Botany. 449 
which once brought into — sheds a new light over the whole picture of 
causes and effects?” (p. 215, 216). 
@ answer, nohow, ex eee by ean. to some extent the mode or 
way in which this Providence ma ny Re 
garded as remarkable inventions if they were due to human minds and 
hands,” “ cee be removed from the = of intelligent adaptations be- 
order of causes and effects constituted by the will of the Supreme hath 
of all things.” The points against Darwin’s theory made or suggested 
in the present volume, with so much acuteness, are all the more telling 
for the entire fairness and excellent spirit in which oe. are made, This 
is far more than can be said of the following 7 y, Vv 
3. Species not Transmutable nor mvt seep lt of Secondary Causes ; 
being a Critical sigperseaiteg of Mr. ns Work, &c; by ¢ REE, 
q, M.D., F.LS., &c.—London, Groombridge © Sons—A. favorable 
notice in the Atherton of Dr. Bree’s volume led us to suppose that it 
might be a contribution of some importance in the discussion of the 
nice questions which the publication of Mr. Darwin’s book has raised. 
But this expectation has not been fulfilled on perusal. The author’s 
intentions are praiseworthy, and his zeal in a good cause ee gee But 
we cannot entertain a great respect for the reasoning of a writer who, on 
the one hand sees design and adaptation in the distribution a sunshine 
and rain, and t ripen of the seasons, while on the other he insists 
that because “all the parts of a creature act harmoniously and co-ordinately 
one with another,” necessitating the inference “that they were pre- 
ordained to act collectively for the animal,” therefore “they could not 
have been produced by [through] oe natural selection, divergence 
of form,” or indeed through any secondary causes whatever. e 
po exactly to comprehend how one 5 0hs sees design and adaptation 
ized in the inorganic world through what are called secondary causes, 
is is entitled to declare that the establishment of the doctrine of the succes~ 
sion of species,—each marked with more special if not stronger evidences: 
of design than anything in inorganic nature,—through secondary causes, 
would “ destroy ri vestige of a shadow of Pa ina hermes Provi- 
