WHAT LED TO THE SUCCESS. 183 



tion is something very secondary to him even of small 

 account as compared with selected variation. This 

 accentuation of extermination, then, on the part of Mr. 

 Wallace, really puts him at a wide distance from Mr. 

 Darwin. On the other hand, again, in " the beautiful 

 self-acting adjustment" (hi. 274) between the nectary of 

 the Angraecum and the proboscis of the Moth, he (Mr. 

 Wallace) seems to have fallen upon, or invented, a quite 

 entertaining child's story in illustration really of genuine 

 Darwinian mechanism; and it is quite consistent that 

 Mr. Darwin should expressly compliment him thereupon 

 (p. 274). Nevertheless, it is to be said also that when 

 (in his answer to the Duke of Argyll) Mr. Wallace 

 refers to " inherent powers in the forms of life " as though 

 it were by a development of that inherency that the 

 different species were to be produced, then Mr. Darwin is 

 the last man to agree with him. We are not concerned 

 here, however, with any discussion of the views of Mr. 

 Wallace. On the question of vital difference between 

 the two naturalists, it is enough to point to their 

 absolute disagreement on the origin of man. No genuine 

 Darwinian can accept any origin for man but the 

 common one of mundane life in general. 



If Mr. Wallace was the universally reputed fellow- 

 discoverer and peer of Mr. Darwin, there can be no 

 doubt that Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Huxley were no 

 less universally reputed to be those who, of all others, 

 best understood and most completely adopted the 

 principle of Mr. Darwin. 



Sir Joseph Hooker is commonly thought, from the most 

 conspicuous and responsible stations, and on the most 

 serious and solemn occasions, as before the British Associa- 

 tion, more than once, namely, and even as its President, 

 to have openly proclaimed and made public profession of 

 the truth of Darwinianism. He was then, at least to 



