7G J. W. SLATER, ESQ., F.C.S., F.E.S., ON 



Another form of the statement is, if possible, yet more untenable. 

 It has been said that the shairk loses time iu seizing his prey 

 through the necessity of turning on his side. I think this must 

 depend on the position of the prey ; but if it is always necessary, 

 what fraction of a second will this movement require ? and cannot 

 one of the swiftest swimmers in the sea turn his body half way 

 round while swimming, so as to lose no time at all ? 



I have endeavoured to reply to Mr. Slater whei-e I think him 

 wrong, and especially to demolish his shark ; but in many things 

 I agree with him, especially as to the inadequacy of natural 

 selection to account for the metamorphoses of insects, which 

 appear to point to some unexplained law of life ; and also its 

 inadequacy to explain the very remarkable fact of the existence of 

 closely parallel, though but distantly related, forms in the placental 

 and tlie marsupial sub-classes of the mammalia. I believe that no 

 theory of evolution can explain away the necessity of a Guiding 

 Intelligence. My work on Habit and Intelligence contains my 

 detailed views on this subject. 



Mr. F. P. Pascoe, F.L.S., ex-Presiclent of the Entomological 

 Society, writes : — 



Many thanks for the proof copy of Mr. Slater's paper. 



" Natural selection " is such a convenient phrase for our real 

 ignorance that it will probably be long before it is discarded. 



A power " picking out with unerring skill " seems to me to be 

 utterly inadequate to account for the formation of new organs — 

 some apparently useless as, for example, the comb-like organs of 

 the scorpions. It makes no attempt to account for the numerous 

 forms of the Protozoa — perhaps the most extraordinary beings in 

 all organic nature. 



''The proof that there is a selective agency at work is," Mr. 

 Wallace thinks, "to be found in the stability of species." 

 (Nature, Oct. 1, 1891.) 



I have elsewhere remarked (in ray Summary of the Darwinian 

 Theory) that Darwin, with the conspicuous candour that distin- 

 guished him, was ever ready to admit — and in the strongest terms 

 — what he considered were objections to his theory. Some he 

 thought at first were "insuperable," such as the absence of the 

 infinitely many fine transitional forms which must have existed ; 

 others — as the neuter ants — "fatal to the whole theory." That 

 the eye could have been formed by natural selection " seemed 

 absurd in the highest degree." Instincts, too, were so wonderful 

 that they might appear sufficient "to overthrow the whole theory." 



Si line of these difficulties were " so serious that to this day lie 

 could hardly reflect on them without being in some degree stag- 

 gered." But he says the more important of the objections to his 

 theory " l-elate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; 

 nor do we know how ignorant we are." 



