¥ 
ut CRITICISMS ON “ THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” 89 
| short-faced tumbler pigeon may be a pathological 
product. 
_ 2. No transitional forms of animals are met with among the 
organic remains of earlier epochs.” 
P 
Upon this, Professor Kolliker remarks that the 
absence of transitional forms in the fossil world, 
_ though not necessarily fatal to Darwin’s views, 
weakens his case. 
**3. The struggle for existence does not take place.” 
To this objection, urged by Pelzeln, Kolliker, 
very justly, attaches no weight. 
**4, A tendency of organisms to give rise to useful varieties, 
and a natural selection, do not exist. 
**The varieties which are found arise in consequence of 
manifold external influences, and it is not obvious why they all, 
or partially, should be particularly useful. Each animal suffices 
for its own ends, is perfect of its kind, and needs no further 
development. Should, however, a variety be useful and even 
maintain itself, there is no obvious reason why it should change 
any further. The whole conception of the imperfection of 
organisms and the necessity of their becoming perfected is 
plainly the weakest side of Darwin’s Theory, and a pis aller 
(Nothbehelf) because Darwin could think of no other principle 
by which to explain the metamorphoses which, as I also believe, 
have occurred.” 
Here again we must venture to dissent com- 
pletely from Professor Kélliker’s conception of Mr. 
Darwin’s hypothesis. It appears to us to be one 
of the many peculiar merits of that hypothesis that 
it involves no belief in a necessary and continual 
progress of organisms. 
Again, Mr. Darwin, if we read him aright, 
