

300 |a;g Sjcrmims, (toags, anb gtbiefos. [xra. 



fco express his high appreciation of, and general concord- 

 ance with, Mr. Darwin's views. 



But the most elaborate criticisms of the " Origin of 

 Species " which have appeared are two works of very 

 widely different merit, the one by Professor Kolliker, the 

 well-known anatomist and histologist of "Wiirzburg ; the 

 other by M.. Flourens, Perpetual Secretary of the French 

 Academy of Sciences. 



Professor Kolliker's critical essay " Upon the Dar- 

 winian Theory " is, like all that proceeds from the pen 

 of that thoughtful and accomplished writer, worthy of 

 the most careful consideration. It comprises a brief but 

 clear sketch of Darwin's views, followed by an enume- 

 ration of the leading difficulties in the way of their 

 acceptance ; difficulties which would appear to be insur- 

 mountable to Professor Kolliker, inasmuch as he proposes 

 to replace Mr. Darwin's Theory by one which he terms 

 the " Theory of Heterogeneous Generation." "We shall 

 proceed to consider first the destructive, and secondly, 

 the constructive portion of the essay. 



We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very 

 widely from many of Professor Kolliker's remarks ; and 

 from none more thoroughly than from those in which he 

 seeks to define what we may term the philosophical 

 position of Darwinism. 



"Darwin," says Professor Kolliker, "is, in the fullest sense of the 

 word, a Teleologist. He says quite distinctly (First Edition, pp. 199, 

 200) that every particular in the structure of an animal has been 

 created for its benefit, and he regards the whole series of animal forms 

 only from this point of view." 



And again : 



" 7. The teleological general conception adopted by Darwin is a 

 mistaken one. 



" Varieties arise irrespectively of the notion of purpose, or of utility, 

 according to general laws of Nature, and may be either useful, or 

 hurtful, or indifferent 



