1 873.] PERMANENCE OF TYPE. 209 



of the kind in the growth of animals which has actually been 

 demonstrated, as well as the men to whom we owe that demonstra- 

 tion. Indeed, the science of zoology, including everything pertain- 

 ing to the past and present life and history of animals, has furnished, 

 since the beginning of the nineteenth century, an amount of startling 

 and exciting information in which men have lost sight of the old 

 landmarks. In the present ferment of theories respecting the rela- 

 tions of animals to one anothef, their origin, growth, and diversity, 

 those broader principles of our science upon which the whole ani- 

 mal kingdom has been divided into a few grand comprehensive types, 

 each one a structural unit in itself are completely overlooked. . . . 



The time has, perhaps, not come for an impartial appreciation of 

 the views of Darwin, and the task is the more difficult because it 

 involves an equally impartial review of the modifications his theory 

 has undergone at the hands of his followers. The aim of his first 

 work on " The Origin of Species " was to show that neither vegeta- 

 tion nor animal forms are so distinct from one another or so inde- 

 pendent in their origin and structural relations as most naturalists 

 believed. This idea was not new. Under different aspects it has 

 been urged repeatedly for more than a century by de Maillet, by 

 Lamarck, by E. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire and others; nor was it 

 wholly original even with them, for the study of the relations of 

 animals and plants has at all times been one of the principal aims 

 of all the more advanced students of natural history ; they have 

 differed only in their methods and appreciations. But Darwin has 

 placed the subject on a different basis from that of all his prede- 

 cessors, and has brought to the discussion a vast amount of well- 

 arranged information, a convincing cogency of argument, and a 

 captivating charm of presentation. His doctrine appealed the more 

 powerfully to the scientific world because he maintained it at first 

 not upon metaphysical ground, but upon observation. Indeed, it 

 might be said that he treated his subject according to the best 

 scientific methods, had he not frequently overstepped the boundaries 

 of actual knowledge and allowed his imagination to supply the links 

 which science does not furnish. . . . 



The excitement produced by the publication of" The Origin of Spe- 

 cies" may be fairly compared to that which followed the appearance of 

 VOL. 11. 1> 



