OS VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 



when the idea of reversion is suggested, in connectioi 

 with any variety, the possibility of the type of sue! 

 variety, having previously existed, is entertained b; 

 the mind, and rejected under a false conception o 

 the solution. So, also, the idea, of there having ex 

 isted in the past, as many types as there are varieties o 

 the given species, is rejected, and the hypothesis of re 

 version accordingly suffers. The fact is, that, for eacl 

 species, there originally existed a type (then realizec 

 in the members of such species), which included 

 within it, all of the characters which it was ever pos 

 sible for any member of that species to develop. Thi: 

 type, it is possible to modify in an infinity of ways 

 but, as is shown in future chapters of this work, eacl 

 such modified type, suffers physiological evil in pn> 

 portion to the amount of modification it displays. 



From the above quotation, it is made manifest tc 

 the reader that, if Reversion cannot account for varia- 

 tion, the only alternative is "Spontaneous Variability!' 

 Well may Darwin say, " We are (he is) far too ignor- 

 ant to speculate on the relative importance of the sev- 

 eral known and unknown causes of variation." He 

 cannot lay a foundation for a theory of development, 

 but he is an adept in the erection of a superstructure ! 



He says (p. 351, Vol. 2, Animals and Plants, 6r.): 



" To recur once again to bud-variation. When we 

 reflect on the millions of buds, which many trees have 

 produced, before some one bud varied, we are lost in 

 wonder what the precise cause of each variation can 

 be." 



Then after speaking of the improvements which 



