EVOLUTION, OLD AND NEW. 



view from mine are not of much importance ; lie seems 

 to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at 

 successive periods, and then re-stocked, and he ^ives as 

 an alternative, that new forms may be generated * with- 

 out the presence of any mould or germ of former 

 aggregates.' I am not sure that I understand some 

 passages ; but it seems that he attributes much influence 

 to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly 

 saw, however, the full force of the principle of natural 

 selection." * 



Nothing could well be more misleading. If Mr. 

 Matthew's view of the origin of species is "precisely 

 the same as that " propounded by Mr. Darwin, it is hard 

 to see how Mr. Darwin can call those of Lamarck and 

 Dr. Erasmus Darwin " erroneous " ; for Mr. Matthew's 

 is nothing but an excellent and well-digested summary 

 of the conclusions arrived at by these two writers and 

 by Buffon. If, again, Mr. Darwin is correct in saying 

 that Mr. Matthew " clearly saw the full force of the 

 principle of natural selection," he condemns the view 

 he has himself taken of it in his * Origin of Species,' 

 for Mr. Darwin has assigned a far more important and 

 very different effect to the fact that the fittest com- 

 monly survive in the struggle for existence, than Mr. 

 Matthew has done. Mr. Matthew sees a cause under- 

 lying all variations ; he takes the most teleological or 

 purposive view of organism that has been taken by 

 any writer (not a theologian) except myself, while Mr. 

 Darwin's view, if not the least teleological, is certainly 

 nearly so, and his confession of inability to detect any 

 ' Origin of Species,* Hist. (Sketch, p. xvi. 



