TRANSMUTABLE. 239 



the part of Mr. Darwin, denies the hypothesis of 

 ''transmutation of species," as it is generally un- 

 derstood among naturalists. If such is Dr. 

 Hooker's meaning, he gives up Mr. Darwin's 

 theory altogether; for without such transmutation 

 it falls to the ground, by its own inherent ab- 

 surdity. If Mr. Darwin's bear catching flies is 

 ultimately converted into a whale, what is this? 

 Time, of course, must be granted for such a 

 change, but whether it is one year, or one billion 

 of years, the fact of the transmutation is equally 

 the same, and the argument will apply against 

 such a change, however effected, as though it 

 took place in a day, or week, or year. 



I hold such a doctrine to be opposed to every 

 known fact in science, and without it, how can 

 Dr. Hooker claim for his variations, the ultimate 

 character of species. If Dr. H.'s group of plants, 

 which he ingeniously compares to a cob-web, 

 having a species in the centre, the radiating 

 and concentric lines being variations, while the 

 connecting links are distinct; if this group is an 

 ever-changing series of forms, which ultimately 

 become species, how is this done, except by 

 ''transmutation?" 



But how does Dr. Hooker determine the specific 

 or generic value, of each member or section of 

 his group? Why, by some characters that are 

 fixed and unvarying. If not, he is stopped in 

 limine, and refers back the "variation" to its 

 species, or he breaks up, or enlarges his genus. 

 Now I contend that if there were processes of 



