THE WONDER OF LIFE 581 



physical basis of life. And so on, for, as Prof. Henderson 

 has well shown, the evidence is cumulative that Uving 

 creatures, as material systems, are in no wise foreign to 

 the earth but are in the deepest sense congruent with it. 

 This is a very important and sound conclusion. 



Yet we cannot follow Prof. Henderson to his conclusion 

 that ' in fundamental characteristics the actual environ- 

 ment is the fittest possible abode of Ufe '. It may be so, 

 but the assertion outstrips the evidence. That we cannot 

 suggest another plan of evolution, another kind of make- 

 up for the physical basis of hfe, does not by any means 

 prove that there could be no other, no better. Who can 

 tell that there may not elsewhere be other and fairer faunas 

 and floras which biologists of another and of wiser sort 

 rejoice to study? 



While it is a notable and valuable service to have shown 

 what we may call the soUdarity of organisms and their 

 environment, is there not a risk of arguing in a circle, and 

 making a problem where none exists ? We must remem- 

 ber the old lady's fallacy regarding rivers and towns. If 

 we grant, as Meldola says, that the elements have not been 

 launched haphazard into existence as independent entities ; 

 if we admit a tendency in matter to complexify when it 

 gets a chance (a tendency no more exphcable than gravi- 

 tation) ; if we suppose, as the author does, that ' the whole 

 evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one ', 

 why should we be surprised at the' two complementary fit- 

 nesses ' ? The characteristic properties of water and 

 carbonic acid, of carbon compounds and colloid states, are 

 pecuharly fitted for the hfe of organisms, because organisms 

 as mechanisms (and our author does not consider them 

 otherwise) are such as could arise and survive and evolve 



