2 GENERAL EVOLUTION. 



The case is far diCerent with the theory as regards organized 

 or living beings. Not only are the mutual relations of animals 

 and plants to each other such as should have resulted from a de- 

 scent or development, but the changes from type to type have 

 been actually observed, and in sufficient number to place the 

 hypothesis on the basis of ascertained fact, as referring to a cer- 

 tain range of objects — say, in the case of the animal kingdom, to 

 individuals distinguished by structural characters within the range 

 of each of the three to six great primary divisions or " branches." 



There are two totally distinct propositions involved in this 

 question, which are confounded by the general public, and not 

 unfrequently by students and writers on it. These are, first, the 

 evidence which seems to prove that this evolution has taken place ; 

 secondly, the evidence as to the nature of the laws of its progress. 

 A want of constant distinction between these views of the case 

 has greatly obscured it and injured the evidence on one side or 

 the other. 



The evidence in favor of evolution is abundant, and is cited 

 in fragments by various contemporary writers, foremost among 

 whom, both in time and abundance of writings, comes Charles 

 Darwin. 



Much less has been done in explanation of the laws of evo- 

 lution. Darwin and his immediate followers have brought out 

 the law of ^^ natural selection"; Spencer has endeavored to ex- 

 press them in terms of force; while Hyatt, Cope, Packard, and 

 others have advanced the law of "acceleration and retardation." 



In earlier days, when information was distributed slowly and 

 books were few, it was long before any new truth or doctrine 

 reached the majority of people, still less was adopted by the rul- 

 ing classes. But the modern theory of evolution has been sjDread 

 everywhere with unexamjoled rapidity, thanks to our means of 

 printing and transportation. It has met with remarkably rapid 

 acceptance by those best qualified to judge of its merits, viz., the 

 zoologists and botanists, while probably a majority of the public, 

 in this region at least, profess to reject it. This inconsistency is 

 due to two principal causes. In the first place, Darwin's demon- 

 stration contained in the " Origin of Species " extends little fur- 

 ther than as stated in the title of his work. He proves little more 

 than that species of the same genus or other restricted groups 

 have had a common origin ; and, further, his theory of natural 

 selection is to the plainest understanding incomplete as an ex- 



