. 18 



consider it an idle and preposterous dream, but I consider it a -wonder- 

 fully clever and sensible idea. What a world it will be when every 

 animal is " levelled up " to the rank of man, and every man still 

 higher to that of a Darwin ! Then you will say surely that the " height 

 of folly can no farther go." But that folly is yours in thinking so. 

 I take my stand on my own superior wisdom. 



I believe it all. yes, I believe it all. although I see that with what I hold 

 to have been done in the countless past ages in the way of metamor- 

 phosis, elephants have not yet been turned into horses, nor bears into 

 whales (though "very like" them), nor ducks into swallows ; and that 

 the ass, the gander, and the goose still survive, the one to bray and 

 the other to cackle, even like some "men of science.'' 



I believe that I can clear up the " mystery of mysteries." as it has 

 been called by one of our greatest philosophers, the origin of species, 

 although " I have found to my cost a constant tendency to fill up gaps 

 of knowledge by inaccurate and superficial hypothesis." 



I believe the varieties are " as steps leading to more strongly 

 marked and more permanent varieties, and these latter leading to a 

 sub-species, and so to species." ' Hence, I believe, that a well-marked 

 variety may be considered as an incipient species." You may say. on 

 this, that I hold permanency to be an attribute of species, and not of 

 variety : and you may ask me, why, if they are essentially the same, 

 they trouble themselves so much to make a change, and that for 110 

 object V That is for them to say, not for me. 



I believe that varieties " become ultimately converted into good and 

 permanent species," which ' differ from each other far more than do 

 the varieties of the same species." You may ask me what I mean by 

 the term species, but as I do not know I cannot tell you. All I can 

 say is, that to discuss the question before a definition of the terms has 

 been asked is " vainly to beat the air." This I apply to you, but I 

 cannot for a moment allow it to apply it to myself. Such a thing 

 must not be thought of. 



I believe that it would be a " vain search " to seek for the ' essence 

 of the term species." Nevertheless, I elsewhere state that " good and 

 distinct species ".unquestionably occur. 



I believe that Mr. Gould is utterly wrong where he says that " the 

 gorgeous colouring of the humming birds has been given for the mere 

 purpose of ornament," " in other words, that ornament and beauty, 

 merely as such, was the end proposed." That is " absolutely fatal" to 

 my theory, consequently I cannot for a moment admit it. 



I believe that species are ' ; permanent varieties, and that this is a 

 characteristic of species," that they always remain the same, which it 

 is the object of the whole of my book to disprove. But let that pass. 



I believe that " one hand has only worked through the universe." 

 but I labour in all my works to disprove it. " One is apt to wonder 

 why a distinct species should have been created," but ' we see whole 

 series of animals which have been created." Nevertheless, I utterly 

 disbelieve in creation. 



I believe that I am right in my view, in opposition to John Hunter 

 who held that no proof has ever been obtained that a hybrid race can 

 continue. In opposition to De Candolle, who states that ' permanent 

 differences cannot be referred to any one of the actual courses of 

 variation, and that these differences are what constitute species :" in 

 opposition to Lyell. who wrote that it cannot be shown that a single 

 permanent species has ever been produced by hybridity ; in opposition 

 to Lawrence, who says that " we must admit for all the species which 

 we know at present a distinct origin and common date ;" and in 

 opposition to Cuvier, who declares that there is no difference whatever 



