ee 
, 
4 
| 
122 MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS + 
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart go much further 
than this. They are as stout believers in evolution 
as Mr. Darwin himself; but Mr. Wallace denies 
that man can have been evolved from a lower 
animal by that process of natural selection which 
he, with Mr. Darwin, holds to have been sufficient 
for the evolution of all animals below man; while 
Mr. Mivart, admitting that natural selection has 
been one of the conditions of the evolution of the 
animals below man, maintains that natural se- 
lection must, even in their case, have been supple- 
mented by “some other cause”—of the nature of — 
which, unfortunately, he does not give us any idea. 
Thus Mr. Mivart is less of a Darwinian than Mr, 
Wallace, for he has less faith in the power of 
natural selection. But he is more of an evolitidiaale 
than Mr. Wallace, because Mr. Wallace thinks it 
necessary to call in an intelligent agent—a sort of 
supernatural Sir John Sebright—to produce even 
the animal frame of man; while Mr. Mivart re- 
quires no Divine assistance till he comes to man’s 
soul. 
Thus there is a considerable divergence between 
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mivart. On the other hand, 
there are some curious similarities between Mr. 
Mivart and the Quarterly Reviewer, and these 
are sometimes so close, that, if Mr. Mivart thought 
it worth while, I thmk he might make out a 
good case of plagiarism against the Reviewer, who 
studiously abstains from quoting him. 
