29 



fore hands began to lengthen, and then their wings. As they lost 

 their fore feet, aud before they got their wings, they must have been 

 in rather a bad way, for it is clear they could neither run nor fly. 

 Myriads of them must have succumbed to the process in the untold 

 ages I have to beg, but those that somehow or other lived on in the 

 quarter or half state, and all the intermediate stages, "exterminated" 

 all competitors. This is my natural history of the bat, first edition. 



I believe that the like to this is the natural history of every other 

 species of living creature, iwft&ii& mutandis. You may say that it is 

 really too ridiculous. It is not so to my mind. No doubt the animals 

 in transition must have perished, being neither one thing nor the 

 other, and of course those which had no beneficial change must have 

 perished also for want of it. This I must own ha,s rather a queer 

 look about it, and ''if it had been asked how an insectivorous quadruped 

 could possibly have been converted into a flying bat, the question would 

 have been far more difficult, and I could have given no answer ;" 

 yet I think " such difficulties have little weight." 



I believe that dogs preying on hares and rabbits, the rabbits be- 

 came scarce and the hares increased. Then the dogs would try to catch 

 more hares, and the dogs " with slightly plastic limbs " (for which I 

 beg the whole question) would be " slightly favoured," and so would 

 live longer and survive through a scarcity of food, and would also 

 have more young with a tendency to inherit their advantages. Yes, 

 " I see no reason to doubt that these causes would in a thousand 

 generations produce a marked effect, and adapt the form of the dog 

 to catching hares." You may quote Professor Owen that "this 

 condition of things, if followed out to its full consequences, seems only 

 to tend to my original inference, viz., an extinction of species, for when 

 the hares were all destroyed the long-legged dogs would perish ; at 

 most there could be but a reversion to the first form and condition." 

 Professor Owen may argue in this way if he likes. He and I differ, 

 that is all. As to the short-legged dogs and what would become of 

 them in one generation, not to say in a thousand, all I have to say 

 is, " Love me, love my dog-ma." 



I believe, as to birds, that it took untold ages to make the first 

 bird out of I know not what. The process began at first somewhere 

 or other, though I know not where. One new form succeeded another 

 in untold profusion for a few hundred millions of ages more or less, 

 each form becoming more and more like a true bird, till at length, 

 after the slaughter of more than as many hundreds of millions of 

 them, a bona fide cock and hen were hatched, the product of the 

 extermination of innumerable ancestors. " Further this deponent 

 sayeth not," except that I cannot tell you of what so-called species it 

 was may be an eagle or may be a dove. I rather incline to think 

 that it must have been the latter, as it would be somewhat awkward. for 

 a bird of prey to come into being and to find n prey for it to prey 

 on. At all events the "new and peculiar line of life" was secured. 



I believe that after this, " many divergent forms spread rapidly." 

 It is indeed true that 1 have before now laid it down, and that over 

 and over again, that " natural selection always acts very slowly," but if 

 I cannot say a little of anything where should I be? I tell you that 

 when once my first bird came out-, I cannot say whether " ab ovo " or 

 not. all the tens of thousands of species there are now soon began to fly 

 about, Such were their " plastic tendencies." How pretty ! 



I believe that all this " believing " is a most excellent substitute for 

 proof. Hodge's razors were made to " sell," not to '"cut," and I think 

 his a very good example to follow. No doubt in the process of bird- 

 making many unusual forms were totally lost, ami that by myriads on 



