446 THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 



things." Further on (p. xc), after referring to geographical dis- 

 tribution, he adds, "These phenomena shake our confidence in 

 the conclusion that the Apteryx of New Zealand and the Red 

 Grouse of England were distinct creations in and for those islands 

 respectively. Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that 

 by the word 'creation' the zoologist means 'a process he knows 

 not what.' " He amplifies this idea by adding that when such 

 cases as that of the Red Grouse are "enumerated by the zoologist 

 as evidence of distinct creation of the bird in and for such islands, 

 he chiefly expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came 

 to be there, and there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode 

 of expressing such ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the 

 islands owed their origin to a great first Creative Cause." If we 

 interpret these sentences given in the same address, one by the 

 other, it appears that this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his 

 confidence shaken that the Apteryx and the Red Grouse first ap- 

 peared in their respective homes "he knew not how," or by some 

 process "he knew not what." 



This address was delivered after the papers by Mr. Wallace 

 and myself on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred to, 

 had been read before the Linnean Society. When the first edition 

 of this work was published, I was so completely deceived, as 

 were many others, by such expressions as "the continuous opera- 

 tion of creative power," that I included Professor Owen with 

 other palaeontologists as being firmly convinced of the immutabil- 

 ity of species; but it appears ("Anat. of Vertebrates," vol. iii. p. 

 796) that this was on my part a preposterous error. In the last 

 edition of this work I inferred, and the inference still seems to 

 me perfectly just, from a passage beginning with the words "no 

 doubt the type-form," etc. (Ibid., vol. i. p. xxxv.), that Professor 

 Owen admitted that natural selection may have done something 

 in the formation of a new species; but this it appears (Ibid., vol. 

 iii. p. 798) is inaccurate and without evidence. I also gave some 

 extracts from a correspondence between Professor Owen and the 

 editor of the "London Review," from which it appeared manifest 

 to the editor as well as to myself, that Professor Owen claimed 

 to have promulgated the theory of natural selection before I had 

 done so; and I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this 

 announcement; but as far as it is possible to understand certain 

 recently published passages (Ibid., vol. iii. p. 798) I have either 

 partially or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory to me 

 that others find Professor Owen's controversial writings as diffi- 

 cult to understand and to reconcile with each other, as I do. As 



