206 DARWINIANISM. 



seein< the vastness of what is ' extinct ; which, however, 

 may have other causes than even the droughts, deluges, 

 ardours, rigours. Mr. Darwin himself at least seems to 

 postulate such. He cannot imagine (Journal, p. 174) 

 any possible catastrophe short of one that shook " the 

 entire framework of the globe," destroying " about the 

 same time the inhabitants of tropical, temperate, and 

 arctic latitudes on both sides of it." Of course, it is 

 not well possible to think of a struggle for existence in 

 such a case as that. To suppose that it was just in 

 mutual grips that all these animals choked the breath 

 out of each other would involve curious results. In 

 some cases, as we have seen, there are still living repre- 

 sentatives of such extinct animals, and if it is to victory 

 in battle that we are to attribute preservation, then the 

 dwarfs, not seldom, must have got the better of the 

 giants ! It is the fossil kangaroos are gigantically the 

 biggest ; and six-inch armadillos replace their greatly 

 more than six-foot predecessors of centuries ago in the 

 Pampas. 



As regards the general fact of extinction, it is true 

 that there is no necessity of appeal to either resource. 

 Disappearance beneath the moon entails not an exclusive 

 reference to either battle or catastrophe. Sooner or later, 

 everything that is perishes. Pterodactyles, Ichthyosauri;!., 

 Plesiosauria, Macrauchenia, and all the rest of them, did 

 not at least need to go in any other way than naturally 

 so. Nor is it different with mankind. Savages we see 

 that seem to creep in just at the touch of civilisation. 

 But is it necessary ? What of the Negro ? what of the 

 Chinaman ? what of the Jap ? Nay, let the dwindling 

 in question really result from some necessity in nature, 

 what justification is there for the naming of that necessity 

 struggle ? 



But, all that apart, what is the evidence of actual fact 



