113 
existence’ through lack of fitting advantages). But why 
such varieties, if they be varieties, should not have been 
specially created does not appear. Our own ‘Lappet moth’ 
(Lasiocampa Quercifolia), which at rest looks like a dead 
beech-leaf (Fagifolia)? for its protection, has never been 
exalted into a ‘Mimick.’ 
Indeed if the ‘mimicry’ has been carried into effect 
“by a leap,’ in defiance of ‘Nature’s rule’ as laid down by 
Darwin, does it not amount to a special creation. 
The term Mimicry implies action, and change. 
The case of the Spider which, lying on its back with 
black legs folded over the white abdomen, in the centre 
of its smeary looking web spread over a leaf (an exact 
imitation of the excreta of some bird lying upon the leaf’s 
surface), 1s a case as much to the purpose as any. 
If that spider, through countless cycles of time, has 
gradually developed the image which is its necessary safe- 
guard; Zow was it preserved when the mimicry was but 
commencing ? (an idea to be carried undeviatingly on from 
generation to generation), how not extirpated during the 
process to perfection? 
If on the other hand it swddeuly assumed the likeness 
so necessary to its preservation, either it was by the insect’s 
own power of ‘Natural Selection,’ or by the energy of 
the Creator, in which case it amounts to @ new creation. 
The whole subject of Natural History now lies 
environed by ‘Evolution’ as in the arms of a cuttlefish 
whose opponents are confused by an ink-cloud of vaguely 
worded suggestions, and vaguer guesses. 
Broad views are claimed by the Philosopher, as in 
bright contrast to the zarrow views of the Theologian : 
may be that the reverse is the real truth. 
One contracted view charged against the latter is that 
he holds all the beautiful creatures of this earth to have 
been made for his special delight. 
8 
