THE REAL EVOLUTION THEORY. 261 



proved. Mr. H. Spencer trusts chiefly, like the rest, 

 to minimizing the distinction between the living matter 

 and albumen and protein, thus hoping " to bridge over 

 the interval" between them. The consequence of this 

 is, that he speaks of albumen as taking part in truly 

 vital processes, and in reality does not draw a line 

 distinctly between those physical and chemical pro- 

 cesses occurring in living bodies and the truly vital 

 ones. He speaks of the commencement of living matter 

 with portions of protoplasm " less distinguishable from 

 a mere fragment of albumen than even the protogenes 

 of Hackel" (" Biology," 481) ; and again, that the said 

 protogenes is " distinguishable from a fragment of 

 albumen only by its finely granular character" ("Psy- 

 chology," 137). With such expressions, how can the 

 public be otherwise than bewildered, and remain 

 unable to understand and appreciate the protoplasmic 

 theory ? We can understand now how Mr. Huxley, 

 when expounding the doctrine of these teachers, 

 should fail to convey a clear idea, more especially in 

 oral teaching, and probably pressed for time. I have 

 no reason to suppose further, that he sympathizes with 

 Hackel's religious opinions ; but he would be naturally 

 unwilling to enter on such a subject in that place. 



The above ambiguities and obscurities on the part 

 of Mr. H. Spencer are evidently due to his over- 

 mastering desire to bring in the hypothesis of evolution 

 from inorganic matter. Nevertheless, he was obliged 

 to fall back upon the theory of physiological units, as 

 we have seen (p. 182). 



But we have a right to protest against the too 

 common practice of naming Oken, Lamark, Herbert 



