302 



SCIENTIFIC NEAVS. 



[Mar. 30, 1? 



the reason, and, if possible, the remedy, for such a state 

 of affairs. In the first place, we must admit that all are 

 small, and therefore less likely to be noticed than other- 

 wise ; and secondly, that a number were taken in terri- 

 tory that has never been carefully worked, indeed in one or 

 two localities little, if any, work has ever been done. 

 Carbonata montana and microccphala were all taken in 

 such regions, namely, the mountains of Virginia and 

 Kentucky, whose vast expanse certainly offers splendid 

 fields for discoveries in this line ; and when there, in 

 1885, on the "Black Ridge" of the Cumberlands in 

 Kentucky, I saw, among others, five of what were 

 firmly believed to have been montana, but owing 

 to circumstances the birds were not secured. R. cuvcieri 

 is a supposed hybrid between R. satrapa and R. calendula, 

 and unless exceedingly close could not be di.stinguished 

 from one of these. Therefore among the thousands upon 

 thousands of kinglets that yearly pass the student, it is 

 not improbable that specimens of this bird exist, and by 

 collecting a large series one or more might be obtained, 

 and a long disputed point settled. 



H. bachuiaiii is a well tried and thoroughly established 

 species, and up to within a few years was frequently 

 taken. Several ornithologists have made trips through 

 the localities in which it was formerly known to exist — 

 South Carolina, Georgia, and Cuba-— but nothing concern- 

 ing it has of late been heard. It seems improbable that the 

 species could have become extinct, and future explorations 

 perhaps in comparatively new county, may serve to bring 

 it again to light. 



Of H. cincinnatiensis but one specimen has ever been 

 taken, and that at Cincinnati, Ohio. It is presumably a 

 hybrid between H. pinus (pine warbler) and Geothlypis 

 formosa (Kentucky warbler.) If such is the case it is 

 unlikely that it will ever be taken again, and it ought 

 hardly to have a place in this list, as it is considered 

 more of an oddity than a species. 



Brewster's linnet {A. brewsterii), and Townsend's 

 bunting [T. townsendii), are each represented by a single 

 specimen, and remain unique. No one knows to a cer- 

 tainty whether they are hybrids or representatives of 

 distinct species. The one has not been taken since 1881 ; 

 the other dates from as far back as 1833, when it was 

 taken by Mr. J. K. Townsend, on May nth, in Chester 

 County, Pennsylvania. It is doubtful whether either will 

 ever be taken again, and if perchance it should, unless 

 taken in sufficient numbers to guarantee its position, it 

 would but confirm the opinion of its being the offspring 

 of two distinct species. This, then, sums up the list, 

 which, with the exception of three, still stand a chance 

 of being rediscovered and placed on the permanent list 

 of North American birds. There is always something 

 peculiarly fascinating about searching for that which is 

 liable to turn up at any moment, and until all disputed 

 points in our ornithology are settled students will con- 

 tinue to search for the desired information. — Scientific 

 American. 



EARLY SCOTTISH EVOLUTIONISTS. 



T N calling attention to the early advocates of evolution 

 in Scotland, we must briefly remind our readers of two 

 points. In the first place evolutionism and Darwinism, 

 though still too commonly regarded as identical, are in 

 reality distinct. An evolutionist is one who is convinced 

 that Hving organisms have not originated independently. 



but have sprung from the transformation of a few primal 

 forms, arisen by a process of gradual development out 

 of simpler forms. A Darwinian holds, in addition, that 

 this transformation has been effected mainly by two 

 agencies, natural selection and sexual selection. Hence, 

 whilst every Darwinian is an evolutionist, there are 

 many evolutionists who are not orthodox Darwinians. 

 The second point is, that though we are mainly indebted 

 to Charles Darwin for the victory of evolutionism over 

 the doctrine of " mechanical creation," he was by no 

 means its originator; Buffon and especially Lamarck in 

 France, Goethe and Oken in Germany, and in England 

 Erasmus Darwin, not to mention many lesser lights, had 

 heralded the dawn of the new natural history. 



Of these forerunners, Scotland produced two who 

 ought not to be forgotten. The more important of these 

 is the illustrious geologist, James Hutton, whose views 

 on this and kindred subjects have been recently dis- 

 covered in a manuscript work on agriculture. It is re- 

 markable to find here, that Hutton to some extent anti- 

 cipates Darwin as regards the agency of worms in the 

 production of arable soil. He uses these words : — " The 

 soil thus enriched with animal and vegetable bodies feeds 

 the worms, its proper inhabitants, which penetrate the 

 soil and introduce fertility as they multiply." This pas- 

 sage might serve for a very condensed summary ot 

 Darwin's treatise, though he was not merely in ignorance 

 of the very existence of Hutton's manuscript, but worked 

 out in detail the idea here presented as a sketch. 



But turning from this collateral subject let us look at 

 Hutton's views on life. He writes : — " Were plants 

 always, to propagate bodies in all respects the same as 

 themselves, we could have no variation. But we have 

 great varieties in plants of the same species ; conse- 

 quently this conclusion must be admitted, that the race 

 may deviate in some measure from its parent." He com- 

 plains that botanical philosophers, whilst occupied with 

 the necessary business of distinguishing and describing 

 plants, " have but little penetrated into the laws of vege- 

 table economy." 



Further, though writing more than a hundred years 

 ago, he ventures to call in question the fundamental 

 dogma of the old school, " That those bodies are only ot 

 one species which can propagate, so that those are of dif- 

 ferent species which cannot propagate in continuing that 

 breed." He then proceeds : — " Let us consider what is 

 the nature of this rule of our forming. If it be absolute 

 as implying no propagation at all between different 

 species, in that case every hybrid would transgress our 

 present system of specific distinctions by uniting in one 

 species, things which we are constrained to believe 

 diverse. If, again, the rule be not absolute, it must be 

 conditional. And now we may inquire into the nature 

 of those conditions : how different species may be allowed 

 to propagate together, but this hybrid body must not pro- 

 pagate again. But hybrids have been known to propa- 

 gate, therefore we are obliged to abandon that precise 

 condition and assume a new one, one which is again con- 

 ditional, viz., that the second hybrid should not propa- 

 gate." 



If we make allowance for the backward state of every 

 department of biology in the eighteenth century, if we 

 make due allowance for the incubus-like weight of old, 

 traditional notions, and for Hutton's awkward style, 

 loaded with repetitions, we shall see that he was not far 

 from the evolutionist position. It is somewhat remark- 

 able that Hutton does not allude to the speculations of 



