70 
rorULAFv SCIENCE EEYIEAY. 
faintest manner confirm this observation of the author’s, as tliey go to prove 
that the red globule is the liberated entire nucleus of the white cospuscle • 
Indeed, this discovery of Professor Owen’s seems to be altogether unique. 
There are many other points in the histology of this volume on which 
we think the text requires correction. Such are, for instance, the accounts 
of the structure of the liver, the spleen, and the skin. 
The chapter on the development of the horns of mammals, and especially 
of the Cervida3, contains a good deal of original matter, and suggests many 
curious problems for the speculative physiologist. The same may be said of 
the section devoted to the peculiar glands of mammalia.” The account of 
the development of the ovum is little more than an abridgement of the 
results of Von Bar’s and Martin Barry’s inquiries. 
It is in the final chapter, which is headed “ General Conclusions,” that 
the author shows himself to most and least advantage, and in which he 
discusses all the gveat questions which have been such bones of contention 
among naturalists almost since the time of Cuvier, and especially within the 
last ten or fifteen years. Teleolog}'-, origin and extinction of species, the law 
of derivation, and Mr. Darwin, are here dealt with briefly and with vigour^ 
and in the last couple of pages the author declares himself the champion of 
spontaneous generation, and analyses the soul to an extent which will hardly 
satisfy divines. It is very difficult for one unpossessed of Professor Owen’s 
higher intelligence to grasp what it is exactly that the author does believe in ; 
and if, therefore, we once more misinterpret (?) him we must beg his pardon 
and plead his complexity of style as our excuse. But so far as we can gather 
from his pages, I’rofessor Owen ])ushes the question raised by naturalists just 
one stage back and no more. He denies the successive creation of types 5 he 
admits the formation of new groups as a result of variation, but he contends 
that all this is the operation of a definite law which was first established by 
the Creator. He thus, to our minds, differs but very little from the disciples 
of Mr. Darwin, save that lie holds that natural selection is inadequate 
to explain the preservation of species, whilst he otters no alternative expla- 
nation of his own. Clearly the distinction between the author and Mr. 
Darwin is in the rendering of the term natural selection.” Professor 
Owen wittingly misconstrues Mr. Darwin’s conception of the expression, and 
will persist in a.sserting that Mr. Darwin personifies nature as an intelligent 
entity. This is wrong; and it is grossly unfair to Mr. Darwin, who simply 
employed the word as a convenient mode of expressing a number of pheno- 
mena called “ natural.” AVe think, therefore, that Profes.sor Owen, who 
but two and a half years ago laid claim to being the originator of the 
principle on which the theory of natural selection is based, stands, by a series 
of admissions, convicted of Darwinianism. AVhether Mr. Darwin will 
welcome him among his numerous converts remains to be seen. Of one 
thing we arc quite convinced, that if the charge of temerity may be urged 
against Mr. Ifarwin for advancing an hypothesis he cannot demonstrate, it 
may with tenfold more justice be brought against the author. In the very 
page on which he repudiates natural selection as without basis in fact, he 
liimself starts the profoundly ridiculous theory that the horse and donkey 
were predestined and prepared for man, because the Creator felt that the two 
latter were essential to man’s welfare and civilization, assigning as an argu- 
