1875.) Difficulties of Darwinisin. 396 
the head-quarters of the Dynastide are unmistakably in 
South America. There are leaves and flowers in the warm 
regions of the western hemisphere, as well as in Africa, 
Southern Asia, and Australia. Yet the Cetoniade of the 
Old World are in round numbers four times as numerous as 
those of the New. Why have not theyin Brazil, Guayana, 
Venezuela, and Mexico, developed themselves into as great 
a variety of forms as in Madagascar, the Guinea regions, 
the Cape, and India? It may be urged that their career in 
South America has been checked by enemies, as, for 
instance, by the destructive ants. But Africa is no less 
infested by these, our ‘‘six-legged rivals,” than is South 
America. It is also difficult to see why any enemy which 
should interfere with the development of the Cetoniade, 
should not to a very serious extent interfere with the multi- 
plication of Dynastidez and Longicornes. To sum up this 
part of the subject it may be said we want to know what 
determines the variation of species, to take in different 
countries different directions? What connects certain 
forms of life with certain regions? Why do groups whose 
conditions of existence are the same—as far, at least, as our 
most careful scrutiny can discover—make their election of 
localities, and what determines their choice ? 
We cannot refrain from noticing here certain objections 
to ‘‘ Darwinism,” or rather to Evolutionism, which have 
been recently promulgated, but to which we can attach no 
great value. It is said that no monkeys are carnivorous, 
whilst all the stronger races of man are omnivorous, and 
even primarily carnivorous. It is a common error to lay 
great weight on the natural diet of an animal in proof of its 
affinities. We find the greatest diversity of diet in one and 
the same group. Thus whilst the polar bear, and, I believe, 
the grizzly (U. Ferox), may be considered exclusively 
carnivorous, there are other species of bear which decidedly 
prefer a vegetable diet. Among the Rodents we find some 
purely herbivorous, as the hare, the rabbit, and the Guinea- 
pig, and others which, like the rat, have a strong inclination 
for animal food. Nor must we forget that the earliest 
traditions we possess represent primeval man as a pure 
vegetarian. 
A kindred obje¢tion is that the “‘ nearest creatures to man 
in form are not the nearest in intellect. The elephant, dog, 
and horse, which have no affinity to man, have a far closer 
intellectual affinity than those pets of Darwinism, the gorilla 
and chimpanzee.” If the author of these lines had men- 
tioned the ant as having a ‘‘closer intellectual affinity to 
VOE. V. (N.S.) 2U 
