Recent Literature. 175 
otherwise. Being unfamiliar with even a smattering of modern bi- — 
ological, research, their attention has not been directed in these 
channels. Mr. Romanes, therefore, very properly considers that 
he has a public to convince, and argues every question from this 
standpoint. In criticising the first part of his book, consequently, 
the only thing to consider is how well and how forcibly, or, rather, — 
from the standpoint of an outsider, how fairly he has presented the 
case of evolution. Had this work appeared even a comparatively 
short time ago there would doubtless have been many reviewers 
who would question the validity of his proofs, but to-day there are 
few who would have the?temerity to openly attack such a demon- 
stration and expose themselves to the criticism which would follow. 
It is really a question merely of whether his arguments are so pre- 
sented and his illustrations so chosen that a person unfamiliar with 
the subject could’reasonably be expected to follow him. And this, 
jt seems, he has really succeeded admirably well in doing. The 
figured illustrations arezespecially worthy of notice, for both from 
their profuseness andthe judiciousness with which they have been 
selected they, in many cases, speak for themselves. 
After a few pages of introduction, in which the subject is dis- | 
cussed from a general point of view, the testimony of classification 
is adduced, followed in succession by that of morphology, embry- 
ology, palzontology and geographical distribution. In every case 
he argues with the defender of special creation and a designing 
deity, showing thefinnumerable inconsistencies and absurdities which 
the advocates of that view must maintain. Thus, in the chapter on 
geographical distribution, he shows that on islands where gales of 
wind are continually replenishing the mainland forms of life there 
are few distinct species, while on islands where high winds from the 
mainland do not prevail the species are, for the most part, distinct. 
“ But,” he says, “ 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 
degree of peculiarity on the part of the isolated species and the 
degree in which their nearest allies on the mainland are there con- 
fined to narrow ranges, and therefore less likely to keep up any 
