156 REV. JOHN GARARD, F.1.S., ON SPECIES AND THEIR ORIGIN. 
authorities themselves were often not agreed—regarding special 
organisms. His experience was, that whoever discovered a fossil 
specimen, had a claim to give it a name as a species, and it became 
atype. He, the speaker, recognised that there was a wide range of 
variation admissible as regards species and even genera, but his 
difficulty arose when they came to types of organic structure. A 
type was the appearance of a new fundamental idea, such as the 
vertebrate type in animals, and the dicotyledonous type in plants 
commencing in the upper cretaceous stage of the geological series. 
The explanations of the life history as given by the Darwinian 
hypothesis was, in the speaker’s opinion, inconclusive, and insufficient 
to account for the phenomena they were dealing with, which can 
only be explained on the view of Sir John Herschel, quoted by the 
author of the paper that ‘the presence of mind in the universe is 
what can alone supply such explanation of her constitution and oper- 
ations as shall harmonise with our own experience,”—a Mind all wise, 
beneficent and all pervading. 
Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD.—I am sure we all join in 
the thanks which have been expressed to the author for his able 
paper. The paper suffers, however, from the lack of a good 
definition of “Species.” None of the definitions quoted seems 
adequate. Better than any of them is that given by Buffon, 
namely, ‘‘A constant succession of individuals, similar to and 
capable of reproducing each other.” This distinguishes at once 
between species and varieties. If varieties (within a species) pair 
together, the result is mongrels, which are perfectly fertile. If 
species are made to pair together, what are obtained are hybrids— 
creatures of very limited fertility. It was this physiological fact 
which (as he himself points out) kept Huxley, who had plenty of 
good-will toward Darwinism, from accepting that theory. 
The so-called “ species,” mentioned on p. 132, are not species at all. 
They are varieties—two varieties of the species “ crow,” two varieties 
of the species “ goldfinch.” On the other hand, primrose and cowslip 
are probably different species. Professor Asa Gray’s “ species ”— 
which he could make and unmake—were varieties. 
Darwin’s theory of descent, brought before us on p. 124, Conyaats 
him of either inconsistency or confusion of thought. 
Darwin supposes that if we trace the descent of all dogs back 
through thousands of years, we shall at last arrive at a single pair 
