CHAP, xiii.] THE CAT'S PLACE IN NATURE. 443 



Under no circumstances will ova directly reproduce ova, or sperma- 

 tozoa, spermatozoa. Such bodies are in this respect like the first living 

 creature, which spontaneously arose. At that early period the earth's 

 condition was such as to favour spontaneous generation, and there- 

 fore no reproductive agency was needed heyond that which naturally 

 existed in the matter whence such organisms sprang. They therefore 

 neither needed nor possessed reproductive power. Only with the 

 fading away of this earlier terrestrial condition were such creatures 

 as began to possess a reproductive capacity favoured in the struggle 

 for life, and thus by degrees reproductive power became first frequent 

 in organisms, then general, and now universal." 



Let us consider first the argument by which the above objection 

 has been re-enforced. To it we may reply : Great as is the difference 

 between a cat and a cat's ovum or spermatozoon, yet if the whole 

 animal series is considered, a variety of forms will be met with 

 in which larger and larger portions of what we justly take to be 

 true animals are thus detachable and detached. Indeed, at last we 

 come to creatures * in whom the cycle of life is, as it were, so split 

 up, that it is difficult to say which of the creatures that successively 

 appear between one fertilised ovum and another, is to be reckoned 

 as the more perfect animal. Yet all these creatures are living, and 

 all tend to carry on a definite and regular cycle of changes when 

 exposed to certain fixed conditions. The very same, then, may be 

 said of the cat's ovum or spermatozoon. Like the intermediate 

 forms of the life cycle of many lowly creatures, they also, though 

 they do not themselves tend to " undergo " the whole cycle of changes, 

 yet possess an innate power and tendency to initiate, produce, and 

 " carry on " that cycle in which they themselves play an important 

 part, and by which their own forms are indirectly reproduced. 

 Therefore there is no real parity between these elements and 

 hypothetical primordial animals, naturally altogether devoid of 

 innate reproductive capacity. No such creatures are known to exist 

 now. To believe that such ever existed would therefore (in the 

 absence of any positive evidence of their past existence) be at once 

 both gratuitous and contrary to experience ; yet experience is the 

 admitted source of all our knowledge ! 



Having disposed of the re-enforcing argument, we may now con- 

 sider the original objection itself. This objection is the real ground 

 upon which a belief in the original existence of non-reproductive living 

 beings rests, namely, an d priori necessity reposing on a now pre- 

 valent conception as to the " law of continuity." That law, we are 

 told, " forbids the appearance of any new phenomenon." We reply 

 so much the worse for that law. The existence of breaks, gaps, 

 and new beginnings, is a manifest truth which cannot be denied 

 except by playing tricks with language using words in non-natural 

 senses and by ignoring the differences and paying attention only 

 to the resemblances which exist between different things. The 



* E.g., certain jelly- fishes, certain tunicates, and certain worms. 



