J AMES 185 
capable of cultivation into almost infinite varieties, and yet the result is always 
arose. We never find a rose developing into anything other than a rose, 
- and yet, within the limits of variation, the variety is almost infinite. If 
there were no strict lines within which nature is confined, why should not 
all species of plants be simply varieties of one original, such as we see in the 
case of the rose ? and why should there not be intermediate links which are 
now absent? It is only by the familiar study of plants that we are able to 
appreciate the force of this argument ; but the argument, in its main out- 
lines, appears to me to be one which any person who knows anything of 
nature may readily follow, and one also which it would be well to pursue, 
not merely to the extent to which this paper carries it, but even further, in 
order that we may be the better able to understand the marvels of creation ; 
for it is evident that nothing but a creative power could have caused the 
differentiations we see around us. If it be said of evolution that it has 
taken place very rapidly at one period, and very slowly at another,—that, 
in point of fact, it has proceeded by fits and starts,—we may very fairly 
exclaim, That is quite another matter ; and here I would broadly say that, if 
this is what is meant, then we may assert that evolution is simply claimed 
asa form of creation which as much requires the exercise of a creative 
power as any other form of creation. It is impossible for us to consider in 
what forms creative energy can be exhibited, or to limit its possibilities ; 
but such an evolution as this undoubtedly demands a creative energy just 
as much as is needed by any form of belief in creative power. In saying 
this, I must not be supposed to deny that, even if the gradual process of 
evolution were proved, it would just as much require creative energy to 
account for it as is needed by any other form of creative power. The result 
is that, do what they will, the evolutionists are utterly unable to escape from 
the necessity of a Creator ; and, therefore, the question is not a vital one 
for the theist. I will conclude by saying that, in the interests of truth 
and sound knowledge, papers like this are invaluable as a means of bringing 
to book those modern theories which are very popularly expounded, but 
which it is found very difficult accurately to prove. (Applause.) 
Captain Francis Perrin, F.G.S. (Hon. Secretary).— Before this discussion 
commences, I have to read two letters, their writers being unable to be pre- 
sent ; the first is from Sir Richard Owen, K.C.B., F.R.S. % 
‘Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park, East Sheen, March 14, 1885. 
“ Dear Sir,—I have the honour to return my best respects and thanks to 
the Council of the Victoria Institute, and regret that my present state of 
health forbids me to quit the house. 
“The * Unrevised Proof,’ which I now return, has enabled me to pass a 
most interesting and instructive hour with the accomplished author of 
the ‘ Relations of Fossil Botany to the Theories of Evolution.’ 
“T much regret that I cannot listen to the Paper and to the Discussion it 
will occasion. I shall deem it a favour to have a copy, when issued.— 
Believe me, faithfully yours, Richarp OWEN. 
“ Captain Francis Petrie.” 
VOL, XIX, O 
