284 COMMUNITY OF DESCENT 



they could not have been distinguished by any means at 

 our disposal, should have been entirely passed over? Is 

 the fact of resemblance just at one particular stage of 

 development only, all in all, and the fact of close similarity 

 and apparent identity at an earlier period valueless to those 

 who are seeking for a true explanation of the formation of 

 living things and the origin of species ? That there should 

 be less difference between the fully-developed man and the 

 fully-developed ape than there is between the latter and 

 the dog seems to be a fact of profound significance, but 

 that these organisms should be indistinguishable from one 

 another during the early stages of embryonic life seems to 

 be a matter of so little importance, that the fact is entirely 

 disregarded by those who feel bound to admit, upon the 

 evidence adduced, the community of descent of man and 

 animals. 



Is it possible that too much may be proved for the best 

 interests of evolution by the fact alluded to, or is there a 

 fear that the outlines of the evolutional idea might be 

 rendered a little less sharp, and clear, and definite, if we 

 found ourselves forced to admit that the matter of every 

 living form at an early period of development was alike, 

 and that there were no characters by which we could de- 

 termine whether a given specimen was about to become 

 horse, dog, man, or ape ? One form of living matter is in- 

 distinguishable from another. Neither the most careful 

 microscopical observation, nor the most skilful chemical 

 analysis would enable us to distinguish the living matter 

 obtained from the body of an ape, from that taken from a 

 man, dog, fish, or lower form of life. But who will affirm 

 that, therefore, all these different forms of living matter are 



