FETFSIOLOGICAIi OBJECTIONS OF DR. CLARK. 253 



tiht&omvw of nature. In retreating, where we have ad- 

 vanced tco far, there is neither compromise of dignity 

 nor iOS3 of strength ; for in doing this we partake but of 

 the common fortune of every one who enters on a field 

 of investigation like our own." 



The contrast between the philosophic modesty of this 

 passage and the above extract from the Edinburgh re- 

 viewer must be very striking. The reader, who has seen 

 the hollowness of so many of this writer's particular ob- 

 jections to the development theory, can be little at a loss 

 to form an estimate of the personal investigations of which 

 he speaks. He seems to have yet to learn that the neces- 

 sarily partial investigations which any single geologist 

 may be able personally to make can give no such amount 

 of the requisite knowledge as may be acquired in another 

 mode of study ; that the intellectual powers and prepara- 

 tions of the personal inquirer ought also to be known, be- 

 fore we can set such store even by that light which may 

 be attained by his examinations. It is not uncommon for 

 ordinary mariners to bnast of their knowledge of a coun- 

 try from having sailed several times to one of its ports, and 

 for private sentinels to pretend to a superior knowledge 

 of a great battle, in one detachment of which they happened 

 to be engaged. Of such boastings and pretensions I must 

 confess that I am strongly reminded by this writer. 



The geological objections to the development theory 

 have now been discussed, and to the public it must be 

 left to decide the question, whether palaeontology is 

 favorable or unfavorable to that scheme. I must not ad- 

 vert to the illustrations which the theory derives from 

 physiology, and the objections which have been made to 

 them. The Edinburgh reviewer occupies several of his 

 pages with such objections, but, fortunately, they need 

 not detain us long, as they come to little more than this, 

 that he puts trust in Dr. Clark, of Cambridge, while I 

 have resorted for the support of my general theory to 

 the views advocated by other physiologists.* I may say 



* Dr. Whewell (preface to Indications, $c.) joins the reviewer 

 and others in reprobating the suggestions which have been made 

 in the Vestiges with regard to a similarity between certain crys- 

 tallizations, as the figures produced by frost upon windows, and 

 the %/lrbor Diana, to vegetable forms. The logical merits of the 

 reviewer's mind are here fully indicated, for what does he set down 

 as a disproof of these as ' traces of secondary means by which the 



