1875.| The Question of Organic Evolution. 189 
upon the world that laws, at first deemed applicable solely 
to ‘dumb animals’—to ‘‘ mere brutes’”—extend to man. 
The theory of ferns and flowers, of beetles and butterflies, 
has become a theory of life. Notions which have been 
unfortunately entangled with our creeds, intertwined with 
our earliest education, and which underlie many of our 
colloquial expressions, are threatened. No wonder that, as 
Professor Schmidt expresses the matter,—‘‘ Since to non- 
scientific persons the notorious relationship with apes is the 
alpha and omega of the Doctrine of Descent—since the 
most confused heads are often most thoroughly convinced 
of their own pre-eminence—on no subject do we so frequently 
hear superficial opinions, mostly condemnatory, and all 
evincing the grossest ignorance.” 
But whilst the new doctrine has met with so hostile 
a reception from those ignorant of the organic sciences, if 
not of science altogether, or at least dominated by a 
radically unscientific spirit, its welcome among candid, 
working naturalists, capable of understanding the evidence 
on which it rests, is equally remarkable. Agassiz, one of 
its bitterest opponents, though his own researches had 
helped to prepare its advent, exclaimed almost passionately 
that he did not expect to see so many of the best minds of 
the age range themselves under the standard of Evolu- 
tionism. To use an expression of Professor Schmidt’s: 
“Scales fell, as it were, from the eyes of fellow-labourers and 
spectators, and the rapidity with which the theory makes its 
way affords the best evidence that it took shape, and was 
proclaimed at the proper moment.” Its effect upon the 
sciences concerned has been the best argument in its favour. 
Stray facts, unintelligible, or at least unaccountable, observa- 
tions, at once arrange themselves in definite order, like 
well-disciplined soldiers at the tap of the drum. Zoology 
and botany have received a purpose which before they lacked. 
Best of all, the necessity of verifying the “‘ Darwinian” 
doctrine has produced and is still producing a plentiful 
harvest of discoveries. The works of Evolutionists are not 
barren apologetics for a stationary creed, but successful 
applications of a vital principle. Different thinkers may 
attach greater or less importance to ‘“‘ natural sele¢tion,” 
the power by which, according to Darwin, the mutation of 
species, is mainly effected; other powers, modifying, con- 
trolling, and extending, may and probably will be brought to 
light. But the doctrine of evolution itself, we believe, has 
scarcely failed to receive the assent of any conscientious 
and qualified naturalist who has given it a fair trial. ‘‘ The 
