aed 
oy MR. DARWIN’S CRITICS 173 
_ “kind of retrieving;” though the comparison, if 
meant for the purposes of casting obloquy on 
' evolution, does not say much for the fairness of 
- those who make it. 
_ The Quarterly Reviewer and Mr. Mivart base 
their objections to the evolution of the mental facul- 
ties of man from those of some lower animal form 
upon what they maintain to be a difference in kind 
between the mental and moral faculties of men and 
_ brutes ; and [have endeavoured to show, by exposing 
the utter unsoundness of their philosophical basis, 
that these objections are devoid of importance. 
The objections which Mr. Wallace brings for- 
ward to the doctrine of the evolution of the mental 
faculties of man from those of brutes by natural 
_ causes, are of a different order, and require 
separate consideration. 
If I understand him rightly, he by no means 
doubts that both the bodily and the mental facul- 
ties of man have been evolved from those of 
some lower animal; but he is of opimion that 
some agency beyond that which has been con- 
cerned in the evolution of ordinary animals has 
been operative in the case of man. “A superior 
intelligence has guided the development of man 
in a definite direction and for a special purpose, 
just as man guides the development of many 
animal and vegetable forms.” 1! I understand this 
1 “The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man ” (Joe. 
cut. p. 359). 
