Tiii CONTENTS. 



ARTICLE III. 



NATURAL SELECTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH NATURAL THEOLOGY. 



PAGE 



Part I. — Premonitions of Darwinism. — A Proper Subject for 

 Speculation. — Summary of Facts and Ideas suggestive of Hy- 

 potheses of Derivation . . . . . . .87 



Part II. — Limitations of Theory conceded by Darwin. — What Dar- 

 winism explains. — Geological Argument strong in the Tertiary 

 Period. — Correspondence between Rank and Geological Suc- 

 cession. — Difficulties in Classification. — Nature of Affinity. — 

 No Absolute Distinction between Vegetable and Animal King- 

 doms. — Individuality. — Gradation . . . . .104 



Part III. — Theories contrasted. — Early Arguments against Darwin- 

 ism. — Philosophical and Theological Objections. — Theory may 

 be theistic. — Final Cause not excluded. — Cause of Variation 

 unknown. — Three Views of Efficient Cause compatible with 

 Theism. — Agassiz's Objections of a Philosophical Nature. — 

 Minor Objections. — Conclusion . . . . .129 



ARTICLE IV. 



SPECIES AS TO VARIATION, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, AND SUCCESSION. 



Alphonse De Candolle's Study of the Oak Genus. — Variability of 

 the Species. — Antiquity. — A Common Origin probable. — Dr. 

 Falconer on the Common Origin of Elephants. — Variation and 

 Natural Selection distinguished. — Saporta on the Gradation be- 

 tween the Vegetable Forms of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. 

 — Hypothesis of Derivation more likely to be favored by Bot- 

 anists than by Zoologists. — Views of Agassiz respecting the 

 Origin, Dispersion, Variation, Characteristics, and Successive 

 Creation of Species contrasted with those of De Candolle and 

 others. — Definition of Species. — Whether its Essence is in the 

 Likeness or in the Genealogical Connection of the Individuals 

 composing a Species . . . . . . .178 



