314 DARWIN AND AFTER DARWIN. 



the works of other men than Mr. Romanes; we are merely concerned 

 with this attempt to present the subject, and with a certain original 

 appendix, namely, that to Chapter V., the botanical part at p. 436. 

 Mr. Romanes here undertakes to answer the objections of Mr. 

 Carruthers, whom he describes as "the principal and the ablest 

 opponent of the theory of evolution,' ' praise which Mr. Carruthers 

 probably relishes much as Mr. Wallace will delight in being 

 introduced to the public by Mr. Romanes as "one of our greatest 

 authorities on geographical distribution" (p. 22). However, it is 

 kindly meant. Mr. Carruthers has certainly kept before the public 

 the fact that, in his judgment, the testimony of fossil plants is not 

 in favour of evolution, but it seems to be assumed that he thereby 

 rejects the whole theory, root and branch. It is one thing to say 

 that the case is not proven, and never can be until certain objections 

 are satisfactorily explained away. This attitude is consistent with 

 the open mind which every scientific man aspires to possess ; it is 

 another thing to be esteemed an opponent on all and every ground. 

 This, however, is by the way, and Mr. Romanes is not blamed. He 

 states very fairly, it seems to me, Mr. Carruthers's position, resting 

 on the triple ground that there is (1) no evidence of change in 

 specific forms of existing plants throughout historical times, from 

 the times of ancient Egypt until now, and even from the glacial and 

 pre-glacial period, say, 250,000 years ; (2) the absence of generalised 

 forms among the earliest plants with which we are acquainted ; and 

 (3) that the Dicotyledons, which first appear in the Cretaceous 

 rocks, appear there suddenly, without any forms leading up to them, 

 notwithstanding that we know very well the extensive flora of the 

 underlying Wealden. 



How does Mr. Romanes answer these objections ? He begins 

 by saying that there is not much difficulty with regard to those in 

 the second category ; there might be a difficulty if we took a very 

 erroneous view of organic evolution, &c, and "of course we may 

 wonder why still lower down in the geological series we do not 

 meet with more generalised (or ancestral) types ; but this is the 

 difficulty No. 8, which we now proceed to examine." Really one must 

 ask, why should Mr. Romanes take the trouble to state the difficulty, 

 if he is not to answer it ? Let us see how he proceeds : — " Con- 

 cerning the other two difficulties, then, the only possible way (Mr. 

 Romanes is an authority on the limits of possibility all through his 

 book) of meetmg that, as to the absence of any parent forms lower 

 down m the geological series, is by falling back — as in the analogous 

 case of animals— upon the imperfection of the geological record/' 

 lhat is how he "proceeds to examine" difficulties Nos. 1 and 3, 

 which latter, he says, includes 2. There is much besides, and a deal 

 beside. Here is an example of the circular method of argument: — 

 "The mere fact that Dicotyledonous plants, where they first occur, 

 are found to have been already differentiated into their three main 

 divisions, is in itself sufficient evidence, on the general theory of 

 evolution, that there must be a break in the record as hitherto 

 Imown between the Wealden and the Chalk. Nor is it easy to see 

 Uuw the opponents of this theory can prove their negative by 



