OCTOBEBll, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



463 



in their earlj^ infancy. Our records sTiow 

 that von Mohl noted cell division in 1835, 

 the presence of chlorophyll corpuscles in 

 1837; and he first described protoplasm in 

 1846. 



In 1831 Cuvier, who, diaring the previous 

 generation had, by the collation of facts 

 followed by careful inductive reasoning, es- 

 tablished the plan on which each animal 

 is constructed, was approaching the termi- 

 nation of his long and useful life. He died 

 in 1832; but in 1831 Richard Owen was 

 just commencing his anatomical investiga- 

 tions and his brilliant contributions to pale- 

 ontologj'. The impulse which their labors 

 gave to biological science was reflected in 

 numerous reports and communications, by 

 Owen and others throughout the early de- 

 cades of the British Association, until Dar- 

 win propounded a theory of evolution which 

 commanded the general assent of the scien- 

 tific world. For this theory was not abso- 

 lutely new. But just as Cuvier had shown 

 that each bone in the fabric of an animal 

 affords a clue to the shape and structure of 

 the animal, so Darwin brought harmonj^ in- 

 to scattered facts, and led us to perceive 

 that the moulding hand of the Creator may 

 have evolved the complicated structures of 

 the organic world from one or more prime- 

 val cells. 



Eichard Owen did not accept Darwin's 

 theory of evolution, and a large section of 

 the public contested it. I well remember 

 the stoi-m it produced — a storm of praise by 

 my geological colleagues, who accepted the 

 result of investigated facts ; a storm of in- 

 dignation such as that which would have 

 burned Galileo at the stake from those who 

 were not yet prepared to question the old 

 authorities; but they diminished daily. We 

 are, however, as yet onlj' on the threshold 

 of the doctrine of evolution. Does not each 

 fresh investigation, even into the embryon- 

 ic stage of the simpler forms of life, suggest 

 fresh problems? , . 



The. impulse given by Darwin has been 

 fruitful in leading others to consider whether 

 tlie same principle of evolution may not 

 have governed the moral as well as the ma- 

 terial progress of the human race. Mr. 

 Kidd tells us that nature as interpreted by 

 tlie struggle for life contains no sanction for 

 the moral progress of the individual, and 

 points out that if each of us were allowed 

 by the conditions of life to follow his own 

 inclination the average of each generation 

 would distinctlj' deteriorate from that of the 

 preceding one ; but because the law of life 

 is ceaseless and inevitable struggle and 

 competition, ceaseless and inevitable selec- 

 tion and rejection, the result is necessarily 

 ceaseless and inevitable progress. 



Evolution, as Sir William Flower said, 

 is the message which biologj^ has sent to 

 help us on with some of the problems of 

 human life, and Francis Galton urges that 

 man, the foremost outcome of the awful 

 mystery of evolution, should realize that 

 he has the power of shaping the course 

 of future humanity by using his in- 

 telligence to discover and expedite the 

 changes which are necessary to adapt cir- 

 cumstances to man, and man to circum- 

 stances. 



In considering the evolution of the 

 human race, the science of preventive 

 medicine may afford us some indication of 

 the direction in which to seek for social 

 improvement. One of the early steps 

 towards establishing that science upon a 

 secure basis was taken in 1835 by the 

 British Association, who urged upon the 

 Government the necessity of establishing 

 registers of mortality showing the causes of 

 death " on one uniform plan in all parts of 

 the King's dominions, as the only means 

 by which general laws touching the influ- 

 ence of causes of disease and death could be 

 satisfactorily deduced. ' ' The general regis- 

 tration of births and deaths was commenced 

 in 1838. But a mere record of death and 



