v MR. DARWIN S CRITICS 173 



&quot;kind of retrieving;&quot; 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 I 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 opinion that 

 some agency beyond that which has been con 

 cerned in the evolution of ordinary animals has 

 been operative in the case of man. &quot; 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.&quot; 1 I understand this 



1 &quot;The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man &quot; (loc. 

 cit. p. 359). 



