90 



all such metaphysical factors as "spontaneous varia- 

 bility," &c. 



Darwin evidently sees that, if Reversion may lay 

 claim to all the variations which arise, his theory is at 

 an end. As has doubtless been observed, he strives to 

 show, that Reversion cannot account for "some char- 

 acters." These "some characters" are the ones upon 

 which hangs his only hope of salvation for his theory. 

 One of the devices, to which he resorts, to confound 

 the problem of reversion, is to appeal to our ignorance 

 of such and such a character ever having been de- 

 veloped before. Deftly playing upon the prejudice 

 of the orthodox, to the effect that God made and 

 placed animals and plants in the existing state of 

 nature, and that therefore it is derogatory to Infinite 

 Power, that He should make any of them in an in- 

 complete condition; he affects to deem it a sufficient 

 answer to the ascription of any variations to Rever- 

 sion, to refer the reader to the given species as it exists 

 under nature, and to point to the absence, in it, of any 

 such character, as the one in question. When it serves 

 his purpose to refer variations solely to a "spontane- 

 ous variability," or to an " innate tendency," he plays* 

 the card above indicated. When he endeavors to 

 show the great scope of reversion, he coolly contests 

 any such notion that animals or plants, under nature, 

 need necessarily, to be complete in structure. What 

 involves him in such a mesh of inconsistencies, is that 

 he is endeavoring to arrive at the conclusion, that 

 species had a common origin, by two different sets of 

 premises. By one of the two modes of reasoning, he 



