1895. | NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCINECES. 47 
said afterwards, “ you know I have to take care of him, in fact 
I have always been Darwin’s bulldog,” and this exactly ex- 
pressed one of the many relations which existed so long between 
the two men. 
Huxley was not always fortunate in the intellectual calibre of 
the men to whom he lectured in the Royal School of Mines. 
Many of the younger generation were studying in the univer- 
sities, under Balfour at Cambridge and under Rolleston at Ox- 
ford. However, Saville Kent, C. Lloyd Morgan, George B. 
Howes, T. Jeffrey Parker and W. Newton Parker are repre- 
sentative biologists who were wholly trained by Huxley. Many 
others, not his students, have expressed the deepest indebted- 
ness to him. Among these especially are Prof. E. Ray 
Lankester, of Oxford, and Prof. Michael Foster, of Cambridge. 
Huxley once said that he had “discovered Foster.” He not 
only singled men out, but knew how to direct and inspire them 
to investigate the most pressing problems of the day. As it 
was, his thirty-one years of lectures would have produced a far 
greater effect if they had been delivered from an Oxford, Cam- 
bridge or Edinburgh chair. In fact, Huxley’s whole life would 
have been different, in some ways more effective, in others less 
so, if the universities had welcomed the young genius who was 
looking for a post and even cast his eyes toward America in 1850, 
but in those early days of classical prestige both seats of learn- 
ing were dead to the science, which it was Huxley’s great service 
in support of Darwin to place beside physics, in the lead of all 
others in England. Moreover, Oxford, if not Cambridge, could 
not long have sheltered such a wolf in the fold. 
What Haeckel did for evolution in Germany, Huxley did in 
England. As the earliest and most ardent supporter of Darwin 
and the theory of descent, it is remarkable that he never gave 
an unreserved support to the theory of natural selection as all- 
sufficient. Twenty-five years ago, with his usual penetration 
and prophetic insight, he showed that the problem of variation 
might, after all, be the greater problem; and only three years 
ago, in his ‘ Romanes Lecture,” he disappointed many of the 
disciples of Darwin by declaring that natural selection failed to 
explain the origin of our moral and ethica] nature. Whether 
he was right or wrong, we will not stop to discuss, but consider 
the still more remarkable conditions of Huxley’s relations to 
the theory of evolution. As expositor, teacher, defender, he 
was the high priest of evolution. From the first he saw the 
strong and weak points of the special Darwinian theory; he 
wrote upon the subject for thirty years, and yet he never con- 
tributed a single original or novel idea to it; in other words, 
