226 [September 



It has thus been shown briefly what Darwin's Theory really is. It 



has also been shown, by numerous quotations from his book, what he 



expressly states that it is not. It shall now be shown from Prof. Agas- 



siz's book, that it is assumed by that writer to be the very thing which 



Darwin had repeatedly stated it not to be. 



It surely does not follow that because the Chinese can, under abnormal condi- 

 tions, produce a variety of fantastic shapes in the Golden Carp, therefore ivater 

 or the physical conditions established in the water can create a Fish, any more 

 than it follows that because they can dwarf a tree, or alter its aspect, by stunt- 

 ing its growth in one direction and forcing it in another, therefore the earth, or 

 the physical conditions connected with their growth, can create a Pine, an Oak, a 

 Birch or a Maple. I confess that in all the arguments derived from the phe- 

 nomena of domestication, to prove that animals owe their origin and diversity 

 to the natural action of the conditions under which they live, the conclusion does 

 not seem to me to follow logically from the premises. {Meth. St., p. 145.) 



It may be added here, that from one end to the other of this book 

 not one solitary word is said about Natural Selection, the Struggle for 

 Existence, or any of the other great leading features of the " Origin 

 of Species," in any shape, manner or form. The whole argument is 

 ignored as completely as if it had never been promulgated ; and, as 

 we have already seen, an old, exploded doctrine which Darwin ex- 

 pressly disavows on eight separate occasions, is set up as a target for 

 the dialectic arrows of Prof. Agassiz. Five entire pages (pp. 141-5) 

 are expended in proving triumphantly what nobody denies, and what 

 follows as a necessary consequence from Mr. Darwin's views, viz. that 

 the characters that distinguish wild species are different from those 

 which distinguish domesticated breeds. Surely, if they were not dif- 

 ferent, it would be a fatal objection to Mr. Darwin's theory. The for- 

 mer characters, according to that theory, arise from variations useful 

 to the animal or plant itself; the latter from variations useful or pleas- 

 ing, not to the animal or plant itself, but to man. We should natu- 

 rally therefore, arguing a prion', expect them to be different as a gene- 

 ral rule. Who, that is not bewildered by a preconceived theory, would 

 expect to find in a wild pear the luscious, melting, sweet pulp, which 

 man has gradually produced by Artificial Selection in the cultivated 

 fruit? Or to find in a wolf the disposition to point game, instead of 

 rushing greedily upon it, which man by artificial training, by Artificial 

 Selection, and by the Law of Inheritance, has gradually produced in 



