100 VARIATIONS, DUE TO REVERSION. 



ter, it might be argued, that all these species inherited 

 similar characters from some remote, common ances- 

 tor from which these several species evolved. But, 

 the mere possession, of a similar character, by several 

 species, does not argue a common origin for them. 

 The turkey, the pigeon, the duck and the chicken, 

 have tail feathers; but this does not prove they 

 descended from a common ancestor. If not, then 

 the loss and regain of such a character by such 

 species, cannot prove it. If proof, aliunde, of a 

 common origin, had been adduced; then, the pos- 

 session, or the regain of such common characters 

 might be advanced as corroborative evidence. If 

 Darwin had shown that improvements, or variations, 

 go on indefinitely, and that therefore it was possible 

 for species to evolve, one from another, this fact of the 

 possession, or of the re-development of a similar charac- 

 ter by different species, might be brought in as cumu- 

 lative proof. But, standing by itself, it has not the 

 weight of levity itself. But, while Darwin thought 

 that he had established the proof, aliunde, his col- 

 lateral hypothesis was sapping that very proof. In 

 attempting to give extra support to his theory, by 

 showing this great degeneration and this ever-active 

 reversion, he undermined his principal theory, by 

 showing that the variations, which his theory required 

 should be extended indefinitely, were due to reversion, 

 and that therefore there was a limit to such variations ; 

 which limit conclusively negatived the idea of a com- 

 munity of Origin of the species. Another absurdity, 

 in which he involved himself, was by displaying the 



