PHYSIOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS OF DR. CLARK. 103 



to one of its ports, and for private sentinels to 

 pretend to a superior knowledge of a great battle, 

 in one detachment of wliich they happened to 

 be engaged. Of such boastings and pretensions 

 I must confess that I am strongly reminded by 

 this writer. 



The geological objections to the development 

 theory- have now been discussed, and to the public 

 it must be left to decide the question, whether 

 palaeontology is favourable or unfavourable to that 

 scheme. I must now advert to the illustrations 

 which the theory' derives from physiology, and the 

 objections which have been made to them. The 

 Edinburgh reviewer occupies several of his pages 

 with such objections, but, fortunately, they need 

 not detain us long, as they come to little more 

 than this, that he puts trust in Dr. Clark, of 

 Cambridge, while I have resorted for the support 

 of my general theory to the ^•iews advocated 

 by other physiologists.* I may say that these 



* Dr. Whewell (preface to Indications, §"c.) joins the reviewer 



and others in reprobating the suggestions ■which have been made 

 in the Vestiges, with regard to a similarity between certain 

 crystallizations, as the figures produced by frost upon windows 

 and the Arbor Diana, to vegetable forms. The logical merits of 

 the reviewer's mind are here fully indicated, for what does he set 



