1909-] GOODALE— DARWIN AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES. xix 



these matters. But none of these were able to make any headway 

 against the authority of Linngeus and Cuvier. Time would fail 

 us to enumerate the nature-philosophers as they were called, and 

 the naturalists, who rebelled with little effect against the dominance 

 of the dogma of the fixity of species. 



Their rebellion was practically of no effect, and yet today we 

 can see that they were right in many of their contentions. Pro- 

 fessor Osborne has given us in his excellent work, entitled " From 

 the Greeks to Darwin," a capital sketch of these views, tracing 

 them down from early times. 



The authority of Linnaeus and of Cuvier was enough to offset 

 any of the speculations on the other side. But when the century 

 was far advanced, the need of the readjustment of views became 

 increasingly evident. On the one hand was the obvious fact that 

 species do not change enough from year to year, to account for 

 derivative descent, but, on the other, there were many questions 

 which could be answered only by frankly admitting such deriva- 

 tion. First of all, it was exceedingly difficult to meet the problems 

 presented by fossil plants and animals. To face these problems, 

 even in a half-hearted way, it was necessary to assume the occur- 

 rence of successive catastrophes and fresh creations. And when, 

 especially by the work of Lyell, the geologist, it became plainer, day 

 by day, that instead of sudden scene-shifting in the drama of animal 

 and plant-life, the play had always gone with no interruption, the 

 situation became almost desperate. Secondly, the existence of 

 rudimentary organs could not be at all understood on the basis of 

 fixity of species. Useless organs have no place whatever in that 

 scheme of primary creation. Thirdly, there were hosts of questions 

 arising in regard to distribution of plants and animals which no man 

 could answer on the basis of constancy of species. 



Meanwhile, collections were increasing, and problems were be- 

 coming more insistent. And so the century closed in 1858, with 

 many dissatisfied naturalists throughout the world, who were still 

 in the dark and without a guiding clue. There was not in any 

 country any scientific explanation of these great questions which 

 commanded confidence or even respect. The dogma of constancy 

 of species bound fast with its fetters all natural science and hindered 



