DARWIN AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 253 



organisation may be, they must produce results similar to those 

 which we observe, and which lead to difficulty in classification, 

 and to the similarity between one species or variety and another. 

 Turning the argument, we might say that the observed facts 

 simply prove that organisms exist and were created under definite 

 laws, and surely no one will be disposed to deny this. Darwin 

 assumes one law, namely, that every being is descended from a 

 common ancestor (which, by the way, implies that every being 

 shall be capable of producing a descendant like any other being), 

 and he seems to think this the only law which would account 

 for the close similarity of species, whereas any law may be ex- 

 pected to produce the same results. We observe that animals 

 eat, breathe, move, have senses, are born, and die, and yet we 

 are expected to feel surprise that combinations, which are all 

 contrived to perform the same functions, resemble one another. 

 It is the apparent variety that is astounding, not the similarity. 

 Some will perhaps think it absurd to say that the number of 

 combinations is limited. They will state that no two men 

 ever were or will be exactly alike, no two leaves in any past or 

 future forest ; it is not clear how they could find this out, or 

 how they could prove it. But, as already explained, we quite 

 admit that by allowing closer and closer similarity, the number 

 of combinations of a fixed number of elements may be enor- 

 mously increased. We may fairly doubt the identity of any 

 two of the higher animals, remembering the large number of 

 elements of which they consist, but perhaps two identical fora- 

 miniferae have existed. As an idle speculation suggested by the 

 above views, we might consider whether it would be possible 

 that two parts of any two animals should be identical, without 

 their being wholly identical, looking on each animal as one pos- 

 sible combination, in which no part could vary without altering 

 all the others. It would be difficult to ascertain this by experi- 

 ment. 



It is very curious to see how man's contrivances, intended 

 to fulfil some common purpose, fall into series, presenting the 

 difficulty complained of by naturalists in classifying birds and 

 beasts, or chemists in arranging compounds. It is this difficulty 

 which produces litigation under the Patent Laws. Is or is not 

 this machine comprised among those forming the subject of the 



