132 HEREDITY. 



Here, therefore, is an instructive example of a 

 lack of metaphysical and philosophical training in a 

 renowned naturalist. Again and again this fallacy 

 has been pointed out. It is not brought forward here 

 to-day for the first time. Many discussions have 

 exhibited just this strange bewilderment in Darwin's 

 reasoning. Undoubtedly this writer is an expert in 

 observation. Darwin has a massive head in what 

 the books call the observing faculties, but not a very 

 massive one in the philosophical faculties. I am 

 using for the brain only that outline chart which 

 Professor Ferrier's latest researches seem to justify. 

 Darwin's books, however, are the best map of his 

 own spirit ; perfectly honest, candid as the noon, a 

 mass of facts which are a mine for this whole gener- 

 ation, and for all generations to come, within the 

 field of biological research, and yet not remarkable 

 for the philosophical traits prominent in the writings 

 of a Hamilton, a Kant, or an Aristotle. 



Read Von Hartmann's late criticisms on the True 

 and the False in Darwinism. (Journal of Specula- 

 tive Philosophy, October, 1877, and January, 1878.) 

 Read Virchow's recent reply to Hiickel : " Only 

 ten years ago, when a skull was found, perhaps 

 in peat or in lake dwellings, or in some old cave, 

 it was believed that wonderful marks of a wild 

 and quite undeveloped state were seen in it. In- 

 deed, we were then scenting monkey air. But this 

 has died out more and more. The old troglodytes, 

 lake inhabitants, and peat people turn out to be 

 quite a respectable society. They have heads of 



