IlS NATUEE STUDIES. 



editor, that because likenesses can be proved to exist 

 between two different groups of animals in their young 

 state, they do not understand why the evolutionist 

 should lay such stress upon these facts as proving his 

 contentions. One correspondent, for instance, says 

 that he cannot admit that because one thing is like 

 another, the two things must stand in the relation of 

 parent and offspring. I reply, likeness does not 

 necessarily imply similarity of origin, but, on the 

 other hand, it is one of the proofs of such similarity. 

 If likeness is to be denied its place as a proof of 

 common origin apart from other and equally powerful 

 proofs known to biologists what guarantee should 

 we possess that unlikeness means dissimilarity ? That 

 the likeness of child to parent is a natural likeness, 

 every one must admit. The reasons are clear enough, 

 and they derive their force from the fact that the 

 latter begets the former. I hold that the likenesses 

 existent especially in the early stages of develop- 

 ment between different groups, are to be judged on 

 the same basis, namely that of heredity. A manifest 

 resemblance in the young frog to a fish is, I repeat, 

 inexplicable, equally on scientific principles and on 

 common-sense grounds, unless on the hypothesis that 

 some bond of relationship connects the two. The 

 duty of disproving this idea rests with those who deny 

 evolution. Until we receive a fuller and more likely 

 explanation of such likenesses as those we are at pre- 

 sent discussing, we are entitled to hold to the only 

 theory, which, so far as I know, satisfies the require- 



