56 Editors’ Table. (January, 
cal school at Charleston, S. Ca., sets forth the doctrine, the case 
is quite different. No less than three ecclesiastical bodies have 
investigated Dr. Woodrow, and he has been dismissed from his 
chair. Later Dr. Kellogg, of Pittsburgh, who has taught that 
the origin of man’s body by evolution may be true, has been the 
object of disciplinary proceedings by the board of directors. 
Since these supervisory bodies will not accept the results of the 
labors of the botanists and zodlogists on this subject, it would be 
well for them to endeavor to ascertain the facts for themselves. If 
they will select almost any of the genera of animals and plants 
which include a large number of species and individuals, and 
study their physical characters, they will find evidence of “ origin 
by descent with modification,” sufficient to satisfy any reasonable 
mind, They will reach the conclusion announced by a minister 
of the English Church from the north of England, at the meet- 
ing of the Evangelical Alliance held in New York a few years 
ago. In reply to the vigorous objections of Dr. Hodge, the j 
author of the standard work of Presbyterian theology, he simply 
stated that he did not believe that the species of roses and some 
other well-known plants, were produced by independent acts of 
creation. This presentation is much more to the point than the 
argument, if such it can be called, of Dr. H. C. McCook, of Phila- 
delphia, who recently took sides against the doctrine before a 
body of Presbyterians, in language some of which, if correctly re- 
ported, cannot be regarded as very weighty. 
The loss of men like Winchell and Jordan and Woodrow is a 
serious one for any church. In view of the evident desire of 
Christians to know and teach the truth, would not the policy 
which has retained Drs. LeConte and McCosh in the Church, be 
more conducive to its future prosperity ? 
The laudable desire to perpetuate the fame of our great 
men of science is not only witnessed by busts and statues, but 
in an humble but sometimes quite as effective way by naming 
minerals or plants and animals after them. There are, however, 
different ways of doing this. Dr. David Sharp has chosen to 
render conspicuous both the objects of his own admiration and 
his own sense of what is fitting, by publishing in the “Comptes 
rendus de la Société entomologique de Belgique” for 1882, the 
following generic names of water-beetles : Huxleyhydrus, Tyndall- 
hydrus, Darwinhydrus and Spencerhydrus! The London Ento- 
_ mological Society, at a late meeting, discussed the matter and 
So nana 
