NATURE 



[June 13, 1901 



the other will kill ; but it is unaccompanied by the 

 smallest morphological distinction. Nageli pointed out 

 the importance of recognising this in bacteriology. 

 What Huxley really meant by physiological species are 

 species which are mutually sterile, and in this both he 

 and Romanes seem to me to have rather begged the 

 question. 



Darwin, who was more aware of the weak points of his 

 theory than any of his critics, took immense pains 

 to show that sterility does not run parallel with taxonomic 

 order. It is well known that it is not a criterion of 

 species, as Huxley seemed to think — it does not seem to 

 be even a criterion of genera. I can only suppose that 

 some hint of Huxley's furnished the foundation of 

 Romanes's heroic attempt to establish "physiological 

 selection." If so, Huxley seems to have been little im- 

 pressed with the result : — 



" It (the 'Origin') is one of the hardest books to under- 

 stand thoroughly that I know of, and I suppose that is 

 the reason that even people like Romanes get so hope- 

 lessly wrong " (ii. 192). 



But then Romanes was not a naturalist either. 

 Another difficulty was the principle that " Naiitra non 

 facil saltum " (i. 176), and I think from the same cause. 

 Bateson, of course, receives a benediction : — 



" I always took the same view, much to Mr. Darwin's 

 disgust" (ii. 372). 



That "considerable 'saltus'" may occur is not im- 

 probable ; but there can be little doubt that a species 

 passes from one configuration to another, as Darwin 

 supposed, by minute changes ; and, as he has himself 

 pointed out, we are not justified in assuming that the 

 rate of variation has always been uniform. 



Huxley, however, felt that he had at last a secure 

 grip of evolution, and was soon on the war path ; he 

 warns Darwin : — 



" I will stop at no point as long as clear reasoning will 

 carry me further" (i. 172). 



Nor did he. The history of "the great 'Sammy' 

 fight" has often been told. It is interesting to 

 know that it was Chambers, the author of the 

 " X'estiges," who was responsible for it (i. 188). Its 

 importance has been somewhat exaggerated. Evolu- 

 tion has made its way by a process of slow permeation. 

 It has done so because, in the words of Helmholtz, it 

 contains "an essentially new creative thought " (i. 364). 

 But it was a brilliant dialectic victory for Huxley, and 

 Oxford loves dialectic : "The black coats . . . offered 

 their congratulations " (i. 189). " The Bishop . . . bore 

 no malice, but was always courtesy itself" (i. 188). 

 Huxley was, however, less forgiving, and put him in his 

 pet little Inferno (ii. 341). Personally I entertain more 

 than a sneaking admiration for him. He " cleaned up '' 

 the diocese of O.xford with a vigour worthy of Huxley 

 himself. 



One incident in the discussion is of some theoretical 

 interest. The permanence or, as I prefer to say, sta- 

 bility of species seem to have been adduced as an argu- 

 ment against Darwin's theory. Lord Avebury : — 

 " instanced some wheat which was said to have come off 

 an Egyptian mummy, and was sent to him to prove that 

 wheat had not changed since the time of the Pharaohs, 



NO. 1650, VOL. 64] 



but which proved to be made of French chocolate " 

 (i. 187). 



But we have absolute evidence from tombs that Egyptian 

 plants have not appreciably changed for 4000 years. And 

 it is now known that the fact, instead of being an 

 argument against, is rather one for the Darwinian 

 theory. 



Owen made a last desperate attempt to save the situa- 

 tion by asserting for man, on anatomical grounds, a com- 

 pletely isolated position in the animal kingdom. Huxley, 

 in 1862, "showed that the differences between man and 

 the higher apes were no greater than those between the 

 higher and the lower apes " (i. 192). The case for the 

 evolution theory was now complete. 



Carlyle did not forgive the publication of " Man's 

 Place in Nature," though it only cariied the veracity of 

 " Sartor Resartus " a step further. However, master and 

 disciple both received together an honorary degree at 

 Edinburgh, and I think there must have actually been 

 some sort of reconciliation. For I have a distinct 

 remembrance of hearing, I think from Huxley himself, 

 that Carlyle expressed to him unbounded admiration for 

 "Administrative Nihilism," coupling it with a by no means 

 flattering estimate of another eminent philosopher. 



Here I must leave Huxley's scientific work. He was 

 now only thirty-seven. He found zoology in this 

 country enchained in fantastic metaphysical conceptions ; 

 he extricated it almost single-handed. Writing to 

 Leuckart in 1859 he says : 



"Ten years ago I do not believe there were half-a- 

 dozen of my countrymen who had the slightest compre- 

 hension of morphology. ... I have done my best, both 

 by precept and practice, to inaugurate better methods. 

 . . . I confidently hope that a new epoch for zoology is 

 dawning amongst us" (i. 163). 



The hope has been amply realised. And if a quickening 

 spirit has been breathed into every branch of biological 

 teaching in this country, it was Huxley it came from. It 

 is much to be wished that some one would record some 

 recollections of the memorable courses of instruction at 

 South Kensington which Huxley commenced in 1871, in 

 which teachers and taught were alike inspired by 

 an enthusiasm the tension of which almost reached 

 breaking point, and in Huxley's own case, in fact, 

 speedily did so. 



Notwithstanding ill health his mental activity, con- 

 stantly stimulated by a certain innate combativeness, 

 kept him to the end immersed in public work of the 

 most varied description and in the controversy that he 

 loved. " Under the circumstances of the time," he says, 

 ''warfare has been my business and duty" (ii. 213). All 

 this it is needless for me to touch upon. But no picture 

 of Huxley would be complete which left out of sight the 

 speculations which more and more absorbed him as his 

 life drew to a close. In this Journal these can be only 

 treated from a purely scientific point of view. 



It is necessary to remember that Huxley's grasp of the 

 principle of organic evolution was only arrived at by the 

 process of reasoned and by no means hasty conviction. 

 He satisfied himself that man could not be excluded 

 from it. He was naturally therefore drawn to discuss 

 human phenomena in relation to evolution. 



