Ahg. 14, 1885.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



the protoplasm formed shonld in every case be identical. Until we 

 can trace back the lion and man to a common [irogenitor we are 

 perfectly jaatified in coming to the conclusion that each is the result 

 of a separate mass of protoplasm. If we require a common mammal 

 progenitor for all the species of mammals, it seems to me we should 

 require such a length of time for one to develop into a platypus, 

 a whale, and a man, that the pala^ontological history of the globe 

 woiild not satisfy the conditions ; in fact, it seems to me, c-teris 

 fxirihus, it would take longer for such a mammal to develope into 

 the three species than it would take three masses of protoplasm 

 to do. 



What has always struck me as noteworthy is that each division 

 of allied animals develops much the same varieties. Thus we 

 have four-handed animals with long tails, and short tails, with no 

 tails, and with prehensile tails. So we have flesh-eating animals 

 with long tails, with short tails, with no tails, and with bushy 

 tails; gnawing animals with all kiuda of tails; ruminants with all 

 sorts of tails, from the tiny tuft of the antelope to the fleshy 

 appendage of the Dnmka sheep. Take smaller groups of 

 animals, doga or cats, it is the same. Tails, we may consider, 

 therefore, are, so to speak, common property. But, 

 on the other hand, teeth seem to vary but little in allied species. 

 Take, for instance, the rodents. The beaver uses its teeth to cut 

 down trees, the squirrel to crack nuts, and the rabbit to eat roots. 

 Which has acquired the teeth by its habits, or what were the habits 

 of the common progenitor? But, if there was a common pro- 

 genitor, it must have had the distinguishing teeth. Then, again, 

 the carnivora all possess similar dentition, in spite of the 

 different habits of the bear, the lion, the weasel and the 

 hyena. We must imagine tliL- cummuu progenitor to have had 

 similar dentition. If sn, a fri'oIn;,'i(aI period ago the conimnn 

 progenitors of the rodents and the carnivora respectively were as 

 separate types as a rat and a weasel of the present day. Take, 

 again, the position of the mamm;e. The progenitor of the rumi- 

 nants surely had them where every ruminant has them now ; the 



them now. The marsupials do not help us, for the kangaroo has 

 them much in the same place where they are situated in man and 

 the higher apes, which position is supposed to have been 

 acquired because m.in and apes nurse their young in a 

 sitting position. But is it not possible they ' 



the 



ackle 



isible I 



situated ? 



A cat 





larsupial mammal which could, except by 

 , vary into the different forms of mammals exi 

 reasonable to suppose that each mass of protoplas 

 I existence, began varying in one dir '' 



Is there, ii 



isible that when ni 



accordinf 



cradle of the human race ? 



assumed humanity he was ji 



are now. The antiquity of man has been proved to be so mucl 



greater than was formerly supposed possible, that the reritabh 



Adam must have existed before the Eocene period ; but even thei 



he may have been scattered about and not represented by a singh 



pair. .los. W. Ai.k.xandkk. 



as taught by I III ■. I •■■■■'■' ■,;' ',; :lilN 



SURVIVAL. 



eagle does not sit over a foot high. The ostrich stands G ft. high 

 sometimes ; the great nuisance of ostrich-farming is that the birds 

 can claw a man down by raising a foot to hia shoulders. If the 

 ostrich had wings bearing the same proportion to its body as the 

 eagle's, it is clear that these would be 36 ft. across. If there are 

 condors with bodies as big as the ostrich's, they may, therefore, 

 well (in rare cases) measure 40 ft. from tip to tip. 



Hallt.ieds. 



THE PHILOSOPHY OF ETHICS. 



[1SC7]— If it is true, it is indeed sad to think that the world is in 

 danger of coming to an end. It is implied in 1828 (sir) that morality 

 will be annihilated, involving not only the reversion of the human 

 race to a wild, anti-social state, but their actual extinction after- 

 wards, along with the other mammals and birds — since the duties 

 of parents to their helpless offspring will cease to be recognised. 



There is, however, really no fear of a catastrophe, either moral 

 or physical, taking place. " Meter" apparently has not read the 

 papers on morality that appeared in Knowledge about a year 

 ago. Had he done so he would have seen that morality did not 

 necessarily depend on theological notions ; in fact, a far higher 

 standard of morality may be deduced from other principles. 



In the same letter an extraordinary use Is made of Dr. Lewins' 

 doctrine, which throws doubt on the existence of an external 

 world. ■' iletcr" would apparently deduce "orthodoxy" from the 

 nremises of the sceptic — the very antipodes of Dr. Lewins' con- 

 of philosophical sceptics may well be 



left tc 



It their 



differe 



have the ri^ 

 equally' few 



o reject Chr 



r few 



d in 1833), tliat 

 Ihe proposition has also a 

 It obviously follows that 

 •e a right to determine who belong to the elect 

 hope "Ifallyards" is among the elect, but the 

 curious manner in which he'would determine who are sheep and 

 who are goats makes one doubt of liira. Why should he exclude 

 all women from participation in the paradise of those who have a 

 right to reject Christianity ? Kenan's own sister would thus be 

 excluded, to whose memory such a fine tribute is paid in the 

 dedication of the " Tie do Jesus." 



The question, stated in general terms, is really, " Who have a 

 right to form their own opinions on religious and philosophical 

 matters." To discuss this fully would require a long letter. We 

 can only say here, that those who use and cultivate their thinking 

 powers have a better right to form their own opinions on religion 

 and philosophy than those who neglect their thinking powers, 

 however much the memories of the latter may be crammed with 

 " learning." It would probably be too much to ask some of the 

 correspondents of Kxowi.E I iGE to study llill's "Logic;" if, how- 

 ever, they mastered the work, I am persuaded they would con- 

 siderably modify some of their views. ( In the other hand, it is only 

 fair to add that Luther had the most th 



isible c 



spress: 

 n of re 



ind others had been more r 

 lave been avoided. 

 As regards George Eliot, 



did 



irt adhesi-n i ■ 



■egot a Ion:.' ^^,,^ I . . ,., 



Jechuana chirt, re|H,r' 

 Sochele spoke againsi 

 not. It was true i 

 ided by enemies, Im: 

 lall and had man,, r,:,. 

 Pray nail this new trappiii 



LISGG]— The other day an eagle was shot in France which 

 measured 1 m. 80c. from tip to tip of wings — nearly lift. An 

 ?agle has a body not so large as a turkey's; I think an average 



PHILOSOPHY OF CLOTHING. 

 [USf.n]— I am glad to see that Mr. Ollard (1851) has practically 



