NATURE 



237 



THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1S72 



THE LAST ATT AC!-: OX DARIVLV/S.Vf* 



THIS volume, which in bulk, general appearance, and 

 typography bears a close resemblance to the earlier 

 editions of the " Origin of Species," seems got up to 

 stand by its side on the bookshelf, an ever ready antidote 

 to the pernicious doctrines of Mr. Darwin and his sup- 

 porters. After a careful perusal we must confess that it 

 may seriously damage Mr. Darwin's reputation with those 

 who have never read his works ; but we are quite sure 

 that no one who has studied the " Origin of Species," and 

 been convinced of the general accuracy of its statements 

 and conclusions, will have their convictions at all shaken 

 by Dr. Bree's argument. As, however, it is just the work 

 to be read by those who have only a second-hand know- 

 ledge of Mr. Darwin's works, we feel it to be a duty to 

 call attention to the very careless manner in which the 

 book is written, — its numerous errors, misrepresentations, 

 and misconceptions, and its extensive use of declamation 

 and opinion as sufficient answers to Mr. Darwin's elabo- 

 rate observations, carefully selected facts, and cautious 

 inductions. 



In a work of purely adverse criticism, the first duty of 

 an author is to quote his opponent's words with scrupu- 

 lous accuracy. Yet, in the very first page of his book, 

 Ur. Bree misquotes Dr. Hooker ; at p. 3 and again at p. 

 9 he repeats this misquotation ; and he devotes eight pages 

 to proving that what Dr. Hooker did not say is erroneous. 

 The quotation is from the Presidential Address at Nor- 

 wich. The words actually used, and to be found in the 

 authoritative report, are : — " So far from Natural Selection 

 being a thing of the past, it is an accepted doctrine with 

 ahnost every philosophical naturalist ; including, it will 

 always be understood, a considerable proportion who are 

 not prepared to assent that it accounts for all that Mr. 

 Darwin assigns to it." Dr. Bree omits the word almost, 

 and then sets himself to convict Dr. Hooker of misrepre- 

 sentation, by showing that with some " philosophical 

 naturalists " it is not an accepted doctrine. 



On p. 2 Dr. Bree makes a misstatement, almost equally 

 glaring, of another author's view. He says, "And Mr. 

 St. George Mivart has proved, and I think incontestably, 

 that it (Natural Selection) hits not a basis of truth;" and 

 refers the reader to "Genesis of Species," 1S71. But in 

 this volume we find (at p. 5) the author's statement, that 

 the object of his book is " to maintain the position that 

 ' Natural Selection' acls,and, indeed, must act, but that still, 

 in order that we may be able to account for the produc- 

 tion of known kinds of animals and plants, it requires to 

 be supplemented by the action of some other natural law 

 or laws yet to be discovered." 



A little further on Dr. Bree discusses Herbert Spencer's 

 '• First Principles; " and how far he is likely to elucidate 

 that philosopher's views may be seen by the following 

 curious blunder. At p. 48 he tries to explain to his readers 

 what Spencer means by " the integration of matter," 



* " An Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. Darwin." By 

 C. R. Bree, M.D.. F.Z.S, Senior Physician to the Kssex and Colchester 

 Hospital. (London ; Longmans, Green, and Co., 1872.) 



and quotes the following passage front his " First 

 Principles : " — 



" Every mass, from a grain of sand to a planet, radi- 

 ates heat to other masses, and absorbs heat radiated by 

 other masses ; and in so far as it does the one it becomes 

 integrated, while in so far as it does the other it becomes 

 disintegrated." 



Dr. Bree appears to have been afraid that his readers 

 would hardly be of sufficient .mental calibre to compre- 

 hend this passage. He therefore elucidates it as follows : 

 "Integration of matter, therefore, is the absorption of 

 heat, and heat, we are told by Tyndall, endorsed by 

 Spencer, is ' tremulous motion '—therefore, integration of 

 matter is the absorption of motion." We think Dr. Bree 

 has hardly done justice to his readers by merely turning 

 Spencer's statement topsy-turvy, and showing them that 

 a "good rule will work both ways;" he should further 

 have illustrated the subject by what that philosopher 

 terms a concrete example, and explained that, in his 

 view, water is integrated, when, by absorbing heat, it 

 changes into steam, and disintegrated when by radiating 

 heat it becomes solid ice ! 



If the supposed fallacies of such men as Hooker and 

 S pcncer, who, in Dr. Bree's opinion, are mere satellites of 

 Darwin, are thus ruthlessly exposed, we can hardly ex- 

 pect the chief conspirator himself to receive much mercy. 

 In his "Animals and Plants under Domestication," vol. ii. 

 pp. 250-255, Mr. Darwin carefully discusses the various 

 views as to the causes of variability, and arrives sX the 

 conclusion that variability is not an ultimate fact neces- 

 sarily contingent on reproduction (p. 253), and that varia- 

 bility of every kind is directly or indirectly caused by 

 changed conditions of life (p. 255). Dr. Bree, however, 

 referring to the same chapter of the same work, gives his 

 view of the writer's meaning in the following passage ; — 

 "But Mr. Darwin goes further. He says there is an 

 inherent tendency in the constitution of the organism to 

 vary, independent of, but modified by, its conditions." At 

 p. 191 Dr. Bree states, as if on Mr. Darwin's authority, 

 " that tortoise-shell cats .are so coloured as a rule only 

 in the males ; " and at p. 192, that Mr. Darwin " does not 

 believe" exactly what Mr. Darwin says he does believe. 

 But these are only errors of the pen in the haste of argu- 

 mentative composition ; a less excusable mistake is made 

 at p. 212, where, after quoting a passage from Mr. Dar- 

 win about mimicry. Dr. Bree says : — " This passage im- 

 plies that an insect can imitate the organisation of another 

 insect, by means of a knowledge that such organisation is 

 safer from enemies than that in which nature had clothed 

 it. A more unsound, unphilosophical, unproved, reckless 

 statement is not to be found, &c. i&c. ... It is only just 

 to say that the above theory did not originate with Mr. 

 Darwin. It is the sole production of the fertile brain of 

 Mr. Wallace." Here we have a misrepresentation and a 

 misstatement. No expression of Mr. Darwin or myself 

 can be taken to mean that we believed in a voluntary 

 knowing imitation of the organisation of one insect by 

 another. In my article on "Mimicry" I have expressly 

 disclaimed this view. As to the latter part of the quota- 

 tion, the first words of Mr. Darwin's paragraph headed 

 " Mimicry," and which Dr. Bree must have had before his 

 eyes, arc : — " This principle was first made clear in an 

 admirable paper \>y Mr. Bates /" A little farther on, my 



