15 



that man has created many hereditary varieties, such as the different kinds 

 of dogs, and though these are only varieties, as is proved by their 

 breeding- together, their nature not being changed but having a ten- 

 dency to reversion, I am determined not to give up my notion, 

 groundless as this shows it to be. 



I believe that man " creates " these varieties, but I cannot allow any 

 other creator but that of my own creating. 



I believe that the " ; action of natural selection will depend on 

 some of the inhabitants becoming xloit'ly modified. Nothing can be 

 effected miles* favourable, variations occur, and variation itself is always 

 a slow process." What I mean is, that unless animals or plants begin 

 to change, they never will be changed. A very recondite argument, is 

 it not ? 



I believe, I " suspect," that an "occasional intercross with a 

 distinct individual is a law of nature. I am well aware that there 

 are, on this view, many cases of difficulty, some of which I am trying 

 to investigate " Right or wrong, therefore, you must take for granted 

 that any difficulty either has been or will be solved by me. That is a 

 matter of course. 



I believe that if I only " suspect " a new law of nature, a new law 

 of nature there must be. 



I believe, that is to say, that this new law brings about occasional 

 exceptions only occasionally. That I consider a grand discovery, worthy 

 of Aristotle, Pliny, Plato, or Solomon himself. 



I believe that the several species of a genus " must have proceeded 

 from the same source, as they had descended from the same pro- 

 genitor," although ' undoubtedly there are many causes of extreme 

 difficulty in understanding how the same species could possibly have 

 migrated from some one point to the several distant and isolated points 

 where now found." For instance, " why do we not find a single animal 

 common to Europe and Australia and South America V " The conditions 

 of life are the same. The answer, I believe, is that the animals 

 have not been able to migrate. I grant you that there are as many 

 animals in each of the same genus as formerly, and which must, 

 therefore, have "descended from the same progenitor." There they are ; 

 they can't have migrated. They must have been, I say, separately 

 created. Yes, there they are ! I do not. either, believe that continents 

 '' which are now quite separate have been continuously, or almost con- 

 tinuously, united with each other ; so that I do not " for a moment 

 pretend that any explanation could be offered of many such cases, but 

 as they or my theory must give way, I need not say which must do 

 so. My theory, it is true, here fails to explain the very point it 

 undertook to interpret ; but never mind that. I would call it a miracle, 

 only that I don't believe in miracles. 



I believe in a bear " swimming for hours with a widely open 

 mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." " Very 

 like a whale !" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if 

 you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by 

 natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer 

 and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a 

 whale." Don't laugh, I beg yon. It's all of a piece with my whole 

 argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection 

 to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. ' It is difficult to 

 tell, and immaterial for us. whether habits generally change first and 

 structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead 

 to changed habits." How can I tell you ? All is fish that comes to my net. 



I believe what I have just said, though it may perhaps be suggested 

 that if the bear was determined to live in the " dark unfathomed caves " 



