PROF. MEEHAM ON EVOLUTION. . 655 



continual dropping out of the intermediate forms was concerned, which left the 

 extremes without connections and gave us the idea of distinct species. He 

 thought there were some weaknesses in Mr. Darwin's method of advocating his 

 views, but these removed only left Mr. Darwin's position stronger than he him- 

 self perceived. He then proceeded to show that variations in nature were much 

 greater than Mr. Darwin evidently had knowledge of. The popular idea that no 

 two leaves on a tree were exactly alike in every respect was shown to be literally 

 true. Many illustrations were given and specimens exhibited showing the great 

 variations in seedlings of the same species, often from the same seed vessel ; some 

 from the latter would be regarded by any botanist who found them wild, as dis- 

 tinct species. A series of sixteen cones of Pinus rigida was exhibited, each from 

 a separate tree, all growing within a circle of twenty miles, and the central links 

 being taken away left nominal Pinus sirotina at one end, and Pinus rigida at the 

 other. Other species could be made by taking the interior series of forms. The 

 speaker contended that variation was not a mere condition, but had to be accept- 

 ed as a primary law of existence. As no two things have ever been produced 

 exactly alike, so far as we know, the result must necessarily, be a wide divergence 

 in time, and, as we know that death is also a certainty to individuals, distinct 

 forms must certainly ensue. 



Heredity, as established by Mr. Darwin, was next reviewed, and shown to be 

 established as a counterpoise to variation. It held variation in check, but was 

 finally overpowered by this, the greater force. Sex was an attribute of heredity. 

 Sex in flowers had no bearing on the future good of the race, and therefore 

 crossing by insect agency or otherwise had no reference to the good of the race 

 by aiding variation in the direction of change to suit environments. It rather 

 brought back what Mr. Darwin would imagine a useful variation toward its start- 

 ing point. A variation which had started from the centre of a circle, had to be 

 cross-fertilized if at all from the centre from which it sprung, and the progeny 

 was thus brought back toward its parents starting point. 



The next point made was that variations had no relation to the good of the 

 individual or race. Numerous cases were adduced to show that the forms which 

 had prevailed had not the slightest physiological advantage over the forms dis- 

 placed, and that those who argued to the contrary were reduced to the solitary 

 argument that there must have been some advantage, or the species could not 

 have survived. It must be so because it is, is an argument which has no place 

 in researches such as we are engaged in now. The actions and behavior of both 

 plants and animals were not for their own individual good. Their whole efforts 

 were in the interest of their progeny — for posterity — for the future — for objects 

 wholly unknown to the individual. Yet we found from the science of the past 

 that all this self-sacrifice — pleasant as it was made to be to the individual, — and 

 ignorant as these individuals were of what they were working for, all had resulted 

 in present harmony. In the speaker's language "we and all organic things are 

 the invited guests of nature. She makes our stay with her as pleasant as possible: 

 but she ruthlessly dismisses us the moment we cease to serve her future purposes." 



