ot hay ont ae 
a l 
Bibliographical Notice. 207 
rocks of Canada; but of the form and structure of these plants we 
know nothing” (p. 168). 
Many interesting suggestions bearing on controverted points might 
be adduced from the pages of this treatise, did space permit. Thus, 
in discussing the exact meaning of the Hebrew word “min,” Dr. 
Dawson remarks, ‘‘A very important truth is contained in the ex- 
pression ‘after its kind,’ 7. e. after its species ; for the Hebrew ‘ min,’ 
used here, has strictly this sense, and, like the Greek idea and the 
Latin species, conveys the notion of form as well as that of kind. It 
is used to denote species of animals in Leviticus i. and xiv., and in 
Deuteronomy xiv. and xv. We are taught by this statement that 
plants were created each by itself, and that creation was not a sort 
of slump-work to be perfected by the operation of a law of develop- 
ment, as fancied by some modern speculators. In this assertion of 
the distinctness of species, and the production of each by a distinct 
creative act, revelation tallies perfectly with the conclusions of natural 
science, which lead us to believe that each species is permanently 
reproductive, variable within narrow limits, incapable of permanent 
intermixture with other species, and a direct product of creative 
power” (p. 163). And, again, whilst drawing a distinction between 
the expression to “create” and simply to “‘form” or “make,” he 
adds: ‘‘We may again note that the introduction of animal life is 
marked by the use of the word ‘create,’ for the first time since the 
general creation of the heavens and the earth. We may also note 
that the animal, as well as the plant, was created ‘after its kind,’ or 
‘species by species.’ The animals are grouped under three great 
classes,—the Remes, the Tanninim, and the Birds; but, lest any 
misconception should arise as to the relations of species to these 
groups, we are expressly informed that the species is here the true 
unit of the creative work. It is worth while, therefore, to note that 
this most ancient authority on this much controverted topic connects 
species on the one hand with the creative fiat, and on the other with 
the power of continuous reproduction” (p. 192). 
In like manner, in his 16th chapter (on the “ Unity and Antiquity 
of Man”’), Dr. Dawson once more reverts to the same subject : “ The 
species is not merely an ideal unit; it is a unit in the work of crea- 
tion. No one better indicates than Agassiz does the doctrine of the 
creation of animals; but to what is it that creation refers? Not 
to genera and higher groups: they express only the relations of 
things created ;—not to individuals as now existing: they are the 
results of the laws of invariability and increase of the species ;— 
but to certain original individuals, protoplasts, formed after their 
kinds or species, and representing the powers and limits of variation 
inherent in the species,—the ‘potentialities of their existence,’ as 
Dana well expresses it. The species, therefore, with all its powers 
and capacities for reproduction, is that which the Creator has made, 
—His unit in the work, as well as ours in the study... .. The limits 
of variability differ for every species, and must be ascertained by 
patient investigation of large numbers of specimens, before we can 
confidently assert the boundaries in some widely distributed and 
