BECEPTWy OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES/ 179 



Iwelvemonth, or thereabouts, after the publication of the 'Origin/ I 

 find among such critics Louis Agassiz; Murray, an excellent entomolo- 

 gist; Harve}', a botanist of considerable repute; and the author of an 

 article in the 'Edinburgh Eeview/ all strongl}' adverse to Darwin. 

 Pictet, the distinguished and widely learned paleontologist of Geneva, 

 treats Mr. Darwin with a respect which forms a grateful contrast to the 

 tone of some of the preceding writers, but consents to go with him only 

 a very little way. On the other hand, Lyell, up to that time a pillar of 

 the anti-transmutationists (who regarded him, ever afterwards, as 

 Pallas Athene may have looked at Dian, after the Endymion affair), 

 declared himself a Darwinian, though not without putting in a serious 

 caveat. Nevertheless, he was a tower of strength, and his courageous 

 stand for truth as against consistency, did him infinite honour. As evo- 

 lutionists, sans phrase, I do not call to mind among the biologists more 

 than Asa Gray, who fought the battle splendidly in the United States; 

 Hooker, who was no less vigorous here; the present Sir John Lubbock 

 and myself. 



DAEWIX ox THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.* 



Such are the signs of defective information which contribute, almost 

 at each chapter, to check our confidence in the teachings and advocacy 

 of the hypothesis of 'Natural Selection.' But, as we have before been 

 led to remark, most of Mr. Darwin's statements elude, by their vague- 

 ness and incompleteness, the test of Natural History facts. Thus he 

 says : — 



'I think it highly probable that our domestic dogs have descended 

 from several wild species.' It may be so ; but what are the species here 

 referred to ? Are they known, or named, or can they be defined ? If so, 

 why are they not indicated, so that the naturalist might have some 

 means of Judging of the degree of probability, or value of the surmise, 

 and of its bearing on the hypothesis? 



'Isolation, also,' says Mr. Darwin, 'is an important element in the 

 process of natural selection.' But how can one select if a thing be 

 'isolated'? Even using the word in the sense of a confined area, Mr. 

 Darwin admits that the conditions of life 'throughout such area, will 

 tend to modify all the individuals of a species in the same manner, in 

 relation to the same conditions.' (P. 104.) 



No evidence, however, is given of a species having ever been created 

 in that way; but granting the h}^othetical influence and transmuta- 

 tion, there is no selection here. The author adds, 'Although I do not 

 doubt that isolation is of considerable importance in the production 

 of new species, on the whole, I am inclined to believe, that largeness 



* From an article in the 'Edinburgh Review' for April, 1860, attributed to 

 Richard Owen. 



