Darwinism 29 



between the carnivora and the creatures on which 

 they prey. 



The carnivora hold the key to the situation ; they 

 do not make war on each other in their native haunts ; 

 they prefer the succulent flesh of the antelope, of which 

 there is always plenty ; and thus a certain comity 

 prevails among the purely carnivorous tenants of the 

 jungle. Moreover, they are careful of their skins, and 

 prefer to get their food with as little danger as possible. 

 For example, the lion and leopard will not face an 

 adult wild boar or a full-grown buffalo as a rule, but 

 readily carry off a straggling pigling or an infant buffalo. 

 Battles ending in the death of one of the combatants 

 are rare indeed. 



From these considerations it would seem that we 

 ought to pause and consider whether the theory of 

 Darwin rests on proved scientific data or otherwise. 

 In case this may be considered unwarrantable assump- 

 tion on our part, it may be well at this stage to give 

 evidence that even some of our scientific men of 

 eminence are beginning to grow restive under the 

 domination of this law. Messrs. Dewar and Finn, 

 zoologists of high standing, in their book " The Making 

 of Species," give the following judgment in regard to 

 it : " We think we may safely assert that scarcely 

 ever has a theory which fundamentally changed the 

 prevailing scientific beliefs met with less opposition. 

 It would have been a good thing for zoology had Darwin 

 not obtained so easy a victory. . . . Sir Richard Owen, 

 a distinguished anatomist, certainly attacked the 

 doctrine in no unmeasured terms, but this attack was 

 anonymous, and so cannot be considered very formid- 

 able. Far more important was the opposition of Dr. 

 St. George Mivart, whose worth as a geologist has never 

 been properly appreciated. His most important work, 

 entitled the ' Genesis of Species,' might be read with 



