ORIGIN OF LIFE. 161 
ing the great phenomena of progressive development, 
and of which the origin is perfectly comprehensible by 
variability alone, or in any case, as we have seen, by 
variability with the co-operation of isolation, The value 
of natural selection is in no way deteriorated by the 
possibility of explaining the purely morphological 
species without its aid. In certain cases of mimicry, 
or the formation of natural protective masks and imi- 
tations, and for the explanation of organic beauty, 
natural selection seems inadequate. But what does this 
prove, but that, as all know, future generations must 
needs carry on the edifice? The additions which the 
presence of the theory of selection has been able to 
supply are scarcely worthy of mention. 
As the type has become the family, and the system, 
as the shortest expression of the kindred relations of 
organisms, requires at the root of the genealogical tree 
a number of the lowest and simplest organisms, or per- 
haps one single primordial form, we must come to an 
understanding as to the problem of the beginning of life. 
Even quite recently, in March 1873, Max Miiller, in 
accordance with an opinion shared by many, has again 
proclaimed “the Darwinian theory vulnerable at the 
beginning and at the end.”** Whether any considerable 
points of attack are offered by the final proposition of 
Darwinism, namely, the application of natural selection 
to man, and his sole characteristic peculiarity, language, 
we shall have another opportunity of inquiring. But 
what the renowned linguist terms the vulnerable begin- 
ning of Darwinism, the origin of life, has in fact nothing 
to do with actual Darwinism, or natural selection, unless 
the principle of selection be extended to the inorganic 
