DARWIN AND NATURAL SELECTION 43 



of palaeontology and of pathology in the univer- 

 sities of Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Strasburg, Tubin- 

 gen, Amsterdam, Columbia University, etc." 

 (p. 26). These opponents do not, however, stand 

 on one common platform. Some of them wholly 

 deny that natural selection has any kind of influ- 

 ence in or capacity for the formation of species. 

 These are at the opposite pole of scientific thought 

 to a man like Weismann, who practically regards 

 natural selection as being all-powerful in this 

 respect. 



To this, the second of the three groups alluded 

 to a few lines above, must be added the third class, 

 which consists of men who, whilst not denying 

 that natural selection has an influence, perhaps 

 even a potent influence, in the formation of species 

 require the acceptance of stringent limitations of 

 that power. These altogether deny its all-power- 

 fulness, though they do not deny its powerfulness. 



According to Professor Kellog, the palaeonto- 

 logists, as a whole, must be classed with the root- 

 and-branch opponents, if it be true, as he says 

 and his evidence, as has been pointed out, is not 

 based against natural selection that this im- 

 portant group of scientific men " believe prac- 

 tically as a united body, that variation has followed 

 fixed lines through the ages ; that there has been 

 no such unrestricted and utterly free play of 

 variational vagary as the Darwinian natural selec- 

 tion theory presupposes " (p. 33). To these may 

 be added two very eminent botanists, Nageli, 

 who " believes that animals and plants would have 

 developed about as they have, even had no struggle 



