CRITICISMS ON " THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES " 185 



We do not feel quite sure that we seize Professor Kolliker's 

 meaning here, but he appears to suggest that the observa- 

 tion of the general order and harmony which pervade 

 inorganic nature, would lead us to anticipate a similar 

 order and harmony in the organic world. And this is 

 no doubt true, but it by no means follows that the 

 particular order and harmony observed among them 

 should be that which we see. Surely the stripes of 

 dun horses, and the teeth of the fcetal Balsena, are 

 not explained by the " existence of general laws of 

 Nature/' Mr. Darwin endeavours to explain the exact 

 order of organic nature which exists ; not the mere fact 

 that there is some order. 



And with regard to the existence of a natural system of 

 minerals ; the obvious reply is that there may be a natural 

 classification of any objects of stones on a sea-beach, or 

 of works of art ; a natural classification being simply an 

 assemblage of objects in groups, so as to express their most 

 important and fundamental resemblances and differences. 

 No doubt Mr. Darwin believes that those resemblances and 

 differences upon which our natural systems or classifications 

 of animals and plants are based, are resemblances and 

 differences which have been produced genetically, but we 

 can discover no reason for supposing that he denies the 

 existence of natural classifications of other kinds. 



And, after all, is it quite so certain that a genetic relation 

 may not underlie the classification of minerals ? The 

 inorganic world has not always been what we see it. It 

 has certainly had its metamorphoses, and, very probably, 

 a long " Entwickelungsgeschichte " out of a nebular 

 blastema. Who knows how far that amount of likeness 

 among sets of minerals, in virtue of which they are now 

 grouped into families and orders, may not be the expression 

 of the common conditions to which that particular patch 

 of nebulous fog, which may have been constituted by their 

 atoms, and of which they may be, in the strictest sense, 

 the descendants, was subjected? 



It will be obvious from what has preceded, that we do 

 not agree with Professor Kolliker in thinking the objections 

 which he brings forward so weighty as to be fatal to Darwin's 

 view. But even if the case were otherwise, we should be 

 unable to accept the '* Theory of Heterogeneous Genera- 

 tion " which is offered as a substitute. That theory is thus 

 stated : 



