The Zoologist— Jdne, 1866. 235 



spite of monkej'S, pigs and parrots, and in the meantime it is more 

 than probable there would be nothing to begin with for aforesaid 

 agriculturists, the whole business having probably been settled, before 

 the crop got an inch high, by beetle larvae of the most destructive 

 capacity and propensities in proportion to their magnitude. At which 

 end, I wonder, would you begin in this case ; and whilst you are con- 

 sidering or writing to the 'Times' the wild vegetation would grow 

 fifteen or tvi'euty feet high all over, and yon might begin the clearing 

 again, in order to watch the interesting process, and make up your 

 mind which was most culpable, larva;, parrots, pigs, monkjys, or 

 feathered fowl in general. 



Origin of Species. — Pray send me a report of the feathered i-eptile. 

 How does he jump with Darwin's hypothesis, and was he going in for 

 crocodile or eagle when the catastrophe overtook him ? The discovery 

 of him illustrates one of Darwin's points, that we see only a small bit 

 of the animated existence of ancient times ; at any rate, finding him, 

 we may next come on the one who exchanged his fore legs for wings, 

 or vice versa, if that was the way of it. I have been reading the Du 

 Chaillu quarrel in the 'Athenaeum' of September, October, &c., 1861. 

 Truly he comes rather queer out of it. At Hondu I saw Du Chaillu's 

 book. It does not attract me much ; I%o abhor African names, and 

 to read a discredited traveller is not. very satisfactory. Watertoa 

 settles the story of the gorilla fighting like Tom Sayers, which never 

 was credible to any one who considered his wretched legs and 

 monstrous paunch in the British Museum. Huxley appears determined 

 on having his own pedigree cleared up : he no doubt says politely to 

 Owen, " My pedigree, sir, begins where yours ends," as the old Joe 

 Miller has it. I cannot quite see my own way to that doctrine of ape 

 ancestors, I confess, and yet, if we may be descended from Digger 

 Indians, the other is conceivable. The grand point lies in the true 

 nature of the distinction between reason and instinct ; that is, do they 

 differ, except in degree ? I never have seen this fairly dealt with. As 

 for degradation and all that, there is nothing in it. If the Creator has 

 so ordained that out of lower shall spring higher orders of being, I see 

 no reason why we should complain, but the contrary. That the whole 

 univei'se is the result of what we call the " law of orderly succession of 

 phenomena," in accordance with the original conception of the Divine 

 Being who is the mover and sustainer as well as the Author of 

 Creation, appears to me the only possible conception. I can see no 

 way of dragging in what is called an act of creation without upsetting 



