; Fune 26, 1873] 
ON THE ORIGIN AND METAMORPHOSES OCF 
‘ INSECTS * 
VII. 
ON THE ORIGIN OF INSECTS 
“ DERSONNE,” says Carl Vogt, “en Europe au 
moins, n’ose plus soutenir la Création indépendante 
et de toutes piéces des espéces,” and though this state- 
ment is perhaps not strictly correct, still it is no doubt 
true, that the Doctrine of Evolution, in some form or 
Fic. 48, Larva of Moth (Agrotis suffusa), after Packard. 49, Larva of 
Beetle (Haética), after Westwood. 50, Larva of Sawfly (Cimbex), 
i e and Zaddach. Beob. ub d. artm. der Blall—Holzwespen, Fig. 
8. 5r, Larva of Julus. Newport, Philos. Transactions, 1841, 
other, is accepted by most, if not by all, the greatest 
naturalists of Europe. Yet it is surprising how much, in 
spite of all that has been written, Mr. Darwin’s views are 
Ficrigs) Agrotis iffusa (after Packard). 53,;Haltieg (after! Westwood). 
still misunderstood. Thus Browning, in one of his recent 
poems, says :— 
** That mass man sprang from was a jelly lump 
Once on a time ; he kept an after course * 
Through fish and insect, reptile, bird, and beast, 
Till he attained to be an ape at last, 
Or last but one.” + 
Fic. 54, Cimbex, Brischke and Zaddach, l.c. T. 2, Fig. 9. 
Yet this is a theory which Mr. Darwin would entirely 
‘Tepudiate ; which is utterly inconsistent with his views. 
* Continued irom p. 140. 7 
+ Prince Hohenstiel Schwangau, p. 68, 
NATURE 
167 
Whether fish and insect, reptile, bird, and beast, are 
derived from one original stock or not, they are certainly 
not links in one sequence. I do not, however, propose to 
discuss the question of Natural Selection, but I may 
observe that it is one thing to acknowledge that in 
Natural Selection, or the survival. of the fittest, Mr. 
Darwin has called attention to a vera causa, has pointed 
os 
GE rE, 
Fic. 55, Julus (after Gervais). 
out the true explanation of certain phenomena ; but it is 
quite another thing to maintain, that all animals are 
descended from one primordial source. 
_ Formy own part, I am satisfied that Natural Selection 
1s a true cause, and that whatever may be th: final result 
of our present inquiries—whether animated nature is 
derived from one aacestral source, or from many—the 
Fic. 56, Tardigrade (after Dujardin). 57, Larva of Cecidomyia (after 
Packard). 58, Lindia tomlosa (after Dujardin), 
publication of the Origin of Species will not the less 
have constituted an epoch in the History of Biology. 
But, how far the preseat condition of living beings is 
due to that cause ; how far, on the other hand, the action 
of Natural Selection has been modified and checked by 
other natural laws—by the unalterability of types, by 
atavism, &c, ; how many types of life originally came into 
Fic. 59, Prorhynchus stagnalis. 
being ; and whether they arose simultaneously or succes- 
sively,—these and many other similar questions remain 
unsolved, even if we admit the theory of Natural 
Selection. All this has indeed been clearly pointed out 
by Mr. Darwin himself, and would not need repetition but 
for the careless criticism by which in too many cases the 
true question has been obscured, Without, however, dis- 
cussing the argument for and against Mr. Darwin’s con- 
clusions, we so often meet with travesties of it like that 
which I have just quoted, that it may be worth while to con« 
sider the stages through which some group, say for instance 
