areas of the earth&rsquo;s
+surface in the course of, say, 250,000 years, should have led to the
+production of many varieties; but the uniform testimony of the remains
+of this considerable pre-glacial flora, as far as the materials admit of
+a comparison, is that no appreciable change has taken place.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>2. There is no appearance of generalized forms among the earliest plants
+with which we are acquainted. For example, in the first dry land
+flora&mdash;the Devonian&mdash;we have representatives of the <span class='sn'>Filices</span>,
+<span class='sn'>Equisetace&aelig;</span>, and <span class='sn'>Lycopodiace&aelig;</span>,
+all as highly specialized as their living representatives, and
+exhibiting the differential characters of these closely related groups.
+Moreover, these plants were even more highly organized than their
+existing descendants in regard to their vegetative structure, and in
+some cases also in regard to their reproductive organs. So likewise the
+Gymnosperms of that time show in their fossil state the same highly
+organized woody structure as their living representatives.</p>
+
+<p>3. Similarly, and more generally, the Dicotyledonous plants, which first
+appear in the Cretaceous rocks, appear there suddenly, without any forms
+leading up to them&mdash;notwithstanding that &ldquo;we know very well the
+extensive flora of the underlying Wealden.&rdquo; Moreover, we have all
+the three great divisions of the Dicotyledons appearing together, and so
+highly differentiated that all the species are referred to existing
+genera, with the exception of a very few imperfectly preserved, and
+therefore uncertain fragments.</p>
+
+<p>Such being the facts, we may begin by noticing that, even at first
+sight, they present different degrees of difficulty. Thus, I cannot see
+that there is much difficulty with regard to those in class 2. Only if
+we were to take the <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_438" id="page_438">[438]</a></span>
+popular (and very erroneous) view of organic evolution as a process
+which is always and everywhere bound to promote the specialization of
+organic types&mdash;only then ought we to see any real difficulty in the
+absence of generalized types preceding these existing types. Of course
+we may wonder why still lower down in the geological series we do not
+meet with more generalized (or ancestral) types; but this is the
+difficulty number 3, which we now proceed to examine.</p>
+
+<p>Concerning the other two difficulties, then, the only possible way of
+meeting that as to the absence of any parent forms lower down in the
+geological series is by falling back&mdash;as in the analogous case of
+animals&mdash;upon the imperfection of the geological record. Although it is
+certainly remarkable that we should not encounter any forms serving to
+connect the Dicotyledonous plants of the Chalk with the lower forms of
+the underlying Wealden, we must again remember that difficulties thus
+depending on the absence of any corroborative record, are by no means
+equivalent to what would have arisen in the presence of an adverse
+record&mdash;such, for instance, as would have been exhibited had the floras
+of the Wealden and the Chalk been inverted. But, as the case actually
+stands, the mere fact that Dicotyledonous plants, where they first
+occur, are found to have been already differentiated into their three
+main divisions, is in itself sufficient evidence, on the general theory
+of evolution, that there must be a break in the record as hitherto known
+between the Wealden and the Chalk. Nor is it easy to see how the
+opponents of this theory can prove their negative by furnishing evidence
+to the contrary. And although such might justly be deemed an unfair way
+of putting the matter, were this the only case where the geological
+record is in evidence, it is not so when we remember that there are
+numberless other cases where the geological record does testify to
+connecting links in a most satisfactory manner. For in view of this
+consideration <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_439" id="page_439">[439]</a></span>
+the burden of proof is thrown upon those who point to particular cases
+where there is thus a conspicuous absence of transitional
+forms&mdash;the burden, namely, of proving that such cases are not due
+merely to a break in the record. Besides, the break in the record as
+regards this particular case may be apparent rather than real. For I
+suppose there is no greater authority on the pure geology of the subject
+than Sir Charles Lyell, and this is what he says of the particular case
+in question. &ldquo;If the passage seem at present to be somewhat sudden
+from the flora of the Lower or Neocomian to that of the Upper Cretaceous
+period, the abruptness of the change will probably disappear when we are
+better acquainted with the fossil vegetation of the uppermost tracts of
+the Neocomian and that of the lowest strata of the Gault, or true
+Cretaceous series<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, the fact of the flora of the glacial epoch not having exhibited
+any modifications during the long residence of some of its specific
+types in Great Britain and elsewhere, is a fact of some importance to
+the general theory of evolution, since it shows a higher degree of
+stability on the part of these specific types than might perhaps have
+been expected, supposing the theory to be true. But I do not see that
+this constitutes a difficulty against the theory, when we have so many
+other cases of proved transmutation to set against it. For instance, not
+to go further afield than this very glacial flora itself, it will be
+remembered that in an earlier chapter I selected it as furnishing
+specially cogent proof of the transmutation of species. What, then, is
+the explanation of so extraordinary a difference between Mr.
+Carruthers&rsquo; views and my own upon this point? I believe the
+explanation to be that he does not take a sufficiently wide survey of
+the facts.</p>
+
+<p>To begin with, it seems to me that he exaggerates the vicissitudes to
+which the species of plants that he calls into <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_440" id="page_440">[440]</a></span>
+evidence have been exposed while advancing before, and retreating
+after, the ice. Rather do I agree with Darwin that &ldquo;they would not
+have been exposed during their long migrations to any great diversity of
+temperature; and as they all migrated in a body together, their mutual
+relations will not have been much disturbed; hence, in accordance with
+the principles indicated in this volume, these forms will not have been
+liable to much modification<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>.&rdquo;
+But, be this matter of opinion as it may, a much better test is afforded
+by those numerous cases all the world over, where arctic species have
+been left stranded on alpine areas by the retreat of glaciation; because
+here there is no room for differences of opinion as to a &ldquo;change
+of environment&rdquo; having taken place. Not to speak of climatic
+differences between arctic and alpine stations, consider merely the
+changes which must have taken place in the relations of the thus
+isolated species to each other, as well as to those of all the foreign
+plants, insects, &amp;c., with which they have long been thrown into
+close association. If in <i>such</i> cases no variation or transmutation had
+taken place since the glacial epoch, then indeed there would have been a
+difficulty of some magnitude. But, by parity of reasoning, whatever
+degree of difficulty would have been thus presented is not merely
+discharged, but converted into at least an equal degree of
+corroboration, when it is found that under such circumstances, in
+whatever part of the world they have occurred, some considerable amount
+of variation and transmutation has always taken place,&mdash;and this in
+the animals as well as in the plants. For instance, again to quote
+Darwin, &ldquo;If we compare the present Alpine plants and animals of
+the several great European mountain-ranges one with another, though many
+of the species remain identically the same, some exist as varieties,
+some as doubtful forms or sub-species, and some as distinct yet closely
+allied species representing each other on <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_441" id="page_441">[441]</a></span>
+the several ranges<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>.&rdquo;
+Lastly, if instead of considering the case of alpine floras, we take the
+much larger case of the Old and New World as a whole, we meet with much
+larger proofs of the same general facts. For, &ldquo;during the slowly
+decreasing warmth of the Pliocene period, as soon as the species in
+common, which inhabited the New and Old Worlds, migrated south of the
+Polar Circle, they will have been completely cut off from each other.
+This separation, as far as the more temperate productions are concerned,
+must have taken place long ages ago. As the plants and animals migrated
+southward, they will have become mingled in one great region with the
+native American productions, and would have had to compete with them;
+and, in the other great region, with those of the Old World.
+Consequently we have here everything favourable for much
+modification,&mdash;for far more modification than with the Alpine
+productions left isolated, within a much more recent period, on the
+several mountain ranges and on the arctic lands of Europe and N.
+America. Hence it has come, that when we compare the now living
+productions of the temperate regions of the New and Old Worlds, we find
+very few identical species; but we find in every class many forms, which
+some naturalists rank as geographical races, and others as distinct
+species; and a host of closely allied or representative forms which are
+ranked by all naturalists as specifically distinct<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>In view then of all the above considerations&mdash;and especially those
+quoted from Darwin&mdash;it appears to me that far from raising any
+difficulty against the theory of evolution, the facts adduced by Mr.
+Carruthers make in favour of it. For when once these facts are taken in
+connection with the others above mentioned, they serve to complete the
+correspondence between degrees of modification with degrees <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_442" id="page_442">[442]</a></span>
+of time on the one hand, and with degrees of evolution, of change of
+environment, &amp;c., on the other. Or, in the words of Le Conte, when
+dealing with this very subject, &ldquo;It is impossible to conceive a
+more beautiful illustration of the principles we have been trying to
+enforce<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a>.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_443" id="page_443">[443]</a></p>
+
+<h3 class="sc"><a name="Note_A_to_page_257" id="Note_A_to_page_257"></a>Note A to Page <a href="#page_257">257</a>.</h3>
+
+<p>The passages in Dr. Whewell&rsquo;s writings, to which allusion is here
+made, are somewhat too long to be quoted in the text. But as I think
+they deserved to be given, I will here reprint a letter which I wrote to
+<i>Nature</i> in March, 1888.</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>In his essay on the <i>Reception of the Origin of Species</i>, Prof.
+Huxley writes:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;It is interesting to observe that the possibility of a fifth
+alternative, in addition to the four he has stated, has not dawned
+upon Dr. Whewell&rsquo;s mind&rdquo; (<i>Life and Lectures of Charles
+Darwin</i>, vol. ii, p. 195).</p>
+
+<p>And again, in the article <i>Science</i>, supplied to <i>The Reign of
+Queen Victoria</i>, he says:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Whewell had not the slightest suspicion of Darwin&rsquo;s
+main theorem, even as a logical possibility&rdquo; (p 365).</p>
+
+<p>Now, although it is true that no indication of such a logical
+possibility is to be met with in the <i>History of the Inductive
+Sciences</i>, there are several passages in the <i>Bridgewater Treatise</i>
+which show a glimmering idea of such a possibility. Of these the
+following are, perhaps, worth quoting. Speaking of the adaptation
+of the period of flowering to the length of a year, he says:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Now such an adjustment must surely be accepted as a proof of
+design, exercised in the formation of the world. Why should the
+solar year be so long and no longer? or, this being such a length,
+why should the vegetable cycle be exactly of the same length? Can
+this be chance?... And, if not by chance, how otherwise could such
+a coincidence occur than by an intentional adjustment of these two
+things to one another; by a selection of such an organization in
+plants as would fit them to the earth on which they were to grow;
+by an adaptation of construction to conditions; of the scale of
+construction to the scale of conditions? It cannot be accepted as
+an explanation of this fact in the economy of plants, that it is
+necessary to their existence; that no plants could possibly have
+subsisted, <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_444" id="page_444">[444]</a></span>
+and come down to us, except those which were thus suited to their place
+on the earth. This is true; but it does not at all remove the necessity
+of recurring to design as the origin of the construction by which the
+existence and continuance of plants is made possible. A watch could not
+go unless there were the most exact adjustment in the forms and
+positions of its wheels; yet no one would accept it as an explanation of
+the origin of such forms and positions that the watch would not go if
+these were other than they were. If the objector were to suppose that
+plants were originally fitted to years of various lengths, and that such
+only have survived to the present time as had a cycle of a length equal
+to our present year, or one which could be accommodated to it, we should
+reply that the assumption is too gratuitous and extravagant to require
+much consideration.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Again, with regard to &ldquo;the diurnal period,&rdquo; he adds:&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Any supposition that the astronomical cycle has occasioned
+the physiological one, that the structure of plants has been
+brought to be what it is by the action of external causes, or that
+such plants as could not accommodate themselves to the existing day
+have perished, would be not only an arbitrary and baseless
+assumption, but, moreover, useless for the purposes of explanation
+which it professes, as we have noticed of a similar supposition
+with respect to the annual cycle.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Of course these passages in no way make against Mr. Huxley&rsquo;s
+allusions to Dr. Whewell&rsquo;s writings in proof that, until the
+publication of the <i>Origin of Species</i>, the &ldquo;main
+theorem&rdquo; of this work had not dawned on any other mind, save
+that of Mr. Wallace. But these passages show, even more
+emphatically than total silence with regard to the principle of
+survival could have done, the real distance which at that time
+separated the minds of thinking men from all that was wrapped up in
+this principle. For they show that Dr. Whewell, even after he had
+obtained a glimpse of the principle &ldquo;as a logical
+possibility,&rdquo; only saw in it an &ldquo;arbitrary and baseless
+assumption.&rdquo; Moreover, the passages show a remarkable
+juxtaposition of the very terms in which the theory of natural
+selection was afterwards formulated. Indeed, if we strike out the
+one word &ldquo;intentional&rdquo; (which conveys the preconceived
+idea of the writer, and thus prevented him from doing justice to
+any naturalistic view), all the following parts of the above
+quotations might be supposed to have been written by a Darwinian.
+&ldquo;If not by chance, how otherwise could such a coincidence
+occur, than by an <i>adjustment</i> of these two things to one another;
+by a <i>selection</i> of such an organization in plants as would <i>fit</i>
+them to the earth on which they were to grow; by an adaptation of
+<i>construction</i> to <i>conditions</i>; of the <i>scale</i> of construction to
+the <i>scale</i> of conditions?&rdquo; Yet he immediately goes on to
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_445" id="page_445">[445]</a></span>
+say: &ldquo;If the objector were to suppose that plants were originally
+<i>fitted</i> to years of various lengths, and that such only have <i>survived</i>
+to the present time ... <i>as could be accommodated to it</i> (i. e. the
+actual cycle), we should reply that the assumption is too gratuitous and
+extravagant to require much consideration.&rdquo; Was there ever a more
+curious exhibition of failure to perceive the importance of a
+&ldquo;logical possibility"? And this at the very time when another mind
+was bestowing twenty years of labour on its &ldquo;consideration.&rdquo;</p></div>
+
+<hr />
+<h3 class='sc'><a name="Note_B_to_page_295" id="Note_B_to_page_295"></a>Note B to Page <a href="#page_295">295</a>.</h3>
+
+<p>Since these remarks were delivered in my lectures as here printed, Mr.
+Mivart has alluded to the subject in the following and precisely
+opposite sense:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Many of the more noteworthy instincts lead us from manifestations
+of purpose directed to the maintenance of the individual, to no
+less plain manifestations of a purpose directed to the preservation
+of the race. But a careful study of the interrelations and
+interdependencies which exist between the various orders of
+creatures inhabiting this planet shows us yet a more noteworthy
+teleology&mdash;the existence of whole orders of such creatures being
+directed to the service of other orders in various degrees of
+subordination and augmentation respectively. This study reveals to
+us, as a fact, the enchainment of all the various orders of
+creatures in a hierarchy of activities, in harmony with what we
+might expect to find in a world the outcome of a First Cause
+possessed of intelligence and will<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>Having read this much, a Darwinian is naturally led to expect that Mr.
+Mivart is about to offer some examples of instincts or structures
+exemplifying what in the margin he calls the &ldquo;Hierarchy of
+Ministrations.&rdquo; Yet the only facts he proceeds to adduce are the
+sufficiently obvious facts, that the inorganic world existed before the
+organic, plants before herbivorous animals, these before carnivorous,
+and so on: that is to say, everywhere the conditions to the occurrence
+of any given stage of evolution preceded such occurrence, as it is
+obvious that they must, if, as of course it is not denied, the
+possibility of such occurrence depended on the precedence of such
+conditions.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_446" id="page_446">[446]</a></span>
+Now, it is surely obvious that such a &ldquo;hierarchy of
+ministrations&rdquo; as this, far from telling against the theory of
+natural selection, is the very thing which tells most in its favour. The
+fact that animals, for instance, only appeared upon the earth after
+there were plants for them to feed upon, is clearly a necessity of the
+case, whether or not there was any design in the matter. Such
+&ldquo;ministrations,&rdquo; therefore, as plant-organisms yield to
+animal-organisms is just the kind of ministration that the theory of
+natural selection requires. Thus far, then, both the
+theories&mdash;natural selection and super-natural design&mdash;have an
+equal right to appropriate the facts. But now, if in no one instance can
+it be shown that the ministration of plant-life to animal-life is of
+such a kind as to subserve the interests of animal-life without at the
+same time subserving those of the plant-life itself, then the fact makes
+wholly in favour of the naturalistic explanation of such ministration as
+appears. If any plants had presented any characters pointing
+prospectively to needs of animals without primarily ministering to their
+own, then, indeed, there would have been no room for the theory of
+natural selection. But as this can nowhere be alleged, the theory of
+natural selection finds all the facts to be exactly as it requires them
+to be: such ministration as plants yield to animals becomes so much
+evidence of natural selection having slowly formed the animals to
+appropriate the nutrition which the plants had previously
+gathered&mdash;and gathered under the previous influence of natural
+selection acting on themselves entirely for their own sakes. Therefore I
+say it is painfully manifest that &ldquo;the enchainment of all the
+various orders of creatures in a hierarchy of activities,&rdquo; is
+<i>not</i> &ldquo;in harmony with what we might expect to find in a world the
+outcome of a First Cause possessed of intelligence and [beneficent]
+will.&rdquo; So far as any argument from such &ldquo;enchainment&rdquo;
+reaches, it makes entirely against the view which Mr. Mivart is
+advocating. In point of fact, there is a total absence of any such
+&ldquo;ministration&rdquo; by one &ldquo;order of creatures&rdquo; to
+the needs of any other order, as the beneficent design theory would
+necessarily expect; while such ministration as actually does obtain is
+exactly and universally the kind which the naturalistic theory requires.</p>
+
+<p>Again, quite independently, and still more recently, Mr. Mivart
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_447" id="page_447">[447]</a></span>
+alluded in <i>Nature</i> (vol. xli, p. 41) to the difficulty which the
+apparently exceptional case of gall-formation presents to the theory of
+natural selection. Therefore I supplied (vol. xli, p. 80) the suggestion
+given in the text, viz. that although it appears impossible that the
+sometimes remarkably elaborate and adaptive structures of galls can be
+due to natural selection acting directly on the plants
+themselves&mdash;seeing that the adaptation has reference to the needs
+of their parasites&mdash;it is quite possible that the phenomena may be
+due to natural selection acting indirectly on the plants, by always
+preserving those individual insects (and larvae) the character of whose
+secretions is such as will best induce the particular shapes of galls
+that are required. Several other correspondents took part in the
+discussion, and most of them accepted the above explanation. Mr. T. D.
+A. Cockerell, however, advanced another and very ingenious hypothesis,
+showing that there is certainly one conceivable way in which natural
+selection might have produced all the phenomena of gall-formation by
+acting directly on the plants themselves<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a>.
+Subsequently Mr. Cockerell published another paper upon the subject,
+stating his views at greater length. The following is the substance of
+his theory as there presented:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>Doubtless there were internal plant-feeding larvae before there
+were galls: and, indeed, we have geological evidence that boring
+insects date very far back indeed. The primitive internal feeders,
+then, were miners in the roots, stems, twigs, or leaves, such as
+occur very commonly at the present day. These miners are
+excessively harmful to plant-life, and form a class of the most
+destructive insect-pests known to the farmer: they frequently cause
+the death of the whole or part of the plant attacked. Now, we may
+suppose that the secretions of certain of these insects caused a
+swelling to appear where the larvae lived, and on this excrescence
+the larvae fed. It is easy to see that the greater the excrescence,
+and the greater the tendency of the larvae to feed upon it, instead
+of destroying the vital tissues, the smaller is the amount of harm
+to the plant. Now the continued life and vitality of the plant is
+beneficial to the larvae, and the larger or more perfect the gall,
+the greater the amount of available food. Hence natural selection
+will have preserved and accumulated the gall-forming tendencies, as
+not only beneficial to the larvae, but as a means whereby the
+larvae can feed with least harm to the plant. So <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_448" id="page_448">[448]</a></span>
+far from being developed for the exclusive benefit of the larvae, it is
+easy to see that, allowing a tendency to gall-formation, natural
+selection would have developed galls exclusively for the benefit of the
+plants, so that they might suffer a minimum of harm from the unavoidable
+attacks of insects.</p>
+
+<p>But here it may be questioned&mdash;have we proof that internal feeders
+tend to form galls? In answer to this I would point out that
+gall-formation is a peculiar feature, and cannot be expected to
+arise in every group of internal feeders. But I think we can afford
+sufficient proof that wherever it has arisen it has been preserved;
+and further, that even the highly complex forms of galls are
+evolved from forms so simple that we hesitate to call them galls at
+all<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a>.</p></div>
+
+<p>The paper then proceeds to give a number of individual cases. No doubt
+the principal objection to which Mr. Cockerell&rsquo;s hypothesis is
+open is one that was pointed out by Herr Wetterhan, viz. &ldquo;the much
+greater facility afforded to the indirect action through insects, by the
+enormously more rapid succession of generations with the latter than
+with many of their vegetable hosts&mdash;oaks above all<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a>.&rdquo; This
+difficulty, however, Mr. Cockerell believes maybe surmounted by the
+consideration that a growing plant need not be regarded as a single
+individual, but rather as an assemblage of such<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a>.</p>
+
+<hr />
+<h3 class='sc'><a name="Note_C_to_page_394" id="Note_C_to_page_394"></a>Note C to Page <a href="#page_394">394</a>.</h3>
+
+<p>The only remarks that Mr. Wallace has to offer on the <i>pattern of
+colours</i>, as distinguished from a mere <i>brilliancy of colour</i>, are added
+as an afterthought suggested to him by the late Mr. Alfred Tylor&rsquo;s
+book on <i>Colouration of Animals and Plants</i> (1886). But, in the first
+place, it appears to me that Mr. Wallace has formed an altogether
+extravagant estimate of the value of this work. For the object of the
+work is to show, &ldquo;that diversified colouration follows the chief
+lines of structure, and changes at points, such as the joints, where
+function changes.&rdquo; Now, in publishing this generalization, Mr.
+Tylor&mdash;who was not a naturalist&mdash;took only a very limited view of the
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_449" id="page_449">[449]</a></span>
+facts. When applied to the animal kingdom as a whole, the theory is
+worthless; and even within the limits of mammals, birds, and
+insects&mdash;which are the classes to which Mr. Tylor mainly applies
+it&mdash;there are vastly more facts to negative than to support it.
+This may be at once made apparent by the following brief quotation from
+Prof. Lloyd Morgan:&mdash;</p>
+
+<div class='blockquot'><p>It can hardly be maintained that the theory affords us any adequate
+explanation of the <i>specific</i> colour-tints of the humming-birds, or
+the pheasants, or the Papilionidae among butterflies. If, as Mr.
+Wallace argues, the immense tufts of golden plumage in the bird of
+paradise owe their origin to the fact that they are attached just
+above the point where the arteries and nerves for the supply of the
+pectoral muscles leave the interior of the body&mdash;and the
+physiological rationale is not altogether obvious,&mdash;are there no
+other birds in which similar arteries and nerves are found in a
+similar position? Why have these no similar tufts? And why, in the
+birds of paradise themselves, does it require four years ere these
+nervous and arterial influences take effect upon the plumage?
+Finally, one would inquire how the colour is determined and held
+constant in each species. The difficulty of the Tylor-Wallace view,
+even as a matter of origin, is especially great in those numerous
+cases in which the colour is determined by delicate lines, thin
+plates, or thin films of air or fluid. Mr. Poulton, who takes a
+similar line of argument in his <i>Colours of Animals</i> (p. 326), lays
+special stress on the production of <i>white</i> (pp. 201-202).</p></div>
+
+<p>As regards the latter point, it may be noticed that not in any part of
+his writings, so far as I can find, does Mr. Wallace allude to the
+highly important fact of colours in animals being so largely due to
+these purely physical causes. Everywhere he argues as if colours were
+universally due to pigments; and in my opinion this unaccountable
+oversight is the gravest defect in Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s treatment both of
+the facts and the philosophy of colouration in the animal kingdom. For
+instance, as regards the particular case of sexual colouration, the
+oversight has prevented him from perceiving that his theory of
+&ldquo;brilliancy&rdquo; as due to &ldquo;a surplus of vital
+energy,&rdquo; is not so much as logically possible in what must
+constitute at least one good half of the facts to which he applies
+it&mdash;unless he shows that there is some connection between vital energy
+and the development of striations, imprisonment of air-bubbles, &amp;c. But
+any such connection&mdash;so <span class="pagenum"><a name="page_450" id="page_450">[450]</a></span>
+essentially important for his theory&mdash;he does not even attempt to
+show. Lastly, and quite apart from these remarkable oversights, even if
+Mr. Tylor&rsquo;s hypothesis were as reasonable and well-sustained as it
+is fanciful and inadequate, still it could not apply to <i>sexual</i>
+colouration: it could apply only to colouration as affected by
+physiological functions common to both sexes. Yet it is in order to
+furnish a &ldquo;preferable substitute&rdquo; for Mr. Darwin&rsquo;s
+theory of <i>sexual</i> colouration, that Mr. Wallace adduces the hypothesis
+in question as one of &ldquo;great weight"! In this matter, therefore, I
+entirely agree with Poulton and Lloyd Morgan.</p>
+
+<hr /><p class="pagenum"><a name="page_451" id="page_451">[451]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX</h2>
+
+<ul class='off'>
+<li class='b c mt2'>A.</li>
+
+<li>Accident, Darwin&rsquo;s use of the word, <a href="#page_334">334</a>-<a href="#page_340">340</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>beauty due to, <a href="#page_408">408</a>, <a href="#page_409">409</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Achromatin, <a href="#page_126">126</a>-<a href="#page_134">134</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Acquired characters, <i>see</i> Characters.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Acr&aelig;a eurita</span>, <a href="#page_328">328</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Adaptation, facts of, in relation to theory of natural selection, <a href="#page_401">401</a>-<a href="#page_403">403</a>, <a href="#page_411">411</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Adaptive characters, <i>see</i> Characters.</li>
+
+<li>&AElig;sthetic sense in animals, <a href="#page_380">380</a>-<a href="#page_385">385</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li><i>see</i> Beautiful.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Agassiz, Prof. A., on fauna of the Mammoth cave, <a href="#page_70">70</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Alpine plants, <a href="#page_209">209</a>, <a href="#page_210">210</a>, <a href="#page_440">440</a>-<a href="#page_442">442</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Amauris niavius</span>, <a href="#page_328">328</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Amblyornis inornata</span>, <a href="#page_381">381</a>-<a href="#page_383">383</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Amphioxus</span>, <a href="#page_137">137</a>, <a href="#page_138">138</a>, <a href="#page_145">145</a>, <a href="#page_146">146</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Analogy, <a href="#page_38">38</a>, <a href="#page_50">50</a>-<a href="#page_65">65</a>, <a href="#page_176">176</a>, <a href="#page_177">177</a>, <a href="#page_347">347</a>-<a href="#page_350">350</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Anthropoid, <i>see</i> Apes.</li>
+
+<li>Antlers, <a href="#page_98">98</a>-<a href="#page_100">100</a>, <a href="#page_167">167</a>-<a href="#page_169">169</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ants, co-operative instincts of, <a href="#page_268">268</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>leaf-cutting, <a href="#page_332">332</a>;</li>
+<li>keeping aphides, <a href="#page_292">292</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Ape, eye of, <a href="#page_75">75</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li><span class='sn'>appendix vermiformis</span> of, <a href="#page_84">84</a>-<a href="#page_86">86</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Apes, ears of, compared with those of man, <a href="#page_88">88</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>muscles of, <a href="#page_77">77</a>, <a href="#page_82">82</a>, <a href="#page_83">83</a>;</li>
+<li>feet of, <a href="#page_77">77</a>, <a href="#page_78">78</a>;</li>
+<li>tail of, compared with that of man, <a href="#page_82">82</a>-<a href="#page_84">84</a>;</li>
+<li>hair of, compared with that of man, <a href="#page_89">89</a>-<a href="#page_91">91</a>;</li>
+<li>teeth of, compared with those of man, <a href="#page_92">92</a>-<a href="#page_94">94</a>;</li>
+<li>flattening of tibi&aelig; of, <a href="#page_95">95</a>, <a href="#page_96">96</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Aphides, <a href="#page_292">292</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Appendix vermiformis</span> of man compared with that of orang, <a href="#page_84">84</a>-<a href="#page_86">86</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Apteryx</span>, <a href="#page_68">68</a>, <a href="#page_69">69</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Arch&aelig;opteryx</span>, <a href="#page_171">171</a>-<a href="#page_173">173</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Arctic plants, <a href="#page_209">209</a>, <a href="#page_210">210</a> , <a href="#page_440">440</a>-<a href="#page_442">442</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Argyll, Duke of, on natural selection, <a href="#page_334">334</a>-<a href="#page_362">362</a> .</li>
+
+<li>Aristotle, his idea of scientific method, <a href="#page_1">1</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on classification, <a href="#page_23">23</a>, <a href="#page_24">24</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Arm, distribution of hair on, in man and apes, <a href="#page_89">89</a>-<a href="#page_92">92</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Arthropoda</span>, embryology of, <a href="#page_155">155</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Artificial selection, analogy of, to natural selection, <a href="#page_295">295</a>-<a href="#page_314">314</a>;</li>
+<li>  pictorial representations of products of, <a href="#page_298">298</a>-<a href="#page_312">312</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Artiodactyls, <a href="#page_182">182</a>-<a href="#page_191">191</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Association, principle of, in &aelig;sthetics, <a href="#page_404">404</a>-<a href="#page_407">407</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Aster, <a href="#page_129">129</a>-<a href="#page_133">133</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Attraction-spheres,  <a href="#page_128">128</a>, <a href="#page_132">132</a>, <a href="#page_133">133</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Australia, fauna of, <a href="#page_204">204</a>, <a href="#page_205">205</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>thriving of exotic species in, <a href="#page_286">286</a>;</li>
+<li>portrait of wild dog of, <a href="#page_304">304</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Azores, <a href="#page_224">224</a>, <a href="#page_225">225</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>B.</li>
+
+<li>Bacon, Lord, on scientific method, <a href="#page_2">2</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Balanoglossus</span>, <a href="#page_147">147</a>, <a href="#page_148">148</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Baptanodon discus</span>, posterior limb of, <a href="#page_179">179</a>-<a href="#page_181">181</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Barriers, in relation to geographical distribution, <a href="#page_216">216</a>-<a href="#page_224">224</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Bats, <a href="#page_56">56</a>, <a href="#page_224">224</a>, <a href="#page_226">226</a>, <a href="#page_240">240</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Battle, law of, <a href="#page_385">385</a>, <a href="#page_386">386</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Baya-bird, <a href="#page_381">381</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_452" id="page_452">[452]</a></span></li>
+
+<li>Bear, skeleton of, <a href="#page_174">174</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>feet of, <a href="#page_178">178</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Beautiful, the, sense of, in animals, <a href="#page_380">380</a>-<a href="#page_385">385</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>standards of, <a href="#page_380">380</a>-<a href="#page_404">404</a>;</li>
+<li>Darwin&rsquo;s explanation of, in organic nature, <a href="#page_379">379</a>-<a href="#page_411">411</a>;</li>
+<li>facts of, in inorganic nature in relation to Darwin&rsquo;s theory of, in organic, <a href="#page_404">404</a>;</li>
+<li>often determined by natural selection, <a href="#page_406">406</a>, <a href="#page_407">407</a>;</li>
+<li>absent in many plants and animals, <a href="#page_408">408</a>;</li>
+<li>in nature often accidental, <a href="#page_409">409</a>-<a href="#page_411">411</a>;</li>
+<li>does not exist in organic nature as an end <i>per se</i>, <a href="#page_410">410</a>, <a href="#page_411">411</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Bees, co-operative instincts of, <a href="#page_268">268</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Beetles, wingless, <a href="#page_68">68</a>-<a href="#page_70">70</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on oceanic islands, <a href="#page_224">224</a>, <a href="#page_226">226</a>, <a href="#page_229">229</a>, <a href="#page_232">232</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Bell, Dr., on natural theology, <a href="#page_412">412</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Bell-bird, <a href="#page_396">396</a>-<a href="#page_398">398</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Bembidium</span>, <a href="#page_233">233</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Bermudas, <a href="#page_225">225</a>-<a href="#page_227">227</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Biology, ideas of method in, <a href="#page_1">1</a>-<a href="#page_9">9</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Birds, ovum of, <a href="#page_124">124</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>embryology of, <a href="#page_151">151</a>-<a href="#page_155">155</a>;</li>
+<li>paleontology of, <a href="#page_163">163</a>-<a href="#page_165">165</a>, <a href="#page_172">172</a>, <a href="#page_173">173</a>;</li>
+<li>brain of, <a href="#page_194">194</a>-<a href="#page_197">197</a>;</li>
+<li>as carriers of seed, eggs, and small organisms, <a href="#page_217">217</a>, <a href="#page_218">218</a>;</li>
+<li>distribution of, <a href="#page_224">224</a>-<a href="#page_240">240</a>;</li>
+<li>&aelig;sthetic sense of, <a href="#page_380">380</a>-<a href="#page_385">385</a>;</li>
+<li>courtship of, <a href="#page_380">380</a>-<a href="#page_385">385</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Birgus latro</span>, <a href="#page_62">62</a>-<a href="#page_65">65</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Blood, colour of arterial, <a href="#page_409">409</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Boar, <i>see</i> Pig.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Bombus lapidarius</span>, <a href="#page_331">331</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Bower-birds, play-houses of, <a href="#page_381">381</a>-<a href="#page_383">383</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Boyd-Dawkins, on flattening of early human tibi&aelig;, <a href="#page_96">96</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Brain, pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href="#page_194">194</a>-<a href="#page_197">197</a>.</li>
+
+<li>British Isles, <i>see</i> Islands.</li>
+
+<li>Broca, <a href="#page_363">363</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Bronn, <a href="#page_363">363</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Budding, <i>see</i> Germination.</li>
+
+<li>Burdon-Sanderson, Prof., on electric organ of skate, <a href="#page_366">366</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Butler, Bishop, on argument from ignorance, <a href="#page_41">41</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Butterflies, defensive colouring of, <a href="#page_321">321</a>-<a href="#page_329">329</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>C.</li>
+
+<li>C&aelig;salpino, on classification, <a href="#page_24">24</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Calf, embryology of, <a href="#page_153">153</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Camel, foot of, <a href="#page_187">187</a>-<a href="#page_191">191</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Canadian stag, <a href="#page_196">196</a>, <a href="#page_198">198</a>, <a href="#page_199">199</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Canaries, portraits of, <a href="#page_303">303</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>first mentioned by Gesner, <a href="#page_312">312</a>, <a href="#page_313">313</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Cape de Verde Archipelagoes, fauna of, <a href="#page_228">228</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Carcharias melanopterus</span>, <a href="#page_149">149</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Carruthers, on evolution, <a href="#page_436">436</a>-<a href="#page_442">442</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Caterpillars, colours and forms of, <a href="#page_319">319</a>, <a href="#page_322">322</a>-<a href="#page_326">326</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cattle, portraits of, <a href="#page_311">311</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Causation, natural, <a href="#page_402">402</a>, <a href="#page_413">413</a>, <a href="#page_414">414</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Caves, faunas of dark, <a href="#page_70">70</a>-<a href="#page_72">72</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cell, physiological, and properties of the, <a href="#page_104">104</a>-<a href="#page_134">134</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Cerura vinula</span>, <a href="#page_325">325</a>, <a href="#page_326">326</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Cervalces Americanus</span>, <a href="#page_196">196</a>, <a href="#page_198">198</a>, <a href="#page_199">199</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Cervus dicrocerus</span>, <span class='sn'>issiodorensis</span>, <span class='sn'>matheronis</span>, <span class='sn'>pardinensis</span>, <span class='sn'>Sedgwickii</span>, <span class='sn'>tetraceros</span>, <a href="#page_168">168</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Chalmers, Dr., on natural theology, <a href="#page_412">412</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Chameleons, <a href="#page_317">317</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Characters, as adaptive, <a href="#page_273">273</a>-<a href="#page_276">276</a>, <a href="#page_286">286</a>-<a href="#page_293">293</a>, <a href="#page_349">349</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>as specific, <a href="#page_274">274</a>-<a href="#page_276">276</a>, <a href="#page_286">286</a>-<a href="#page_295">295</a>;</li>
+<li>as congenital and acquired, <a href="#page_274">274</a>-<a href="#page_276">276</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Chasmorhynchus niveus</span>, and <span class='sn'>C. tricarunculatus</span>, <a href="#page_396">396</a>-<a href="#page_398">398</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Chelydra serpentina</span>, anterior limb of, <a href="#page_179">179</a>-<a href="#page_181">181</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Chick, embryology of, <a href="#page_153">153</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Chimpanzee, <i>see</i> Apes.</li>
+
+<li>Chlorophyll, <a href="#page_408">408</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Chondracanthus cornutus</span>, <a href="#page_122">122</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cirripedes, <a href="#page_430">430</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Classification, <a href="#page_23">23</a>-<a href="#page_49">49</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of organic nature by Genesis and Leviticus, <a href="#page_23">23</a>;</li>
+<li>artificial and natural, <a href="#page_24">24</a>-<a href="#page_26">26</a>;</li>
+<li>empirical rules of, <a href="#page_33">33</a>-<a href="#page_40">40</a>;</li>
+<li>Darwin on, <a href="#page_35">35</a>, <a href="#page_36">36</a>, <a href="#page_39">39</a>,<a href="#page_40">40</a>;</li>
+<li>form of, a nexus or tree, <a href="#page_29">29</a>-<a href="#page_32">32</a>;</li>
+<li>of organic forms like that of languages, <a href="#page_32">32</a>;</li>
+<li>single characters in relation to, <a href="#page_37">37</a>;</li>
+<li>aggregates of characters in relation to, <a href="#page_35">35</a>-<a href="#page_37">37</a>;</li>
+<li>adaptive and non-adaptive characters in relation to, <a href="#page_34">34</a>, <a href="#page_35">35</a>, <a href="#page_38">38</a>, <a href="#page_39">39</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_453" id="page_453">[453]</a></span></li>
+<li>chains of affinities in relation to, <a href="#page_39">39</a>-<a href="#page_40">40</a>;</li>
+<li>biological differs from astronomical, <a href="#page_43">43</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Cockerell, on vegetable galls, <a href="#page_447">447</a>, <a href="#page_448">448</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Colours, of plants and animals in relation to the theory of natural selection, <a href="#page_317">317</a>-<a href="#page_332">332</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>in relation to the theory of sexual selection, <a href="#page_391">391</a>, <a href="#page_392">392</a>, <a href="#page_394">394</a>-<a href="#page_396">396</a>, <a href="#page_408">408</a>-<a href="#page_410">410</a>, <a href="#page_448">448</a>-<a href="#page_450">450</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Colouring, <i>see</i> Recognition marks, Protective, Seasonal, Warning, and Mimicry.</li>
+
+<li>Congenital characters, <i>see</i> Characters.</li>
+
+<li>Conjugation, of Protozoa, <a href="#page_115">115</a>-<a href="#page_117">117</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Continuity, principle of, in nature, <a href="#page_15">15</a>-<a href="#page_21">21</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Contrivance, Darwin&rsquo;s use of the word, <a href="#page_281">281</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Co-operation, mutual, of species alleged, <a href="#page_445">445</a>-<a href="#page_448">448</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Co-operative instincts, due to natural selection, <a href="#page_267">267</a>, <a href="#page_269">269</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cope, Professor, his table of geological formations, <a href="#page_163">163</a>, <a href="#page_164">164</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>his table of pal&aelig;ontological development of feet, vertebral column, and brain, <a href="#page_197">197</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Correlation of growth, <a href="#page_357">357</a>-<a href="#page_362">362</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Cossonid&aelig;</span>, <a href="#page_233">233</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Courtship, <i>see</i> Sexual Selection.</li>
+
+<li>Crabs, <a href="#page_62">62</a>-<a href="#page_65">65</a>, <a href="#page_139">139</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cuttle-fish, <a href="#page_317">317</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Cuvier, on method in natural history, <a href="#page_3">3</a>-<a href="#page_4">4</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on monkeys, <a href="#page_429">429</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Cyst, <i>see</i> Encystation.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>D.</li>
+
+<li>Darwin, Charles, his influence on ideas of method, <a href="#page_1">1</a>-<a href="#page_9">9</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on classification, <a href="#page_35">35</a>, <a href="#page_36">36</a>, <a href="#page_39">39</a>, <a href="#page_40">40</a>;</li>
+<li>on vestigial characters in man, <a href="#page_77">77</a>, <a href="#page_86">86</a>, <a href="#page_87">87</a>, <a href="#page_92">92</a>;</li>
+<li>on imperfection of geological record, <a href="#page_165">165</a>, and <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>;</li>
+<li>on means of dispersal, <a href="#page_216">216</a>, <a href="#page_218">218</a>;</li>
+<li>on geographical distribution, <a href="#page_218">218</a>, <a href="#page_219">219</a>;</li>
+<li>on fauna of the Galapagos Archipelago, <a href="#page_227">227</a>, <a href="#page_228">228</a>;</li>
+<li>on natural selection, <a href="#page_252">252</a>, <a href="#page_253">253</a>, <a href='#page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#page_256'>256</a>, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#page_375'>375</a>, <a href='#page_376'>376</a>;</li>
+<li>his use of such words as &lsquo;accident,&rsquo; &lsquo;fortuitous,&rsquo; &lsquo;purpose,&rsquo; &lsquo;contrivance,&rsquo; &amp;c., <a href='#page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#page_334'>334</a>-<a href='#page_340'>340</a></li>
+<li>on sexual selection, <a href='#page_379'>379</a>-<a href='#page_400'>400</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Darwin, Erasmus, his theory of evolution, <a href='#page_253'>253</a>.</li>
+
+<li>De Blainville, on the theory of descent, <a href='#page_258'>258</a>.</li>
+
+<li>De Candolle, on classification, <a href='#page_34'>34</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Deer, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#page_167'>167</a>-<a href='#page_169'>169</a>, <a href='#page_187'>187</a>, <a href='#page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#page_196'>196</a>, <a href='#page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#page_199'>199</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Degeneration, <a href='#page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#page_342'>342</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Delamination, <a href='#page_139'>139</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Diadema euryta</span>, <a href='#page_330'>330</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Diaster, <a href='#page_129'>129</a>-<a href='#page_133'>133</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Dingo, <i>see</i> Dog.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Dinornis</span>, <a href='#page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#page_61'>61</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Diptera</span> mimicking <span class='sn'>Hymenoptera</span>, <a href='#page_329'>329</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Dog, dentition of, <a href='#page_39'>39</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>Dingo, <a href='#page_304'>304</a>;</li>
+<li>domesticated varieties of, <a href='#page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#page_307'>307</a>;</li>
+<li>hairless, <a href='#page_307'>307</a>;</li>
+<li>skulls of, <a href='#page_307'>307</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Duck, logger-headed, <a href='#page_68'>68</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Dugong, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>E.</li>
+
+<li>Eagle, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ear, of whales, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>vestigial features of human, <a href='#page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#page_86'>86</a>-<a href='#page_89'>89</a>;</li>
+<li>of man and apes compared, <a href='#page_88'>88</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Eaton, Rev. A. E., on wingless insects, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Echinodermata</span>, <a href='#page_125'>125</a>-<a href='#page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#page_155'>155</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ectoderm, <a href='#page_137'>137</a>-<a href='#page_142'>142</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Egg, <i>see</i> Ovum.</li>
+
+<li>Eimer, <a href='#page_363'>363</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Elaps fulvius</span> imitated by non-venomous snakes, <a href='#page_330'>330</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Electric organs, <a href='#page_365'>365</a>-<a href='#page_373'>373</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Elephant, foot of, <a href='#page_185'>185</a>, <a href='#page_186'>186</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>rate of propagation of, <a href='#page_261'>261</a>, <a href='#page_262'>262</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Elk, <a href='#page_196'>196</a>-<a href='#page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#page_199'>199</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Embryo, human, <i>see</i> Man.</li>
+
+<li>Embryogeny, <i>see</i> Ontogeny.</li>
+
+<li>Embryology, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>-<a href='#page_155'>155</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Embryos, comparative series of, <a href='#page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#page_153'>153</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_454" id="page_454">[454]</a></span></li>
+
+<li><i>Encyclop&aelig;dia Britannica</i>, eighth ed., on instinct, <a href='#page_289'>289</a>-<a href='#page_291'>291</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Encystation of Protozoa, <a href='#page_115'>115</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Endoderm, <a href='#page_137'>137</a>-<a href='#page_142'>142</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Equatorial plate, <a href='#page_129'>129</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Equus</span>, <i>see</i> Horse.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Erythrolamprus venustissimus</span>, <a href='#page_330'>330</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Evolution, organic, fact of, Section I;
+<ul class='off'><li>Method of, Section II;</li>
+<li>ideas upon, prior to Darwin, <a href='#page_253'>253</a>-<a href='#page_258'>258</a>;</li>
+<li>divergent, <a href='#page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#page_267'>267</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Ewart, Professor Cossar, on electric organ of skate, <a href='#page_364'>364</a>, <a href='#page_367'>367</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Existence, <i>see</i> Struggle for.</li>
+
+<li>Eye, of octopus, <a href='#page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#page_347'>347</a>-<a href='#page_350'>350</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>absence of, in dark cave animals, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>-<a href='#page_72'>72</a>;</li>
+<li>nictitating membrane of, <a href='#page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>;</li>
+<li>development of, from cutaneous nerve-ending, <a href='#page_352'>352</a>-<a href='#page_354'>354</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>F.</li>
+
+<li>Feet, <a href='#page_51'>51</a>-<a href='#page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#page_77'>77</a>-<a href='#page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#page_174'>174</a>-<a href='#page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#page_197'>197</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Fertilization of ova, <a href='#page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#page_128'>128</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of flowers by insects, <a href='#page_406'>406</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Fish, embryology of, <a href='#page_143'>143</a>-<a href='#page_155'>155</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#page_169'>169</a>-<a href='#page_171'>171</a>;</li>
+<li>brain of, <a href='#page_194'>194</a>-<a href='#page_197'>197</a>;</li>
+<li>distribution of, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_246'>246</a>;</li>
+<li>flying, <a href='#page_355'>355</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Fission, reproduction by, <a href='#page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#page_107'>107</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Flat fish, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Float, <i>see</i> Swim-bladder.</li>
+
+<li>Flowers, fertilization of, by insects, <a href='#page_406'>406</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Fly, imitating a wasp, <a href='#page_329'>329</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Flying-fish, and squirrels, <a href='#page_355'>355</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Foraminifera</span>, <a href='#page_346'>346</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Forbes, H. O., on scapulo-coracoid bones of <span class='sn'>Dinornis</span>, <a href='#page_60'>60</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Fortuitous, Darwin&rsquo;s use of the word, <a href='#page_340'>340</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Fossils, <i>see</i> Pal&aelig;ontology.</li>
+
+<li>Frogs, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>G.</li>
+
+<li>Galapagos Islands, <a href='#page_227'>227</a>-<a href='#page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#page_237'>237</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Galeus</span>, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Galls, vegetable, <a href='#page_293'>293</a>-<a href='#page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#page_446'>446</a>-<a href='#page_448'>448</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gastr&aelig;a, <a href='#page_137'>137</a>-<a href='#page_140'>140</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Gastrophysema</span>, <a href='#page_138'>138</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gastrulation, <a href='#page_137'>137</a>, <a href='#page_140'>140</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gegenbaur, <a href='#page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#page_181'>181</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gemmation, reproduction by, <a href='#page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#page_111'>111</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Generalization, <a href='#page_5'>5</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Generalized types, <a href='#page_33'>33</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Genesis, classification of organic nature in, <a href='#page_23'>23</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Genial tubercle, <a href='#page_96'>96</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Geographical distribution, <a href='#page_204'>204</a>-<a href='#page_248'>248</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li><i>see</i> Glacial period, Barriers Transport of organisms, Oceanic islands, &amp;c.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Geology, record of imperfect, <a href='#page_156'>156</a>-<a href='#page_160'>160</a>, and <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li><i>see</i> Pal&aelig;ontology.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Germs, prophetic, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#page_351'>351</a>-<a href='#page_362'>362</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gesner, on classification, <a href='#page_24'>24</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on canaries, <a href='#page_313'>313</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Gill-arches, <a href='#page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#page_151'>151</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gill-slits, <a href='#page_146'>146</a>, <a href='#page_147'>147</a>, <a href='#page_150'>150</a>-<a href='#page_153'>153</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gills, of young salamanders, <a href='#page_102'>102</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>origin of, in embryo, <a href='#page_144'>144</a>;</li>
+<li>of fish, <a href='#page_150'>150</a>, <a href='#page_152'>152</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Giraffe, neck of, in relation to Lamarck&rsquo;s theory, <a href='#page_254'>254</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Glacial periods, effects of, on distribution of plants and animals, <a href='#page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#page_210'>210</a>, and <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Goose, Frizzled, portrait of, <a href='#page_304'>304</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Gorilla, <i>see</i> Apes.</li>
+
+<li>Gray, Professor Asa, <a href='#page_337'>337</a></li>
+
+<li>Great-toe, in man and apes, <a href='#page_79'>79</a>-<a href='#page_81'>81</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Grouse, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>-<a href='#page_319'>319</a></li>
+
+<li>Growth, correlation of, <a href='#page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#page_362'>362</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Gymnotus</span>, <a href='#page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#page_367'>367</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>H.</li>
+
+<li>H&auml;ckel, on analogy between species and languages, <a href='#page_32'>32</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on reproduction as discontinuous growth, <a href='#page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#page_106'>106</a>;</li>
+<li>his ideal primitive vertebrate, <a href='#page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#page_144'>144</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Hair, vestigial characters of, in man, <a href='#page_89'>89</a>-<a href='#page_92'>92</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hales, <a href='#page_3'>3</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Haller, <a href='#page_3'>3</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hamilton, Sir William, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hands, <a href='#page_51'>51</a>-<a href='#page_55'>55</a>, <a href='#page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#page_80'>80</a>-<a href='#page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#page_174'>174</a>-<a href='#page_192'>192</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hare, <a href='#page_318'>318</a>, <a href='#page_319'>319</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_455" id="page_455">[455]</a></span></li>
+
+<li>Hartmann, on flattening of early human tibi&aelig;, <a href='#page_96'>96</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Harvey, on Lord Bacon&rsquo;s writings, <a href='#page_2'>2</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Heart, development of, <a href='#page_154'>154</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Heilprin, on skulls of deer, <a href='#page_198'>198</a>, <a href='#page_199'>199</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on fossil shells, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>, <a href='#page_202'>202</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Hen, ovum of, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Heredity, in relation to classification, <a href='#page_28'>28</a>-<a href='#page_31'>31</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>in relation to embryology, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>-<a href='#page_102'>102</a>;</li>
+<li>chromatin-fibres in relation to, <a href='#page_134'>134</a>;</li>
+<li>in relation to theories of organic evolution, <a href='#page_253'>253</a>-<a href='#page_255'>255</a>, <a href='#page_260'>260</a>-<a href='#page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#page_377'>377</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Hermit-crabs, <a href='#page_62'>62</a>-<a href='#page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#page_288'>288</a>, <a href='#page_289'>289</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Heteromera</span>, <a href='#page_233'>233</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hilgendorf, on shells of <span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Hipparion</span>, <a href='#page_191'>191</a>, <a href='#page_192'>192</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hippopotamus, foot of, <a href='#page_187'>187</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hog, <i>see</i> Pig.</li>
+
+<li>Homology, <a href='#page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#page_50'>50</a>-<a href='#page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#page_347'>347</a>-<a href='#page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#page_357'>357</a>-<a href='#page_359'>359</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Homopterous insect, imitating leaf-cutting ants, <a href='#page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#page_332'>332</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hooker, Sir Joseph, on flora of St. Helena, <a href='#page_234'>234</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Horns, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>-<a href='#page_100'>100</a>, <a href='#page_167'>167</a>. -<a href='#page_169'>169</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Horse, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>limb-bones of, <a href='#page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#page_186'>186</a>, <a href='#page_188'>188</a>-<a href='#page_192'>192</a>;</li>
+<li>teeth of, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>-<a href='#page_191'>191</a>;</li>
+<li>portraits of domesticated breeds of, <a href='#page_309'>309</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Human, <i>see</i> Man.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Humerus</span>, perforations of, in quadrumana and man, <a href='#page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#page_95'>95</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Humming-birds, restricted to the New World, <a href='#page_211'>211</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Hunter, <a href='#page_3'>3</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on ear of whale, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Huxley, Prof., on mechanical selection, <a href='#page_283'>283</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on age of the earth, <a href='#page_435'>435</a>, <a href='#page_436'>436</a>;</li>
+<li>on Dr. Whewell, <a href='#page_243'>243</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Hyatt, on shells of <span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Hydra</span>, <a href='#page_111'>111</a>, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Hyrax</span>, foot of, <a href='#page_185'>185</a>, <a href='#page_186'>186</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>I.</li>
+
+<li>Ignorance, argument from, <a href='#page_41'>41</a>, <a href='#page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#page_49'>49</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Illative Sense, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Imitative colours, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>-<a href='#page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#page_326'>326</a>-<a href='#page_332'>332</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Infant, feet of, <a href='#page_78'>78</a>, <a href='#page_79'>79</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>grasping power of, <a href='#page_81'>81</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Infertility, inter-specific, in relation to natural selection, <a href='#page_374'>374</a>-<a href='#page_376'>376</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Insects, wingless, <a href='#page_68'>68</a>-<a href='#page_70'>70</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>in primary formations, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>;</li>
+<li>on oceanic islands, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_238'>238</a>;</li>
+<li>in relation to galls, <a href='#page_293'>293</a>-<a href='#page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#page_446'>446</a>-<a href='#page_448'>448</a>;</li>
+<li>defensive colouring of, <a href='#page_321'>321</a>-<a href='#page_332'>332</a>;</li>
+<li>fertilizing flowers, <a href='#page_406'>406</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Instincts, always of primary use to species presenting them, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>-<a href='#page_293'>293</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Intercrossing, in relation to natural selection, <a href='#page_374'>374</a>-<a href='#page_376'>376</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Inutility of specific characters, in relation to natural selection, <a href='#page_374'>374</a>-<a href='#page_376'>376</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Islands, oceanic, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_237'>237</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>British, <a href='#page_238'>238</a>-<a href='#page_241'>241</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>J.</li>
+
+<li>Japan, hairless dog of, <a href='#page_101'>101</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Jelly-fish, <a href='#page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#page_120'>120</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>K.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Kallima</span>, <a href='#page_323'>323</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Karyokinesis, <a href='#page_112'>112</a>-<a href='#page_114'>114</a>, <a href='#page_128'>128</a>-<a href='#page_134'>134</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Kepler, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Kerguelen Island, flightless insects of, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Kropotkin, Prince, on co-operative instincts, <a href='#page_269'>269</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>L.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Lagopus mutus</span>, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#page_318'>318</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Lamarck, his method in natural history, <a href='#page_4'>4</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>his theory of evolution, <a href='#page_253'>253</a>-<a href='#page_256'>256</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Lamprey, <a href='#page_148'>148</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Languages, classification of, resembles that of organic forms, <a href='#page_32'>32</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Lankester, E. Ray, on karyokinesis, <a href='#page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#page_130'>130</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Leaf insect, <a href='#page_322'>322</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Le Conte, on geological succession of animal classes, 164, 165;
+<ul class='off'><li>on types of tails, <a href='#page_169'>169</a>-<a href='#page_173'>173</a>;</li>
+<li>on fossil shells of <span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>;</li>
+<li>his work on the relation of the theory of evolution to religious thought, <a href='#page_412'>412</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_456" id="page_456">[456]</a></span></li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Leptalis</span>, <a href='#page_328'>328</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Leuculmis echinus</span>, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Leviticus, classification of organic nature in, <a href='#page_23'>23</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Life, origin of, <a href='#page_15'>15</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Linn&aelig;us, on method in natural history, <a href='#page_3'>3</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on classification, <a href='#page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#page_35'>35</a>-<a href='#page_40'>40</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Lion, skeleton of, <a href='#page_175'>175</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>feet of, <a href='#page_178'>178</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Lizard, heart and gill-arches of, <a href='#page_150'>150</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Lloyd Morgan, <a href='#page_273'>273</a>, <a href='#page_449'>449</a>, <a href='#page_450'>450</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Lungs, development of, <a href='#page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#page_354'>354</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Lyell, Sir Charles, on classification, <a href='#page_32'>32</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on uniformitarianism, <a href='#page_258'>258</a>;</li>
+<li>on rational species, <a href='#page_344'>344</a>;</li>
+<li>on geological record, <a href='#page_422'>422</a>, <a href='#page_435'>435</a>, <a href='#page_439'>439</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>M.</li>
+
+<li>Madeira, wingless beetles of, <a href='#page_68'>68</a>-<a href='#page_70'>70</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>peculiar beetles of, <a href='#page_226'>226</a>, <a href='#page_227'>227</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Mammals, ovum of, <a href='#page_120'>120</a>-<a href='#page_124'>124</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>embryology of, <a href='#page_151'>151</a>-<a href='#page_155'>155</a>;</li>
+<li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#page_180'>180</a>-<a href='#page_199'>199</a>;</li>
+<li>limbs of, <a href='#page_174'>174</a>-<a href='#page_178'>178</a>, <a href='#page_182'>182</a>-<a href='#page_199'>199</a>;</li>
+<li>brain of, <a href='#page_194'>194</a>-<a href='#page_199'>199</a>;</li>
+<li>of Australia and New Zealand, <a href='#page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#page_205'>205</a>;</li>
+<li>distribution of, on islands, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_240'>240</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Mammoth cave, fauna of, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>-<a href='#page_72'>72</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Man, nictitating membrane of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>  vestigial muscles of, <a href='#page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#page_83'>83</a>;</li>
+<li>tail of, compared with that of apes, <a href='#page_82'>82</a>-<a href='#page_84'>84</a>;</li>
+<li>hair of, compared with that of apes, <a href='#page_89'>89</a>-<a href='#page_92'>92</a>;</li>
+<li>teeth of, compared with those of apes, <a href='#page_92'>92</a>-<a href='#page_94'>94</a>;</li>
+<li>perforation of humerus of, <a href='#page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#page_95'>95</a>;</li>
+<li>flattening of ancient tibi&aelig; of, <a href='#page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#page_96'>96</a>;</li>
+<li>embryology of, <a href='#page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#page_153'>153</a>;</li>
+<li>hand of, <a href='#page_54'>54</a>;</li>
+<li>arm of, <a href='#page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#page_91'>91</a>;</li>
+<li>limb-bones of, <a href='#page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#page_177'>177</a>;</li>
+<li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>;</li>
+<li>brain of, <a href='#page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#page_195'>195</a>;</li>
+<li>Mr. Syme on, <a href='#page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#page_347'>347</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Marsh, on pal&aelig;ontology of the horse, <a href='#page_188'>188</a>-<a href='#page_190'>190</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Matthew, Patrick, on natural selection, <a href='#page_257'>257</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Mesoderm, <a href='#page_142'>142</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Mesohippus</span>, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>, <a href='#page_192'>192</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Metaphyta, <a href='#page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#page_105'>105</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Metazoa, <a href='#page_104'>104</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Method, ideas of, in natural history, <a href='#page_1'>1</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of organic evolution, <a href='#page_252'>252</a>-<a href='#page_261'>261</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Meyer, Professor Ludwig, on helix of the human ear, <a href='#page_86'>86</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Mimicry, <a href='#page_320'>320</a>-<a href='#page_322'>322</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ministration, mutual, of species alleged, <a href='#page_445'>445</a>, <a href='#page_446'>446</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Miohippus</span>, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Mivart, St. George, on eye of octopus, <a href='#page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#page_348'>348</a>, <a href='#page_349'>349</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on incipient organs, <a href='#page_362'>362</a>;</li>
+<li>on mutual ministration of species, <a href='#page_445'>445</a>, <a href='#page_446'>446</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Mollusca, shells of, <a href='#page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#page_199'>199</a>-<a href='#page_203'>203</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>eye of, <a href='#page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#page_58'>58</a>;</li>
+<li>embryology of, <a href='#page_155'>155</a>;</li>
+<li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Monkeys, why all, do not become men, <a href='#page_342'>342</a>-<a href='#page_344'>344</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Monotremata</span>, <a href='#page_205'>205</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Morgan, <i>see</i> Lloyd Morgan.</li>
+
+<li>Morphology, <a href='#page_50'>50</a>-<a href='#page_97'>97</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Mule, portrait of, <a href='#page_309'>309</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Multicellular organisms, <a href='#page_104'>104</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Multiplication, <i>see</i> Reproduction.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>N.</li>
+
+<li>N&auml;geli, Prof., <a href='#page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#page_367'>367</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Natural History, ideas of method in, <a href='#page_1'>1</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Natural, interpretations as opposed to super-natural, <a href='#page_13'>13</a>-<a href='#page_15'>15</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>causation, <a href='#page_13'>13</a>-<a href='#page_15'>15</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Natural selection, <a href='#page_252'>252</a>-<a href='#page_378'>378</a>, <a href='#page_401'>401</a>-<a href='#page_410'>410</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>Wells, Matthew, and Whewell on, <a href='#page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#page_258'>258</a>, <a href='#page_443'>443</a>-<a href='#page_445'>445</a>;</li>
+<li>statement of theory of, <a href='#page_256'>256</a>-<a href='#page_284'>284</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of evidences of, <a href='#page_285'>285</a>-<a href='#page_332'>332</a>;</li>
+<li>of criticisms of, <a href='#page_333'>333</a>-<a href='#page_378'>378</a>;</li></ul></li>
+<li>relation of theory of, to religious thought, <a href='#page_401'>401</a>-<a href='#page_410'>410</a>;</li>
+<li>preserves types, <a href='#page_264'>264</a>-<a href='#page_267'>267</a>;</li>
+<li>cessation and reversal of, <a href='#page_270'>270</a>, <a href='#page_342'>342</a>;</li>
+<li>errors touching theory of, <a href='#page_270'>270</a>-<a href='#page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#page_332'>332</a>-<a href='#page_364'>364</a>;</li>
+<li>definition of, <a href='#page_275'>275</a>-<a href='#page_276'>276</a>;[**]</li>
+<li>antecedent standing of theory of, <a href='#page_277'>277</a>-<a href='#page_284'>284</a>;</li>
+<li>Prof. Owen on, <a href='#page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#page_334'>334</a>;</li>
+<li>Duke of Argyll on, <a href='#page_334'>334</a>-<a href='#page_362'>362</a>;</li>
+<li>Mr. Syme on, <a href='#page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#page_345'>345</a>;</li>
+<li>need not always make for improvement, <a href='#page_341'>341</a>-<a href='#page_347'>347</a>;</li>
+<li>homology and analogy in relation to, <a href='#page_347'>347</a>-<a href='#page_350'>350</a>;</li>
+<li>often determines beauty, <a href='#page_406'>406</a>, <a href='#page_407'>407</a>;</li>
+<li>in relation to the formation of galls, <a href='#page_293'>293</a>-<a href='#page_295'>295</a>. <a href='#page_446'>446</a>-<a href='#page_448'>448</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_457" id="page_457">[457]</a></span></li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Nature, organic, <a href='#page_17'>17</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>inorganic, <a href='#page_1'>1</a>, <a href='#page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#page_18'>18</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Nauplius</span>, <a href='#page_138'>138</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Neumayr, <a href='#page_19'>19</a>.</li>
+
+<li>New Zealand, fauna of, <a href='#page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#page_205'>205</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>thriving of exotic species in, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Newman, on the Illative Sense, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Newton, his idea of scientific method, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Nictitating membrane, <a href='#page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Notochord, <a href='#page_146'>146</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Novum Organon, the, on scientific method,  <a href='#page_2'>2</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Nucleus, <a href='#page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#page_112'>112</a>-<a href='#page_134'>134</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Nucleus-spindle, <a href='#page_129'>129</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Nut-hatch, Syrian, ornamented nests of, <a href='#page_381'>381</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>O.</li>
+
+<li>Objective methods, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Oceanic islands, <i>see</i> Islands.</li>
+
+<li>Octopus, eye of, <a href='#page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#page_58'>58</a>, <a href='#page_348'>348</a>-<a href='#page_350'>350</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>&OElig;dicnemus crepitans</span>, <a href='#page_320'>320</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ontogeny, as recapitulation of phylogeny, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>-<a href='#page_104'>104</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Orang Outang, <i>see</i> Apes.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Oredon Culbertsoni</span>, <a href='#page_167'>167</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Origin of Species, the, influence exercised by, on ideas of method, <a href='#page_1'>1</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Orohippus</span>, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Otaria, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ovum, <a href='#page_113'>113</a>-<a href='#page_142'>142</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>human, <a href='#page_120'>120</a>-<a href='#page_133'>133</a>;</li>
+<li>am&oelig;boid movements of young, <a href='#page_121'>121</a>-<a href='#page_123'>123</a>;</li>
+<li>segmentation of, <a href='#page_134'>134</a>, <a href='#page_135'>135</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Owen, on ear of whale, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on natural selection, <a href='#page_333'>333</a>, <a href='#page_334'>334</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Owl, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>P.</li>
+
+<li>Paddle, <i>see</i> Whale, and <span class='sn'>Baptanodon discus</span>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Pagurus bernhardus</span>, <a href='#page_64'>64</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Pain, in relation to the theory of evolution, <a href='#page_417'>417</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Pal&aelig;ontology, <a href='#page_159'>159</a>-<a href='#page_203'>203</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>general testimony of, <a href='#page_156'>156</a>-<a href='#page_165'>165</a>;</li>
+<li>testimony of, in particular cases, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>-<a href='#page_203'>203</a>;</li>
+<li>consideration of objections to theory of evolution founded on grounds of, <a href='#page_156'>156</a>-<a href='#page_165'>165</a>, and <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Pal&aelig;otherium</span>, <a href='#page_190'>190</a>, <a href='#page_191'>191</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Paley, on natural theology, <a href='#page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#page_412'>412</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Paludina</span>, successive forms of, <a href='#page_19'>19</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Panama, Isthmus of, <a href='#page_219'>219</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Panniculus carnosis</span>, <a href='#page_77'>77</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Papilio merope</span>, <a href='#page_330'>330</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Parasites, of animals, devoid of beauty, <a href='#page_408'>408</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Parsimony, law of, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Parthenogenesis, <a href='#page_119'>119</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Partridges, <a href='#page_319'>319</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Peacock, tail of, <a href='#page_378'>378</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>courtship of, <a href='#page_383'>383</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Peckham, Mr. and Mrs., on courtship of spiders, <a href='#page_388'>388</a>-<a href='#page_390'>390</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Perissodactyls, <a href='#page_182'>182</a>-<a href='#page_192'>192</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Petromyzon marinus</span>, <a href='#page_148'>148</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Phenacodus prim&aelig;vus</span>, <a href='#page_184'>184</a>, <a href='#page_185'>185</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Phylogeny, <i>see</i> Ontogeny.</li>
+
+<li>Physiological selection, <a href='#page_376'>376</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Pig, embryology of, <a href='#page_153'>153</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>feet of, <a href='#page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#page_187'>187</a>;</li>
+<li>portraits of wild and domesticated, <a href='#page_312'>312</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Pigeons, portraits of, <a href='#page_298'>298</a>, <a href='#page_299'>299</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>feather-footed, <a href='#page_359'>359</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Pilot fish, <a href='#page_289'>289</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Planorbis</span>, transmutations of, <a href='#page_200'>200</a>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Pleasure and pain, in relation to the theory of evolution, <a href='#page_417'>417</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Plica semilunaris</span>, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Pliohippus</span>, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Polar bear, skeleton of, <a href='#page_174'>174</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>feet of, <a href='#page_178'>178</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Polar bodies, <a href='#page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#page_126'>126</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Polar star, <a href='#page_129'>129</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Polyps, <a href='#page_114'>114</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Porpoises, <a href='#page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#page_50'>50</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Poulton, E. B., on warning colours, <a href='#page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#page_326'>326</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on mimicry, <a href='#page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#page_332'>332</a>;</li>
+<li>sexual selection, <a href='#page_400'>400</a>, <a href='#page_401'>401</a>, <a href='#page_449'>449</a>, <a href='#page_450'>450</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Poultry, portraits of, <a href='#page_300'>300</a>-<a href='#page_302'>302</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Pronucleus, <a href='#page_126'>126</a>-<a href='#page_128'>128</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Prophetic types, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#page_351'>351</a>-<a href='#page_362'>362</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Prophysema primordiale</span>, <a href='#page_140'>140</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Protective colouring, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>-<a href='#page_323'>323</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Protohippus</span>, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_458" id="page_458">[458]</a></span></li>
+
+<li>Protozoa, <a href='#page_104'>104</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ptarmigan, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>, <a href='#page_318'>318</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Pterodactyl</span>, wing of, <a href='#page_56'>56</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Purpose, Darwin&rsquo;s use of the word, <a href='#page_281'>281</a>, <a href='#page_340'>340</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Puss moth, larva of, <a href='#page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#page_326'>326</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Python, <a href='#page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#page_67'>67</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>Q.</li>
+
+<li>Quadrumana, muscles of, <a href='#page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#page_83'>83</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>perforations of humeri of, <a href='#page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#page_95'>95</a>;</li>
+<li>hair on phalanges of, <a href='#page_91'>91</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>R.</li>
+
+<li>Rabbit, embryology of, <a href='#page_153'>153</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>multiplication of, in Australia, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>;</li>
+<li>portraits of wild and domesticated breeds of, <a href='#page_308'>308</a>;</li>
+<li>protective colouring of, <a href='#page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#page_320'>320</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Radiate form, beauty of, <a href='#page_408'>408</a>, <a href='#page_409'>409</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Raia radiata</span>, and <span class='sn'>batis</span>, <a href='#page_367'>367</a>-<a href='#page_371'>371</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Rats, species of, restricted to Old and New Worlds, <a href='#page_212'>212</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>British and Norwegian, <a href='#page_285'>285</a>, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Rattle-snake, tail of, <a href='#page_289'>289</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Recognition marks, <a href='#page_271'>271</a>-<a href='#page_273'>273</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Religion, in relation to Darwinism, <a href='#page_401'>401</a>-<a href='#page_418'>418</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Reproduction, different methods of, <a href='#page_106'>106</a>-<a href='#page_117'>117</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>essence of sexual, <a href='#page_110'>110</a>;</li>
+<li>foreshadowing of sexual in unicellular organisms, <a href='#page_115'>115</a>-<a href='#page_117'>117</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Reptiles, wing of flying, <a href='#page_56'>56</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>rudimentary limbs of, <a href='#page_67'>67</a>;</li>
+<li>nictitating membrane of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>;</li>
+<li>branchial arches of, <a href='#page_150'>150</a>;</li>
+<li>embryology of, <a href='#page_152'>152</a>;</li>
+<li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#page_165'>165</a>, <a href='#page_178'>178</a>-<a href='#page_180'>180</a>;</li>
+<li>brain of, <a href='#page_194'>194</a>-<a href='#page_197'>197</a>;</li>
+<li>distribution of, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_240'>240</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Rhinoceros</span>, foot of, <a href='#page_186'>186</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Robinson, Dr L., on grasping power of an infant&rsquo;s hands, <a href='#page_80'>80</a>-<a href='#page_82'>82</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Rudimentary organs, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>-<a href='#page_97'>97</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Ruminants, pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_167'>167</a>, <a href='#page_168'>168</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>S.</li>
+
+<li>Sacrum of man, compared with that of apes, <a href='#page_82'>82-</a><a href='#page_84'>84</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Sagitta</span>, <a href='#page_138'>138</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Salamander, young of terrestrial, living in water, <a href='#page_102'>102</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>embryology of, <a href='#page_152'>152</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Sandwich Islands, <a href='#page_234'>234</a>-<a href='#page_237'>237</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Science, method of, <a href='#page_1'>1</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Sclater, W. L., on a case of mimicry, <a href='#page_331'>331</a>, <a href='#page_332'>332</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Scorpion in Silurian formation, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Sea, lamprey, <a href='#page_148'>148</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>destructive agency of the, <a href='#page_423'>423</a>, <a href='#page_424'>424</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Seal, <a href='#page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Seasonal changes of colour, <a href='#page_317'>317</a>-<a href='#page_319'>319</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Selection, value, <a href='#page_275'>275</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>by physical processes, <a href='#page_282'>282</a>, <a href='#page_283'>283</a>, <a href='#page_335'>335</a>. <i>See also</i> Natural selection, Artificial selection, Sexual selection, Physiological selection.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Sentiency, in relation to the theory of evolution, <a href='#page_417'>417</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Sex, difference of, restricted to Metazoa and Metaphyta, <a href='#page_105'>105</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Sexual reproduction, <i>see</i> Reproduction.</li>
+
+<li>Sexual selection, theory of, <a href='#page_277'>277</a>, <a href='#page_378'>378</a>-<a href='#page_410'>410</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>statement and evidences of, <a href='#page_379'>379</a>-<a href='#page_391'>391</a>;</li>
+<li>criticisms of, <a href='#page_391'>391</a>-<a href='#page_400'>400</a>;</li>
+<li>includes law of battle with that of charming, <a href='#page_385'>385</a>, <a href='#page_386'>386</a>;</li>
+<li>in relation to religious thought, <a href='#page_411'>411</a>-<a href='#page_418'>418</a>;</li>
+<li>Tylor&rsquo;s theory substituted for, by Wallace, <a href='#page_449'>449</a>, <a href='#page_450'>450</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Shark, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>man-eating, <a href='#page_149'>149</a>;</li>
+<li>and pilot-fish, <a href='#page_289'>289</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Sheep, limb-bones of, <a href='#page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#page_177'>177</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>portraits of, <a href='#page_310'>310</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Shells, of crabs, <a href='#page_62'>62</a>-<a href='#page_64'>64</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>pal&aelig;ontology of mollusks, <a href='#page_199'>199</a>-<a href='#page_203'>203</a>;</li>
+<li>land on oceanic islands, <a href='#page_224'>224</a>-<a href='#page_240'>240</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Silliman&rsquo;s Journal, on fauna of the Mammoth Cave, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Skate, electric organ of, <a href='#page_364'>364</a>-<a href='#page_373'>373</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Skull, pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_194'>194</a>-<a href='#page_199'>199</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of bull-dog compared with that of deer-hound, <a href='#page_307'>307</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Slavonia, Tertiary deposits of, <a href='#page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#page_19'>19</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Species, not eternal, but either created or evolved, <a href='#page_13'>13</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>named as such through absence of intermediate forms, <a href='#page_18'>18</a>-<a href='#page_20'>20</a>;<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_459" id="page_459">[459]</a></span></li>
+<li>groups of, in classification, <a href='#page_20'>20</a>,
+<ul class='off'><li>and appearing suddenly in geological formations, <a href='#page_427'>427</a>-<a href='#page_432'>432</a>, <a href='#page_437'>437</a>-<a href='#page_440'>440</a>;</li></ul></li>
+<li>origin of, coincide in space and time with pre-existing and allied species, <a href='#page_22'>22</a>;</li>
+<li>geographical distribution of, <a href='#page_204'>204</a>-<a href='#page_248'>248</a>;</li>
+<li>extinct and living allied on same areas, <a href='#page_213'>213</a>;</li>
+<li>life of, preserved by natural selection, <a href='#page_264'>264</a>-<a href='#page_270'>270</a>;</li>
+<li>not room for more than one rational, <a href='#page_344'>344</a>;</li>
+<li>characters of, <a href='#page_274'>274</a>-<a href='#page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>-<a href='#page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#page_374'>374</a>-<a href='#page_376'>376</a>;</li>
+<li>inter-sterility of allied, <a href='#page_374'>374</a>-<a href='#page_376'>376</a>;</li>
+<li>mutual ministration of alleged, <a href='#page_445'>445</a>, <a href='#page_446'>446</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Specific characters, <i>see</i> Characters.</li>
+
+<li>Speculation, method of, <a href='#page_3'>3</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Spencer, Herbert, on reproduction as discontinuous growth, <a href='#page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#page_106'>106</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on use-inheritance, <a href='#page_253'>253</a>-<a href='#page_256'>256</a>;</li>
+<li>his failure to conceive the idea of natural selection, <a href='#page_257'>257</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Spermatozoa,  <a href='#page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#page_128'>128</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Spiders, in primary formations, <a href='#page_163'>163</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>courtship of, <a href='#page_388'>388</a>, <a href='#page_389'>389</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Sponges, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#page_140'>140</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Spontaneous, Darwin&rsquo;s use of the term, <a href='#page_340'>340</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Spores, <a href='#page_115'>115</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Squirrels, flying, <a href='#page_355'>355</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Sterility, <i>see</i> Infertility.</li>
+
+<li>St. Helena, <a href='#page_231'>231</a>-<a href='#page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#page_236'>236</a>-<a href='#page_237'>237</a>.</li>
+
+<li>St. Hilaire, <a href='#page_4'>4</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Stick-insect, <a href='#page_322'>322</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Stoat, <a href='#page_318'>318</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Strombus accipilrinus</span>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Strombus Leidy</span>, <a href='#page_201'>201</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Struggle for existence, <a href='#page_259'>259</a>-<a href='#page_270'>270</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Subjective, methods, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Survival of the fittest, <a href='#page_335'>335</a>. <i>See also</i> Natural selection.</li>
+
+<li>Swim-bladder of fish, <a href='#page_154'>154</a>, <a href='#page_354'>354</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Symbiosis, <a href='#page_269'>269</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Syme, David, on the theory of natural selection, <a href='#page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#page_341'>341</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>T.</li>
+
+<li>Tail, types of, in fish and birds, <a href='#page_169'>169</a>-<a href='#page_173'>173</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tasmanian wolf, dentition of, <a href='#page_39'>39</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Teeth, of Tasmanian wolf, <a href='#page_39'>39</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>molar, of man, compared with those of apes, <a href='#page_92'>92</a>-<a href='#page_94'>94</a>;</li>
+<li>pal&aelig;ontology of horses&rsquo;, <a href='#page_189'>189</a>-<a href='#page_191'>191</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Temperature, sense of, probable origin of that of sight, <a href='#page_353'>353</a>, <a href='#page_354'>354</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tennyson, <a href='#page_266'>266</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tibi&aelig;, flattening of, <a href='#page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#page_96'>96</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tissue-cells, <i>see</i> Cell.</li>
+
+<li>Toes, <a href='#page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#page_80'>80</a>; <i>see also</i> Feet.</li>
+
+<li>Tomes, C. S., on molar teeth of man and apes, <a href='#page_94'>94</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Torpedo</span>, <a href='#page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#page_367'>367</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tortoise, embryology of, <a href='#page_152'>152</a>, <a href='#page_154'>154</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Toxopneustes variegatus</span>, and <span class='sn'>T. lividus</span>, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Transport of organisms, means of, <a href='#page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#page_216'>216</a>-<a href='#page_218'>218</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tribal fitness, as distinguished from individual, <a href='#page_267'>267</a>-<a href='#page_269'>269</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Trout, ovum of, <a href='#page_122'>122</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Turtle, eye of, <a href='#page_75'>75</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Tylor, Alfred, on colouration of animals, <a href='#page_448'>448</a>-<a href='#page_450'>450</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Type, preserved by natural selection, <a href='#page_264'>264</a>-<a href='#page_269'>269</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>improvement of, by natural selection, <a href='#page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#page_270'>270</a>;</li>
+<li>prophetic, <a href='#page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#page_351'>351</a>-<a href='#page_362'>362</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Types, as simple and generalized, <a href='#page_33'>33</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>U.</li>
+
+<li>Unicellular organisms, <a href='#page_104'>104</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Uraster</span>, <a href='#page_138'>138</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Utility, of specific characters, <a href='#page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#page_275'>275</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>of incipient characters, <a href='#page_351'>351</a>-<a href='#page_363'>363</a>;</li>
+<li>of electric organs, <a href='#page_365'>365</a>-<a href='#page_373'>373</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>V.</li>
+
+<li>Variation, in relation to natural selection, <a href='#page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#page_335'>335</a>-<a href='#page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#page_377'>377</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Verification, <a href='#page_6'>6</a>-<a href='#page_9'>9</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Vertebral column, embryology of <a href='#page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#page_146'>146</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>pal&aelig;ontology of, <a href='#page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#page_193'>193</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Vertebrated animal, ideal primitive, <a href='#page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#page_144'>144</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>embryology of, <a href='#page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#page_155'>155</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Vespa vulgaris</span>, <a href='#page_331'>331</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Vestigial organs, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>-<a href='#page_97'>97</a>.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Volucella inans</span>, and <span class='sn'>V. bombylans</span>, <a href='#page_329'>329</a>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="page_460" id="page_460">[460]</a></span></li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>W.</li>
+
+<li>Wagner, Moritz, on geographical distribution, <a href='#page_216'>216</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wallace, A. R., on origin of species as coincident in time and space with pre-existing and allied species, <a href='#page_22'>22</a>;
+<ul class='off'><li>on wingless insects, <a href='#page_70'>70</a>;</li>
+<li>on absence of hair from human back, and function of on arms of orang, <a href='#page_89'>89</a>;</li>
+<li>on geographical distribution, <a href='#page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#page_232'>232</a>, <a href='#page_233'>233</a>, <a href='#page_243'>243</a>;</li>
+<li>on natural selection, <a href='#page_256'>256</a>;</li>
+<li>on recognition marks, <a href='#page_271'>271</a>-<a href='#page_273'>273</a>;</li>
+<li>on alleged deductive consequences of the natural selection theory, <a href='#page_273'>273</a>-<a href='#page_276'>276</a>;</li>
+<li>his theory of warning colours, <a href='#page_323'>323</a>, <a href='#page_324'>324</a>;</li>
+<li>on sexual selection, <a href='#page_391'>391</a>-<a href='#page_400'>400</a>, <a href='#page_450'>450</a>;</li>
+<li>his principal defect in treating of animal colouration, <a href='#page_449'>449</a>, <a href='#page_450'>450</a>.</li></ul></li>
+
+<li>Warning colours, <a href='#page_323'>323</a>-<a href='#page_326'>326</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wasp, imitated by a fly, <a href='#page_329'>329</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Water-cress, multiplication of, in New Zealand, <a href='#page_286'>286</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Weevils, on St. Helena, <a href='#page_232'>232</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Weismann, his theory of heredity, <a href='#page_130'>130</a>, <a href='#page_134'>134</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wells, Dr., on natural selection, <a href='#page_257'>257</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wetterhan, Prof., on vegetable galls, <a href='#page_448'>448</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Whales, <a href='#page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#page_180'>180</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Whewell, on natural selection, <a href='#page_257'>257</a>, <a href='#page_258'>258</a>, <a href='#page_443'>443</a>-<a href='#page_445'>445</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wings, <a href='#page_54'>54</a>-<a href='#page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#page_68'>68</a>-<a href='#page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#page_355'>355</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wolf, Tasmanian, dentition of, <a href='#page_34'>34</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wood, John, on vestigial muscles in man, <a href='#page_77'>77</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Woodward, on fossil cirripedes, <a href='#page_431'>431</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Woolner, on the human ear, <a href='#page_86'>86</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Worms, embryology of, <a href='#page_155'>155</a>.</li>
+
+<li>Wyman, Prof., on the great toe of human embryo, <a href='#page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#page_80'>80</a>.</li>
+
+<li class='b c mt2'>Z.</li>
+
+<li><span class='sn'>Zona pellucida</span>, <a href='#page_121'>121</a>.</li></ul>
+
+<hr /><div class='footnotes'><h2>FOOTNOTES:</h2>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 367.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 372.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, pp. 368-9.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a>
+It is, however, probable that all species of the genus retained a tiny
+rudiment of wings in greatly dwindled scapulo-coracoid bones. And Mr. H.
+O. Forbes has detected, in a recently exhumed specimen of the latter, an
+indication of the glenoid cavity, for the articulation of an extremely
+aborted humerus. (See <i>Nature</i>, Jan. 14th, 1892.)</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a>
+See especially Mr. John Wood&rsquo;s papers, <i>Proc. R. S.</i>, xiii to xvi,
+and xviii; also <i>Journ. Anat.</i>, i and iii. In this connexion Darwin
+refers to M. Richard, <i>Annls. d. Sc. Nat. Zoolg.</i>, tom. xviii, p. 13,
+1852.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a>
+<i>Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc.</i>, Boston, 1863.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a>
+<i>Nineteenth Century</i>, November, 1891.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a>
+<i>Descent of Man</i>, 2nd ed., pp. 15-16.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a>
+I say &ldquo;probably,&rdquo; because analogy points in this direction.
+As a matter of fact, in many cases of tissue-formation karyokinesis has
+not hitherto been detected. But even if in such cases it does not
+occur&mdash;i. e. if failure to detect its occurrence be not due merely
+to still remaining imperfections of our histological methods,&mdash;the
+large number of cases in which it has been seen to occur in the
+formation of sundry tissues are of themselves sufficient to indicate
+some important difference between cells derived from ova (metazoal), and
+cells which have not been so derived (protozoal). Which is the point now
+under discussion.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a>
+Even when propagated by budding, a multicellular organism has been
+ultimately derived from a germ-cell.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a>
+It has already been stated that both parthenogenesis and gemmation are
+ultimately derived from sexual reproduction. It may now be added, on the
+other hand, that the earlier stages of parthenogenesis have been
+observed to occur sporadically in all sub-kingdoms of the Metaxoa,
+including the Vertebrata, and even the highest class, Mammalia. These
+earlier stages consist in <i>spontaneous</i> segmentations of the ovum; so
+that even if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and even if
+such a fact in the human species has been unique, still it would not
+betoken any breach of physiological continuity. Indeed, according to
+Weismann&rsquo;s not improbable hypothesis touching the physiological
+meaning of polar bodies, such a fact need betoken nothing more than a
+slight disturbance of the complex machinery of ovulation, on account of
+which the ovum failed to eliminate from its substance an almost
+inconceivably minute portion of its nucleus.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a>
+The spermatozooids of certain plants can be strongly attracted towards a
+pipette which is filled with malic acid&mdash;crowding around and into
+it with avidity.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a>
+Ray Lankester, <i>Encyclop. Brit.</i>, 9th ed., Vol. XIX, pp. 832-3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a>
+In most vertebrated animals this process of gastrulation has been more
+or less superseded by another, which is called delamination; but it
+scarcely seems necessary for our present purposes to describe the
+latter. For not only does it eventually lead to the same result as
+gastrulation&mdash;i. e. the converting of the ovum into a double-walled
+sac,&mdash;but there is good evidence among the lower Vertebrata of its
+being preceded by gastrulation; so that, even as to the higher
+Vertebrata, embryologists are pretty well agreed that delamination has
+been but a later development of, or possibly improvement upon,
+gastrulation.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a>
+The most extreme of them is that which is mentioned in the last
+foot-note.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a>
+For objections which may be brought against this and similar statements,
+see the <a href="#APPENDIX_AND_NOTES">Appendix</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a>
+For difficulties and objections, see Appendix.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a>
+Heilprin, <i>Geological Evidences of Evolution</i>, pp. 73-4 (1888).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a>
+Le Conte, <span class='sn'>loc. cit.</span>, pp. 236-7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a>
+I say &ldquo;<i>large</i> areas&rdquo; for the sake of argument; but the same
+correlation between distribution and affinity extends likewise to
+<i>small</i> areas where only <i>small</i> differences of affinity are concerned.
+Thus, for instance, speaking of smaller areas, Moritz Wagner
+says:&mdash;"The broader and more rapid the river, the higher and more
+regular the mountain-chain, the calmer and more extensive the sea, the
+more considerable, as a general rule, will be the taxonomic separation
+between the populations"; and he shows that, in correlation with such
+differences in the <i>degrees</i> of separation, are the <i>degrees</i> of
+diversification&mdash;i. e., the <i>numbers</i> of species, and even of
+varieties, which these topographical barriers determine.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a>
+The only exception is in the case of the fish on each side of the
+Isthmus of Panama, where about 30 per cent, of the species are
+identical. But it is possible enough that at some previous time this
+narrow Isthmus may have been even narrower than at present, if not
+actually open. At all events, the fact that this partial exception
+occurs just where the land-barrier is so narrow, is more suggestive of
+migration than of independent creation.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, pp. 353-4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a>
+Wallace, <i>Island Life</i>, pp. 271-2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a>
+Wallace, <i>Island Life</i>, p. 287.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a>
+Wallace, <i>Island Life</i>, p. 287.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a>
+For quotations, see Note A.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a>
+Whewell, <i>Indications of the Creator</i>, 2nd ed., 1846.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a>
+De Blainville, <i>Compte Rendu</i>, 1837.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a>
+Whewell, <i>ibid.</i>, p. 162.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a>
+For cases, see <i>Animal Intelligence</i>, in the chapters on Ants and Bees;
+and, for discussion of principles, <i>Mental Evolution in Animals</i>, in the
+chapters on Instinct.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a>
+Prince Kropotkin in the <i>Nineteenth Century</i> (Feb. 1888, Apr. 1891) has
+adduced a large and interesting body of facts, showing the great
+prevalence of the principle of co-operation in organic nature.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a>
+<i>Darwinism</i>, pp. 218 and 227.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a>
+Since the above was written Prof. Lloyd Morgan has published a closely
+similar notice of the passage in question. &ldquo;This language,&rdquo;
+he says, &ldquo;seems to savour of teleology (that pitfall of the
+evolutionist). The cart is put before the horse. The recognition-marks
+were, I believe, not produced to prevent intercrossing, but
+intercrossing has been prevented because of preferential mating between
+individuals possessing special recognition-marks. To miss this point is
+to miss an important segregation-factor."&mdash;(<i>Animal Life and
+Intelligence</i>, p. 103.) Again, on pp. 184-9, he furnishes an excellent
+discussion on the whole subject of the fallacy alluded to in the text,
+and gives illustrative quotations from other prominent Darwinians. I
+should like to add that Darwin himself has nowhere fallen into this, or
+any of the other fallacies, which are mentioned in the text.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a>
+Of course adaptive modifications produced in the individual lifetime,
+and not <i>inherited</i>, do not concern the question at all. In this and the
+following paragraphs, therefore, &ldquo;adaptations,&rdquo;
+&ldquo;adaptive modifications,&rdquo; &amp;c., refer exclusively to such
+as are hereditary, i. e. phyletic.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a>
+The question as to whether natural selection has been the only principle
+concerned in the origination of species, is quite distinct from that as
+to the accuracy of the above definition.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a>
+It is often objected to Darwin&rsquo;s terminology, that it embraces
+such words as &ldquo;contrivance,&rdquo; &ldquo;purpose,&rdquo; &amp;c.,
+which are strictly applicable only to the processes or the products of
+thought. But when it is understood that they are used in a neutral or
+metaphorical sense, I cannot see that any harm arises from their use.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a>
+Note B.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a>
+Were it not that some of Darwin&rsquo;s critics have overlooked the very
+point wherein the great value of protective colouring as evidence of
+natural selection consists, it would be needless to observe that it does
+so in the <i>minuteness</i> of the protective resemblance which in so many
+cases is presented. Of course where the resemblance is only very
+general, the phenomena might be ascribed to mere coincidence, of which
+the instincts of the animal have taken advantage. But in the measure
+that the resemblance becomes minutely detailed, the supposition of mere
+coincidence is excluded, and the agency of some specially adaptive cause
+demonstrated. Again, it is almost needless to say, no real difficulty is
+presented (as has been alleged) by the cases above quoted of seasonal
+imitations, on the ground that natural selection could not act
+alternately on the same individual. Natural selection is not supposed to
+act alternately on the same individual. It is supposed to act always in
+the same manner, and if, as in the case of a regularly recurring change
+in the colours of the environment, correspondingly recurrent changes are
+required to appear in the colours of the animals, natural selection sets
+its premium upon those individuals the constitutions of which best lend
+themselves to seasonal changes of the needful kind&mdash;probably under
+the influence of stimuli supplied by the changes of external conditions
+(temperature, moisture, &amp;c.).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a>
+For a full account of this instinct and its probable purpose, see
+<i>Animal Intelligence</i>, pp. 93-6.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a>
+Both drawings are reproduced from Mr. Poulton&rsquo;s paper upon the
+subject (<i>Proc. Zool. Soc.</i>, June 16, 1891).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a>
+<i>Anatomy of Vertebrates</i>, vol. iii. p. 794.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a>
+The degree in which variability is indefinite, or, on the contrary,
+determinate, is a question which is not yet ripe for decision&mdash;nor
+even, in my opinion, for <ins class="corr" title="Transcriber&rsquo;s
+note: The original showed &lsquo;dicussion&rsquo;.">discussion</ins>. But I
+may here state the following general principles with regard to it.</p>
+
+<p>(1) It is evident that up to some point or another variations <i>must</i> be
+pre-determined in definite lines. Men do not gather grapes from thorns,
+figs from thistles, nor even moss-roses from sweet-briars. In other
+words, &ldquo;the nature of the organism&rdquo; in all cases
+necessitates the limiting of variations within certain bounds.</p>
+
+<p>(2) But when the question is as to what these bounds may be, we can only
+answer in a general way that, according to the general theory of
+evolution, they must be such as are imposed by heredity, coupled with
+the degree to which external conditions of life (and possibly also
+use-inheritance) are capable, in given cases, of modifying congenital
+characters. These are the only causes which the theory of descent can
+consistently recognise as producing variations in determinate
+directions.</p>
+
+<p>(3) Inasmuch as variation presupposes the existence of parts that vary,
+and inasmuch as the variation of parts can only be in the alternative
+directions of increase or decrease around an average, it follows that,
+in the first instance at all events, every variation, if determinate,
+must be so only in one or other of these two opposite directions.</p>
+
+<p>(4) In as far as variations are summated in successive generations, so
+as eventually to give rise to new structures, organs, mechanisms,
+&amp;c., natural selection is theoretically competent to explain the
+facts, without our having to postulate the operation of unknown causes
+producing variations in determinate lines,&mdash;or not further than is
+stated in paragraphs 1 and 2.</p>
+
+<p>(5) Nevertheless, it does not follow that there are not such other
+unknown causes; and, if there are, of course the importance of natural
+selection as a cause of adaptive modification would be limited in
+proportion to their number and the extent of their operation. But it is
+for those who, like the late Professors Asa Gray and N&auml;geli,
+maintain the existence of such causes, to substantiate their belief by
+indicating them.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a>
+Within the last few months this objection has been presented anew by Mr.
+D. Syme, whose book <i>On the Modification of Organisms</i> exhibits a
+curious combination of shrewd criticisms with almost ludicrous
+misunderstandings. One of the latter it is necessary to state, because
+it pervades the quotation which I am about to supply. He everywhere
+compares &ldquo;natural selection&rdquo; with &ldquo;the struggle for
+existence,&rdquo; uses them as convertible terms, and while absurdly
+stating that &ldquo;Darwin defines natural selection as the struggle for
+existence,&rdquo; complains of &ldquo;the liability of error, both on
+his own part and on the part of his readers,&rdquo; which arises from
+his not having everywhere adhered to this definition! (p. 8).</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Darwin has put forth two distinct and contradictory theories of
+the functions of natural selection. According to the one theory natural
+selection is selective or preservative, and nothing more. According to
+the other theory natural selection creates the variations(!) ... It
+certainly seems absurd to speak of natural selection, or the struggle
+for existence, as selective or preservative, for the struggle for
+existence does not preserve at all, not even the fit variations, as both
+the fit and the unfit struggle for existence, the unfit naturally more
+than the fit, and the fit are preserved, not in consequence of the
+struggle, but in consequence of their fitness. Suppose two varieties of
+the same species are driven, by an increase of their numbers, to seek
+for subsistence in a colder region than they have been accustomed to,
+and that one of these varieties had a hardier constitution than the
+other; and let us suppose that the former withstood the severe climate
+better than the latter, and consequently survived, while the other
+perished. In this case the hardier survived, not because of the
+struggle, but because it had a constitution better adapted to the
+climate. I wish to ascertain if a certain metal in my possession is gold
+or some baser metal, and I apply the usual test; but the mere fact of my
+testing this metal would not make it gold or any other kind of
+metal.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p> I have thought it worth while to quote this passage for the sake of
+showing the extraordinary confusion of mind which still prevails on the
+part of Darwin&rsquo;s critics, even with reference to the very
+fundamental parts of his theory. For, as I have said, the writer of this
+passage shows himself a shrewd critic in some other parts of his essay,
+where he is not engaged especially on the theory of natural selection.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a>
+<i>Principles of Geology</i>, vol. ii. p. 487 (11th ed.).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a>
+Syme, on the <i>Modification of Organisms</i>, p. 46.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a>
+<i>Variation of Plants and Animals</i>, vol. ii. p. 315.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a>
+The chambers are three in number. The two upper ones are occupied
+respectively by the male and the sitting female. The lower one serves as
+a general living room when the young are hatched.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a>
+Note C.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a>
+Since the above exposition of the theory of sexual selection was
+written, Mr. Poulton has published his work on the <i>Colours of Animals</i>.
+He there reproduces some of the illustrations which occur in Mr. and
+Mrs. Peckham&rsquo;s work on <i>Sexual Selection in Spiders</i>, and
+furnishes appropriate descriptions. Therefore, while retaining the
+illustrations, I have withdrawn my own descriptions.</p>
+
+<p> Mr. Poulton has also in his book supplied a <i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> of
+the arguments for and against the theory of sexual selection in general.
+Of course in nearly all respects this corresponds with the
+<i>r&eacute;sum&eacute;</i> which is given in the foregoing pages; but I have
+left the latter as it was originally written, because all the critical
+part is reproduced <i>verbatim</i> from a review of Mr. Wallace&rsquo;s
+<i>Darwinism</i>, of a date still earlier than that of Mr. Poulton&rsquo;s
+book&mdash;viz. <i>Contemporary Review</i>, August, 1889.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a>
+The beauty of autumnal tints in fading leaves may possibly be adduced
+<i>per contra</i>. But here we have to remember that it is only some kinds of
+leaves which thus become beautiful when fading, while, even as regards
+those that do, it is not remarkable that their chlorophyll should, as it
+were, accidentally assume brilliant tints while breaking down into lower
+grades of chemical constitution. The case, in fact, is exactly parallel
+to those in the animal kingdom which are considered in the ensuing
+paragraphs.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a>
+The best treatise on this subject is Prof. Le Conte&rsquo;s <i>Evolution
+and its Relation to Religious Thought</i> (Appleton &amp; Co. 1888).</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a>
+See <i>Mental Evolution in Animals</i>, pp. 110-111.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, 282-5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a>
+<i>Elements of Geology</i>, p. 587.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 289.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a>
+<i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a>
+See <i>Lay Sermons</i>, Lecture on Geological Reform.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a>
+See especially the following Presidential addresses:&mdash;Geol. Assoc.
+Nov. 1876; Section D. Brit. Assoc., 1886; Lin. Soc., 1890.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a>
+<i>Elements of Geology</i>, p. 280.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 332.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a>
+<i>Origin of Species</i>, p. 332.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a>
+<i>Ibid</i>. pp. 333-4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a>
+<i>Evolution and its Relation to Religious Thought</i>, p.
+194.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a>
+<i>On Truth</i>, p. 493.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a>
+<i>Nature</i>, vol. xli, p. 344.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a>
+<i>Entomologist</i>, March, 1890.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a>
+<i>Nature</i>, vol. xli, p. 394.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a>
+<i>Ibid.</i> vol. xli, pp. 559-560.</p></div></div>
+
+<div class='bbox'>
+<h3>Transcriber&rsquo;s Notes and Errata</h3>
+
+<p>The following words were found in both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms
+in the text.</p>
+
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr class='b'><td class='c' colspan='2'>Hyphenated</td><td class='c' colspan='2'>Unhyphenated</td></tr>
+<tr class='b'><td class='c'>Word</td><td class='c'>Instances</td><td class='c'>Word</td><td class='c'>Instances</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>deer-hound</td><td class='r'>2</td><td class='l'>deerhound</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>fresh-water</td><td class='r'>13</td><td class='l'>freshwater</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>inter-relations</td><td class='r'>1</td><td class='l'>interrelations</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>re-action</td><td class='r'>1</td><td class='l'>reaction</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>sea-weed</td><td class='r'>7</td><td class='l'>seaweed</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>super-natural</td><td class='r'>2</td><td class='l'>supernatural</td><td class='r'>24</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>wood-cut</td><td class='r'>3</td><td class='l'>woodcut</td><td class='r'>3</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>wood-cuts</td><td class='r'>4</td><td class='l'>woodcuts</td><td class='r'>1</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p>There were 9 instances of &lsquo;larvae&rsquo; and 3 instances of &lsquo;larv�&rsquo;.</p>
+
+<p>The following typographical errors were corrected:</p>
+
+<div class='center'>
+<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="">
+<tr class='b'><td class='l'>Page</td><td class='l'>Error</td><td class='l'>Correction</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>44</td><td class='l'>arboresent</td><td class='l'>arborescent</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>75</td><td class='l'>the</td><td class='l'>The</td></tr>
+<tr><td class='l'>337</td><td class='l'>dicussion</td><td class='l'>discussion</td></tr>
+</table></div>
+
+<p>In the index, the page entry for &ldquo;Lyell, Sir Charles &hellip; on
+geological record&rdquo; was changed from &lsquo;420&rsquo; to
+&lsquo;422&rsquo;.</p>
+
+<p>Also, the page entry for &ldquo;Natural selection &hellip; defintion
+of&rdquo; was changed from &lsquo;275-376&rsquo; to
+&lsquo;275-276&rsquo;.</p>
+
+<p>Some illustrations were repositioned.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Darwin, and After Darwin (Vol. 1 and
+3, of 3), by George John Romanes
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DARWIN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 24800-h.htm or 24800-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/8/0/24800/
+
+Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, LN Yaddanapudi and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_001_frontispiece.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_001_frontispiece.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fb12652
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_001_frontispiece.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_004_letter.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_004_letter.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49e25f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_004_letter.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_036_001.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_036_001.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b345d09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_036_001.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_069_002.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_069_002.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cf2050b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_069_002.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_070_003.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_070_003.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d0f6e67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_070_003.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_071_004.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_071_004.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92dbb46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_071_004.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_073_005.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_073_005.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43ea26a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_073_005.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_078_006.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_078_006.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..97c24b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_078_006.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_081_007.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_081_007.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..048805c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_081_007.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_084_008.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_084_008.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..531af45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_084_008.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_086_009.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_086_009.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c95c946
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_086_009.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_092_010.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_092_010.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fcfc08f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_092_010.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_093_011.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_093_011.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..211209e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_093_011.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_095_012.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_095_012.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c770994
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_095_012.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_096_013.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_096_013.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f143de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_096_013.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_098_014.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_098_014.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c5bc57e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_098_014.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_099_015.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_099_015.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..48bf787
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_099_015.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_100_016.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_100_016.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92ec42c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_100_016.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_101_017.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_101_017.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..00fa2fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_101_017.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_102_018.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_102_018.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8350ee6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_102_018.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_102_019.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_102_019.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d6e9138
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_102_019.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_103_020.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_103_020.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..198daa5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_103_020.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_104_021.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_104_021.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cd64697
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_104_021.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_105_022.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_105_022.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f0ca12b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_105_022.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_107_023.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_107_023.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..190df49
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_107_023.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_110_024.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_110_024.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8fb0741
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_110_024.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_112_025.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_112_025.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..498eece
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_112_025.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_117_026.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_117_026.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e656e7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_117_026.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_124_027.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_124_027.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..93748f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_124_027.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_128_028.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_128_028.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b07c420
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_128_028.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_130_029.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_130_029.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9c9c3da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_130_029.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_138_030.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_138_030.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..037389d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_138_030.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_139_031.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_139_031.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fb6549d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_139_031.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_140_032.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_140_032.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..043de46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_140_032.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_142_033.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_142_033.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9857f47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_142_033.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_143_034.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_143_034.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d6f83c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_143_034.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_144_035.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_144_035.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..696fdd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_144_035.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_146_036.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_146_036.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..febf10b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_146_036.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_148_037.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_148_037.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..225fb7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_148_037.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_149_038a.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_149_038a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e59ebc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_149_038a.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_150_038b.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_150_038b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..11d377f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_150_038b.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_152_039.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_152_039.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..49fe344
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_152_039.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_152_040.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_152_040.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..05679f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_152_040.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_154_041.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_154_041.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a858533
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_154_041.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_155_042.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_155_042.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bc91fcd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_155_042.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_156_043.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_156_043.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e98eba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_156_043.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_157_044.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_157_044.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..92d33a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_157_044.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_160_045.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_160_045.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..648de56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_160_045.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_161_046.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_161_046.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0464e0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_161_046.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_162_047.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_162_047.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b805f82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_162_047.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_165_048.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_165_048.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e28cf56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_165_048.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_165_049.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_165_049.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a3d638
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_165_049.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_166_050.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_166_050.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7a8d18
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_166_050.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_167_051.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_167_051.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..00612dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_167_051.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_167_052.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_167_052.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b44285
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_167_052.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_167_053.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_167_053.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..08ad4db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_167_053.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_168_054.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_168_054.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..462ebf7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_168_054.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_168_055.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_168_055.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..31e22a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_168_055.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_168_056.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_168_056.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..821eb1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_168_056.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_169_057.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_169_057.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c83e2ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_169_057.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_170_058.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_170_058.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3ee40c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_170_058.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_182_059.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_182_059.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..89e4302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_182_059.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_184_060.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_184_060.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..743ed66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_184_060.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_185_061-6.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_185_061-6.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a06ec16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_185_061-6.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_186_067.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_186_067.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..acf329d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_186_067.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_186_068.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_186_068.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ad79cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_186_068.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_187_069.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_187_069.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4591ca5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_187_069.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_187_070.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_187_070.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..38fcb6f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_187_070.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_188_071.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_188_071.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d877de4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_188_071.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_188_072.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_188_072.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d1dd901
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_188_072.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_189_073.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_189_073.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dfd6f73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_189_073.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_191_074.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_191_074.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b21f25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_191_074.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_192_075.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_192_075.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..667fd73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_192_075.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_193_076.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_193_076.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2ea9ed3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_193_076.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_194_077.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_194_077.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3ed0b62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_194_077.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_196_078.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_196_078.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a71c0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_196_078.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_197_079.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_197_079.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..971bad3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_197_079.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_201_080.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_201_080.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33bc063
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_201_080.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_203_081.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_203_081.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..999521c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_203_081.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_204_082.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_204_082.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de9f57e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_204_082.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_206_083.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_206_083.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d3f034
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_206_083.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_207_084.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_207_084.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..96c6d11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_207_084.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_209_085.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_209_085.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..95cfa2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_209_085.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_211_086.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_211_086.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ff44b92
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_211_086.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_212_087.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_212_087.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7419df7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_212_087.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_215_088.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_215_088.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a1e6d7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_215_088.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_217_089.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_217_089.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..61bebea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_217_089.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_219_090.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_219_090.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fa6d866
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_219_090.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_315_091.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_315_091.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b2f9954
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_315_091.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_316_092.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_316_092.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..95b8552
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_316_092.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_317_093.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_317_093.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5bd170a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_317_093.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_318_094.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_318_094.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..846522f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_318_094.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_319_095.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_319_095.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5937d89
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_319_095.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_320_096.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_320_096.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b7713c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_320_096.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_321_097.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_321_097.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fd68b90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_321_097.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_321_098.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_321_098.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5b90d4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_321_098.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_322_099.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_322_099.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..94d1eea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_322_099.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_323_100.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_323_100.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dd28fe6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_323_100.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_324_101.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_324_101.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2afc74e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_324_101.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_324_102.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_324_102.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4cf0423
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_324_102.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_325_103.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_325_103.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af0c861
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_325_103.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_326_104.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_326_104.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..84a1985
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_326_104.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_327_105.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_327_105.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..68b123f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_327_105.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_328_106.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_328_106.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63d8582
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_328_106.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_329_107.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_329_107.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6f721b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_329_107.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_334_108.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_334_108.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..130bb15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_334_108.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_337_109.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_337_109.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44cc3ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_337_109.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_339_110.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_339_110.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..59670b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_339_110.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_342_111.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_342_111.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..524cca6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_342_111.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_343_112.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_343_112.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..255afe4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_343_112.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_345_113.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_345_113.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bae8769
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_345_113.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_346_114.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_346_114.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22d8e09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_346_114.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_347_115.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_347_115.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be84496
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_347_115.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_350_116.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_350_116.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..031a71a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_350_116.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_378_117.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_378_117.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8f8308
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_378_117.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_387_118.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_387_118.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d74a0bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_387_118.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_388_119.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_388_119.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b825590
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_388_119.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_389_120.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_389_120.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..feb79f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_389_120.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_401_121.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_401_121.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f2f182
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_401_121.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_407_122.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_407_122.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f38ac0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_407_122.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_408_123.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_408_123.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4841712
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_408_123.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_415_124.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_415_124.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c4791a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_415_124.jpg
diff --git a/24800-h/images/i_416_125.jpg b/24800-h/images/i_416_125.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a02ce3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/24800-h/images/i_416_125.jpg