56 II. PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 



called into being " (Lyell) is quite as hypothetical, and 

 quite as little supported by ascertained facts ? 



Nay, if we are to believe the marvel, which the Re- 

 viewer very inconsistently expresses his own readiness to 

 believe, there is far better evidence towards showing a 

 mutation of species, than ever has been adduced towards 

 showing a new creation of species. The change of one 

 generally recognized species into another such species, 

 and the gradual change in a dozen descents, from one 

 recognized genus into another such genus, would be 

 more than a single ascertained fact, in strong support of 

 the doctrine of successive development. 



The Reviewer believes in these changes. A few pages 

 after so dogmatically denying the existence of any such 

 fact, the Reviewer particularly mentions the experiments 

 of M. Esprit Fabre, by which the ^gilojJS ovata is stated 

 to have been gradually converted into Triticum sativum 

 in thirteen years, passing through another received spe- 

 cies, jEgilops triticoides, in the first stage of this very 

 rapid conversion. After a page or two of comments on 

 the reported experimeiat, the Reviewer added the follow- 

 ing sentence, so strangely inconsistent with his previous 

 assertion, that the successive development hypothesis is 

 vmsupported by a single fact : ~ " We have no doubt," he 

 writes, " that by patient perseverance in this course for a 

 number of years, not only many so-called species of Mgi- 

 lops ivould be reduced to one type, but M. Fabre's experi- 

 ments, resulting in the conversion of Mgilops into xoheat, 

 woidd again meet with the same success." 



Notwithstanding this inconsistency and self-contradic- 

 tion, there is ample internal evidence that the article in 

 question emanated from the pen of an experienced writer 

 and first-rate botanist. It certainly is remarkable to find 

 one of this class thus confidently announcing his belief, 



