PROBLEMS OF DISTRIBUTION AND THEIR SOLUTION. 159 



of species, and the character and distribution of the life of any 

 given area. 



Such are the two hypotheses which now, as of yore, appeal 

 for acceptance, as explanatory of the living universe and its 

 constitution. The first theory is entirely dogmatic and theolo- 

 gical in its terms. Stamped by the imprimatur of the churches, 

 it commended itself in a readily understood fashion to the un- 

 scientific mind. An exercise of that unquestioning faith which 

 the intellectual mind finds but chains and bondage in its en- 

 deavour to rightly interpret the facts of nature in their own light, 

 is all-sufficient to establish the theory of the special creation of 

 animal and plant species in their several localities, as a revelation of 

 Supreme power. But the mind which accepts special creation dare 

 not face nature. There is for such a mind no appeal to the exter- 

 nal facts which surround it in the universe of life. There can be 

 no intellectual analysis of belief in such a case ; no intelligent 

 questioning of the why and wherefore of the phenomena which the 

 theorist endeavours to explain. The theory of evolution, on the 

 other hand, finds its glory and its strength in its fearless interpre- 

 tation of nature. There exists no peculiarity of life which it may 

 not seek to explain. It is fettered by no considerations save those 

 which foster reverence for truth, and which make for appreciation 

 of the knowledge that "grows from more to more." Best of all, it 

 has nothing to fear from the advancing tide of knowledge which 

 itself has created and fostered ; and it submits its deductions 

 fearlessly and fully to every new light which the increase of research 

 can direct upon them. 



Sir Joseph Hooker has put the case of Evolution versus Special 

 Creation in the most forcible fashion, when, in speaking of the 

 origin of species, he says : " There are two opinions accepted 

 as accounting for this : one, that of independent creation, that 

 species were created under their present form, singly or in pairs 

 or in numbers ; the other, that of Evolution, that all are the 

 descendants of one or a few originally created simpler forms. 

 The first doctrine is purely speculative, incapable, from its very 

 nature, of proof; teaching nothing and suggesting nothing, it is 

 the despair of investigators and inquiring minds. The other, 

 whether true wholly or in part only, is gaining adherents rapidly, 

 because most of the phenomena of plant life may be explained 

 by it j because it has taught much that is indisputably proved ; 

 because it has suggested a multitude of prolific inquiries, and 

 because it has directed many investigators tc the discovery of new 

 facts in all departments of Botany." What S;r Joseph Hooker 

 says of evolution in its relations to botanical science may be more 

 than re-echoed by students of distribution. As already remarked, 



