xm.] CRITICISMS ON &quot; THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 1 261 



merit, the one by Professor Kolliker, the well-known anatomist 

 and histologist of Wiirzburg; the other by M. Flourens, 

 Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences. 



Professor Kolliker s critical essay &quot;Upon the Darwinian 

 Theory &quot; is, like all that proceeds from the pen of that 

 thoughtful and accomplished writer, worthy of the most careful 

 consideration. It comprises a, brief but clear sketch of Darwin s 

 views, followed by an enumeration of the leading difficulties in 

 the way of their acceptance ; difficulties which would appear to 

 be insurmountable to Professor Kolliker, inasmuch as he pro 

 poses to replace Mr. Darwin s Theory by one which he terms 

 the &quot; Theory of Heterogeneous Generation.&quot; We shall proceed 

 to consider first the destructive, and secondly, the constructive 

 portion of the essay. 



We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very widely 

 from many of Professor Kolliker s remarks ; and from none more 

 thoroughly than from those in which he seeks to define what we 

 may term the philosophical position of Darwinism. 



&quot; Darwin,&quot; says Professor Kolliker, &quot; is, in the fullest sense of th- word, 

 a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition, pp. 199, 200) that 

 every particular in the structure of an animal has been created for its 

 benefit, and lie regards the whole series of animal forms only from this 

 point of view.&quot; 



And again : 



U 7. The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin is a mis 

 taken one. 



&quot; Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility, 

 according to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or hurtful, 

 or indifferent. 



&quot;The assumption that an organism exists only on account of some 

 definite end in view, and represents something more than the incorporation 

 of a general idea, or law, implies a one-sided conception of the universe. 

 Assuredly, every organ has, and every organism fulfils, its end, but its 

 purpose is not the condition of its existence. Every organism is also 

 sufficiently perfect for the purpose it serves, and in that, at least, it is 

 useless to seek for a cause of its improvement.&quot; 



It is singular how differently one and the same book will 

 impress different minds. That which struck the present writer 

 most forcibly on his first perusal of the &quot; Origin of Species &quot; was 



