II. PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 05 



scientific men none the less strongl)'^ because they are 

 themselves not aware of the unreasoning bias thus given 

 to their thoughts. The arguments of Lyell in this mat- 

 ter are referred to with much eulogy, even by botanists 

 of very high attainments and influence ; and yet they do 

 appear to the author of this volume about the least satis- 

 factory portion in his very attractive writings. Lyell is 

 not a man of species ; and he cites loose records of expe- 

 riments, in which the species are not mentioned by their 

 proper scientific names, with a strict and single meaning, 

 but by names which apply to more than one species, and 

 thus vitiate the records by their inexactness and uncer- 

 taintj'. Lyell detects the weaknesses of Lamarck's facts 

 and arguments ; but he fails to see that his own cited 

 "facts" are no better, — perhaps, indeed, much worse. 



Good botanists, equally as geologists, become gravely 

 inconsistent when they begin to dogmatise on this 

 subject, A recent example of this inconsistency may 

 be ci'ted here, as being very pertinent to the matter 

 in hand. The ' Geographie Botanique ' of De Candolle 

 is made the basis of a good article on geographical bo- 

 tany, in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1856. Early 

 in that article (page 497) the writer overlooks the danger 

 of asserting a negative in science, and boldly declares 

 that the doctrine " of successive development is purely 

 hypothetical, and unsupported by a single ascertained 

 fact." 



That such theory cannot be held much better than 

 conjectural hypothesis, is true enough. It may also be 

 true, that no clearly ascertained and perfectlj' unexcep- 

 tionable fact of direct mutation has been cited in support 

 c*- J-.^r of that theory or hypothesis. But is it not equally as 

 'true, that the Lyellian doctrine of new species of animals 

 and plants, created at the rate of "one neic one every year 



