400 REVIEWS—ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 
treats fairly: ‘‘ Well, after all,” he supposes the objector to say, 
“you see Mr. Darwin’s explanation of the ‘origin of species’ is not 
good for much, because, in the long run, he admits that he does not 
_ know how organic matter began to exist. But if you admit any 
special creation for the first particle of organic matter, you may just 
as well admit it for all the rest; five hundred or five thousand distinct 
creations are just as intelligible, and just as little difficult to under- 
stand, as one.” Now, if such an objection were ever used as an argu- 
ment against learning as much as we can of the order of Nature and 
mutual derivation of organized beings, it is as little worth as Mr. Hux- 
ley represents it; but if, as we apprehend, it was only meant to show 
that the Darwen hypothesis relieves us from no fancied difficulty 
about the idea of creation, and that there is in truth no rational pre- 
sumption in favour of the creation only of the first and simplest organ. 
isms, rather than the creation of numerous forms of living beings, and 
as often as a wise regard to other changes might require, then we 
must think the objection a sound one leaving us open to draw 
whatever truths we can from the study of nature, but convincing us 
that we are not driven to seek an origin of species in second causes, 
and that there is no strong reasonable presumption that such might 
be found. 
We cannot at all perceive why, the prevalence of certain sections of 
the animal kingdom in particular regions of the globe being an ad- 
mitted fact in respect to the present state of things, it should not be 
admitted as equally suitable in any former state—or why the present 
existence of the armadillo where an armadillo-like animal formerly ex- 
isted should be admitted as any proof that the one is descended from 
the other without distinct evidence of gradual changes. But perhaps 
the best thing we can do with this paleontological argument 
will be to bring under the reader’s notice, in immediate connection 
with Prof. Huxley’s reasoning, the sentiments on the same subject of 
one of the greatest living authorities, and who cannot possibly, from 
his known opinions on the subject, be supposed to be prejudiced in 
favour of old-fashioned doctrines. We shall quote from a note to the 
second chapter of the first part of Agassiz’s treatise on the Aca- 
lephae in his contributions to the Natural History of the United Sates, 
(Vol. III., p. 90, Note 1,) the sentiments of this eminent yee 
logist respecting Darwin’s geological arguments. 
(Tt seems generally admitted, that the work of Darwin is particularly remark- 
able for the fairness with which he presents the facts adverse to his views. It 
