HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



as an "ideal form," but while I am ready to defend 

 my position on the ground first taken up by me, it is 

 fair that my original meaning should be clearly under- 

 stood. 



In my first article, I said : "According to the theory 

 of development, it has taken untold ages of evolution 

 advancing by gradations infinitely minute, to produce 

 at length the ideal human form." This sentence Mr. 

 Tansley omitted to quote, though he proceeded to 

 challenge the following sentence which succeeded it : 

 " allowing, as we must, man's to be the ideal form." 



I think it is sufficiently clear that my object was to 

 meet the evolutionist on his own ground. This I 

 explained more fully in my second article, in the 

 following sentence: "arguing upon evolution grounds, 

 we are bound to look upon anything lower than the 

 ideal form as an arrested development ; and for the 

 sake of the argument I adopted that position." In 

 my third article, March, iS88, I again repeated that 

 "arguing on evolution ground only," should I use 

 such terms as " excrescences and deficiencies, with 

 regard to organs in the lower animals," and concluded 

 my paper by saying : " To the non-evolutionist every 

 group is perfect in its kind, and for its environment." 

 This I repeated again in my last article. 



But while I wish it to be understood that I am 

 Hot pressing for a linear classification, there are 

 higher and lower morphological types which make 

 a philosophical classification necessary, and I have 

 the authority of Agassiz for placing man at the head 

 of this classification. He says, "It is evident that 

 there is a manifest progress in the succession of 

 beings on the surface of the earth. This progress 

 consists, &c., &c., among the vertebrata especially, 

 in their increasing resemblance to man."* 



With regard to Mr. Tansley's objection to my use 

 of the term "ideal form," I will again quote the 

 same authority. Speaking of groups of animals, 

 Agassiz says, " For each of these groups, whether 

 larger or smaller, we involuntarily picture in our 

 minds [an image made up of the traits which 

 characterise the group. This ideal image is called 

 a type, &c., &c. This image may correspond to 

 some one member of the group, but it is rare that 

 any one species embodies all our ideas of the class, 

 family, or genus to which it belongs, &c., &c. It 

 is common, however, to speak of the animal which 

 embodies most fully the characters of a group, as the 

 type of that group."t 



If then it is true that groups of organic beings in 

 an ever-ascending scale have given place to "other 

 and more perfect groups," which is the expression 

 used by Darwin, and if in the most perfect group, 

 man is found to embody most fully the characters of 

 the group, we may surely in this sense regard him as 

 the type, and describe him as the ideal image. 



' * Agassiz and Gould's " Comparative Physiology," p. 417. 



f Agassiz and Gould's " Comparative Pnysiology." Intro- 

 duction, p. XX. 



Mr. Tansley further says : "organs, &c., can only 

 be considered more or less perfect in proportion as 

 they are more or less able to perform the functions 

 for which they were developed, and that, therefore, 

 no organism can be said to be ' ideal ' unless every 

 one of its organs performs its function more com- 

 pletely than any corresponding ones throughout 

 organic nature." 



If this be the only legitimate way of comparing 

 organs and organisms, the rule should certainly hold 

 good with regard to groups of organic beings ; but is 

 this Mr. Darwin's meaning of the expression "more 

 perfect " when alluding to them ? 



Does he mean "groups of organic beings better 

 able to perform the functions for which they were 

 developed " ? 



If so, this is a contradiction of Mr. Fenn's state- 

 ment in the November number of Science-Gossip, 

 1887, that "all animals are as perfect as man, and as 

 admirably adapted to their surroundings." 



Again, Mr. Darwin speaks of man as "the wonder 

 and glory of the universe."* If he judged of him 

 simply "in relation to his environment," as Mr. 

 Tansley would insist, why should he use such an 

 expression regarding man rather than any of the 

 lower animals ? 



It is very evident, I think, that he recognised in 

 him, the type, or ideal image, of the most perfect 

 group, " standing," as Dr. Nicholson expresses it in 

 his " Manual of Zoology," "at the top of the whole 

 animal kingdom. "f This is hardly stronger language 

 than that used by me in my first article, when I 

 spoke of man as the "last triumph of creative 

 power." 



Mr. Tansley's view of the operation of Natural 

 Selection is that it "ultimately consists in the action 

 of certain purely mechanical environing agencies on 

 the organism," and is not the result of " the opera- 

 tion of an intelligent agency." 



This is hardly in accordance with the following 

 statement of Mr. Darwin's. He says: "We can 

 only say that it has so pleased the Creator to com- 

 mand that the past and present inhabitants of the 

 world should appear in a certain order, &c., &c., 

 that He has impressed on them the most extra- 

 ordinary resemblance, and has classed them in groups 

 subordinate to groups. "$ 



Mr. Tansley further adds "that the operation of 

 an intelligent agency, would be entirely inconsistent 

 with the operation of a factor like Natural Selection." 

 I cannot reply to this better than by quoting the 

 words of Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, one of Mr. 

 Darwin's ablest fellow-workers and followers, who, 

 after combating in the earlier part of his argument, 

 what he calls the " continual interference hypothesis," 

 is forced by his observations of a certain class of 

 phenomena relating to the development of man, to 



* " Descent of Man," p. 212. f " Manual of Zoo!.," p. 16. 

 % "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. i. p. 9. 



