226 Miscellaneous. 



could also impart similar peculiarities with similar relations, and all 

 degrees of relationship, to any number of other species that have 

 existed. Until, therefore, it can be shown that any one species has 

 the ability to delegate such specified peculiarities and relations to 

 any other species or set of species, it is not logical to assume that 

 such a power is inherent in any animal, or that it constitutes part of 

 its nature*. We must look to the original power that imparted life 

 to the first being for the origin of all other beings, however myste- 

 rious and inaccessible the modes by which all this diversity has been 

 produced may remain for us. The production of a plausible explana- 

 tion is no explanation at all, if it does not cover the whole ground. 



All attempts to explain the origin of species may be brought under 

 two categories : viz. 1st, some naturalists admitting that all organized 

 beings are created, that is to say, endowed from the beginning of 

 their existence with all their characteristics ; while, 2nd, others assume 

 that they arise spontaneously. This classification of the different 

 theories of the origin of species may appear objectionable to the 

 supporters of the transmutation theory ; but I can perceive no essen- 

 tial difference between their views and the old idea that animals may 

 have arisen spontaneously. They differ only in the modes by which 

 the spontaneous appearance is assumed to be effected ; some believe 

 that physical agents may so influence organized beings as to modify 

 them ; this is the view of De Maillet and the ' Vestiges of Creation.' 

 Others believe that the organized beings themselves change in con- 

 sequence of their own acts, by changing their mode of life, &c. ; this 

 is the view of Lamarck. Others, still, assume that animals and plants 

 tend necessarily to improve, in consequence of the struggle for life, 

 in which the favoured races are supposed to survive ; this is the view 

 lately propounded by Darwin. I believe these theories will, in the 

 end, all share the fate of the theory of spontaneous generation so 

 called, as the facts of Nature shall be confronted more closely with 

 the theoretical assumptions. The theories of De Maillet, Oken, and 

 Lamarck are already abandoned by those who have adopted the 

 transmutation theory of Darwin ; and unless Darwin and his followers 

 succeed in showing that the struggle for life tends to something 

 beyond favouring the existence of certain individuals over that of 

 other individuals, they will soon find that they are following a shadow. 



* The difficulty of ascertaining the natural limits of some species, and the mis- 

 takes made by naturalists when describing individual peculiarities as specific, have 

 nothing to do with the question of the origin of species ; and yet Darwin places 

 great weight, in support of his theory, upon the differences which exist among 

 naturalists in their views of species. Some of the metals are difficult to distinguish, 

 and have frequently been mistaken, and the specific differences of some may be 

 questioned ; but what could that have to do with the question of the origin of 

 metals, in the minds of those who may doubt the original difference of metals ? 

 Nothing more than the blunders of some naturalists in identifying species, with 

 the origin of species of animals and plants. The great mischief in our science 

 now lies in the self-complacent confidence with which certain zoologists look 

 upon a few insignificant lines, called diagnoses, which they have the presumption 

 to offer as characteristics of species, or, what is still worse, as checks upon others 

 to secure to themselves a nominal priority. Such a treatment of scientific subjects 

 is unworthy of our age. 



