1858-64.] NEO-LAMARCKISM. 123 



in our knowledge of them ? Can we dispense with 

 a study of the organism, the embryology, the exact 

 position each species occupies in classification?" True 

 progress in natural history does not depend on fine 

 theories, hypotheses, and philosophy. What is wanted 

 are new observations, new facts, new deductions well 

 based on facts absolutely undeniable. 



We shall always have a quantity of theories. We 

 already hear of neo-Darwinism, of neo-Lamarckism ; 

 one need not be much of a prophet to predict that 

 we shall see several other "neos" during the next 

 century. 



Cuvier and Agassiz did not believe in the descent 

 of species and in transformism ; they knew well that 

 species vary, that intermediate forms exist, that links 

 are constantly found ; but all this did not shake their 

 faith in the existence of species and genera. They 

 were unwilling to go beyond what they saw with their 

 own eyes and what they touched with their own hands. 



Slow action a la Lyell and Darwin is very well, 

 but principles of uniformitarianism are constantly dis- 

 turbed by facts which confront every honest and care- 

 ful observer, and which cannot be explained in any 

 satisfactory way, except by the presence of parox- 

 ysms, catastrophes, and revolutions among the forces 

 of nature as we have them now under our eyes. 

 Before such facts, evolutionists and uniformists are 

 at a loss, totally disagreeing among themselves. For 

 instance, the glacial epoch has been a thorn in the 

 flesh of Darwin, Wallace, Bates, and others, each one 

 disagreeing with the others. 



