REYIEWS. 
185 
lather hard to see. We will therefore leave them to Dr. Elam and his 
opponents, with the expectation that their discussion will be about as easily- 
terminated and as profitable as the celebrated dispute, recorded by the learned 
Slawkenbergius, between the Catholic and Lutheran doctors of Strasburg 
with regard to the reality of the courteous Diego’s long nose. 
A question scarcely less puzzling than those just alluded to is that of the 
origin of life and of organizable material, and here again our author falls foul of 
Prof. Huxley. To some of the arguments used by the latter Dr. Elam replies 
as follows : — u It is in no sense true that protoplasm ‘breaks up ’ into carbonic 
acid, water and ammonia, any more than it is true that iron, when exposed 
to the action of oxygen, ‘ breaks up ’ into oxide of iron. A compound body 
can only break up into its constituent parts ; and these are not the consti- 
tuent parts of protoplasm. To convert protoplasm into these compounds 
requires an amount of oxygen nearly double the iveiyht of the original mass of 
protoplasm; every 100 lbs. of protoplasm would require 170 lbs. of oxygen. 
Again: — “Under no ‘possible conditions,’ can carbonic acid, water and 
ammonia, when brought together, ‘ give rise to the still more complex body, 
protoplasm.’ Not even on paper can any multiple, or any combination of 
these substances, be made to represent the composition of protoplasm, much 
less can it be effected in practice.” It must be confessed that this argument 
looks very strong, and perhaps as opposed to the mechanico-chemical 
hypothesis of the origin of life it is as strong as it looks ; but at the same time 
although carbonic acid, ammonia and water constitute the food of plants 
growing at the present day, and their nourishment is effected with elimina- 
tion of oxygen, we do not know what method of combination may have 
occurred “ under certain conditions,” as Prof. Huxley says, and it may bo 
added at a certain time. What the conditions were may perhaps always 
remain unknown ; but even if we never discover them and are thus left in 
the dark as to the actual origin of life upon the earth, this need not in any 
way invalidate the doctrine of the origin of species by evolution, which rests 
its claims to acceptance upon very different grounds. 
In his argument against the doctrine of evolution, Dr. Elam employs with 
great vigour all the weapons that have been prepared to his hand by the 
writings of those who maintain its truth, or at any rate its probability. 
But it must be remarked that the publication of those writings extends over- 
a considerable period of time, during which the views of the writers have in 
many cases advanced considerably, so that, except for historical purposes, it 
is hardly fair to quote the whole of them as expressive of their opinions. 
Thus the author quotes a long passage from a paper published by Prof. 
Huxley in 1862, in which that distinguished naturalist affirmed that the 
study of palaeontology negatives the doctrine of evolution ; and although he 
afterwards cites the Professor’s address to the Geological Society in 1870, in 
which there is said to be “ a clear balance in favour of the evolution of' 
living forms one from another ” among the higher Vertebrata, he passes 
this over slightly and proceeds again to cite opinions expressed in 1860 and 
1863. The main cry, in fact, is that of want of evidence from both the 
palaeontological and the experimental side, the latter being of course the- 
most crucial test to which the doctrine can be exposed. We fear that the 
test of actual experiment will be always impossible of application, but most 
NEW SERIES, YOL. I.- NO. II. 
O 
