An Historical Sketcu of the Recent Progress of 

 Opinion on tue Origin of Species. 



I WILL here give a brief slcetch of the progress of opinion on the Origin 

 of Species. Until recently, the great majority of naturalists believed that 

 species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This 

 view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on 

 the other hand, have believed that species undergo Tiiodification, and that 

 the existing forms of life arc the descendants by true generation of pre- 

 existing forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical 

 writers,* the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific 

 spirit was Buffon. But, as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different 

 periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transforma- 

 tion of species, I need not here enter on details. 



Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited 

 much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views 

 in 1801 ; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his " Philosophic Zoologique," 

 and subsequently, in 1815, in the introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Ani- 

 maux sans Vcrtcbres." In these works he upholds the doctrine that all 

 species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the 

 eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the 

 organic as well as in the inorganic world being the result of law, and not of 

 miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his 



* Aristotle, In his " Phygictc Anecultationes " (I'l'- 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking 

 that rain docs not fall in order to make the com grow, auy more than it falls to gpoil 

 the farmer's com when threshed out of doors, applies the same arf::umcnt to orfrani- 

 zaliou, and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grecc, who first pointed out the passaio 

 to me): "-So, what hinders the different parts [of the body] from haviuii this merely 

 accidental relation in Nature ? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front 

 ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticat- 

 ing the food ; since they were not made for the sake of tliiH, but it was the result of 

 accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist 

 nn adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together ^tllat is, all tho 

 parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, 

 these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spon- 

 taneity ; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted perished, and still perish." 

 Wo hero sec the principle of natural selection shadowed forth ; but how little 

 Aristotle fully comprehended the principle is shown byhia remarks on the formation 

 of tho teeth. 



