186 
The second communication is from J. Braxton Hicks, Esq., M.D., F.R.S.,, 
who would have been present but for a severe cold. He says :— 
“The lines followed by the author of this paper seem to be excellent, and 
with the introductory remarks I quite agree. The great question of evo- 
Intion is not yet settled ; far from it; probably it never will be absolutely 
proved: at any rate, until it is so, opinions on itcan only be formed on 
probabilities ; and the relative value of these can only be arrived at by 
examining facts bearing on the question, with the thoroughness and patience 
shown by the author of the Origin of Species. Till this is accomplished,— 
and it is a great work,—and till every point on either side, be carefully 
balanced, it will be considered that his conclusions have not been answered. 
The argument based on the imperfection of the geological records obviously 
cuts both ways; like’as it enables the evolutionist to escape from the demand 
for demonstration of the transitional forms, so it also enables his opponent 
to claim that the absence of any ancestor identical with existing species is 
no proof of its never having existed. And here the argument of Mr. 
James comes fairly in, and shows that, where the records ‘of the past are 
copiously revealed, there is a persistence of species and genera, remark- 
able on the theory that a constant slow change is always occurring.— 
Most of those who have advocated the theory of evolution, have. so it 
appears to me, jumped to conclusions not warranted by the evidence; and 
then, having treated possibilities as proved facts, have overlooked what can 
be said on the other side, being carried away by the enthusiasm engendered 
by the apparent squaring of the theory with the facts observed. _y this 
and kindred actions a hasty and spurious philosophy has taken the place of 
the former painstaking inquiry after knowledge; and thus true philosophy is 
discredited. Had all the work on this subject been brought forward as 
“contributions,” and not as final conclusions, we should have advanced 
sooner towards the solution of the question. To state, as some have done, 
that the subject is settled, and that all who dissent are the reverse of acute, 
shows an inadequate conception of the difficult problem before us.” 
Mr. W. Carrutuers, F.R.S.—I have to express the pleasure with which 
I first read and have just listened to Mr. James's paper, in which I 
think he has very clearly stated the case he desires to establish. I have but 
little to offer in the shape of criticism, and still less by way of supplement. I 
accept, to a great extent, what Mr. James has put before us as a concise 
statement of the evidence to be derived from plants in relation to theories of 
evolution. There are, perhaps, one or two slips which I might correct, but 
they are net of more importance than typographical errors, and are, at the 
most, very slight. I think he has done well to insist on the permanence of 
generic, and, perhaps, even of specific types ; because this is what really lies 
at the root of the whole question. I have traced some species as far back as 
the glacial period—species that are now living on this globe, but which 
belong not only to highly-organised plants, but to the lower cellular plants, 
and about which there cannot be the slightest doubt. This, of course, demands 
a very long time indeed for the development—if they were developed—of 
the existent species ; but when we go back, as Mr. James has taken us, to 
the origin of the various types of plant life, and see that the dicotyledonous 
plants made their appearance, as far as we know—and, of course, we cannot 
