ORIGIN OF LIFE. 63 
very decidedly to preponderate in favour-of the 
present occurrence of Archebiosis and Heterogenesis. 
Both fact and reason appear to be notably in- 
sufficient on the side of the counter hypothesis. So 
that a careful consideration of the respective merits 
of the two views—looked at merely as hypotheses 
—seems to show in a very unmistakable manner 
which is most worthy of our acceptance. 
Whilst the hypothesis of Panspermism is based 
upon an illegitimate belief, is at variance with many 
uniformities of nature, and is wholly incapable of 
embracing the required facts, that of Archebiosis and 
Heterogenesis is legitimate in its foundation, is not at 
all at variance with natural uniformity, and is capable 
already of explaining a very wide circle of facts per- 
taining to the past and present history of our globe. 
But these are the very tests by which we are 
accustomed to probe a new hypothesis, with the 
view of ascertaining its probable truth or falsity. 
What Mr. Justice Grove* said in 1866, when speaking 
of the Darwinian hypothesis, is now just as appli- 
cable concerning the hypothesis of the present occur- 
rence of Archebiosis and Heterogenesis. ~ He said :— 
“ The fair question is, Does the newly proposed view 
remove more difficulties, require fewer assumptions, 
* Presidential Address, in Report of British Association, 1866, p. 
xxviii. 
