1858-64-] THEORY OF DESCENT. 125 



like Huxley, the way may seem clear. However, 

 even Darwin declares that it is not easy, and that 

 he was constantly troubled by hesitation, and even 

 doubts. Agassiz was perhaps too cautious, but no 

 true naturalist will blame him, and the position he 

 took in the controversy has been fully justified. 



All branches of natural history, except mineralogy, 

 are now in a transitory state, and our ignorance on 

 many most important points is very great. In fifty 

 years, our successors will be in a better position to 

 form a judgment. The records of a Cuvier and of 

 an Agassiz, with their admirable works on classifica- 

 tion, comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, 

 glacial doctrine, can await the test of time. 



By way of resume, we may say that at present the 

 theory of descent as set forth by Lamarck and Darwin 

 has not been established by incontestable facts and obser- 

 vations. Agassiz was unwilling to abandon the method 

 of exposition of facts which he had found established 

 in science, and to substitute in its place metaphysics 

 and hypotheses ; he clung to observation and experi- 

 ment. Man has not yet found the secret of creating 

 species; it is true, man has the power of destroying 

 species, as he has already shown by the extermination 

 of several species of animals. But the question of 

 mutability of species and the method of effecting it 

 are still reserved for future observers ; and not until 

 we possess unquestionable proof of their soundness 

 will transformism and descent be accepted in science. 

 Notwithstanding all that has been advanced as to pre- 

 destined evolution, by Naudin, Minart, Koeliker, and 



