96 CRITICISMS ON “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ” nt 
No case of Agamogenesis is known in which 
when A differs widely from B, it is itself capable of 
sexual propagation. No case whatever is known 
in which the progeny of B, by sexual generation, 
is other than a reproduction of A. | 
But if this be a true statement of the nature of 
the process of Agamogenesis, how can it enable 
to comprehend the production of new species from 
already existing ones? Let us suppose Hyzenas 
to have preceded Dogs, and to have produced the — 
latter in this way. Then the Hyzena will represen 
A, and the Dog, B. The first difficulty that pre- 
sents itself is that the Hyzena must be non-sexual, 
or the process will be wholly without analogy in — 
the world of Agamogenesis. But passing over this — 
difficulty, and supposing a male and female Dog to _ 
be produced at the same time from the Hyzena — 
stock, the progeny of the pair, if the analogy of — 
the simpler kinds of Agamogenesis! is to be fol- — 
lowed, should be a litter, not of puppies, but of 
young Hyznas, For the Agamogenetic series is” 
1 Tf, on the contrary, we follow the analogy of the more com- 
plex forms of Agamogenesis, such as that exhibited by some 
Trematoda and by the Aphides, the Hyena must produce, non- | : 
sexually, a brood of sexless Dogs, from which other sexless — 
Dogs must proceed. At the end of a certain number of terms © 
of the series, the Dogs would acquire sexes and generate young ; 
but these young would be, not Dogs, but Hyznas In fact, we — 
have,demonstrated, in Agamogenetic phenomena, that inevitable 
recurrence to the original type, which is asserted to be true of 
variations in general, by Mr. Darwin’s opponents; and which, — 
if the assertion could be changed into a demonstration, would, — 
in fact, be fatal to his hypothesis, ; F 
ties 
eee ee se 
