20S YEAR-BOOK OF FACTS. 



other hand, having fifteen years ago been privately made acquainted 

 with Mr. Darwin's views, he had during that period applied these 

 to botanical investigations of all kinds in the most distant parts of 

 the globe, as veil as to the study of the largest and most different 

 floras at home. Now, then, that Mr. Darwin had published it, he 

 had no hesitation in publicly adopting his hypothesis, as that which 

 offers by far the most probable explanation of all the phenomena 

 prescribed by the classification, distribution, structure, and de- 

 velopment of plants in a state of nature and under cultivation ; 

 he should therefore continue to use this hypothesis as the best 

 weapon for future research, holding himself ready to lay it down 

 should a better be forthcoming, or should the now abandoned 

 doctrine of original creations regain all it had lost in his experience. 

 The subject has been discussed with kindred interest in America. 



The American Academy of Arts and Sciences reports the following 

 summary of the argument of* Professor Asa Gray, the distinguished 

 botanist, who criticised in detail several of the positions taken at 

 the ['receding meeting by Mr. Lowell, Professor Eo wen, and Pro- 

 fessor Agassiz respectively ; premising that he had no doubt that 

 variation and natural selection would have to be admitted as opera- 

 tive in nature, but were probably inadequate to the work which they 

 had been put to. Professor Gray maintained — 



1. Thai varieties abundantly occur in nature, at least among plants, and (bat 

 very fevt of them can be of hybrid origin ; thai hybridation gives rise to no new 

 features, bat only mingles, and, it' continued, blends the characters of sorts be- 

 fore separate; and that a hybrid origin was entirely out of the question in species 

 which I ners, or none in the country to which they were indigenous ; 



yet that such species diverged into varieties as readily as any other. As to the 

 genera] denial, 1, that there is any such Qnng as natural selection, and 2, that 

 there is any variation in species lor natural seleetion to act upon, he could not 



% , ; conceive hovi such denial was to be supported; but to answer its purpose it 

 would have t<> be carried to the length of denying that the individuals of s species 

 ever have anything which they did not inherit;— slight variations, accumulated 



by inheritance, being just what the theory in question made use of, — taking 



little or no account of more salient and abrupt variations, though instances of 

 the latter kind could certainly be adduoed. 



3, I a I pposition to the view thai rooh variations as cultivation or domestica- 



D copiou l\ affords arc of no account in the discussion, and have no coun- 



Profeesor Gray maintained, that the varieties of cultivation 

 ace of the essential variability of species^ tie;! no domes- 



plant had refused to vary; that those of recent introduction, BU 



Califorman annuals, mostly began to sport very promptly, sometimes even in the 



Oral or second generation ; man having i \ re than to sow the seed 



here instead of in California, perhaps in no better soil. Here the variations 

 were b natural as tln-.e of t he wild plant in its native soil. Man product a no 



orgate. I "i mererj directs a power which he did n in and by 



sel.et' breeding preserves the incipient variety which else would 



probably be lo b, and gives it a choice opportunity to vary more. Con ider, he 



of the survival of any variety when 

 in its native habitat, surrounded by its fellows,— when not on. ,i out of a 



d or B 1 1 ion s;ii id ever i es to ger initiate, and not a nioietv of these ever 



succeed: » plant, and when, of those that do grow up and bl 



ger is iiiiiieiiciit that the Dowers may be ferl il 



'ind. in i neighbours oft lie unvaried ; il will I asj to understand 



whj plants varj io promptly in our gardi quantity 



in nth, probably all from the same stook, where thej are almost 



