WALLACE ON "DARWINISM." 87 



When we speak of the lower animals, do we not in fact postu- 

 late the existence of man ? Lower .than what ? Surely lower 

 than man : therefore inferiority can not be predicated until man's 

 existence has been assumed, or has become a fact ; and therefore 

 to speak of man being derived from the lower animals in the 

 remote past, when, if you only go far enough, there is no higher 

 or lower, would seem to be a confusing use of language. 



If it be urged that the objection now made to the phraseology 

 used by Mr. Wallace is merely a verbal quibble, I venture to 

 argue, on the other hand, that there is not a little importance in 

 the objection. I quite admit that if the creation of man be a 

 merely fortuitous fact, a lucky hit, so to speak, in the infinite 

 variety of living forms developed from a single original living 

 germ — if, in fact, creation be without the high purpose which 

 human life, as distinguished from all other forms of life, seems to 

 make manifest — it is scarcely worth while to argue the question 

 whether man was derived from the inferior animals or not. But 

 if man be the intended crown of creation existing in the determi- 

 nate counsel and foreknowledge of God from the beginning, then 

 it does seem to be worth while to argue that the derivation of 

 man and beast from the same living germ is not the same thing 

 as the derivation of one from the other. A sane man may have 

 the misfortune to have an idiot brother ; the sane man and the 

 idiot are derived from the same parents, but it would be incorrect 

 to say that one was derived from the other. May there not be 

 some analogy between a case of this kind and the case of man 

 and beast ? 



B. So much, then, for the hypothesis of one original germ of 

 life ; the argument becomes perhaps more simple if we adopt the 

 second hypothesis, namely, that of several or many germs. 



For in this case it is not unreasonable to suppose that specific 

 differences existed among the original germs. I confess that the 

 notion of the development of all forms of life from one original 

 germ offers to my own mind an almost insuperable difficulty. 

 The arguments drawn from the experimental facts of variation 

 and natural selection, from the observed progression of animal 

 forms in successive geological strata, and the like, seem to me 

 quite inadequate to explain the development of insects, fishes, 

 birds, mammals, from one stock. Consequently, to my own mind 

 it is a relief to be able to think of several, and if of several then 

 possibly of any number, of original germs. The hypothesis is not 

 opposed to, but quite in accordance with, Mr. Darwin's own 

 views ; in fact, he was far too cautious a man to dogmatize con- 

 cerning the unity of the origin of living forms, when all attempt 

 at the examination of the question of origin would necessarily 

 carry him far beyond the limits of possible experiment. Let us 



