106 DARWIFIANA. 



tlieoiy will very well account for the origination by 

 divergence of nearly-related species, whether within 

 the present period or in remoter geological times ; a 

 very natural view for him to take, since he appears 

 to have reached and published, several years ago, the 

 pregnant conclusion that there most probably was 

 some material connection between the closely-related 

 species of two successive faunas, and that the numer- 

 ous close species, whose limits are so difficult to de- 

 termine, were not all created distinct and indepen- 

 dent. But while thus accepting, or ready to accept, 

 the basis of Darwin's theory, and all its legitimate 

 direct inferences, he rejects the ultimate conclusions, 

 brings some weighty arguments to bear against them, 

 and is evidently convinced that he can draw ii clear 

 line between the sound inferences, which he favors, 

 and the unsound or unwarranted theoretical deduc- 

 tions, which he rejects. We hope he can. 



This raises the question, Why does Darwin press 

 his theory to these extreme conclusions ? Why do 

 all hypotheses of derivation converge so inevitably to 

 one ultimate point ? Having already considered some 

 of the reasons w^hich suggest or support the theory at 

 its outset — which may carry it as far as such sound 

 and experienced naturalists as Pictet allow that it may 

 be true — perhaps as far as Darwin himself unfolds it 

 in the introductory proposition cited at the begin- 

 ning of this article — we may now inquire after the 



de I'Homme Fossile," in the same (March) number of the Bihliotheque 

 Universeile. {See, also, the same author's " Note sur la Periode Qua- 

 ternaire ou Diluvienne, consideree dans ses Kapports avec I'Epoque 

 Actuelle," in the number for August, 1860, of the same periodical.) 



