19 



between the remains of animals embalmed in Egypt of old and those 

 of the ''present day." 



I believe that Sir Charles Lyell was utterly wrong when he wrote 

 that " species have a real exist once in nature, and that each was 

 endowed at the time of its creation with the attributes and organisation 

 by which it is now distinguished." 



I believe that I may manipulate the word " species "as I like, and 

 that I can play fast and loose with it as I please ; that I can make 

 use of it or discard it as it suits my purpose, and make the most of 

 the differences between some naturalists as to whether certain supposed 

 species are really species or only varieties. 



I believe that inasmuch in very many cases one form is marked 

 as a variety of another, though in the absence of the intermediate 

 links, on the ground that any analogy that may be supposed to 

 exist somewhere "or may formerly have existed," therefore I may 

 open the door of my fanciful imagination as wide as I please. 



I believe that, during " vast, yet unknown, periods of time, the 

 world swarmed with living creatures," of which not a vestige or trace 

 is to be found. " I believe this to be indisputable," though, as I have 

 just said, " quite unknown," but I can never allow any opponent to 

 argue anything from conjecture ; certainly not. That prerogative is 

 for myself alone. 



I believe that it is, perhaps, impossible to bring forward one case 

 of the hybrid offspring of two animals clearly distinct, being itself 

 perfectly fertile. 



I believe that I may argue as I please in the teeth of this fact, 

 but if a brother naturalist gives an argument from it, that cannot be 

 allowed for a moment, " though it must be confessed that we cannot 

 understand, except ~by vac/tie hypothesis, several facts with regard to the 

 sterility of hybrids. Nor do I pretend that the foregoing remarks go 

 to the root of- the matter. JY?> explanation is offered why an organism, 

 when placed under unnatural conditions, is rendered sterile." In other 

 words, I stumble at the threshold when pretending to explain the 

 origin of species, and am hopelessly low in the labyrinth of error in 

 which I have involved myself. 



I believe that the sterility of hybrids " could not possibly be of any 

 ad raiitdye to them /" but as I hold that natural selection has done every- 

 thing that has been done in. nature, or almost everything, and all for 

 the good of the creatures, you may ask me if sterility did not originate 

 by natural selection. By what other means was it introduced V But for 

 this I must refer you to any other person who may be able to answer 

 the question, for I am not. 



I believe that natural selection had no hand in sterility, for it 

 could be of no advantage to any creature, and yet sterility is a law of 

 Nature. This, it is not for me to explain. I must leave it for Nature 

 and natural selection to settle that question between them. 



I believe, I say, that sterility " could not possibly be of advantage to 

 animals," but for all that I have laid it down (emphatically) that the 

 sterility of the worker bees u has been advantageous to the community." 

 You may call this blowing hot and cold, but that is my affair. 



I believe that all varieties of dogs are " descended from several wild 

 species," though naturalists think otherwise ; but as they differ from 

 me they must be wrong, for I must be right. 



I believe that though they all breed together now without sterility, 

 yet it was not so at first. This may be & petitio prhn-ipll, but so let it be. 



I believe that "new races of animals and plants are produced 

 under domestication ;" but I do not allow this to be the case with dogs, 

 for it does not suit my purpose. 



