2i6 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from the 

 living species ; and it cannot on m/y theory be supposed 

 that these old species were the progenitors," &c. (p. 

 306). ..." Consequently if my theory he true, it is 

 indisputable," &c. (p. 307). 



Here the two "my theories" have been altered, 

 the first into " our theory," and the second into " the 

 theory,'' both in 1869; but, as usual, the thing that 

 remains with the reader is the theory of descent, and 

 it remains morally and practically as much claimed 

 when called " the theory " as during the many years 

 throughout which the more open "my" distinctly 

 claimed it. 



Again : — 



"All the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, 

 Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, E. Forbes, &c., and 

 all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedg- 

 wick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, main- 

 tained the immutability of species. ... I feel how rash 

 it is to differ from these great authorities. . . . Those 

 who think the, natural geological record in any degree 

 perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the 

 facts and arguments of other kinds brought forward 

 in this volume, wiU undoubtedly at once reject my 

 theory" (p. 310). 



What is " my theory " here, if not that of the muta- 

 bility of species, or the theory of descent with modi- 

 fication? "My theory" became "the theory" in 

 1869. 



Again : — 



" Let us now see whether the several facts and rules 



