404 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
But in the present work we seek in vain for the recognition of man’s 
religious nature, and we are tempted to inquire whether the conviction of 
his “pithecoid pedigree” has, after all, entailed with it a less nohle 
estimate of his character, in contradiction to the very principles laid down 
in the foregoing extract, and whether we are to understand that he is now 
hung up a little higher than the parrot and the jackdaw. We prefer, 
however, to abide by the old definition of years gone by, and to hope on for a 
recognition of his noblest attribute — his faith in, and reverence for, an 
invisible Creator. 
And, finally, we must be excused if we indulge in a little personality, 
which is indispensable to a full statement of our reasons for having given 
such prominence to this little work. 
Had it emanated from an ignorant fanatic, or from some unknown 
scribbler, who would seek through the enunciation of extreme views to 
obtain notoriety where fame was unattainable, we should have ignored its 
existence. But it is not so ; and if we may judge by rumour — 
“ A pipe, 
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures,” 
and not usually given to undeserved laudation, the author of this treatise 
is a gentleman who, through the affection which he inspires in his students 
(young men whose opinions will mould the fair form of Science, God’s 
handmaid, in the future, and to whom Mr. Darwin appeals for judgment on 
his labours ), through his generosity and kindness to rising men of his own 
profession, and through his daily increasing fame arising from his re- 
searches in the field of science, is likely to exercise a wide and permanent 
influence on every class of society. We should be undeserving, therefore, 
of the confidence to which we aspire, if we failed to direct public attention 
to what appears to us unsound reasoning in a work written by such a 
man, and directed to the particular class for whose instruction these lectures 
have been published. 
Postscript. — Since the foregoing notice was concluded, we have re- 
ceived Professor Huxley’s work on “ Man’s Place in Nature.” We, of 
course, reserve our judgment on its merits until we have read it carefully. 
Meanwhile, we may mention that whilst the author employs more caution 
in speaking of Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis in this later work, which is 
intended for scientific men and the general public, yet a hasty glance over 
its contents affords us no opportunity of recalling anything that we have 
said concerning the one here reviewed, which was specially addressed to 
the working classes. 
