106 NATURAL SCIENCE [August 
We must not forget that the main result of Darwin’s writings 
was to substantiate not natural selection, but the doctrine of 
evolution. It is this for which our thanks to him cannot be too 
great; natural selection was but an hypothesis wherewith to 
account for it, though as we have seen it was based not on facts, but 
on assumptions, so far as it was supposed to be connected with the 
origin of species. 
Darwin’s methods have, unfortunately, led others to follow 
them. Thus the late Mr Romanes wrote a long and elaborate 
paper on “ Physiological Selection.”1 It was really based on an @ 
priori assumption; for he proposed testing his theory or getting 
others to do it after he wrote and published it. As might be 
foreseen no subsequent proofs were forthcoming. It still remains 
what it was at first. 
I would venture to beg of writers when advancing a theory, 
to try and avoid ever using the words ‘may be,’ ‘might be,’ 
‘would be, or ‘must be, phrases so freely used by Dr Wallace and 
Dr Weismann. Let them stick to what ‘is, collect innumerable 
facts in support of any contention, and they will then find little 
or no thinking or reasoning out will be required at all. For facts 
soon tell their own tale and quickly make havoc of @ priori, 
gratuitous and baseless assumptions. 
Indeed, it seems to me that we are rapidly falling back into a 
position like to, if not the same, as that of the teleologists of the last 
century. Thus it is frequently asserted by Darwinists that holly 
has prickly leaves up to a certain height, in order to prevent cattle 
browsing upon them, and that when the trees grow out of reach, 
the leaves are non-spinescent. What is this but pure teleology ? 
Only, instead of saying the Creator made them so, as our forefathers 
would have done, they attribute this supposed result to natural 
selection. Instead of studying the natural condition of lfe in 
which spiny plants grow, they make the above easy but unwarrant- 
able & priori assumption, forgetting, or not taking the trouble to 
observe, whether the holly actually does keep off cattle—which it 
does not, for cows are particularly fond of eating holly boughs, as 
I know to my cost, some well-trimmed bushes having been spoilt 
by them. Moreover, in early summer when new holly leaves 
appear, just when they might tempt a cow, they are entirely un- 
protected, for you may put a bunch of leaves in your mouth and 
you would not know that they were going to be spiny at all. 
Lastly, hollies often grow to twelve or more feet high, and retain 
spiny leaves throughout. So, too, is the same teleological argument 
held with regard to nettles and their stings, but (alas for the 
Theory of Protection) numerous species of caterpillars live on 
1 Journ. Linn. Soc. Zool., vol. xix.; 1886. 
