112 A CENTURY OF SCIENCE 



are brought one step nearer to the desired inference by the similar 

 'fact,' insisted on by all paleontologists, that fossils from two 

 consecutive formations are far more closely related to each other, 

 than are the fossils of two remote formations. 



It is well said that all organic beings have been formed on two 

 great laws ; Unity of type, and Adaptation to the conditions of 

 existence . . . Mr. Darwin harmonizes and explains them 

 naturally. Adaptation to the conditions of existence is the 

 result of Natural Selection ; Unity of type, of unity of descent. ' ' 



Gray's article was soon followed by another one from 

 Agassiz on Individuality and Specific Differences among 

 Acalephs, but the running title is "Prof. Agassiz on the 

 Origin of Species" (30, 142, 1860). Agassiz stoutly 

 maintains his well known views, and concludes as 

 follows : 



"Were the transmutation theory true, the geological record 

 should exhibit an uninterrupted succession of types blending 

 gradually into one another. The fact is that throughout all 

 geological times each period is characterized by definite specific 

 types, belonging to definite genera, and these to definite families, 

 referable to definite orders, constituting definite classes and 

 definite branches, built upon definite plans. Until the facts of 

 Nature are shown to have been mistaken by those who have col- 

 lected them, and that they have a different meaning from that 

 now generally assigned to them, I shall therefore consider the 

 transmutation theory as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, 

 unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency. ' ' 



Dana, in reviewing Huxley's well known book, Man's 

 Place in Nature (35, 451, 1863), holds that man is apart 

 from brute nature because man exhibits "extreme ceph- 

 alization" in that he has arms that no longer are used 

 in locomotion but go rather with the head, and because 

 he has a far higher mentality and speech. As for the 

 Darwinian theory, the evidence, he says, "comes from 

 lower departments of life, and is acknowledged by its 

 advocates to be exceedingly scanty and imperfect." 



The growth of evolution is set forth in the Journal in 

 Asa Gray's article on Charles Darwin (24, 453, 1882), 

 which speaks of the latter as "the most celebrated man of 

 science of the nineteenth century," and, in addition, as 

 "one of the most kindly and charming, unaffected, sim- 

 ple-hearted, and lovable of men. ' ' In regard to the rise 





