112 
of the progeny of Darwin's arboreal ancestor have descend- 
ed in pairs by parallel lines, through countless cycles of 
time, and by use of ‘variation, ‘natural, and ‘sexual 
selection, ‘survival of the fittest, and what not, have 
guided, or been guided in, their development until they 
reached, by a coimctdence incalculably wonderful, almost 
synchronously the marvellous ‘cousummation’ of their 
species, the divers races of men: (certainly as books are 
written and read in these rapid days, the impression is, as 
a rule, left on the reader’s mind that the ‘organisms’ 
have guided themselves: protests against this natural 
deduction are very rare). It is too much to ask, even of 
credulity to accept doth the above antagonistic theortes ; 
yet both have been advanced against the Divine Record 
which has been received by us. 
I believe that Mr. W. E. Brook suggests that Mon- 
key is as likely to be degraded Man; as Man “adult” 
(Professor Parker’s word), monkey. 
The mention of credulity reminds me that in no way 
is it more severely taxed, to keep up with the increasing 
demand made upon it, than in the matter of ‘ Mimicry.’ 
I believe that Mr. Bates has the credit due to the 
invention of this idea; and Mr. Wallace has enthusiasti- 
cally adopted and illustrated it. 
I understand it to be that for ‘protective causes’ 
(anglice, safety), certain species have either gradually, or 
at once ‘mimicked’ other species, genera, and even sub- 
stances, more safely guarded from destruction, or for 
‘survival’ in the ‘struggle for existence. 
There are the well known examples of the Butterfly 
which mimicks another butterfly unsavory to birds; and 
the weaker ‘Oriole’ which mimicks, and consorts with the 
stronger ‘Honey suckers’ (nevertheless ‘oriolus’ is not as 
a rule a genus unlikely to survive in the ‘struggle for 
a 
