138 HOA10 V. DARWIN. 



connection with it would, some time or other, have forced 

 themselves on the observation of mankind. It is not \ At- 

 tended, however, that anything like this has ever occurred 

 and when this consideration is adduced as tending to dib- 

 prove the hypothesis, refuge is always sought from it in the 

 enormous periods of time requisite for the formation of new 

 species. 



There is one consideration which, so far as I am aware, 

 has not been urged in connection with this branch of 

 the argument. Why are enormous periods of time re- 

 quired for the production of new species, but that there 

 may be numerous successive generations, each of which may 

 be supposed to have advanced on its predecessors ? Now 

 it is clear that, in the case of numerous animals, the period 

 of time required for this purpose would be much less than in 

 the case of man. We may suppose that three generations 

 of men are produced in a century. This would give ninety 

 generations in 3,000 years, which may be regarded as the 

 historic period in connection with this subject. Bat, within 

 the same period, we must have had not less than 3,000 

 generations of those numerous species of creatures which 

 produce a fresh progeny every year, or even oftener than 

 that. There have thus been 3,000 successive generations 

 of many of the lower animals within a period during which 

 men may have been expected to observe and record any 

 remarkable changes occurring among them. What, then, 

 is the sum of the changes which Mr. Darwin is able to point 

 to within the historic period as tending to prove his 

 hypothesis ? It amounts absolutely to nothing ! Yet Mr. 

 Darwin tel's us that Natural Si-lrrtion is a kind of god that 

 never slumbers nor sleeps ; that scrutinizes everything; is 

 ever selecting what is useful and profitable, in animal 

 existence, and preserving it, that it may be transmitted to 



