NATURAL SELECTION CRITICISED. 319 



allow, " direct action of the nervous system." He just 

 postulates, in fact, direct action of the nervous system, 

 direct action of structure, when he postulates any one 

 of his primordial forms, or his single prototype itself. 

 And so, one can see no reason why structure should not 

 have an equally direct action now. If the external^ 

 was en rapport with the internale then, why should 

 there not be the same rapport in the case of both now ? 

 If there is evolution into something, there must have 

 been evolution from something. That, of course, is but 

 the one ever-present Darwinian position. But to say 

 evolution, evolution, is to explain nothing, is only to 

 tire into the air, unless there be assigned the what the 

 what that was original and first. Any claim of merit 

 for such perpetual removal and removal as an explana- 

 tion of expression, that is were simply a fraud. 



A beginning is necessary, then, a first, a what ; and 

 any mere reference to prototype or form, were, even for 

 expression, no first, no beginning, no what, but only a 

 removal. But what of " the warm little pond " ? As 

 this necessary unremoved first, will it stead us ? Ah, 

 all of the physical side will exclaim this is the goal, 

 the aim, the " unimaginable lodge " of all our thinking 

 at last could we but get at it ! Well, you have not 

 got at it, but suppose you have, will it answer the 

 purpose required ? Even for expression, will the 

 material elements at last oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, 

 lime, soda, potass, iron, sulphur, phosphorus as an 

 explanation suffice? To you, they ought, for to you 

 they are the ultimate and sole constituents of which 

 you are composed. I fear it will task more than the 

 ingenuity of a Darwin to see the ultimate of a smile in 

 oxygen or of a frown in carbon ; and here on the meta- 

 physical side, I, for my part, refuse the attempt. I 

 believe the organic to be, directly, quite as much an 



