in CRITICISMS ON " THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES " 89 



short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological 

 product. 



' ' 2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the 

 organic remains of earlier epochs. " 



Upon this, Professor Kolliker remarks that the 

 absence of transitional forms in the fossil world, 

 though not necessarily fatal to Darwin's views, 

 weakens his case. 



"3. The struggle for existence does not take place." 

 To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kolliker, 

 very justly, attaches no weight. 



"4. A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, 

 and a natural selection, do not exist. 



" The varieties which are found arise in consequence of 

 manifold external influences, and it is not obvious why they all, 

 or partially, should be particularly useful. Each animal suffices 

 for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further 

 development. Should, however, a variety be useful and even 

 maintain itself, there is no obvious reason why it should change 

 any further. The whole conception of the imperfection of 

 organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected is 

 plainly the weakest side of Darwin's Theory, and a pis aller 

 (Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle 

 by which to explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe, 

 have occurred." 



Here again we must venture to dissent com- 

 pletely from Professor Kolliker' s conception of Mr. 

 Darwin's hypothesis. It appears to us to be one 

 of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that 

 it involves no belief in a necessary and continual 

 progress of organisms. 



Again, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright, 



