1875.] The Question of Organic Evolution. 201 
fatal flaw in his experimental evidence, we must, perforce, 
admit that abiogenesis is not merely possible, but that as 
regards the lowest forms of organic life, it is a matter of 
daily occurrence. 
We must, however, point out that, upon the first dawn of 
life on our globe, these experiments, interesting as they are, 
throw no light whatsoever. They all involve the use of 
matter, which, though in itself lifeless, is the result of ante- 
cedent life. Such matter in the primordial world is, by 
hypothesis, absent. To solve the question, it will be ne- 
cessary to prove the spontaneous development of life in 
purely inorganic matter. 
In Professor Schmidt’s work we notice a curious mis- 
statement, which we can only attribute to an oversight in 
transcription. We read :—“ If throughout the great family 
of the Coleoptera, genera and species are to be found with 
imperfect flying apparatus, consolidated wing-covers, &c.,— 
if the whole family of the Staphyline does not possess the organs 
of flight, no one dreams of considering them as arrested 
forms.” Now the fact is, that the majority of the Staphy- 
linidze have large and powerful wings, and use them some- 
times too well for our comfort. Many of the smaller spe- 
cies fly into our eyes in still, warm, autumnal days, and 
cause exquisite pain by their habit of erecting their bristly 
abdomen. 
Another curious error occurs on p. 53, where a diagram 
is described as representing the larva of the ‘‘ great black 
beetle (Hydrophilus piceus).” ‘The Hydrophilus piceus might 
be called a ‘‘great black water-beetle,’ but the term 
*‘blackbeetle”’ is in England unfortunately applied to the 
cockroach (Blatta orientalis), which is no beetle at all, but 
an orthopterous insect. 
he great merit of Professor Schmidt is, that he enables 
the English public to become acquainted with the results of 
Haeckel, Wagner, Nageli, Graber, and other German natu- 
ralists, who have so ably and industriously applied the doc- 
trines of Darwin in actual zoological research. His work 
will be further useful as an able exposure of the shadow- 
fighting of some of the most prominent anti-Darwinians. 
*“ A renowned zoologist,” we read, ‘‘one of the few who 
adhere to the old belief, has taken the useless trouble of 
proving that the skull of the orang could not possibly be 
transformed into the human head. As if the doctrine of 
Descent had ever asserted such nonsense!” The buffos of 
the platform, the press, and the pulpit, are here told—what 
they ought to have ascertained previously—that ‘‘man 
