1894. NOTES AND COMMENTS. 167 



convince the scientific world of the fact of evolution. Whether or no 

 the final verdict of science be for or against Natural Selection, it will 

 remain the most stupendous example of the value of scientific theory 

 in directing scientific observation. 



But Lord Salisbury has regarnished for us two objections to the 

 validity of Natural Selection. The first of these is the question of 

 the exact amount of time during which evolution has proceeded. 

 Now we do not know the duration of time which is expressed by the 

 Tertiary strata. We do know that, relatively to preceding periods, 

 the Tertiary period is but a short episode in the history of the earth. 

 Yet, in this short period, there have come into existence nearly all 

 the species and genera, and many of the families now living. A very 

 small acquaintance with geology shows that, whatever be the case 

 with the method, there has been time for the actual occurrence, for 

 the excellent reason that the occurrence is actual. As for the amount 

 of time being prohibitive of the process of Natural Selection, Lord 

 Salisbury's objections depend upon a view of the mode of operation 

 of Natural Selection which, so far as we know, is peculiar to Lord 

 Salisbury. But it is not necessary to enter into the view of Natural 

 Selection that the President propounded, because his second objection 

 to Natural Selection is, that we cannot demonstrate the process of 

 Natural Selection in detail, and that we cannot even imagine it. This 

 second and final objection is taken by Lord Salisbury from a recent 

 paper of Weismann. To enter into it would be to open up the whole 

 Darwinian controversy. But we may say that we agree with Lord 

 Salisbury that, if Natural Selection implied that for every step " two 

 individuals of opposite sexes, accidentally blessed with the same 

 advantageous variation, had to meet and transmit by inheritance that 

 variation to their successors," then no lapse of time would be 

 sufficient to transform even one species into another. But that, of 

 course, is a burlesque of the supposed process. 



We do not agree with Weismann's statement, quoted with 

 approval by Lord Salisbury, that, if Natural Selection be rejected, 

 there is no resource but to fall back on the mediate, or immediate, 

 agency of a principle of design. But we admit fully that if there be 

 no hypothesis to account for the evolution of species but the action of 

 selection upon indefinite variations in each generation, then there is 

 room, and more than room, for the hypothesis of some inherent and 

 directing force of phylogenetic development, which is simply design 

 writ small. On the other hand, every recent publication bearing 

 upon these matters is full of suggestion and argument and fact against 

 the nature and use of variation being such as Lord Salisbury supposes. 



Dwarfing by Experiment. 



Those of our readers who have paid attention to the recent 

 researches on the manner and causes of variation, to which we have 



