48 PRO**ESSOR DtJNS ON THE 



planet. Even in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, where purpose is 

 generally very obvious, order also is present. Let us look at the tulips 

 which are now adorning the beds of our public parks. Purpose is visible 

 in every detail of the flower — perianth, stamens, and pistil ; but there is 

 order also— there is the adherence to the number three, or theternal symmetry. 

 The flower consists really of five whorls of three each; two of the perianth, 

 two of the stamens, and one of the carpels. This adherence to type leads 

 us into a different sphere of thought from purpose ; and it is found side by ' 

 side with purpose in every one of the animals and plants of the globe, with ' 

 the exception of the very lowest in the scfile. The fact is, the subject of 

 design in nature is a vast one, and I agree with Professor Duns, that it has , 

 not yet been adequately treated. Of the unfairness of the objections made 

 against it I find frequent examples when reading recent German mono-, 

 graphs on botanical subjects. I will mention a single typical example of: 

 one-sided fanaticism. The late Dr. Hermann Miiller, of Lippstadt, wad 

 justly famous for his patient and exhaustive study of the wonderful mutual! 

 adaptations between insects and flowers. The work of his which I have 

 myself read is a resume of the whole subject written by him as the opening^ 

 essay for Schenk's Hnndhuch der Botanilc, now appearing in Breslaii. In 

 this able work he gives most interesting facts mixed up with wild specu- 

 lations and buoyant hypotheses. The fundamental point of view is perhaps 

 a grotesque exaggeration of the amount and value of cross-fertilisation ih 

 nature. However, after spending years of his life in studying some of the 

 most astonishing instances of correlation and mutual adaptation between 

 plant and insect that we know. Dr. Miiller came to the conclusion that they 

 did not indicate design. What are his reasons for this ? On examination 

 they turn out the veriest trifles. This Materialist, or Monist ceased to 

 believe in an Almighty Maker of heaven and earth because he fancied that in 

 the course of ages some flowers had been adapted to different insects at 

 different times, that some flowers once fertilised by insects had again recurred 

 to wind-fertilisation, and that some of the contrivances were occasionally 

 eluded by wily insects. Est-il possible? So it seems an elastic, self- 

 adjusting contrivance is no contrivance at all! Apian that contemplates, 

 anticipates, and provides for changes is not a plan ! We must, however, 

 remember that in Germany itself a distinct reaction has begun against the 

 extravagances of the Extreme Left in biology. Virchow and Du Bois 

 Keymond both condemn the irrational dogmatising, and the fierce pro- 

 selytism of the Haeckelian school. Unfortunately, it is too often the 

 sensational books of " advanced " thinkers that are translated for the 

 I'nglish market. I may add to what I have already said, that, in the 

 main, I agree with Professor Duns ; but I think that, owing probably to 

 other demands upon his time, he has hardly done full justice to the subject, 

 which is a very wide one, and might have been dealt with on a much 

 broader basis. I do not know in what respects I can differ from what he 

 has said, except with regard to details which it is rot worth while at the 

 present moment to go into. With reference to the general question of 



