1864.] 223 



ber of old species, but are, so to say, the transformed old species, is in 

 my opinion irresistible to any unprejudiced observer." (^Ibid. p. 315.) 



II. As Prof. Agassiz has gone out of his way, in his recent " Meth- 

 ods of Study," to offer what he seems to consider as a refutation of 

 Darwin's views on the Derivative Origin of Species, I may be allowed 

 here a few words, in order to demonstrate that he has totally misappi'e- 

 hended and misstated the Darwinian Theory, and appears never even to 

 have given himself the trouble to read Darwin's book through. It is 

 evident, indeed, from his language, that he has approached that book 

 with the same feelings as many men approach a toad or a spider, viz. 

 as something scarcely worthy his notice and disgustful to every rightly 

 constituted mind. " If," he says, (p. 303,) " such views are ever to 

 deserve serious consideration," &c. " They are repugnant," he adds, 

 (p. 317,) " to our better nature." This may be a very good reason for 

 not reading a book, but it is a very poor reason for attempting to refute 

 it without first reading it carefully through at least once. The conser- 

 vative President of the Linn?ean Society in England has recently ex- 

 pressed the opinion, in his Annual Address, " that the tide of opinion 

 among philosophic naturalists is setting strongly in favor of Mr. Dar- 

 win's Theory." Some of the first naturalists of the day, for instance, 

 Hooker, Herbert, Huxley, Owen, Lyell, Bates, Wallace, Isidore 

 St. Hilaire, Naudin and as we have just seen Loew, advocate the 

 same or very similar opinions. The " Origin of Species" is a strong 

 book, well weighed and carefully thought out, written by a strong 

 man familiar with all the discoveries of modern science and himself 

 the honored author of many new scientific discoveries. It is utterly 

 impossible, even for a naturalist of such distinguished attainments 

 as Prof. Agassiz, to upset this new theory, like a child's house built 

 out of cards, by the mere weight of his personal authority. Least of 

 all will it answer to set up a man of straw, call it the Darwinian theory, 

 and amuse himself with pulling it to pieces. 



It is certainly true that in the "Methods of Study" Mr. Darwin's 

 name is not especially mentioned, in connection with the Theory which 

 it is attempted to refute. But as " the variability of species under do- 

 mestication " is repeatedly and prominently alluded to in that book, as 

 having been "urged with great persistency in recent discussions upon 



