58 J. W. SLATER, ESQ., F.C.S., F.E.S., ON 



In the first place we find that among those who accept 

 Natural Selection as the main agent in the Genesis of Species 

 there have sprung up wide differences of opinion both as to 

 its scope and its modes of operation. Whilst some natural- 

 ists regard it as the main, if not the sole factor in phyllogeny, 

 Charles Darwin himself in his later writings owns that in the 

 earlier editions of his "Origin of Species," he "probably 

 attributed too much to the action of Natural Selection and 

 the Survival of the Fittest." More decisive is the language 

 of Dr. A. R. Wallace : " Natural Selection is not the all- 

 powerful, all-sufficient and only cause of the development of 

 organic forms." Candour, however, compels me to admit 

 that Dr. Wallace now appears to have swung round to a 

 belief in Natural Selection more sweeping than that at first 

 entertained by Darwin. Professor St. George Mivart also 

 considers that the Survival of the Fittest "plays merely a 

 subordinate part." Very similar is the contention of Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer. Mr. S. Butler rejects Natural Selection 

 entirely. 



Mr. J. Hudilart cannot realize that such haphazard means 

 as Natural Selection can have wrought out such marvels as 

 are exhibited throughout creation. He insists that " were 

 Natural Selection permitted to mould the forms of life around 

 us, uncontrolled and undirected by any Supreme power, 

 shapes the most grotesque and monstrous would inevitably 

 inhabit the globe." 



That Natural Selection has not been thus uncontrolled may 

 be gathered from the limits which seem to have been set to 

 the development and the modification of species. Why do we 

 never see in any vertebrate animal more than two pairs of 

 limbs or their rudiments ? Why are parts which have lost 

 their function, such as the external ear in mankind, or the 

 vermiform appendage to the caecum, still produced in gener- 

 ation after generation ? Why is the secretion of silk confined 

 to invertebrate animals, and the production of physiological 

 venoms to cold-blooded groups ? To such questions and to 

 many more the believer in Natural Selection is so far less able 

 to reply than is the naturalist of the Old School. The latter 

 could solve all problems by an appeal to the sic volo, sic 

 jubeo of the Creator. The Natural Selectionist refers us 

 instead, substantially to chance. Can such an exchange 

 satisfy our reason ? 



We may thus venture to say that there prevails a very 

 wide-spread feeling of the insufficiency of the Darwinian 



