H TWO OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 



^Hie difficulty is not due to his own ignorance 

 ^Hather than to the shortcomings of the theory. 

 ^K^his wholesome caution is too seldom mani- 

 ^^ested by literary reviewers, many of whom, in 

 criticising Mr. Darwin's theory without having 

 duly read his works, allege certain objections as 

 being quite obvious to all intelligent people, save 

 to the one-sided speculator who is supposed 

 to have ignored them. In Mr. Darwin's case, 

 this mode of treatment is peculiarly impertinent, 

 since even the less obvious objections to the 

 theory of natural selection were for the most part 

 foreseen and answered in the first edition of the 

 "Origin of Species," — a book to which, as to 

 an arsenal of scientific facts, one must still resort 

 who would deal intelligently with the latest criti- 

 cisms directed against the theory. 



The most obvious objection to the Darwinian 

 theory is the paucity, or, as it is often incorrectly 

 alleged, the absence, of transitional forms in the 

 various sedimentary strata. This is at first sight 

 a weighty objection against the doctrine of natu- 

 ral selection, according to which the progress 

 has been effected by infinitesimal increments ; 

 although it is of no force against the doctrine of 

 derivation, as held by Mr. Mivart, who rejects 

 the maxim N at ur a non facit s ahum ^ ?ind main- 

 tains that progress has been effected by sudden 

 jumps, occurring at rhythmical intervals. Mr. 

 Mivart's suggestion, however, cannot be en- 

 47 



