"73 



of ancient characters, and the first appearance of new 

 characters." 



This, again, may mean characters new to either of 

 the crossed breeds, or characters new to the species. 

 It is, obviously, to the interest of Darwin's theory, 

 that the latter idea be accepted by the reader. If it 

 be so " impossible to distinguish between the reappear- 

 ance of ancient characters, and the first appearance of 

 new characters," why, in any case, refer them to an 

 " innate tendency," or to " profound ignorance," in 

 derogation of the known, scientific law, Reversion, to 

 which no possible objection can be taken ? Assume, 

 as there is so iriuch ground for doing, that all the vari- 

 ations, arising in each species, are but the regain of 

 what that species once lost, and " innate tendency," 

 "vital force," "spontaneous variability," and all the 

 other " metaphysical entities," which clog the path of 

 inquiry, and attest the poverty of scientific thought, 

 may be wholly dispensed with. 



Continuing his remarks with reference to the ques- 

 tion whether the given characters are "ancient" or 

 " new," he says : 



" Practically, whether new or old, they would be 

 new to the breed in which they reappeared." 



Doubtless, they would ; as a breed formed of the 

 varying offspring of a cross, is, generally, a new breed. 



Again he says (page 321, Vol. ii, Animals and 



Plants, &c): 



" We seldom have the means of distinguishing, as 

 previously remarked, between the appearance of really 

 7* 



