48: 



NATURE 



[June 24, 1909 



scienlinc emancipation of llie \vlu)k- (^roup of natural 

 sciences to which we now attach the label biolopy. 



But even if the claim to our admiration be not 

 based upon his application of the principle of natural 

 selection, it must never be forjjotten that for Darwin 

 the conviction of the reality of this principle was the 

 motive power of his Iife-worl<. The history of the 

 revolutionary little volume which convulsed the world 

 of science and shocked the outer laity in 1859 shows 

 that, as the result of his obsen-ations and reflections 

 during- and after the voyaijc of the hca^\c, he had 

 become convinced of the mutability of species. But 

 the mechanism of the process by which species were 

 produced in nature was suggested to him, as it was 

 subsequently to his compeer, Alfred Russel Wallace, 

 by the writings of Mallhus. From the time of his 

 perusal of that work " for amusement " in 1838, his 

 views began to take definite form. This is an oft-told 

 story and hardly requires recapitulation, but at this 

 momentous period it may be pertinent to point out 

 that without this light from Malthus there would 

 have been no Darwin-\\'allace theory of the origin of 

 species unless the illustrious founders of that theory 

 h.nd independently discovered the Mallhusian principle. 

 Whether the recognition of natural selection as " the 

 main but not the exclusive means of modification " 

 ("Origin," sixth edition, p. 421) is Darwin's chief 

 claim to our homage is, as appears from the present 

 essays, a matter of individual opinion. But whatever 

 view be held now with respect to the function of 

 natural selection, it was the predominant factor from 

 the first to the last edition of the " Origin." It is not 

 going too far to say that all his later work was 

 prompted by this theory, which was, and is, a theory 

 of "adaptations," as shown by his adoption of 

 Herbert Spencer's paraphrase " survival of the fittest " 

 for "preservation of favoured races." Happily for 

 us of the present generation, Darwin resolved at the 

 outset of his work to refrain from polemical discussion. 

 His champions were numerous, and, like Huxlev, 

 masters of that art, and to them he left it to give 

 battle to his opponents. The nearest approach to 

 controversy to be found in his writings is the well- 

 known chapter (vii. of the sixth edition) in the 

 " Origin " in which he discusses a number of 

 " miscellaneous objections " which had been urged 

 against his theory. A re-perusal of that chapter at 

 the present time will serve to show that u\i\H\ — the 

 " adaptational " value of the characters of organisms 

 — was still the basic idea underlying his replies to his 

 critics. 



A collection of essays such as those which make up 

 the present volume would require, not a single 

 reviewer, but a staff of reviewers to do justice to 

 (heir contents. It would be impossible to give any- 

 thing approaching an adequate account of the treat- 

 ment of the various subjects by their respective 

 authors within the limits of an ordinary press notice, 

 even in the columns of a scientific journal. Some of 

 the essays are quit; easy to follow; others are neces- 

 sarily more or less technical. In the way of absolute 

 novelty there is not much to be found, nor, indeed, 

 could novelty be expected from writers dealing with 

 subjects which have in one form or another been 

 NO. 2069, VOL, 80] 



before the scientific world for many years. The 

 novelty is to be found rather in the way in which each 

 contributor presents his case — in the consensus of 

 homage paid to Darwin's influence in each particular 

 field. If it is not invidious to make a selection, Judd's 

 chapter on " Darwin and Geology " (xviii., p. 337) is 

 the most fascinatingly interesting from the historical 

 |X)int of view. Weismann's, Poulton's, and D. H. 

 Scott's contributions will be found delightful reading 

 by those who (like the present writer) still believe that 

 the Darwinian theory is a theory of adaptations. 

 Poulton, bv the way, gives us more novelty than any 

 other writer by inserting some hitherto unpublished 

 letters of Darwin, and by printing extracts from 

 Burchell's note-books bearing on mimicry and protec- 

 tive resemblance. It is in no captious spirit that the 

 essay of de Wies is referred to as lacking in lucidity; 

 his statement of Darwin's position (p. 67) might have 

 been made clearer, and the presentation of his own 

 views — whether they are accepted or not — scarcely 

 does justice to their distinguished author. Haeckel's 

 contribution still rings with the battle-cry of the 

 victor over his defeated German anthropological 

 opponents. Those who look to the work as an 

 authoritative expression of evolutionary opinion must 

 perforce be struck by the omission of certain names 

 which we should have liked to see on the list of con- 

 tributors. The names of Alfred Russel Wallace and 

 Francis Galton are conspicuous by their absence. 

 Biologists would no doubt have been glad also to 

 read essays by Henry F. Osborn, of Columbia 

 University, by Sir Ray Lankester, and by Karl 

 Pearson. " Biometricians " are not represented. 

 Presumably there are valid reasons for these omis- 

 sions, but the loss is ours nevertheless. The hyper- 

 critical reader also may want to know what in- 

 fluence can have been exerted by Darwin's work upon 

 the genesis of double stars (Sir George Darwin, Essay 

 xxviii., p. 543), or upon the evolution of matter as 

 expounded by Mr. Whetham (Essay xxix., p. 565). 

 Speculations on the " transmutation " of matter are 

 older than any theories of the transmutation of 

 species. But both these subjects now fall as naturally 

 into the general scheme of evolution as do any of the 

 cosmical theories admitted by Herbert Spencer in the 

 "First Principles," and are, therefore, quite appro- 

 priate in the present volume. The only regret that 

 can be expressed is that more space has not been 

 given to inorganic evolution. We should have 

 profited much by a popular exposition both of Sir 

 Norman Ix)ckyer's views on stellar evolution and of 

 Sir George Darwin's suggestive application of the 

 principle of survival among elementary atoms in his 

 address to the British .Association in 1905. 



Now, bearing in mind the raison d'etre of the 

 work under consideration, the " resting stage," to use 

 a biological expression, in the history of Darwinism 

 provided by this gala.xy of expert opinion enables us 

 to formulate certain very definite questions. What 

 has the " educated layman " to believe now with 

 respect to D.-irwin's cardinal doctrine after the lapse 

 of half a century? Has the theory that species 

 originate mainly but not exclusively by natural selec- 

 tion stood the test of time; has it been modified in any 



