134 . DARWINIANA. 



to attack. For tlie arguments on the other side we 

 may look to the numerous adverse pnblications which 

 Darwin's volnme has ah'eady called out, and especially 

 to those reviews which propose directly to refute it. 

 Taking various lines, and reflecting very diverse modes 

 of thought, these hostile critics may be expected to 

 concentrate and enforce the principal objections which 

 can be brought to bear against the derivative hypothe- 

 sis in general, and Darwin's new exposition of it in 

 particular. 



Upon the opposing side of the question we have 

 read with attention — 1. An article in the North Amieri- 

 can Review for April last ; 2. One in the Christian 

 Examiner^ Boston, for May ; 3. M. Pictet's article in 

 the BiHliotheqxie Universelle, which we have already 

 made considerable use of, which seems throughout 

 most able and correct, and which in tone and fairness 

 is admirably in contrast with — 4. The article in the 

 Edinburgh Review for May, attributed — although 

 against a large amount of interaal presumptive evi- 

 dence — to the most distinguised British comparative 

 anatomist ; 5. An article in the North British Review 

 for May; 6. Prof. Agassiz has afforded an early 

 opportunity to peruse the criticisms he makes in the 

 forthcoming third volume of his great work, by a 

 publication of them in advance in the American 

 Journal of Sc'ence for July. 



In our survey of the lively discussion which has 

 been raised, it matters little how our own particular 

 opinions may incline. But we may confess to an im- 

 pression, thus far, that the doctrine of the permanent 

 and complete immutability of species has not been 



