BUFFON AND THE PROBLEM OF SPECIES 555 



point and detail by detail, is not our wonder aroused rather by the resemblances 

 than by the differences to be found between them? ... It is but in the number 

 of those bones which may be regarded as accessory, and in the lengthening or 

 shortening or mode of attachment of the others, that the skeleton of the horse 

 differs from that of the human body. . . . The foot of the horse (as M. Daubenton 

 has shown), in appearance so different from the hand of man, is nevertheless 

 composed of the same bones, and we have at the extremities of our fingers the 

 same small hoof -shaped bone which terminates the foot of that animal. Judge, 

 then, whether this hidden resemblance is not more marvelous than any outward 

 differences, whether this constancy to a single plan of structure — which we can 

 follow from man to the quadrupeds, from the quadrupeds to the cetacea, from 

 the cetacea to birds, from birds to fishes, from fishes to reptiles — whether this 

 does not seem to show that the Creator in making all these used but a single 

 main idea, though varying it in every conceivable manner — so that man might 

 admire equally the magnificence of the execution and the simplicity of the design. 



But consideration of the anatomical homologies did not lead Buffon 

 merely to pious reflections. He saw clearly and unequivocally declared 

 that this unity of type forcibly suggests the hypothesis of community 

 of descent. To one who considers only this class of facts, he wrote: 



Not only the ass and the horse, but also man, the apes, the quadrupeds, and 

 all the animals, might be regarded as constituting but a single family. ... If 

 it were admitted that the ass is of the family of the horse, and differs from the 

 horse only because it has varied from the original form, one could equally well 

 say that the ape is of the family of man, that he is a degenerate (degenere) 

 man, that man and ape have a common origin ; that, in fact, all the families, 

 among plants as well as animals, have come from a single stock; and that all 

 animals are descended from a single animal, from which have sprung in the 

 course of time, as a result of progress or of degeneration, all the other races of 

 animals. For if it were once shown that we are justified in establishing these 

 families; if it were granted that among animals and plants there has been (I do 

 not say several species) but even a single one, which has been produced in the 

 course of direct descent from another species; if, for example, it were true that 

 the ass is but a degeneration from the horse — then there would no longer be any 

 limit to the power of nature, and we should not be wrong in supposing that, with 

 sufficient time, she has been able from a single being to derive all the other 

 organized beings. 



Buffon thus presented the hypothesis of evolution with entire defi- 

 niteness, and indicated the homological evidence in its favor. But did 

 he himself regard that evidence as conclusive, and therefore accept the 

 hypothesis? The passage cited is immediately followed by a repudia- 

 tion, ostensibly on theological grounds, of the ideas which he has been 

 so temptingly presenting. 



But no! It is certain from revelation that all animals have participated 

 equally in the grace of direct creation, and that the first pair of every species 

 issued full formed from the hands of the Creator. 20 



This repudiation has been regarded as ironical, or as inserted 

 merely pro forma, by those interpreters of Buffon who have made him 

 out a thorough-going evolutionist. Unfortunately, nearly all these 



50 "Hist. Nat.," IV., 1753, p. 383. 



